Wouldn't you know it, there's a whole darn wikipedia entry on "military Keynesianism".
Isn't it funny how Republicans continually warn about the dangers of socialism (Keynesianism is basically moderate socialism) while trumpeting support for military funding (which is Keynesianism). I think this should be talked about more often.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism#Criticisms
@wildgrass - said
I think this should be talked about more often.
Well, perhaps, wildgrass, just not in this thread. We're onto the F-35 boondoggle.
@AThousandYoung
Wow. The F-22 Raptor is being retired much earlier than expected. That's been a useful craft to the US.
I suppose that means the Military is quite happy with the F-35.
@earl-of-trumps saidThe boondoggle is caused by the myopic viewpoint that military spending is good for the economy.
@wildgrass - said
I think this should be talked about more often.
Well, perhaps, wildgrass, just not in this thread. We're onto the F-35 boondoggle.
As I've been writing over and over, the F-35 is a jobs program. If the feds took the same amount of money and hired people to make toothpicks, we would at least have something useful in the end. Maybe Lockheed could propose designing a stealth toothpick on a no-bid contract and then the Pentagon would throw gobs of cash at it?
@earl-of-trumps saidhttps://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/04/26/congress-may-put-kibosh-buying-extra-f-35-fighter-jets.html
@AThousandYoung
Wow. The F-22 Raptor is being retired much earlier than expected. That's been a useful craft to the US.
I suppose that means the Military is quite happy with the F-35.
"I'm gonna take a deep breath and try to contain my anger," he added. "I don't really know where to start, because every single piece of this is problematic. Every single piece. The program is over budget. It fails to deliver on promised capabilities, and its [mission] capability rates do not even begin to meet the service thresholds. Industry's solution to many of these problems is simply to ask the taxpayers to throw money at the problem. That will not happen. The easy days of the past are over."
@wildgrass said😆 "stealth toothpick" - nice!
The boondoggle is caused by the myopic viewpoint that military spending is good for the economy.
As I've been writing over and over, the F-35 is a jobs program. If the feds took the same amount of money and hired people to make toothpicks, we would at least have something useful in the end. Maybe Lockheed could propose designing a stealth toothpick on a no-bid contract and then the Pentagon would throw gobs of cash at it?
Well, the military would have a stealth toothpick, not sure about the people.
@wildgrass saidWhat the man you quoted said may be true, however, that does not seem to slow this program down any.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/04/26/congress-may-put-kibosh-buying-extra-f-35-fighter-jets.html"I'm gonna take a deep breath and try to contain my anger," he added. "I don't really know where to start, because every single piece of this is problematic. Every single piece. The program is over budget. It fails to deliver on promised capabilities, and its [m ...[text shortened]... rs to throw money at the problem. That will not happen. The easy days of the past are over."
There are countries lined up to buy them. Turkey was cut out of the program and they are now begging.
@earl-of-trumps saidThat's Rep. John Garamendi speaking on the Armed Services committee. He is chair of the military readiness subcommittee in Congress. He knows a thing or two more than me about the military.
What the man you quoted said may be true, however, that does not seem to slow this program down any.
There are countries lined up to buy them. Turkey was cut out of the program and they are now begging.
If you gave me 20 years and an unlimited budget, I'd wager that I could create a marketable product the Turkish government would clamor to buy. That doesn't make it a success.
For those interested, this report from the US Center for International Policy is a good read... https://static.wixstatic.com/ugd/fb6c59_59a295c780634ce88d077c391066db9a.pdf
It is extremely unlikely at this time that the future of "surprise" warfare will involve the simultaneous deployment of 1,200 aircraft. If such a war were on the horizon, we can ramp up quickly based on strategic need. By maintaining such a large force, we waste enormous amounts of resources better spent on ongoing cyber and biological threats.
Former Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson exemplified the current trend toward force expansion with her enthusiastic September 2018 pitch for 74 more squadrons (including seven fighter squadrons) and 40,000 more USAF personnel. None of this is needed. A sober appraisal of threats and the adoption of a practicable set of roles, missions, and goals allows a cut in force size and end strength. While the Air Force often touts the need for 1,200 aircraft, looking back on the 2003 Iraq war shows that the initial conventional phase of that conflict was fought and quickly won with a deployment of only 293 Air Force fighters, as well as 51 bombers and 362 USN and USMC combat aircraft. Even with a 1,050 inventory, the USAF could support 600 combat aircraft overseas at any one time, twice the Iraq standard. The 4.5% reduction from 1,200 to 1,050 would save $100 billion in a 10 year budget.
@wildgrass
Well stated, wildgrass.
I would seriously have considered before the US agreed to the program, that the money be sunk
into more F-18's and other aircraft, plus satellites and other spy aircrafts to do the things the F 35 can do.
I would think us to be way ahead in the game. *My opinion*, of course.
@earl-of-trumps saidWhat I found enlightening was that the simple idea of "how many planes does the USAF need to maintain military readiness?" is up for debate among those who have made careers in understanding what is needed to maintain military readiness. If one were to cut the overall number of aircraft then the F-35 becomes more affordable. Others on here have suggested that the F-35 can do the work of 60 other airplanes so why do we still need the 1,200 planes in the Air Force?
@wildgrass
Well stated, wildgrass.
I would seriously have considered before the US agreed to the program, that the money be sunk
into more F-18's and other aircraft, plus satellites and other spy aircrafts to do the things the F 35 can do.
I would think us to be way ahead in the game. *My opinion*, of course.
At the very least, military brass should be forced to justify those numbers yearly and publicly.
@wildgrass saidTo ensure that America's enemies know exactly how to plan their expenditure???
At the very least, military brass should be forced to justify those numbers yearly and publicly.
@kmax87 saidReally, they already know. Most is public knowledge already, but there is no accountability or justification for expenditures. America's enemies know we are building tanks, but the taxpayer doesn't know why.
To ensure that America's enemies know exactly how to plan their expenditure???
Also, we've been through it in this thread, but the Russian government hacked into the Pentagon, stayed there for a year, and no one is sure they are really gone. I don't think public accountability for tax spending is going to jeopardize national security. That's a bad excuse for poor accountability.