backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by FauxNews.. on May 23 at 8:33 PM


F-22 upgrade is over budget and behind schedule

F-35 operating costs will reach $1T
Officials think management will get the operating costs of the F-35 down

Any time the USAF or other branches of the armed service need a replacement for an aging aircraft, the cost of the development and maintenance are a huge budgetary issue for the military and lawmakers in Washington. Two of the most expensive weapons programs in the last several decades have been the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II.

The F-22 is due for an incremental upgrade to its hardware and software that some officials say is already behind on delivery and over its cost projections. The update in question is called Increment 3.2.

Air Force procurement Chief David Van Buren told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, "The Increment 3.2 that we're currently working on for the F-22 for our war-fighting customer is taking too long to implement. We are working with the company [Lockheed Martin] to try to speed that up and make it more affordable."

The cause of the delay in delivery stems from the programming language used called Ada. The Ada language was once a DoD standard, but the use of the language has waned in the last 15 years. Analyst Loren Thompson from the Lexington Institute said, "It tends to impede quick upgrades to the system to which it is the base software." Thompson also said, "The affordability of any upgrade becomes debatable when you purchase a relatively small number of upgrades."

The new upgrade is being applied to the 187 Raptors built by Lockheed, two of which have been lost to accidents. The upgrade will allow the F-22 to carry the AIM-9x infrared-guided air-to-air missile and the AIM 120D medium-range Air-to-Air missile and attack up to eight different targets with the 250-pound Small Diameter Bombs. Lockheed is looking for ways to reduce the cost of the upgrade right now.

The F-35 program is also again the center of focus on costs. This time lawmakers and military commanders are looking at the long-term costs of maintaining and operating the F-35 fleet. The Pentagon has estimated that the cost to operate the F-35 fighters through 2065 will be more than $1 trillion.

Procurement Chief Ashton Carter said, "Over the lifetime of this program, the decade or so, the per-aircraft cost of the 2,443 aircraft has doubled in real terms. That's what it's going to cost if we keep doing what we're doing. That's unacceptable. That's unaffordable."

However, he noted that the massive $1 trillion number can’t be taken at face value because management steps over the life of the aircraft will bring costs down. Carter said, "I truly believe that we can manage out a substantial number of the production and sustainment costs."

There has been technology sharing between the F-22 and the F-35 with some stealth coatings developed for the F-35 being applied to the older F-22 aircraft. The F-35 fleet was grounded in March when an in-flight failure of the generator aboard a test aircraft occurred.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ada
By Flunk on 5/20/2011 11:55:34 AM , Rating: 1
Ada? I didn't know anyone ever used that for anything. I can see why they'd have production problems. They can't find anyone who's ever seem Ada at all.

I only know of it from a history of programming course I took in College. They really need to contemporize their software of they will always be playing catchup.




RE: Ada
By ebakke on 5/20/2011 12:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
Ada's mostly used in the defense industry. So if you haven't worked there, and the people you asked about Ada haven't, that makes sense.

quote:
They really need to contemporize their software of they will always be playing catchup.
That's part of it, sure. But you have to take into account two other things. First, Lockheed's customer is incredibly risk-averse. Completely rewriting a software package in another language/architecture is a big undertaking and carries with it a lot of risk. The DoD wants small changes to things they already know work (or bugs they already know and can work around).

And second, they need to contemporize their workforce. Taking a 20 year Ada developer and plopping them into Java, .NET, ... well really anything other than Ada is an absolute disaster.


RE: Ada
By Strunf on 5/20/2011 12:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
I live in Switzerland and Ada was up to 3 years ago a big part of the IT engineering courses, it was replaced after by Java (I think). I remembered asking why we had Ada and the answer was pretty convincing, completely forgot why though.


RE: Ada
By Solandri on 5/20/2011 2:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
Ada has a lot of built-in coding standards and compile-time checks to help avoid bugs which could slip through other languages. Consequently, it makes it a strong language for programming embedded and mission-critical systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_%28programming_la...


RE: Ada
By erikejw on 5/22/2011 7:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
ADA is a realtime language.
When you do something like take off from a Carrier it is
quite important that when you send a command it will not only
get executed some time in the future but with a guarantee of some minimal time delay.

When you increase thrust and raise the nose you'd depend on it for survival, you'd be unhappy or dead if it gets compromised due to some OS thread whatever is before in line to execute and gets priority.

If you break with your SUV you want it to happen right away and not in a distant future. 100% guarantee of that it happens sometime is not enough.

That is one major reason why they use ADA.
There are plenty of others.

From Wiki, short version.

"Ada is a structured, statically typed, imperative, wide-spectrum, and object-oriented high-level computer programming language, extended from Pascal and other languages. It has strong built-in language support for explicit concurrency, offering tasks, synchronous message passing (via guarded task entries), protected objects (a monitor-like construct with additional guards as in conditional critical regions) and nondeterminism (via select statements)."

"Ada is strongly typed and compilers are validated for reliability in mission-critical applications, such as avionics software."


RE: Ada
By Justin Time on 5/23/2011 5:04:46 AM , Rating: 2
Languages are not "real-time" or otherwise.

ADA supports synchronous messaging, which makes it a useful language for real-time computing projects, but a language of itself is not a definition of that.


RE: Ada
By EmbeddedSwEng on 5/23/2011 7:15:57 AM , Rating: 2
I think the poster used a loose wording but there is more to Ada's support for real time systems than synchronous messaging, e.g. a portable real-time (rate monotonic) clock, portable interrupt support, etc.

It is a 'multi-paradigm' language with built-in support for real-time applications.


RE: Ada
By rcc on 5/20/2011 1:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
If an elephant is a MIL-SPEC mouse

then

ADA is a MIL-SPEC programming language.

Companies spend a lot of time arguing and finding ways out of using ADA in the 80's and 90's. Unfortunately, on a new aircraft program (at the time), it's hard to tout "modification to existing code" as a reason to not have to use ADA.


RE: Ada
By nafhan on 5/20/2011 4:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's a language that was built with real time systems in mind, and that's where it generally gets used... The 787 and A380 for instance both use Ada.

Here's an extensive list of some of the places Ada is used: http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summ...


RE: Ada
By FITCamaro on 5/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: Ada
By ZmaxDP on 5/20/2011 6:02:16 PM , Rating: 1
I second that, and add: Christ, I hope your an atheist. Otherwise, you're hypocritical!
Given, I am presuming that God never visited you in person...)


RE: Ada
By ZmaxDP on 5/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: Ada
By Jedi2155 on 5/21/2011 5:34:38 AM , Rating: 2
There are a number of modern languages that are still based on the constructs of Ada. VHDL is an example of a more common language was highly influenced by Ada.

As I live in an area where defense probably employs 1/4 to 1/2 of the engineers around, I heard Ada referenced everywhere from my community college instructors to the university level. Based on the length of typical defense projects I don't see it dying anytime soon.


RE: Ada
By JW.C on 5/21/2011 5:56:57 PM , Rating: 1
Which is a shame, because it really does need to die a very quick death. Using ADA these days is sort of like using quick basic. Yes you can get the job done, but you feel like hiding from your friends afterwards.


RE: Ada
By alexisfar on 5/21/2011 7:39:00 PM , Rating: 4
Ok, you are a completely ignorant. Please, don´t comment on topics that you don´t know.
Ada is much better language for critical and embedded systems than Java, .NET, C/C++ or any other mainstream programming language. Also, the cost of this kind of software is not because the programming language (any good engineer can learn any language in a couple of weeks), the cost is because the required quality that this kind of software needs to achieve. So, even if you use Java (that is crap for this kind of software) you will end with the same or higher costs, and probably you will end with more bugs. Please, make you a favor and don´t comment about something that you know nothing, you looks like idiot.


RE: Ada
By EmbeddedSwEng on 5/22/2011 1:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
Have you seen any COBOL recently? No? Weird, coz half the world s/w is written in it...

I've been working as a s/w engineer in Aerospace for 20+ years and can guarantee you that Ada is not the problem - indeed if more programs were written in it, I'm sure there would be a lot less BSODs, viruses, etc.

To make _any_ change in aerospace s/w takes hours - even something as simple as changing a single constant will require the code the be checked out, changed, compiled, test harnesses (note plural!) build and run, test results verified, code checked back in, integration tests re-run, system tests re-run, formal builds retrieved from configuration control and built witnessed by SQA...

Well, I hope you get the idea - the time to change SLOC is tiny in this business. It's _everything_ else that has to happen too that takes the time.

No programming language will change that. In this environment, I'm not even sure I'd what all this changed!


So what we need to do to fund this is
By FITCamaro on 5/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: So what we need to do to fund this is
By darckhart on 5/20/2011 1:43:21 PM , Rating: 1
Here's a better idea: Cut unnecessary defense spending.
We would get far more out of Medical and Welfare than we would out of F-35s.

FY11 Spending (gpo.gov)
Welfare: 495.6B
Medicaid: 494.3B
Defense: 964.8B, DOD-739.7B


By FITCamaro on 5/20/2011 4:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
Oh really? Please. Tell me what useful technologies, products, and services that people on Welfare and Medicaid give us.

Unless shaking our heads in disdain when watching them on Teen Mom counts.


RE: So what we need to do to fund this is
By Solandri on 5/20/2011 5:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here's a better idea: Cut unnecessary defense spending.
We would get far more out of Medical and Welfare than we would out of F-35s.

Please go to this government site and read.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3534&type=0

Pay particular attention to figure 2 (1962-2001 actual spending):
http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/35xx/doc3534/353402.g...
What's the component that's decreasing the most? Defense.
What's the component that's increasing the most? Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Now look at figure 3 (1950-2075 actual + projected):
http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/35xx/doc3534/353403.g...
What are the components that are ballooning out of control? Medicare and Medicaid.

Yes I know the report is from 2002. If you read the CBO reports from 2003-2010 (they put one out every 1.5-2 years), they all say the same thing: Defense spending is not the problem, exploding Medicare and Medicaid spending due to an aging population is. We've known this for over 10 years. Our government just hasn't done anything about it because certain people refuse to look at facts and prefer to believe their irrational fantasy that all our budget woes are caused by defense spending.

Under current projections, you could completely eliminate defense spending - cut it to zero. And by 2025, growth in Medicare/Medicaid will have consumed all the money you saved by eliminating the DoD. That's how irrelevant defense spending is to the budget problems - defense cuts are a short-term band-aid at best.


RE: So what we need to do to fund this is
By cruisin3style on 5/21/2011 12:27:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's how irrelevant defense spending is to the budget problems - defense cuts are a short-term band-aid at best.


How very naive. Notice in your "figure 3" link another balloning part of the graph: interest. Continuing to spend on defense OR the welfare programs at current levels is ruinous. I've seen those charts before and the welfare spending is indeed scary but saying that something that costs us about 1/3 of our government's tax receipts is irrelevant is absolutely ludicrous.


RE: So what we need to do to fund this is
By Solandri on 5/21/2011 10:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've seen those charts before and the welfare spending is indeed scary but saying that something that costs us about 1/3 of our government's tax receipts is irrelevant is absolutely ludicrous.

1) Defense spending was closer to 1/4 of the 2010 tax receipts. That's $533.7b base + $130b for Iraq and Afghanistan operations (p. 53) vs. total receipts of $2.381 trillion (p. 114).
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-ne...
(533.7+130)/2381 = 27.9%

I'm guessing your source incorrectly took the $75.5b extra for 2009 and attributed it to 2010 (which would put it at 31%, but would drop the 2009 defense spending by a corresponding amount).

2) Measured against 2010 tax receipts, entitlements were (p. 117):
($693b + $453b + $290b) / $2381b = 60.4% of tax receipts.

3) Spending 28% of our government's tax receipts on defense will be irrelevant when entitlements exceed 100% of tax receipts as they're projected to do.

Look, we have a budget problem.

- Completely eliminating defense spending does not fix the problem.
- Reducing medicare/medicaid fixes the problem.

Given those conditions, simple logic dictates that we need to be focusing on fixing medicare/medicaid, not on reducing defense spending. That's all I'm saying. You can cut defense too if you want, but the main focus has to be on cutting medicare/medicaid costs. That's why I responded to the OP who said we should look into cutting defense instead. His sentiment is precisely the wrong priority we should be giving these things.

quote:
How very naive. Notice in your "figure 3" link another balloning part of the graph: interest.

The proper way to account for interest is to apportion it relative to the amount of spending. Social security, medicare, and medicaid account for 40.5% of 2010 spending, so 40.5% of the interest is due to them. Defense accounts for 18.7% of spending, so 18.7% of the interest is due to it. (More precisely, you'd go do this for all past budgets which ran a deficit, and weight according to the amount of deficit that year. But I don't have time to do that. You get the idea though.)


By cruisin3style on 5/22/2011 12:32:33 AM , Rating: 1
Just because I call someone naive for thinking defense (which accounts for one of the largest portions of our overall spending) is insignificant to our problems doesn't mean I think it is our biggest problem, nor does it mean it will take several paragraphs to convice me of it.

FYI, I think total FY 2010 defense spending was 800+ billion.


RE: So what we need to do to fund this is
By JW.C on 5/21/2011 6:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
Here is the thing about social security. SS brings in about $940 billion a year. Currently, SS payments run about $700 billion. If we could get the arse holes in congress to stop spending the extra funds and put it in even a 5% interest account. Social security would be self funding by the end of the life cycle on these aircraft.

Just so we realize that Social Security more than pays for itself. Its the pricks in congress that are spending it into bankruptcy.


By Solandri on 5/21/2011 10:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'd agree, except Social Security was set up with the initial beneficiaries receiving money even though they never paid into it. From a strict accounting standpoint, SS has always been running a deficit. You add up all the money it has paid out over the years since it was implemented, and all the money it is obligated to pay out to people who have paid in. Then when you compare to how much money it has taken in over the years, you see that it is operating at a deficit.

Essentially, it's like floating checks. You don't have the enough money in the bank to actually pay for the checks. So you count on the time delay between when you mail off the checks (when a citizen pays into SS) to when the checks is cashed (when the citizen collects SS) to gather enough money to put into the account to pay for the checks. Saying SS is operating at a surplus is like pointing to this bank account at any given time and saying "See? There's money in it!" It completely ignores that obligations to pay for checks you've already mailed out easily exceed the amount of money you have in the account.


By SPOOFE on 5/22/2011 3:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we could get the arse holes in congress to stop spending the extra funds and put it in even a 5% interest account.

They can't legally do that.


By inperfectdarkness on 5/20/2011 9:04:43 PM , Rating: 3
see posts below yours. your view is archaic and irrational.

p.s.

medicare/medicaid has little to no return. defense, on the other hand, brings about technology improvements, provides thousands of jobs outside of the military, and keeps us relatively free from domestic intrusions/attack from external threats.


RE: So what we need to do to fund this is
By Reclaimer77 on 5/20/2011 11:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cut unnecessary defense spending.


If we removed the ENTIRE Department of Defense tomorrow, and that means every branch, pension, EVERYTHING the works; we would still have an eight hundred BILLION dollar deficit.

That's 800,000,000,000. Just food for thought....


RE: So what we need to do to fund this is
By cruisin3style on 5/21/2011 12:20:03 PM , Rating: 1
EXACTLY, $800 billion in defense spending every year definitely doesn't add anything to our ballooning interest payments whatsoever!!!


By cruisin3style on 5/22/2011 12:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
My favorite part of this website is it's blatant bias. FedEx CEO talks about EVs/hybrids being the future...so in the article the author described his thoughts several times as "complains" i.e. "He complains" or "(insert name here) also complains that"

Or somehow the grouping of comments that I reply to end up near the bottom even though before I comment on them the group was in the middle or higher...

you stay classy, San Diego.


RE: So what we need to do to fund this is
By SPOOFE on 5/22/2011 4:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
Defense spending comes up for debate every year. Each and every penny spent on the military is arguing, fought over, and basically given a lot of attention. Every year. It is constantly in a state of flux and compromise, it is constantly at the forefront of attention, it is constantly and actively decided upon by our elected officials.

When was the last time there was a debate about how much spending should go into SS, Medicare, or Medicaid?

Don't you think that the budget item that is constantly and regularly debated upon is placed under more controls than one that is never, ever talked about, just automatically abd thoughtlessly thrown away?


1 Trillion? Really?
By chick0n on 5/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: 1 Trillion? Really?
By Gondor on 5/20/2011 12:10:15 PM , Rating: 1
Money spent US-made weapons and upgrades to these weapons does stay in country. A portion of it goes to manufacturing company's owners (as dividends), some of it returns to the tax stockpile, the rest goes to employees and cooperating companies where it is again divided in the same manner.

In a manner of speaking it is going for college education (via wages), roads (via taxes), etc. :) It's not as if they were dumping it into the ocean or giving it away.


RE: 1 Trillion? Really?
By Strunf on 5/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: 1 Trillion? Really?
By Solandri on 5/20/2011 5:23:27 PM , Rating: 3
No, actually, the DoD is required by law to and is very paranoid about making sure as much of the stuff that goes into their toys is manufactured in the U.S., outside of the meddling hands of foreigners. That's part of the reason why our defense budget is so high - military equipment is made using about 95% American parts and labor.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/docs/sec8306us...


RE: 1 Trillion? Really?
By inperfectdarkness on 5/20/2011 8:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
this. oh god yes, this. people always point to how little some countries spend on their respective militaries; all the while forgetting that most do not produce ANYTHING indigenous.

i'm sure we could fund defense cheaper if we bought only FSU stuff, or made our own using nothing but chinese parts. of course, if any of that was actually ever used in combat...we'd be in for a NASTY surprise. stuff not working like it's supposed to; repair/supplies being hamstrung because of political ideology; etc. no thanks.


RE: 1 Trillion? Really?
By Strunf on 5/21/2011 2:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
Funny cause the wikipedia on the F-35 clearly says that 15% of its parts could be made by the other countries that are part of the program since these countries can bid on part of subcontracts.


RE: 1 Trillion? Really?
By SPOOFE on 5/21/2011 9:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
And if you remember back when the F-35 program was kicking in to high gear, that 15% was one of the bigger talking points about the plane... because it was such a departure from the norm.


RE: 1 Trillion? Really?
By InfinityzeN on 5/20/2011 12:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
This is 1 Trillion over 53+ years. That is about 18.7 billion a year.


Walker
By Hogger1 on 5/20/2011 11:16:39 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, that is a lot of loot. It's a shame that we can't just make due with what we have until we can clone Chuck Norris.




RE: Walker
By Strunf on 5/21/2011 2:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
No need for cloning, Chuck Norris can be everywhere at all times, that's just how awesome he is!


RE: Walker
By SPOOFE on 5/21/2011 9:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
Chuck Norris needs a buddy as awesome as Chuck Norris to be a happy Chuck Norris.


This is so ridiculous???
By mandoman on 5/20/2011 7:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
I love it when a bunch of green gilled, tree hugging, idealists get to talking -- almost nothing that makes any sense comes out!!

What happens when China takes a liking to Hawaii, or Japan etc. or one of those 3rd world countries lusts after the Chicago (sears) tower with one of the soon to be stolen Pakistani nukes??

You'll all be saying "This is so ridiculous -- why can't our government protect us?" and of course y'all won't be talking about the $1T price tag then. But guess what ---- TO LATE THEN

Go to school and get an education, wake up and get into the REAL world folks!




RE: This is so ridiculous???
By Skywalker123 on 5/20/11, Rating: 0
By inperfectdarkness on 5/21/2011 2:24:28 AM , Rating: 2
if china invades tiawan, that's bad enough. i don't suppose it's occured to you what might happen if china decides it doesn't want to "play nice" with the USA any longer? overnight, our debts are called in...and we're powerless to stop them, for fear of having no more lead-painted toys.


RE: This is so ridiculous???
By Reclaimer77 on 5/20/2011 11:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What happens when China takes a liking to Hawaii, or Japan


Well...China does owe Japan payback for invading and raping their country. Matter of fact, so does Korea.


Point of reference?
By invidious on 5/20/2011 12:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
So many things will change in technology, manufacturing, and economy over the next 44 years that making this kind of assessment is an exercise in stupidity. The only budget figures that they can discuss with any relivance is per year costs and per plane costs. Looking out maybe 10 to 20 years max, but even that is a bit presumptuous.

It doesn't make sense to talk about fleet wide maintenance costs over at 44 year interval.isnt that much.




haha this is so ridiculous
By darckhart on 5/20/11, Rating: -1
RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By Iaiken on 5/20/2011 11:38:15 AM , Rating: 1
One trillion dollars equals:

33 million college educations
21 million low income houses
9,000 miles of high speed rail (including the trains)
200 comprehensive metropolitan subway systems
1/14th of the current national debt

But what the hey, you can't use a low income house to stomp the crap out of a 3rd world nation, can you?


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By ebakke on 5/20/11, Rating: -1
RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By FaaR on 5/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By ebakke on 5/21/2011 12:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
I never said college educations aren't important. I just don't believe it's something the federal government should be spending any money on. If you want to go to college, great. If I want to go to college, great. Neither of us should be forced to subsidize the other. And if the subsidy is going to happen, the right place for it is at the state not with the feds.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By SPOOFE on 5/21/2011 10:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
The gov't subsidy on college educations has resulted in the degrees themselves losing their value. There is a shortage of skilled labor in this country, and too many students getting a degree just to wind up doing unrelated office work. It's a self-defeating promise. If there weren't so much government money, schools themselves would be less influenced by the wiles of external politics, and especially national politics; class sizes would be smaller and composed of greater percentages of really passionate students, which would only improve the individual's quality of education.

Don't get me wrong, if someone wants to go to college, more power to them. A degree can be an incredibly useful tool. I just worry that if everyone has a hammer, the whole country will grind to a halt the second we need a wrench.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By TSS on 5/20/2011 12:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
It won't be 1 trillion. It'll be 3.

I sincerely doubt that number has been corrected for inflation - future inflation. What cost you 100 bucks in 2000, will cost you 125 bucks in 2010.

So what costs $100 in 2010, will cost $343.32 in 2065, applying 25% inflation per decade. If their saying the program's costs are $1 trillion in 2010 money, then it'll be $3,43 trillion in 2065 money. So the actual amount of money spent will be somewhere in between.

And people say Inflation is no big deal. You do realise that something that costs $100 bucks in 2010 cost only $8.03 back in 1800? Reversed, something that cost $100 in 1800 cost $1265.30 in 2010, and will cost around $4344 in 2065.

Amazing isn't it? And that's just with 2,5% per year inflation. Of 2000-2010, 7 years averaged above that and 4 below, 2 of which after the crisis. Juli 2008 saw an annualized rate of 5,6%!

Pretty soon you won't be able to afford to stomp anything.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By HrilL on 5/20/2011 1:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
thanks for making me feel better about making 46k a year. Sure at one time it was actually a good wage but now days in my town I am so poor. =( FML


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By tim851 on 5/20/2011 3:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do realise that something that costs $100 bucks in 2010 cost only $8.03 back in 1800?


Yes, but in 1800 somebody making 12.000 dollars per year was an insanely rich person. Inflation doesn't make things more expensive, it devaluates money, because more money is printed.
That's how people's incomes are steadily increasing but their wealth isn't.

And so yes, in 2065, it will cost more money, but the federal government will have more money to spend because people are paying more money in taxes.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By interstitial on 5/20/2011 7:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
12 US dollars in 1800 would be worth a little over 150 dollars now, adjusted for inflation.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By JMC2000 on 5/21/2011 10:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
LOL, you know he/she meant 12,000 with a comma.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By ZmaxDP on 5/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By Solandri on 5/20/2011 5:11:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
One trillion dollars equals:

33 million college educations
21 million low income houses
9,000 miles of high speed rail (including the trains)
200 comprehensive metropolitan subway systems
1/14th of the current national debt

Not that I think the F35 program is cheap nor worth it, but the $1 trillion figure is for operating costs from 2011 to 2065. This seems to be something of a favorite tactic among people wanting to dismiss a program as too costly - take it's cost over an arbitrarily large number of years, and use that figure to emphasize how expensive it is.

For a proper comparison, here are similar operating costs for the programs you outlined from 2011-2065 (simply multiplying the 2011 costs by 55 years):
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_gs.php

State grants and subsidies (subcategory of 506, I can't find the entry for federal grants): $18.5b/yr * 55 years = $1.02 trillion

I can't find a solo entry for federal grants and scholarships. However, this article says Obama planned to increase Pell Grants to almost $35 billion in 2011.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/30/nation/la-...
$35b/yr * 55 years = $1.93 trillion

Housing Assistance (604): $69.4b/yr * 55 years = $3.82 trillion

Rail assistance (401, high speed and regular): $3.2b/yr * 55 years = $0.18 trillion
(There seems to be no single line item for subways)

Average annual deficit over the last 10 years: $788.6b/yr * 55 years = $43.37 trillion (so $1 trillion would actually only cover 1/43rd the debt accrued in the same time period)

And just for yucks, Medicare (571): $494.3 billion * 55 years = $27.19 trillion


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By FaaR on 5/20/11, Rating: -1
RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By inperfectdarkness on 5/20/2011 8:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
not getting it at all, are you?

the military is an INSURANCE policy. it's as simple as that. if you don't want to fund the military, thats' fine. i'll also assume that you don't have insurance on your car, your house, your life, or any of a myriad of other things.

unfortunately for your feeble logic; your "military insurance policy" works substantially different from other types of insurance. skimping on insurance is dangerous. spend enough; and it's a virtual guarantee it won't ever be in desperate need. don't spend enough, and you might as well not have spent anything at all.

i'll also point out that your assertion that the USA is only vulnerable to attack from canada and mexico is distinctly a 19th century strategic sentiment. perhaps if andrew jackson was still president, your argument would have some validity.

FAIL.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By Skywalker123 on 5/20/2011 10:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeh, we're insurance poor, cause we buy more "insurance" than anyone else.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By inperfectdarkness on 5/21/2011 2:21:46 AM , Rating: 2
as a function of GDP...yes, but not by much. we're not even in the top 10 of countries by defense spending as a function of GDP.

when you factor in the fact that we indigenously research, develop, manufacture and produce all of these weapons systems...that figure starts to make a LOT more sense.

i guess though that 1% of the population defending the other 99% is too much for you.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By Skywalker123 on 5/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By JW.C on 5/21/2011 6:26:05 PM , Rating: 3
Thats because they've never been on the business end of an AK.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By Skywalker123 on 5/21/11, Rating: 0
By Divide Overflow on 5/21/2011 2:23:54 AM , Rating: 2
Mexico is and has been actively invading the US for quite some time now. If this is news to you, it's no wonder the rest of your comments are complete tripe.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By Jedi2155 on 5/20/2011 11:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
I don't like the cost either of the F-35 but to say replace it with the F-22 is foolish as the F-35 has ground attack capabilities while F-22 does not....


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By Reclaimer77 on 5/20/2011 12:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't like the cost either of the F-35 but to say replace it with the F-22 is foolish as the F-35 has ground attack capabilities while F-22 does not....


A ground attack F-22 variant could easily be developed for a mere fraction of the cost. Probably is it wont be because we already HAVE better ground attack craft than the F-22 or F-35. Jack of all trades, master of none, does not impress me.

The F-35 is a nightmare of a boondoggle.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By phantom505 on 5/20/2011 5:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, in fact it would be. F-16's accomplish their multi-role by simply putting pods on the hooks in leiu of a bomb rack, which really isn't a big deal. Current F-16's have no on board ECM or ground targeting which both are put on the jet when needed.

Aside from messing up the radar cross section there's no reason you can't do that on an F-22. Just add whatever targeting pod is current.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By FITCamaro on 5/20/2011 1:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
You realize that we have a few thousand F15s and F16s right? And those F35s are to replace all of them.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By ARoyalF on 5/20/2011 6:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
The F-35 was never meant to an air superiority fighter. It's a bomb truck.

I do agree we need more Raptors though.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By ARoyalF on 5/20/2011 9:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
The F-35 was never meant to an air superiority fighter. It's a bomb truck.

I do agree we need more Raptors though.


NO WAY_ CUT DEFENSE SEVERELY NOW!
By worldbfree4me on 5/20/11, Rating: -1
By inperfectdarkness on 5/20/2011 9:15:07 PM , Rating: 2
i'm sure we could do much better with some howler monkeys and a big pile of rocks.

/sarcasm.


RE: NO WAY_ CUT DEFENSE SEVERELY NOW!
By icanhascpu on 5/20/2011 9:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
The worldbfree4me because of our military, douche.


RE: NO WAY_ CUT DEFENSE SEVERELY NOW!
By Skywalker123 on 5/20/2011 10:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
They make a wasteland and call it peace.


By SPOOFE on 5/21/2011 9:43:15 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, Japan was nothing but a desolate rock between 1945 and 2011, when a Tsunami put all those Japanese folk back on the island, right?


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki