27 Feb 21
@wildgrass said
I think an overall reduction in the defense department budget would force at least some consideration of project costs and the value of such projects to American citizens.
28 Feb 21
The post that was quoted here has been removedSweden is also a partner, but it was being developed by BAe Systems before Italy and Sweden were involved. Consider the following points:
1) The Tornado is almost as old as I am.
2) New military kit often has teething problems. The Type 45 destroyer has a number of well publicised problems.
3) The F35 is expensive.
4) Budgets are always tight and there is considerable economic fallout from Covid 19.
5) The Tempest will not be available until 2035.
I think Britain's slow uptake of the F35 has more to do with points 2 to 4 than with a general reluctance to buy it. Points 1 and 5 rule it out as a stop gap. They'd buy Rafales or covert the Typhoon for ground attack operations for that purpose.
28 Feb 21
The post that was quoted here has been removedI'm aware that aircraft can fit into more than one role. The problem with the Tempest is that it won't be available for 15 years. The F35 is available now. Fifteen years is a long time and words like stopgap don't really mean anything on time periods that long. If it were expected to be available in the next five years you might have a point, although the RAF likes to operate more than one airframe, for fairly obvious reasons.
I'm curious as to what you mean by "Sweden is not comparable to Italy", which on its own sounds dismissive of Sweden, but you then go on to say that Sweden has "an independent arms industry that punches above its weight.", is Italy's arms industry not independent?
28 Feb 21
@metal-brain saidI have heard lots of outrage over the cost of the Mars rover project to find life ($2.5 billion) because we still have homeless people on Earth, but shouldn't we be working big to small if we think government expenditures are not in line with the best interests of its citizens?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_4o4axYfuY
28 Feb 21
1 edit
@wildgrass saidA whole $2.5 billion? wow, what a rip off, eh?
I have heard lots of outrage over the cost of the Mars rover project to find life ($2.5 billion) because we still have homeless people on Earth, but shouldn't we be working big to small if we think government expenditures are not in line with the best interests of its citizens?
Well, at least we can say that we learn something from such a mission and we are progressing.
That rover will be sending back data and photos for years to come.
How much of that can be said for the $721.5 billion we spend on the military annually?
01 Mar 21
@earl-of-trumps saidExactly. The benefits of space exploration seem obvious to me and they are gobs cheaper than military projects in which their own developers think it's been a failure.
A whole $2.5 billion? wow, what a rip off, eh?
Well, at least we can say that we learn something from such a mission and we are progressing.
That rover will be sending back data and photos for years to come.
How much of that can be said for the $721.5 billion we spend on the military annually?
Imagine what outer space would look like if we spent $721 billion annually? Colonies of humans on Neptune?