Why Is The US Military Spending So Much Money On The F-35 Fighter Jet?
http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-cost-2014-2Despite incessant technical problems and delays, the US military has no plans to cancel the new F-35 fighter jet, the costliest weapons program in Pentagon history.
The Joint Strike Fighter has been touted as a technological wonder that will dominate the skies but it has suffered one setback after another, putting the project seven years behind schedule and $167 billion over budget.
Bill Maher said tonite it can't fly in a storm for fear of lightening strike
Instead of flushing money down the toilet let's give students a break on their loans or educate our children
= new reply since forum marked as read
Don't forget the other C. 
IMO, there are plenty of other things to cut in the military budget. I for one, would say that possibly this is not one of them. I don't know enough about the $$, but have read what they are trying to accomplish and hope they can do it.
Advancing technology is very hard and can cost a ton, but in the long run we benefit from the technology advances.
I would be fine with cost overruns on trying to perfect the next generation fighter if we could lose the military adventurism and interventionism. THat costs a lot more.
The other major issue is to ask precisely just what nation or nation's aircraft is this thing to engage? I do not believe that the current generation of groups such as ISIL, ALQ and the Taliban field much of an air force. So why not take a smaller amount of money do research as is needed and rebuild our current fleet of aircraft replacing and upgrading those designs that are presently in service such as F15, F16 and FA18?
Senator Sanders speaks out against cuts to Social Security outside the U.S. Capitol on Oct. 9, 2013. (photo: Bernie Sanders)
By Carl Gibson - 03 June 14
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.”
That 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...
More at link including imbeds:
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion
I still love Bernie, and he's a realist. He is not for all tastes. But he's representing his state. I suppose the reasoning if that we don't get these contracts, other nations will. Apparently, the world has not lost interest in the weapons of warfare.
but for someone who asked the question, I wish he reported on if he asked some follow-ups. Singling out one thing or focusing on this I think the defense budget is the best place to start to reduce government necessary and its necessary.
The article includes a link pointing out Lockheed Martin, the largest US defense contractor, receives 82% of its revenue from taxpayers. F-35 production seems to be on the rise rather than looming cuts but they sell plenty of $1.5 million dollar bombs to the US government and Saudi Arabia. The produce plenty of other top flight military planes -- I came across another issue. I gotta watch the video for sure.
I did find info on a Lockheed Martin in Burlington, Vermont but no info yet on what it is they manufacture over there except for apparently it has to abide by green technology regulations from an event featuring IBM (the only stock Bernie Sanders owns and they're respectable corporation). There is one in Burlington, MA but the Aeronautics plants are in these locations
Before I post the links but not only do they get the subsidies, they also get the government contracts which is a license to steal pretty much. 82%, depending on how much revenue could mean the company relies on them but I doubt they go *poof* if the subsidy goes away. A plant typically can handle a variety of manufacturing, move on if necessary. Every time a defense contractor is an issue, it seems the product sucks but if they don't get a subsidy they fire everybody & close up shop. Put money into their pockets & give them a contract? Saudi Arabia is the 4th largest defense spender in the world, a lot of that money is going to Lockheed Martin (also a lot of that money was "defense aid" from the US -- a license to steal & politicians or CEOs don't care about government deficits because their revenues go up, stock prices go up, and a country here or there needs a reorder on a shipment because they dropped over $40 million in bombs in one day. No doubt once they have the kinks worked out on the F-35 Lightning they will sell a boatload.
One thing I would have liked to asked "are you going to cut corporate subsidies to defense contractors?" and then I'd mention whatever short-term benefits are outweighed by the long-term costs, consequences, & suffering "saving the world" (from Lockheed) makes me sick.
(It always seems and this from the article anyway that the issue is always hyped to a doomsday scenario to the opportunity costs with or without but I have no problems with continuing a production or cutting back, its the subsidies but other nations do get those contracts. Saudi Arabia will purchase them for sure, they have multi-billion defense purchases every couple of years with most of the money going to the defense contractors. US sells weapons to virtually every country that isn't buying from Russia and in some cases countries that purchase from both Russia & the US such as Iraq, Afghanistan, there are a few others other nations do have the contracts. It all seems to be in-line with what the US wants anyway--throw Egypt a few attack helicopters as a sweetener to join us on this armed conflict.
----
These are the links
Fraudulent Defense Contractors Paid $1 Trillion
Thursday, October 20, 2011
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - Hundreds of defense contractors that defrauded the U.S. military received more than $1.1 trillion in Pentagon contracts during the past decade, according to a Department of Defense report prepared for Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Sanders (I-Vt.) called the report "shocking." He said aggressive steps must be taken to ensure taxpayer dollars aren't wasted.
"The ugly truth is that virtually all of the major defense contractors in this country for years have been engaged in systemic fraudulent behavior, while receiving hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money," said Sanders. "With the country running a nearly $15 trillion national debt, my goal is to provide as much transparency as possible about what is happening with taxpayer money."
The report detailed how the Pentagon paid $573.7 billion during the past 10 years to more than 300 contractors involved in civil fraud cases that resulted in judgments of more than $1 million, $398 billion of which was awarded after settlement or judgment for fraud. When awards to "parent" companies are counted, the Pentagon paid more than $1.1 trillion during the past 10 years just to the 37 top companies engaged in fraud.
Another $255 million went to 54 contractors convicted of hard-core criminal fraud in the same period. Of that total, $33 million was paid to companies after they were convicted of crimes.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/fraudulent-defense-contractors-paid-1-trillion
Corporate Behavior in Vermont: How Lockheed Martin Defrauds American Taxpayers
By Greg Guma
Global Research, November 04, 2013
Maverick Media
Region: USA
Theme: Global Economy, Militarization and WMD
23
20 8
446
money5
On October 2, 2009 Senator Bernie Sanders made one of his classic fiery speeches on the floor of the US Senate. This time Vermont’s independent socialist was taking on Lockheed Martin and other top military contractors for what he called “systemic, illegal, and fraudulent behavior, while receiving hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.”
Among other crimes, Sanders mentioned how Lockheed had defrauded the government by fraudulently inflating the cost of several Air Force contracts, lied about the costs when negotiating contracts for the repairs on US warships, and submitted false invoices for payment on a multi-billion dollar contract connected to the Titan IV space launch vehicle program.
A month later, however, he was in a different mood when he hosted a delegation from Sandia National Laboratories. Sandia is managed for the Department of Energy by Sandia Inc., a wholly-owned Lockheed subsidiary. At Sanders’ invitation, the Sandia delegation was in Vermont to talk partnership and scout locations for a satellite lab. He had been working on the idea since 2008 when he visited Sandia headquarters in New Mexico.
In January 2010 he took the next major step – organizing a delegation of Vermonters. The group included Green Mountain Power CEO Mary Powell; Domenico Grasso, vice president for research at the University of Vermont; David Blittersdorf, co-founder of NRG Systems and CEO of Earth Turbines; and Scott Johnston, CEO of the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, which runs Efficiency Vermont.
Despite concerns about Lockheed’s bad corporate behavior Sanders didn’t think that inviting Sandia to Burlington meant helping the corporation to get away with anything. Rather, he envisioned Vermont transformed “into a real-world lab for the entire nation” through a partnership. “We’re at the beginning of something that could be of extraordinary significance to Vermont and the rest of the country,” he promised
http://www.globalresearch.ca/corporate-behavior-in-vermont-how-lockheed-martin-defrauds-american-taxpayers/5356789
In a Green Town, Activists See Red Over Lockheed Martin
BURLINGTON, Vt. — Car sharing is beloved in this laid-back college town, as are solar panels, rain gardens and most anything designed to fight global warming from the ground up. A bicycle service will pick up your kitchen scraps for composting, and farmers will deliver your vegetables in a biodiesel-fueled truck.
Pride in these homegrown efforts runs deep, and so some Burlingtonians were livid when Mayor Bob Kiss announced a partnership late last year with Lockheed Martin, the military contractor, to work on clean-energy projects.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
Accusations of “greenwashing” have careered about like the fighter jets that Lockheed manufactures, with opponents warning that Burlington should not lend environmental credibility to a company whose products contribute to the military’s carbon footprint. Peace activists, a fixture here for decades, have also deplored the alliance, pointing to Lockheed’s production of bombs and missiles and pointing out that Mr. Kiss, a member of the state’s liberal Progressive Party, was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War.
<snip>
Mr. Kiss said the partnership came out of a meeting in Vancouver last year sponsored by the Carbon War Room, a nonprofit group founded by the British billionaire Richard Branson to encourage private industry to invest in — and profit from — clean-energy projects. Burlington officials approached Lockheed, Mr. Kiss said, and proposed that the company “test drive” some of its clean-energy technologies.
“My perspective on this is we want to include everybody we can in addressing climate change,” he said last month at City Hall. “I would say everybody’s in, nobody’s out, so long as we’re working together.”
But critics say that the city has plenty of local experts to help with the kind of projects Mr. Kiss envisions, and that Lockheed stands to benefit far more from the alliance than Burlington does.
“I’m deathly afraid of polluting our image with their war machine record,” said Jeffrey C. Frost, executive director of AgRefresh, a bioenergy consulting firm here. “Realistically, why would they be coming here and asking us to partner with them? The only rational answer I can come up with is they want to associate themselves with what Burlington represents.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/us/12burlington.html
While I appreciate environmental concerns and it is a huge issue the activists (from '11 anyway) are missing the immediate, short-term ethical problems here. Like look at it from the POV from a Yemeni civilian & the House of Saud needs a regime change, not fighter planes & helicopters in addition to their allies Egypt, Jordan, Morocco & others.
On edit -- Like I said, need to watch the entire video but so far not seeing many ethical concerns and Burlington may produce something that is part of the overall F-35 production but companies lay off all-the-time, including defense contractors, depending on the supply & demand of the marketplace. Also, government expenditures could be used for other projects, jobs, that provide positive value to the world such as IBM.
