Well, an 18 billion $ fighter, who do you think that's for?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, May 8, 2006 23:25
VIEWED: 3451
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:37 AM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/NATIONAL/New-jet-fighters-could-cost-18-
billion/2006/04/16/1145125994662.html
Why, China, of course.
We must be second to none (except in child-care, health-care, non-military scientific research, education, ETC.....)

Late night Chrisisall

SASSALICIOUS

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:06 AM

Gratuitous spending.

See if it can be demonstrated that this new bit of technology is totally awesome and absolutely necessary, by buying expensive, a large military budget is assured in light of other budget cuts.

I think it's cute how governments of the world seek to find better, faster, and more expensive ways to annihilate the human race.

*rows away to private paradise*

KHYRON

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:30 AM

Okay, it's pretty late and I'm a tad sloshed, but Chris, I don't quite understand what you meant by your comments.
i) It's $18 billion for a fleet of fighters, not a fighter;
ii) Australia is buying the fleet, China wasn't mentioned in the article; and
iii) "We must be second to none"... huh? I agree with the sarcasm, but I don't see the relevance to the article.
I'm probably being dense and missing every damn thing. Off to bed and sleep the whole of Sunday...

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

KHYRON

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
I think it's cute how governments of the world seek to find better, faster, and more expensive ways to annihilate the human race.

Of course, they call it "national defence".

Don't know what Australia needs those super-high-tech fighters for anyway. I can't see any nation attacking them, the only worry they have is terrorism (mainly because of their role in helping the US and GB in Iraq), and one can't defend against terrorism with fighter jets.

Then again, maybe I'm thinking too much along the lines of using fighters as defensive options. If they're important to Australia because of their offensive capabilities, that just means Australia is planning on getting involved in a couple of other squirmishes at some point.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 7, 2006 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Okay, it's pretty late and I'm a tad sloshed, but Chris, I don't quite understand what you meant by your comments.
i) It's $18 billion for a fleet of fighters, not a fighter;
ii) Australia is buying the fleet, China wasn't mentioned in the article; and
iii) "We must be second to none"... huh? I agree with the sarcasm, but I don't see the relevance to the article.
I'm probably being dense and missing every damn thing. Off to bed and sleep the whole of Sunday...

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

From the link *** "We currently estimate the planes will cost around $100 million each, but then you have servicing, maintenance, training and other costs on top of that - which you can usually estimate to double the cost of the plane - which then brings you up to around the $18 billion to $20 billion mark for Australia," he told Fairfax.***

These planes are being SOLD to Australia, from Lockheed Martin and the USA. There are 100 planes, not 1 18 Billion $$ plane. ( That'd be some awesome plane! ) Also, six other countries, including Italy, Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, are also considering the jet.

Don't know what the discussion about health care and what not have to do w/ anything. Those planes being built, and sold have created jobs, high paying jobs where employees get good benefits , pay mortgages , pay their taxes ,send their kids to schools and generally contribute quite nicely to the economy. You have a problem w/ that ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Sunday, May 7, 2006 1:59 PM

Okay, it was late, and I happened upon that piece just before bed, and wanted to post quickly, knee-jerk that I am

We build them, sell them, then borrow them to fight China if and when necessary. Or sell them with the condition that Australia use them at our beck and call.
The Aussies don't need them; something fishy is here.

Yes, the jobs it will create here will be good, but they will most likely be assembled in Mexico. My point is that the R & D put into developing war toys should be spent investing in the country's kids to secure the future for us all.

Sorry, control of the Middle East and it's oil will do that for us, I forgot.

Iran-mushroom-watch Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, May 7, 2006 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

ii) Australia is buying the fleet, China wasn't mentioned in the article; and

That's my idea, China needs some equalizing, their army is too big for comfort, and with Iran and North Korea on the drawing boards, who knows how China will respond when our troops are spread thinner than at any other time in history?

Just continuing a late night thought...Chrisisall

KHYRON

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:49 PM

Auraptor:

Yeah, I got that, but Chris said "18 $ billion fighter", not fighterS. I had the impression that he was under the impression that it's just one fighter.

Chris:

Okay, that China comment makes sense now. I had a bit too much to drink and couldn't think that far ahead.

Of course, it assumes that the West will have a war with China, which I highly doubt since most consumer-oriented economies depend on cheap imports from China.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

FLETCH2

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:55 PM

Periodically you have to replace your fighters because every minute in the air puts wear and tear on the airframe. After a while you need to either completely rebuild them or build new ones. JSF is an attempt to get most NATO countries standardised on the same aircraft in order to allow economies of scale and share the cost of R&D. The planes Australia is buying now will probably still be flying in 20 or 30 years.

KHYRON

Sunday, May 7, 2006 5:04 PM

But why is it necessary to buy absolute state-of-the-art? Why can't one just replace the fleet with a model that's couple of years older and therefore a couple of million $ less?

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE