|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Trump: I should be President because I'm rich.
Rubio: I should be President because I'm in debt.
|
Rubio trying to take credit for Bipartisanship in stopping human trafficking...
|
On March 11 2016 12:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:28 Slaughter wrote:On March 11 2016 12:10 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 11 2016 12:06 LegalLord wrote:
American military technology is mind-bogglingly cost-inefficient. The F-35 is a plane with a ridiculous price tag, and the F-22 cost $340m a pop (total program cost divided by number of planes produced). Compare that to the $35m cost of modern Su, Mig, or Eurofighter planes which cost around $30 million a pop. Guess what? The F-22 is great but it simply isn't so good that it would beat 5-10 of those other planes in battle (or in effectiveness in completing missions). It is only moderately better than the others but extremely more expensive.
Other programs are similarly wasteful with some ridiculous perverse incentives that lead defense contractors to charge ridiculous amounts for their military technology. I agree, the US military is inefficient, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be expanded. The US keeps buying planes instead of focusing on other technology that might be needed in dirty ground battle. All of the US technology is pretty inefficient, it's just planes that get the most attention. The US needs to stop buying stupidly expensive technology that is worth 10% of what it actually costs. Cut out the incentives that make it that way and it will allow huge cost savings, and even will allow the military to be expanded in the right ways if it needs to be done. Its inefficient because the tech level is so high. Its diminishing returns and we have long past the point where increases in technology can be done in a cost efficient manner, There are finite resources and given how little gain there is for programs like the F-22 and F-35 especially, they aren't the best use of all that money. As I previously mentioned, these planes are pretty much worse in all real applications than 5-10 modern planes from other nations with advanced plane tech (and the cost, including pilot training, runs up to about the same for both). Spend the money where it would actually make a difference. The $67 billion that the F-22 program cost, or the $1 trillion of the F-35, could do a lot more if you put it into more effective applications.
Any suggestions?
By the way no modern fighter is even close to costing $35m. We're paying $4.7b for 36 Gripens, Egypt $5.6b for 24 Rafales (plus a frigate and missiles), India was offered $13.2b for 36 Rafales. The russians claim Su-35 is $65m, but nobody is rushing to buy it.
|
United States22883 Posts
I wish CNN wasn't so toothless. They should be following up on these responses rather than taking them as is and moving on.
|
On March 11 2016 12:52 Jibba wrote:
I wish CNN wasn't so toothless. They should be following up on these responses rather than taking them as is and moving on.
It's really helping Trump.
|
|
|
On March 11 2016 12:52 Jibba wrote:
I wish CNN wasn't so toothless. They should be following up on these responses rather than taking them as is and moving on.
I've actually liked that they're keeping it civil, this isn't meant to be a drama (at least not primarily).
|
On March 11 2016 12:52 Jibba wrote:
I wish CNN wasn't so toothless.
They aren't. Haven't you seen their democrat debates?
|
I wonder what they would say if they were told that Jefferson suggested that the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years since they seem to think the document was bestowed upon us by God himself.
|
On March 11 2016 12:42 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:40 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:27 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2016 12:21 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:12 oneofthem wrote:
developing new tech especially new paradigm (beyond visual range combat) is hard. it is a strategically important system if they can get it off the ground. the planners aren't morons No one thinks otherwise. However, the government provides every incentive for defense companies to severely overcharge. The reason they get away with it is because that spending does create high-quality jobs, so state governments are willing to spend federal money to prop up defense jobs in their own states. it seems like a big developmental process problem, not necessarily nefarious. It's not exactly nefarious or corrupt, but it is highly inefficient. It is generally true that if you give an organization more money then you will get more result. The money is heading in the direction of the defense companies so they spend it (and pay employees and executives a good portion of it, to be fair). Defense companies do a good thing very inefficiently and they are a pretty good example of pork barrel spending since state legislators tend to get projects funded for those contractors. On March 11 2016 12:28 Slaughter wrote:On March 11 2016 12:10 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 11 2016 12:06 LegalLord wrote:
American military technology is mind-bogglingly cost-inefficient. The F-35 is a plane with a ridiculous price tag, and the F-22 cost $340m a pop (total program cost divided by number of planes produced). Compare that to the $35m cost of modern Su, Mig, or Eurofighter planes which cost around $30 million a pop. Guess what? The F-22 is great but it simply isn't so good that it would beat 5-10 of those other planes in battle (or in effectiveness in completing missions). It is only moderately better than the others but extremely more expensive.
Other programs are similarly wasteful with some ridiculous perverse incentives that lead defense contractors to charge ridiculous amounts for their military technology. I agree, the US military is inefficient, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be expanded. The US keeps buying planes instead of focusing on other technology that might be needed in dirty ground battle. All of the US technology is pretty inefficient, it's just planes that get the most attention. The US needs to stop buying stupidly expensive technology that is worth 10% of what it actually costs. Cut out the incentives that make it that way and it will allow huge cost savings, and even will allow the military to be expanded in the right ways if it needs to be done. Its inefficient because the tech level is so high. Its diminishing returns and we have long past the point where increases in technology can be done in a cost efficient manner, There are finite resources and given how little gain there is for programs like the F-22 and F-35 especially, they aren't the best use of all that money. As I previously mentions, these planes are pretty much worse in all real applications than 5-10 modern planes from other nations with advanced plane tech (and the cost, including pilot training, runs up to about the same for both). Spend the money where it would actually make a difference. The $67 billion that the F-22 program cost, or the $1 trillion of the F-35, could do a lot more if you put it into more effective applications. you can't evaluate the effectiveness of a new generation of aircraft by using simple scenarios. the doctrine of a BVR fighter is completely different and it's designed to project force effectively, i.e. do damage while not suffering loss. this is really the only way the u.s. has a geopolitically effective force projection. the aircraft carriers are huge sitting ducks to cheap storm of missiles. it's still worthwhile despite being less efficient than a f35 in terms of what can take it out. it's not about winning some prolonged conflict.
Indeed, it really isn't about prolonged conflict - that makes it quite useless for conventional combat against strong opponents with advanced technology - the most advanced AA technology cheaply and effectively counters even the best US technology when combined with effective tactics. You can even make it moot if you realize how easy it is to bomb supply lines that sustain those aircraft. So these projects are primarily used for asymmetric warfare. Given how expensive it is, and how much easier this problem is to solve through simpler tactical means (intelligence, more aggressive attacks that accept some casualties and collateral).
The idea of the BVR doctrine has always had a pretty large element of magical thinking associated with it. The fact that you mention that "you cannot evaluate its effectiveness by normal means" is a pretty good indicator of that.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 11 2016 12:54 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:52 Jibba wrote:
I wish CNN wasn't so toothless. They should be following up on these responses rather than taking them as is and moving on. I've actually liked that they're keeping it civil, this isn't meant to be a drama (at least not primarily).
There's a difference between keeping the debaters civil and examining what is being said. CNN is doing #1, they are absolutely not doing #2.
Cruz could say, "Obama is really a reptilian" and CNN anchors would move along like nothing happened.
|
On March 11 2016 12:55 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:54 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 11 2016 12:52 Jibba wrote:
I wish CNN wasn't so toothless. They should be following up on these responses rather than taking them as is and moving on. I've actually liked that they're keeping it civil, this isn't meant to be a drama (at least not primarily). There's a difference between keeping the debaters civil and examining what is being said. CNN is doing #1, they are absolutely not doing #2. Cruz could say, "Obama is really a reptilian" and CNN anchors would move along like nothing happened.
Harder said than done imo, especially with the time constraints there are. I think its more important for each to share their main argument instead of spending 5 minutes arguing about a small technicality (a lot of the time).
Though no doubt, in an ideal world yes.
|
Who wants to bet Ted Cruz will mention his website in his closing statement?
|
CNN has done consistently well with these debates.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2016 12:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:42 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2016 12:40 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:27 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2016 12:21 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:12 oneofthem wrote:
developing new tech especially new paradigm (beyond visual range combat) is hard. it is a strategically important system if they can get it off the ground. the planners aren't morons No one thinks otherwise. However, the government provides every incentive for defense companies to severely overcharge. The reason they get away with it is because that spending does create high-quality jobs, so state governments are willing to spend federal money to prop up defense jobs in their own states. it seems like a big developmental process problem, not necessarily nefarious. It's not exactly nefarious or corrupt, but it is highly inefficient. It is generally true that if you give an organization more money then you will get more result. The money is heading in the direction of the defense companies so they spend it (and pay employees and executives a good portion of it, to be fair). Defense companies do a good thing very inefficiently and they are a pretty good example of pork barrel spending since state legislators tend to get projects funded for those contractors. On March 11 2016 12:28 Slaughter wrote:On March 11 2016 12:10 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 11 2016 12:06 LegalLord wrote:
American military technology is mind-bogglingly cost-inefficient. The F-35 is a plane with a ridiculous price tag, and the F-22 cost $340m a pop (total program cost divided by number of planes produced). Compare that to the $35m cost of modern Su, Mig, or Eurofighter planes which cost around $30 million a pop. Guess what? The F-22 is great but it simply isn't so good that it would beat 5-10 of those other planes in battle (or in effectiveness in completing missions). It is only moderately better than the others but extremely more expensive.
Other programs are similarly wasteful with some ridiculous perverse incentives that lead defense contractors to charge ridiculous amounts for their military technology. I agree, the US military is inefficient, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be expanded. The US keeps buying planes instead of focusing on other technology that might be needed in dirty ground battle. All of the US technology is pretty inefficient, it's just planes that get the most attention. The US needs to stop buying stupidly expensive technology that is worth 10% of what it actually costs. Cut out the incentives that make it that way and it will allow huge cost savings, and even will allow the military to be expanded in the right ways if it needs to be done. Its inefficient because the tech level is so high. Its diminishing returns and we have long past the point where increases in technology can be done in a cost efficient manner, There are finite resources and given how little gain there is for programs like the F-22 and F-35 especially, they aren't the best use of all that money. As I previously mentions, these planes are pretty much worse in all real applications than 5-10 modern planes from other nations with advanced plane tech (and the cost, including pilot training, runs up to about the same for both). Spend the money where it would actually make a difference. The $67 billion that the F-22 program cost, or the $1 trillion of the F-35, could do a lot more if you put it into more effective applications. you can't evaluate the effectiveness of a new generation of aircraft by using simple scenarios. the doctrine of a BVR fighter is completely different and it's designed to project force effectively, i.e. do damage while not suffering loss. this is really the only way the u.s. has a geopolitically effective force projection. the aircraft carriers are huge sitting ducks to cheap storm of missiles. it's still worthwhile despite being less efficient than a f35 in terms of what can take it out. it's not about winning some prolonged conflict. Indeed, it really isn't about prolonged conflict - that makes it quite useless for conventional combat against strong opponents with advanced technology - the most advanced AA technology cheaply and effectively counters even the best US technology when combined with effective tactics. You can even make it moot if you realize how easy it is to bomb supply lines that sustain those aircraft. So these projects are primarily used for asymmetric warfare. Given how expensive it is, and how much easier this problem is to solve through simpler tactical means (intelligence, more aggressive attacks that accept some casualties and collateral). The idea of the BVR doctrine has always had a pretty large element of magical thinking associated with it. The fact that you mention that "you cannot evaluate its effectiveness by normal means" is a pretty good indicator of that.
don't think they'll use this thing vs hardened ground targets before throwing some missiles at stationary aa. it's BVR vs other aircrafts.
|
On March 11 2016 12:59 xDaunt wrote:
CNN has done consistently well with these debates.
Yep, better than any debate that I've ever seen done in Canada.
|
There's that veiled threat from Trump again.
|
|
|
More than 50 major players in the U.S. publishing industry are petitioning the White House and Congress to end the Cuba trade embargo as it pertains to books and educational materials.
Calling the book embargo "counter to American ideals of free expression," the petition — endorsed by publishing companies, authors and agents — says "books are catalysts for greater cross-cultural understanding, economic development, free expression, and positive social change."
Publishers Weekly, which plans to run the petition on the cover of the magazine's March 14 edition, posted it on its website. It says that last month about 40 American publishing industry representatives met with their counterparts in Havana to "build bridges of understanding and explore opportunities for greater cultural and economic collaboration."
The petition also notes that Cuba's adult literacy rate of nearly 100 percent is among the highest in the world. It says there are plenty of commercial opportunities for American and Cuban publishers that could benefit "readers and writers everywhere."
The petition comes as the U.S. continues to work to normalize relations with the island nation and just ahead of President Obama's historic visit to Cuba on March 21-22. He will be the first sitting U.S. president to visit Cuba since Calvin Coolidge in 1928.
Source
|
On March 11 2016 13:00 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:42 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2016 12:40 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:27 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2016 12:21 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:12 oneofthem wrote:
developing new tech especially new paradigm (beyond visual range combat) is hard. it is a strategically important system if they can get it off the ground. the planners aren't morons No one thinks otherwise. However, the government provides every incentive for defense companies to severely overcharge. The reason they get away with it is because that spending does create high-quality jobs, so state governments are willing to spend federal money to prop up defense jobs in their own states. it seems like a big developmental process problem, not necessarily nefarious. It's not exactly nefarious or corrupt, but it is highly inefficient. It is generally true that if you give an organization more money then you will get more result. The money is heading in the direction of the defense companies so they spend it (and pay employees and executives a good portion of it, to be fair). Defense companies do a good thing very inefficiently and they are a pretty good example of pork barrel spending since state legislators tend to get projects funded for those contractors. On March 11 2016 12:28 Slaughter wrote:On March 11 2016 12:10 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 11 2016 12:06 LegalLord wrote:
American military technology is mind-bogglingly cost-inefficient. The F-35 is a plane with a ridiculous price tag, and the F-22 cost $340m a pop (total program cost divided by number of planes produced). Compare that to the $35m cost of modern Su, Mig, or Eurofighter planes which cost around $30 million a pop. Guess what? The F-22 is great but it simply isn't so good that it would beat 5-10 of those other planes in battle (or in effectiveness in completing missions). It is only moderately better than the others but extremely more expensive.
Other programs are similarly wasteful with some ridiculous perverse incentives that lead defense contractors to charge ridiculous amounts for their military technology. I agree, the US military is inefficient, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be expanded. The US keeps buying planes instead of focusing on other technology that might be needed in dirty ground battle. All of the US technology is pretty inefficient, it's just planes that get the most attention. The US needs to stop buying stupidly expensive technology that is worth 10% of what it actually costs. Cut out the incentives that make it that way and it will allow huge cost savings, and even will allow the military to be expanded in the right ways if it needs to be done. Its inefficient because the tech level is so high. Its diminishing returns and we have long past the point where increases in technology can be done in a cost efficient manner, There are finite resources and given how little gain there is for programs like the F-22 and F-35 especially, they aren't the best use of all that money. As I previously mentions, these planes are pretty much worse in all real applications than 5-10 modern planes from other nations with advanced plane tech (and the cost, including pilot training, runs up to about the same for both). Spend the money where it would actually make a difference. The $67 billion that the F-22 program cost, or the $1 trillion of the F-35, could do a lot more if you put it into more effective applications. you can't evaluate the effectiveness of a new generation of aircraft by using simple scenarios. the doctrine of a BVR fighter is completely different and it's designed to project force effectively, i.e. do damage while not suffering loss. this is really the only way the u.s. has a geopolitically effective force projection. the aircraft carriers are huge sitting ducks to cheap storm of missiles. it's still worthwhile despite being less efficient than a f35 in terms of what can take it out. it's not about winning some prolonged conflict. Indeed, it really isn't about prolonged conflict - that makes it quite useless for conventional combat against strong opponents with advanced technology - the most advanced AA technology cheaply and effectively counters even the best US technology when combined with effective tactics. You can even make it moot if you realize how easy it is to bomb supply lines that sustain those aircraft. So these projects are primarily used for asymmetric warfare. Given how expensive it is, and how much easier this problem is to solve through simpler tactical means (intelligence, more aggressive attacks that accept some casualties and collateral). The idea of the BVR doctrine has always had a pretty large element of magical thinking associated with it. The fact that you mention that "you cannot evaluate its effectiveness by normal means" is a pretty good indicator of that. don't think they'll use this thing vs hardened ground targets before throwing some missiles at stationary aa. it's BVR vs other aircrafts.
Against other aircraft: sure, it's pretty good - if you have something around even numbers. If you're outnumbered 5 to 1 (which is, cost-wise, very feasible) then real combat conditions are very unlikely to make BVR particularly useful unless you already have the overwhelming advantage. If you fight nations that have the means to cut off supply lines or deploy advanced radar and AA, you will also have trouble.
Besides the obvious issue of who has the most advanced tech (and the best AA counters the best aircraft easily), anti-aircraft is very strongly based on tactics. The nations bombed by Israel and the US in the MidEast where the bombings happen to proceed without a hitch and casualties are minimal are the result of really weak AA operators. Having AA systems with extremely long range (e.g. S-400) or that are mobile, makes it much harder to target them. If all of the AA systems move to a different position after they fire, it makes it a lot more difficult to proceed without casualties. Operator skill often matters a fair bit more than technology in AA.
On March 11 2016 12:52 Soap wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 12:40 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:28 Slaughter wrote:On March 11 2016 12:10 LegalLord wrote:On March 11 2016 12:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 11 2016 12:06 LegalLord wrote:
American military technology is mind-bogglingly cost-inefficient. The F-35 is a plane with a ridiculous price tag, and the F-22 cost $340m a pop (total program cost divided by number of planes produced). Compare that to the $35m cost of modern Su, Mig, or Eurofighter planes which cost around $30 million a pop. Guess what? The F-22 is great but it simply isn't so good that it would beat 5-10 of those other planes in battle (or in effectiveness in completing missions). It is only moderately better than the others but extremely more expensive.
Other programs are similarly wasteful with some ridiculous perverse incentives that lead defense contractors to charge ridiculous amounts for their military technology. I agree, the US military is inefficient, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be expanded. The US keeps buying planes instead of focusing on other technology that might be needed in dirty ground battle. All of the US technology is pretty inefficient, it's just planes that get the most attention. The US needs to stop buying stupidly expensive technology that is worth 10% of what it actually costs. Cut out the incentives that make it that way and it will allow huge cost savings, and even will allow the military to be expanded in the right ways if it needs to be done. Its inefficient because the tech level is so high. Its diminishing returns and we have long past the point where increases in technology can be done in a cost efficient manner, There are finite resources and given how little gain there is for programs like the F-22 and F-35 especially, they aren't the best use of all that money. As I previously mentioned, these planes are pretty much worse in all real applications than 5-10 modern planes from other nations with advanced plane tech (and the cost, including pilot training, runs up to about the same for both). Spend the money where it would actually make a difference. The $67 billion that the F-22 program cost, or the $1 trillion of the F-35, could do a lot more if you put it into more effective applications. Any suggestions? By the way no modern fighter is even close to costing $35m. We're paying $4.7b for 36 Gripens, Egypt $5.6b for 24 Rafales (plus a frigate and missiles), India was offered $13.2b for 36 Rafales. The russians claim Su-35 is $65m, but nobody is rushing to buy it.
I'd focus on basic science, medicine, and space tech. Pretty directly applicable to military applications but also more useful for civilians and more cost-efficient overall.
Very modern aircraft are certainly more than $35m and the prices have increased a lot recently. It's better to look at production prices rather than sale prices though, and also to see how many planes a program produces (aircraft are a lot cheaper to scale, obviously, a huge reason for those sales in the first place). Eurofighters cost about $100m, a slightly older version is about $50m. Su-35 is $40-65m a pop depending on the model. Rafales are around $80m. MiG-29s, a slightly older plane, run about $29m a pop.
Really, they're best evaluated not by their flyway cost, but by the program cost divided by the number produced. That puts F-22s at $340m, Rafale at $320m, Eurofighters at $150m, Su-35 at some unknown price (probably cheaper if the government would sell them for $65m), and Mig-29 at not that much more than $29m (because there were thousands of them produced). F-35 planes run into the billions at current production rates, but I'm certain that it will drop down to $500-600m a pop in the future.
So prices aren't quite $35m each for the very newest planes, but the US programs are a bit on the expensive side, and the kinds of planes that would generally appear in combat in asymmetric warfare (Migs are hugely popular among nations with less money) are definitely in that range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
