Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
Sat Aug 8, 2015, 11:56 AM Aug 2015

Purchase of Lockheed Martin’s aircraft will cost Pentagon almost $400 billion over 30 years

We don't have a better use of $400 BILLION taxpayer dollars than to give it to Lockheed Martin as corprat welfare for purposes of eternal war?

. . .

The announcement by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford comes almost 14 years after Lockheed Martin Corp. beat out Boeing Co. for the F-35 military contract, with the Pentagon planning to spend almost $400 billion to develop and buy more than 2,400 jets.

. . .

The F-35 is entering the fray more than four years late, and costs have spiraled to twice their original estimate, which has made it the subject of debate and criticism. The Marines’ move is expected to push supporters and critics alike to focus on the jet’s capabilities rather than just its cost.

Mandy Smithberger, a director at the Project on Government Oversight, said the Marines were determined to meet their July target even if the plane wasn’t fully ready. “We don’t think this is a genuine IOC,” said Ms. Smithberger, whose watchdog group has been a critic of the F-35 program.

Ms. Smithberger said the arrival of the first combat-ready jets will allow the plane to be compared more realistically to the planes it is due to replace, including the F-16 and A-10 Warthog. “Does the F-35 do this as well or better than what we’re throwing to the boneyard?” she said.


THE REST:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/marines-say-costly-f-35-jet-fighter-is-finally-ready-1438367615


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ FIRST comment on this article, which I wholeheartedly agree with_ _ _ _ _ _ _

What a disgusting use of hard-earned taxpayer money; the republican party staunchly defends defense expending like this and should be ashamed for accepting so many donations from companies like Lockheed. We spend so much on defense but defense spending doesn't increase our prosperity. Instead, we need to cut our defense spending and reinvest that in infrastructure, education, R&D, and paying down our deficit.
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Purchase of Lockheed Martin’s aircraft will cost Pentagon almost $400 billion over 30 years (Original Post) Triana Aug 2015 OP
HEY REPUBLICANS!!!! THIS IS WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!! Initech Aug 2015 #1
Unfortunately, Bernie doesn't agree BainsBane Aug 2015 #2
Excellent point ismnotwasm Aug 2015 #8
Hmmm, universal health care or more war toys? You make the call. Comrade Grumpy Aug 2015 #3
$13 billion a year is a rounding error for Medicare and Medicaid Recursion Aug 2015 #10
No response to Sanders' support of the planes? BainsBane Aug 2015 #4
Are you lost? GD:P is thataway ------> Comrade Grumpy Aug 2015 #5
I didn't post the OP BainsBane Aug 2015 #7
Ketchup is a vegetable. Octafish Aug 2015 #6
Kicking. William769 Aug 2015 #9

Initech

(100,080 posts)
1. HEY REPUBLICANS!!!! THIS IS WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!!
Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:24 PM
Aug 2015

I'm tired of hearing about this bullshit!!!

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
2. Unfortunately, Bernie doesn't agree
Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:29 PM
Aug 2015
Bernie Sanders Doubles Down on F-35 Support Days After Runway Explosion
Me: “You mentioned wasteful military spending. The other day ... I’m sure you’ve heard about the F-35 catching fire on the runway. The estimated lifetime expense of the F-35 is $1.2 trillion. When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program?”

Bernie Sanders: “No, and I’ll tell you why – it is essentially built. It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and of NATO. It was a very controversial issue in Vermont. And my view was that given the fact that the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful, that’s a good question. But for better or worse, that is the plane of record right now, and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.”
hat was the exchange I had with US senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a town hall in Warner, New Hampshire, this past weekend (skip to the 45:30 mark of this video to hear my question). Sanders came to New Hampshire to gauge the local response to his economic justice-powered platform for a presumed 2016 presidential campaign. While his rabid defense of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and takedown of big money running politics was well-received, he contradicted his position of eliminating wasteful military spending while defending the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 is the epitome of Pentagon waste. The program has already cost taxpayers roughly half a trillion dollars, with $700 billion or more to come during the program’s lifetime. During an interview, Pierre Sprey, a co-designer of the F-16, went into great detail about how the F-35 was a lemon aircraft. Sprey explained that the fighter is an excessively heavy gas guzzler with small wings, a low bomb-carry capacity, low loiter time, is incapable of slow flight, is detectable to World War II-era low-frequency radar, and costs $200 million apiece. And just a little over a week ago, the F-35 caught fire on a runway at Eglin Air Force Base.

To his credit, Sanders acknowledged that the program was “wasteful” in his defense of it. The contention over the F-35 in his home state of Vermont is that the program is now responsible for jobs in his hometown of Burlington, where he served as mayor before running for Congress. Some front doors of homes in the Burlington area are adorned with green ribbons, signifying support for the F-35. Sanders, like his colleagues in 45 states around the country, doesn’t want to risk the wrath of voters angry about job losses related to F-35 manufacturing, assembly, and training if the program were to be cut. And that’s where Lockheed Martin’s political savvy comes into play.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
10. $13 billion a year is a rounding error for Medicare and Medicaid
Sun Aug 9, 2015, 12:09 AM
Aug 2015

Even just covering the 40% of the US that is on Medicare and Medicaid costs a trillion dollars every year.

I'm against the plane because it's a bad design, but it's not even a player in terms of where our money is going.

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
4. No response to Sanders' support of the planes?
Sat Aug 8, 2015, 01:12 PM
Aug 2015

You have harsh words for the GOP, but are silent on your own candidate.

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
7. I didn't post the OP
Sat Aug 8, 2015, 01:26 PM
Aug 2015

I simply provided a relevant piece of information. I certainly can make my post an OP in GD-P though. I can even credit you for suggesting it.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
6. Ketchup is a vegetable.
Sat Aug 8, 2015, 01:24 PM
Aug 2015

And who needs a Department of Education, anyway?

PS: Thank you for a most important OP and thread, Triana. At $25 billion per, Lockheed-Martin gets the biggest chunk of what there is:

http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Top-100-Defense-Contractors-2014.html

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Purchase of Lockheed Mart...