1. £1.36 billion isn't 'piddling'
Compared to a trillion? Get real.
2. Your national debt is due to many factors, defence is one but your motives are hardly altruistic. Don't blame us blame your Govt.
'Theoretically' I _own_ my government. Which means I can do that very thing. The difference being that if I want to elect those whose cast a
jaundiced eye at a 'defense' which doesn't pay for itself, any memory I have of whiners complaining about not being rich enough is going to effect
my willingness to continue a defense program that does more for them (continuing the pretense of being a naval air power) than it does for U.S.
Suck it up.
3. You're spending $275Bn on something 'worthless'??!
You got it. Something of a shock, yes? Manned aircraft do not do the ONE things (achieve presence via range+loiter) that UCAV does as baseline. In
trade for this, we get a system which costs 500% more for roles and missions that are hardly flown and then only by a fraction of the clean-underwear
I have nothing but contempt for our air services. And 'UCAVs for all' would be a superb way of making them suffer for want of competence in winning
wars and finding criminals.
Honor is not a 'traditional' in the armed forces. Most especially when the real world has had to suffer downsizing beyond all realistic _peacetime_
sufferings of the many for the few so that they could continue to do what they do, so poorly.
4. The contract was awarded, then cancelled Pyros explained why.
Find a LINK.
5. I suspect your job losses at Ford are related to the car market not this defence post.
Only if you believe that foreign manufacturers are not grossly subsidized for technology base buy in and /vastly/ underpaid for their work product.
Nobody likes seeing an American Fighter be 'second best alternate' in a direct comparison but /everyone/ is used to seeing Lexus, Mercedes, BMW,
Volvo, even Nissan and Toyota do better than our vehicles in C&D. Why is that when war is abhorrent and yet wars only (seeming) purpose is to pay for
the freedom to drive automobiles which are not only less soundly constructed by /vastly/ less efficient?
If American automotive industry was as tariff protected and as technology invested as Boing or Lunchmeats 'lets kill somone!' divisions, we would
have the best damn car on the planet. And hey! Here's a thought, maybe they would be fuel-cell-now so that we could flip the Arabs the bird and
stop 'ruining' their 14th century head-chopping morals with our need for the coc aine-as-petroproduct.
If you needed MILLIONS of cars presumably you wouldn't be cutting back @ Ford.
No. If we had the ability to fund ten different prototypes on an ongoing basis as the Japanese do. If we hurt their balance of trade as they
virtually blank-wall ours so that _their government_ couldn't /pay/ for their little experiments in rapid prototyping, maybe we wouldn't have fleets
of 14-17mpg Minivans and SUVs and pickup trucks as the world instantaneously flips from buck thirty to three dollars per gallon gasoline prices.
The difference being that nobody has come up with a good reason to explain why 'free trade' means protectionism for nations with 1/10th the
continental mass of people and resources we do.
Solely to 'make up the difference' in a market capitalism on imports. We can't buy the imports if we can't fight the labor and tech base
investments on quality vs. price. And nobody I know is so in lust with capitalism AS democracy that we wouldn't prefer to Screw-u-2.
The bubble will burst anyway when nations like China and Malaysia have markets as large as ours and there is no longer any motivation to feed cheap
goods into a bankrupt nation.
Because China will still be producing enough home goods to pay for her toys.
The difference /then/ will be that the defense hawks will be retired and living in Switzerland and Americans will wonder why the JSF which potentilly
consumes the equivalent of 6 YEARS worth of fuel on every mission, was so damn important that we couldn't spend that money on making our economy self
sufficient when the market edge goes bust.
Blame your DoD if they're spending too much on arms.
No thanks, I'll blame you for designing a cheap carrier and then demanding to populate it with STOVL airframes.
Because I can tell the Marines to take a flying leap at a rolling donut and they will still choose to fly /a/ manned airframe (F/A-18E or F-35C)
rather than be rifleman. And if push comes to shove, they will /accept/ a UCAV which is superior to all three options.
But what the JSF represents is the latest 'don't forget the A-12!' shell game by which fraud in the inducement (selling a contract value for an
airframe that is less than a third the total PAUC price) is commited to via /foreign/ investments whose contractual value is both pride and fiscal
commitment beyond the level at which Congress will willingly say 'no, you can't do this'.
While I'm at it, I will also blame you for wanting VLO that you cannot develop in your own Gen-4 platform. While failing to realize that the very
proliferation of that technology will only escalate the technology spiral of what _should be_ a DEAD ART.
Because, thanks Nuremburg, warfare can no longer be exercised as an act of state sanctioned tribute and pillage by which a nation enriches its own
people by tying the fates of others to a greater whole.
6. Unrelated point, sure your airlines can claim the difference on the insurance if the claim's valid. BTW - think you'll find there are longer
flights than trans- atlantic
No gumby, because as the media spins it here, when Jolly Ol' St. Blair went and made his 'personal appeal' and lost out. He then chose to become
equally incommunicado to and in fact may have deliberately exacerbated, the fuel problems.
You mess with each other's heads on 'defense and statesmanship' and nobody cares because it's just a bunch of thugs trying to make themselves rich
over somebodies future corpse.
You monkey with everyday commerce and you have now 'made it personal' with all the little working idiots who wonder why your spite has to make them
The difference being that 'defense' should be a minimum depletion auxilliary effort to the body-social's resources. Not something whose value is
more than their own everyday existence.
Certainly not after such a 'marvelous effort' to make the ONE MAN who they couldn't catch in the act has failed so completely on grounds of
incompetence in fighting the war-type which is 70% dominant throughout historical conflicts.
After this you were rambling: 'pissant city states' - what do you mean?? We're the 5th biggest economy in the World.
USA GDP $12.77 trillion
UK GDP $ 1,867,000,000,000
By domestic product, you are the eighth. The JSF is a favor to you and indeed all our 'closest allies' as part of a larger U.S. effort to sustain
our own force. An effort whose production harmonies (one line, one FACO) are largely assured 'for cost' by a very strict apportionment of sub
contracts of which your's is by far the largest.
If we played Panavia or Euroflubber consortia games, the JSF would not cost 100 million bucks but 180. 'Just like the F-22'.
If you can't bring down the golden hind on your own, you shouldn't complain about the third of all table scraps given you.
Most especially since, if it were not for the /profit by proliferation/ (Vae Victis Vickers) our own investment in this worthless piece of filth would
not be sized to keep the flyaway costs down. But to keep the total program costs in check. With say 500 USAF and 500 (single variant) USN/USM
I see absolutely NO reason to ramp up the sophistication of threat technology by exporting VLO which we claim (since the JSF now costs more than
either Flubber or Rafale) is 'so important' that we have had to keep it beyond top secret for 30 years.
Most especially I see ZERO reason for rearming our forces when they cannot do more than start wars they are unable to finish with a black balance
sheet in terms of gained vs. spent resources.
I would rather put that money into reinventing our own civil production and infrastructure since at least that employs OUR population at work that
cannot be criticized for want of interfering with /others/ countries destinies.
Problem: You cannot guarantee your own future without our agreeing to play the game with you. Which is why nation-states should only deal with those
nation-states which have the mass to hoe their own row.
Israel, England, even NATO (such as it EU is), by playing pity games based on old memories of 'military tradition' we weaken ourselves supporting
I read the link - as instructed, didn't see your 'undercurrent' there at all - but by then you were really rambling.
No gumby, what is there is there, if you LIVE HERE. And frankly the concerns of 100 workers at BAe just don't come even close.
You're a protectionist - I'm so surprised
No but you are afraid. Because if we had done the RIGHT thing which was to supply NO ONE with arms in WWI, the world would be a vastly different
place for Ol' Blightey.
City States manipulate bigger Nations by getting them to think that they have 'something to lose' should they not secure the world for free trade.
When historical facts support the notion that small nations are only wealthy when they can play the trade game off everyone else.
Something you could not guarantee if you had to bear our defense burden.
OTOH, Nation-State mass becomes self balancing after a critical point ONLY if it remains exclusively set on self sufficiency to begin with.
We can secure our own resource access and trade rights with forces 1/3rd their present size. So long as force commitments are also 1/10th as large.
And that's the rub. Because protectionist and isolationist theory are NOT flip sides of the same trade coin. Where trade is based on need and
quality of foreign sources for market goods. And market is guaranteed by self sufficiency in all but the items you /choose/ to import.
And we have failed to sustain this selfsufficient economic mass at the same time we have allowed ourselves to be hood winked by those who would have
us think that the world is 'too dangerous a place' for us not to intervene on their behalf.
You want to cancel a contracted arrangement with a key ally - thanks for that, it does impact on our plans for two new carriers but Hey so what ,
Is that panic I hear? What you do with your carriers (I would crush them for scrap) is none of our business. If you want hind teat on 257 billion
dollar program, then may I suggest you shut up, sit up, and pull your oar with the rest of us.
You're building the JSF solely on our whim? But not the one we want / have planned for.
No, really? So the tail truly /does/ wag the dog then? Snorts and Snickers.
I have nothing but contempt for a nation that intimidates others through the bullying of an elitist knights-class of warrior we call pilots. Most
especailly when 99.999% of what they do could be accomplished by the very automation which has 'outmoded' the civillian economy of this nation.
If I have absolutely no intention of supporting the Air Farces of _this_ nation in their quest for ever more Platinum Bullets. BUT NOT AN END TO THE
NEED FOR THEIR USE (Amalgamation as the leveraging of humanity into a global resource society).
What the heck do you think I care about yours?
It seems you value our alliance not at all - presumably it'd be OK with you if we stayed out of your next war / didn't use our influence to get our
other allies to join in too?
The U.S. weak as we are, did not need a single ally to roll Iraq or AfG or both together. Alliances based on defense pacts create too much gravity
based on past acts. Alliances based on trade assurances create too much negative flow from the large to the small to be safe for the former in
supporting the 'separate but equal' lower economic mass of the latter.
I believe that America deserved to be attacked on 9/11. Because we were using our slaughter dogs as merc enforcer /thugs/ on behalf of Arab states
who were 'so worried' about their security that they let us fly ONW/OSW on our own.
In the process, they got richer overproducing for an excommunicated Iraq. And we got buck thirty gasoline for a decades worth of cars that should
have gone out of fashion in the 1970s embargo.
Since the Arab members of OPEC weren't interested in another embargo for our 'depraved actions' against a fellow Islamic nation.
ONE MAN stood up against the tyranny of his brothers to say "No. This is wrong. Iraqi civillians are dying and American Infidels are on our soil
And if he had turned his resources and brilliance on his own people, politically or by paramilitary action, I would admire him as a hero in the mold
of Pancho and Robin and the Sons Of Liberty.
But he instead attacked U.S.. Which means that not only are we now paying through the nose for gasoline which will likely /never again/ be as cheap
as it _still would be_ if we had just left the PG to it's own little head games.
But we must find, try and kill Osama Bin Laden so that the world may balance fairly, what he did, vs. why he did it, vs. what the consequences TO HIM
I don't see the Brits as having much say or use in that process. Indeed, the last time you were in a similar position, the Na Bob in question fled
India and lived out his life laughing at you from the White Mountains we now hunt UBL in.
Assuming our military can find the balls to press across yet another 'innocent' border, once Osama is finished, it will be time for the so morally
superior fools who judge our adventurism to put proof to the puddin' as they display the readiness of this world for a no-superpower period of
independent city-state selfrule. So that we may come home and demobilize a Cold War force structure that should have been hacked in half 20 years
The JSF is a waste because it isn't /half/ the fighter that the F-22 is, at 90% of the cost. The JSF is a waste because it is no better a bomber
than a UCAV, at 5 times the price. The JSF is a waste because it isn't a /quarter/ the scout platform that a UCAV is, at 5 times the price. The JSF
is a waste because it exports a principal U.S. technologic advantage at 5 times the price that a /European/ UCAV is. The JSF is a waste because the
only thing 'Joint' is the name as the basing mode and inventory shares are all secured by separation of variants which INCREASE (technology bed
investments) each individual airframe's PAUC. Thus the JSF is a waste because it sustains that main-in-the-loop psychology by which our warrior
class sustains itself, for itself. As an independent culture rather than simply shared-cogs in an automated warfighting system. The JSF is a waste
because, for 257 billion dollars it doesn't secure our independence from oil while itself burning the equivalent of SIX YEARS worth of 20 gallon
automotive fillups, on every mission. The JSF is a waste because it adds yet more to our internal deficit while doing nothing to promote 'free
trade, the other way' as a function of every-day commercial product access to foreign protected markets to cancel out our enormous trade imbalance.
Through better quality product and a cheaper industry as well as protectionist closing of our markets. The JSF is a waste because it cannot compete
in a world where nobody wants to /buy it/ (at 3 times it's initial contracted cost) when they can dial up The World Cop to save them from the big bad
wolf. Before complaining how badly we do it.
If _you_ want this damn hunk a junk on OUR taxpayer hook, don't stand up the nail to be hammered in the coffin of the program by pretending that the
F136 or 1 billion dollars or 100 jobs in the UK evokes a single tear for U.S. 'Not even a drop in the bucket' compared to all our problems.