(March 21, 2011 at 9:29 am)Jaysyn Wrote: A short but interesting article on waste, overspending & the military-industrial complex in the USA.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch...lia/72454/
Quote:In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion).
F-35 may or may not merit its cost. But the article substitutes hysterical hyperbole for analysis. So what if the entire F-35 program, likely to run for at very least 50 years, should cost more in nominal (non-inflation) adjusted dollars, over it's entire life span, than australia's current year GDP in current dollars? How is "GDP of australia" an all purpose benchmark?
As to the alternate engine program, again it may or may not be worth it's cost, or be well designed and managed. But its justification is not hard to see. Without it, past 2030, when the previous generation of fighters all retire, the entire US inventory of fixed wing tactical combat aircraft in all branches of services will be powered by Pratt & Whitney engines. There had been past experiences with Pratt & Whitney enjoying semi-monopoly in providing fighter engines for just the air force, and the company had proven its willingness to leverage it's position to decline to address serious, safety related, shortcomings in it's offerings. There had also been experiences in the past with Pratt & Whitney's remarkable improvement in responsiveness when General Electric was contracted to provide an alternative fighter engine.
