Trump to save money by giving our troops cheaper equipment

[danielpalos]

It is weird how this draft dodger is surrounding himself with military men too, reminds one of that other coward, Dick Cheney.

Life in Post Truth America - Does anyone find it ironic that the man who will now travel on your taxes pays none.

He didn't invent the tax rules, he just played by them.

the poor don't invent social policy; they just play by those rules.

I'm well aware of that, and want to change the rules to make it easier for them.

equal protection of the law makes it easier for the poor, on an at-will basis.

 

[rightwinger]

Donald Trump says he will dump the new fighter that Lockheed is working on & replace it with something cheaper.

Funny how the draft dodging POS Trump hid from war & wants out troops in war with inferior weapons.

Really Trumpettes? Is this what you voted for?

Really...? This is what you bring......

You really think that we are getting quality for the money we are paying these companies? That the cost over runs, the shoddy work can't be better dealt with than just continuing the same crappy system where they buy politicians, get the government contract then screw us over....you think that you are defending our troops by defending this system...

Please...try again....

Not to mention, that high tech jet fighters are NOT what is required for our current and likely wars. It's not like ISIS is going to contest our air superiority.

Actually, they are required

New missile technology makes having stealth technology with a low thermal output a necessity

 

[eagle1462010]

Donald Trump says he will dump the new fighter that Lockheed is working on & replace it with something cheaper.

Funny how the draft dodging POS Trump hid from war & wants out troops in war with inferior weapons.

Really Trumpettes? Is this what you voted for?

Really...? This is what you bring......

You really think that we are getting quality for the money we are paying these companies? That the cost over runs, the shoddy work can't be better dealt with than just continuing the same crappy system where they buy politicians, get the government contract then screw us over....you think that you are defending our troops by defending this system...

Please...try again....

Not to mention, that high tech jet fighters are NOT what is required for our current and likely wars. It's not like ISIS is going to contest our air superiority.

Actually, they are required

New missile technology makes having stealth technology with a low thermal output a necessity

No doubt, but to the point...............Lockhead can't get their shit together on this aircraft............It has had test failure after failure and low scores..........

They need to get their heads out of their asses and PRODUCE what they promised..........Not just asking for more and more and more money. Deliver the dang aircraft or we will cut off funding or find someone who can produce it.............

Or just produce more battle tested strike eagles.

 

[eagle1462010]

Russia's Su-35 Fighter vs. America's F-16 Fighting Falcon: Who Wins?

According to this the F16 can be upgraded with the new AESA radar...........Perhaps this aircraft can be upgraded at a lower cost than the F35's.

It also gives higher scores to the F22 which no longer has the bugs and is a match for any fighter in the world.......Since the F35 is a combination aircraft, multi mission it doesn't score as high as the F22 which is mission specific.

 

[jknowgood]

Hey Dave! Cheaper does not equal inferior. If you think about it, you would agree. If you don't like PEOTUS, find a legitimate reason to complain.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

So, genius, how do they lower the cost?
1) fewer features?
2) cheaper materials
3) Pay all those working on the roject minimum wage?

I laugfh at you for defending Triump on this. You want to sendf our troops to war with inferior eq

They always have inferior equipment.......Trump might actually be able to fix this.

Oh how fasrt the right jumps down the military's throat to protect their Orange Leader. First the generals are all so stupid that Trump knew more about ISIS than they did, POWs aren't heroes, and now our military fights with junk.

But hey, you are the same ones that said it was alright to send troops into Iraq without proper armor on vehicles & without protective gear for our soldiers.

Let's remember why our military didn't have the equipment. Clinton was handed a strong military and cut spending big time. Then handed Bush a recession and 911.

 

[danielpalos]

Hey Dave! Cheaper does not equal inferior. If you think about it, you would agree. If you don't like PEOTUS, find a legitimate reason to complain.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

So, genius, how do they lower the cost?
1) fewer features?
2) cheaper materials
3) Pay all those working on the roject minimum wage?

I laugfh at you for defending Triump on this. You want to sendf our troops to war with inferior eq

They always have inferior equipment.......Trump might actually be able to fix this.

Oh how fasrt the right jumps down the military's throat to protect their Orange Leader. First the generals are all so stupid that Trump knew more about ISIS than they did, POWs aren't heroes, and now our military fights with junk.

But hey, you are the same ones that said it was alright to send troops into Iraq without proper armor on vehicles & without protective gear for our soldiers.

Let's remember why our military didn't have the equipment. Clinton was handed a strong military and cut spending big time. Then handed Bush a recession and 911.

omitting the lowest unemployment rate in thirty years and federal budget surpluses instead of budget deficits?

 

[Flopper]

He's going to need that money to keep up with the arms race he has just started. Apparently our arsenal of 7300 nuclear warheads are not going to be enough for Trump. He will only be able to level and make unlivable all cities on earth over 100,000. The Good News for Trump is Putin has also expressed his desire to upgrade Russia's arsenal of 8,000 warheads, enough to take out all the medium sizes cities on earth. The other nuclear powers, France, UK, China, Pakistan, India, brings the current worldwide total of nuclear warheads to about 17,000 so there should be enough now to reduce the earth to a burning cinder fit for only insects. Does the idiot really see a need to wipe them out too?

It is now down to 4500..........so your numbers are wrong..........

The dangers of our aging nuclear arsenal

READ.............

If we have only 4800 warheads instead of 7300 warheads, no one is going to notice once Trump gives the command to launch and most of the large cities in both countries are piles of ashes.

The Chinese have only about 250 warheads, but as one Chinese military strategist said, ten times the number of warheads does not create ten times the deterrent.

The deterrent is the MAD principle. Always has been and always will be...............The question is should we allow our systems to remain degraded and prevent possible accidents as a result of neglect................

Our systems are in need of an overhaul...........not only the silo's but the missiles themselves.............

And a SINGLE TWEET doesn't mean he's gonna build THOUSANDS OF THEM..........that is you just spouting guesses trying to make a LARGE STORY over a single line tweet.....................

The current treaty allows us as well the Russians to maintain the current systems. When Trump said "we must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nuke." and "Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all,". He clearly was not talking about keeping what we have working but rather expanding it, which is a clear violation of our nuclear arms reduction treaty, New Start, which Trump incorrect calls Start UP. It was approved by Congress and Signed by the president. Trump is not likely to violate the treaty. What Trump does and what Trump says can be quite different. I suspect this is Trump's reaction to accusations that he's a buddy of Putin.

Everyone keeps talking about Trump's foreign policy. I don't think there is going be one, just an endless series of Tweets and press announcements, constantly changing and often contradictory.

It is a single tweet and you like others are trying to DRAMATIZE IT.........

Apparently, you like Trump do not understand how a president's foreign policy is created. He does not create foreign policy with a document. He creates foreign policy by statement and deed. After the candidate becomes the president elect, every tweet, speech, news conference, or press release he makes about foreign affairs becomes part of his foreign policy structure. If the president makes contradictory or ambiguous statements, he weakens the structure. If he says one thing and does the opposite, then he becomes untrustworthy.

In other words, a president should not make idle comments about foreign affairs, question whether some action should be taken, or issue ambiguous or misleading statements. This leads to confusion as to what the intent of the US really is. That strategy may work well in corporate negotiations but is extremely dangerous in international diplomacy.

 

[Fang]

Donald Trump says he will dump the new fighter that Lockheed is working on & replace it with something cheaper.

Funny how the draft dodging POS Trump hid from war & wants out troops in war with inferior weapons.

Really Trumpettes? Is this what you voted for?

#FakeNews

Asshole liberals at it again.

 

[Borillar]

Donald Trump says he will dump the new fighter that Lockheed is working on & replace it with something cheaper.

Funny how the draft dodging POS Trump hid from war & wants out troops in war with inferior weapons.

Really Trumpettes? Is this what you voted for?

Really...? This is what you bring......

You really think that we are getting quality for the money we are paying these companies? That the cost over runs, the shoddy work can't be better dealt with than just continuing the same crappy system where they buy politicians, get the government contract then screw us over....you think that you are defending our troops by defending this system...

Please...try again....

Not to mention, that high tech jet fighters are NOT what is required for our current and likely wars. It's not like ISIS is going to contest our air superiority.

No, but we should at least maintain superiority over the Russians and Chinese. A F-18 isn't going to give STOL or stealth capabilities that we need.

 

[Darkwind]

Faced with the possible loss of this huge contract, anyone think that the Military pulling out of the F-35 program might be a negotiation tactic to get costs down and production more efficient while saving taxpayers money?

Naw, couldn't be that at all.....

 

[jknowgood]

Hey Dave! Cheaper does not equal inferior. If you think about it, you would agree. If you don't like PEOTUS, find a legitimate reason to complain.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

So, genius, how do they lower the cost?
1) fewer features?
2) cheaper materials
3) Pay all those working on the roject minimum wage?

I laugfh at you for defending Triump on this. You want to sendf our troops to war with inferior eq

They always have inferior equipment.......Trump might actually be able to fix this.

Oh how fasrt the right jumps down the military's throat to protect their Orange Leader. First the generals are all so stupid that Trump knew more about ISIS than they did, POWs aren't heroes, and now our military fights with junk.

But hey, you are the same ones that said it was alright to send troops into Iraq without proper armor on vehicles & without protective gear for our soldiers.

Let's remember why our military didn't have the equipment. Clinton was handed a strong military and cut spending big time. Then handed Bush a recession and 911.

omitting the lowest unemployment rate in thirty years and federal budget surpluses instead of budget deficits?

Who was in control of both houses then?

 

[Flopper]

The same way it happened in second half of the 20th century. The US flexes it's muscles and Russia, China, and other nuclear power up the stakes with more weapons, not to be outdone by the US. The administration then claims America will be in great danger if they don't meet these challenges and congress gives the administration zillions of dollars. Other nations, not to be left behind continue the insanity.

I served during part of the Cold War and I know it sparked an arms race back then........but that Cold War has already been started by Obama and his policies with Russia in Syria.....................

Putin and China are increasing production already..........

FInally, Our existing Nuclear stockpile is old and outdated.....I posted an article where they can't even shut the dang hatches due to freaking rust...........Not to mention having to fire the weapons from a 3.5 inch FLOPPY DISK...........

This state of disrepair is RIDICULOUS................These dang facilities are holding our freaking Nukes...........and this needs to be fixed.........PERIOD.....

We should update & modernize our nuclear weapon facilities.

But not expand our arsenal. That is stupid & against standing agreements

What agreements? Bush pulled us out of SALT. What agreements are you talking about?

A series of treaties followed SALT I and SALT II. Start I, Start II, Start III, Sort, then New Start. We are currently on New Start.
On April 8, 2010, the United States and Russia signed New START, a legally binding, verifiable agreement that limits each side to 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 700 strategic delivery systems (ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers), and limits deployed and nondeployed launchers to 800. The treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011.
U.S.-Russian Nuclear Arms Control Agreements at a Glance | Arms Control Association

Only effective if the other side reduces it's numbers...............and it is verified.............As China builds more .........

Not revelent

Nuclear arms reduction agreements have certainly been relevant in reduction of nuclear weapons.
Since Salt 1 back in the 1970s, nuclear weapons have been reduce by 75%. Reductions have been significant on both sides but there are still enough to destroy both nations. We have no nuclear arms reduction agreement with China.

 

[Correll]

Donald Trump says he will dump the new fighter that Lockheed is working on & replace it with something cheaper.

Funny how the draft dodging POS Trump hid from war & wants out troops in war with inferior weapons.

Really Trumpettes? Is this what you voted for?

Really...? This is what you bring......

You really think that we are getting quality for the money we are paying these companies? That the cost over runs, the shoddy work can't be better dealt with than just continuing the same crappy system where they buy politicians, get the government contract then screw us over....you think that you are defending our troops by defending this system...

Please...try again....

Not to mention, that high tech jet fighters are NOT what is required for our current and likely wars. It's not like ISIS is going to contest our air superiority.

Should we insist on a security agreement with the UN, to lower costs?

The UN is our enemy.

no, it isn't. it is just another layer of "government".

No, it is not.

It is an organization dominated by people who want to advance their interests at the cost of ours.

 

[Correll]

It is weird how this draft dodger is surrounding himself with military men too, reminds one of that other coward, Dick Cheney.

Life in Post Truth America - Does anyone find it ironic that the man who will now travel on your taxes pays none.

He didn't invent the tax rules, he just played by them.

the poor don't invent social policy; they just play by those rules.

I'm well aware of that, and want to change the rules to make it easier for them.

equal protection of the law makes it easier for the poor, on an at-will basis.

Is anyone arguing against equal protection of the law?

 

[Flopper]

Faced with the possible loss of this huge contract, anyone think that the Military pulling out of the F-35 program might be a negotiation tactic to get costs down and production more efficient while saving taxpayers money?

Naw, couldn't be that at all.....

After spending 400 billion on the F35 design development, and production of the first plane for fight testing, the pentagon is not about to scrap the program for two reason. First, there are no other good alternatives for the Air Force and Marines and secondly the plane offers great promise despite the plane missing the mark during flight test. For the pentagon to cancel the contract and pay Lockheed cancellation costs and rebid would make no sense because Lockheed would very likely be the low bidder since no other manufacturer will know the plane as well as the company that designed and built it. Negotiating with Lockheed is probably the Pentagon's best bet.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Trump is going to have our soldiers fight with the cheaper option.

And you assholes defend it.

My God

It's laughable to think a bunch of liberals giving a shit about our servicemen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Donald Trump says he will dump the new fighter that Lockheed is working on & replace it with something cheaper.

Funny how the draft dodging POS Trump hid from war & wants out troops in war with inferior weapons.

Really Trumpettes? Is this what you voted for?

Save money to buy more nukes, er.... great, and he'll scrap a plane which has had $1.5 trillion spent on it already. Dumping this makes the money already spent wasted. Going for the F-18 will still cost a lot of money. If the US gets rid of the F-35 then they'll lose orders from many countries, like the British who have an aircraft carrier coming on line next year build solely for the F-35.

Trump doesn't realize the political aspects of this fighter, and doesn't realize that changing things half way through costs a lot of money to do, and often costs MORE MONEY!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Trump is going to have our soldiers fight with the cheaper option.

And you assholes defend it.

My God

It's laughable to think a bunch of liberals giving a shit about our servicemen.

Why?

Bush got how many US servicemen killed? 4,000 in Iraq alone. Plus the 40,000 who lost limbs and suffered mental damage and who may have committed suicide.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Trump is going to have our soldiers fight with the cheaper option.

And you assholes defend it.

My God

It's laughable to think a bunch of liberals giving a shit about our servicemen.

UK soldier and veteran suicides 'outstrip Afghan deaths' - BBC News
"
UK soldier and veteran suicides 'outstrip Afghan deaths'"

Army Chief Ray Odierno Warns Military Suicides 'Not Going To End' After War Is Over | The Huffington Post

"The Army’s annual death toll from suicide has more than tripled since 2001, when 52 active-duty soldiers took their own lives."

 

[rdean]

Donald Trump says he will dump the new fighter that Lockheed is working on & replace it with something cheaper.

Funny how the draft dodging POS Trump hid from war & wants out troops in war with inferior weapons.

Really Trumpettes? Is this what you voted for?

Didn't Republicans do that under Bush?

Troops confront Rumsfeld, ask for better battle gear / Challenges from National Guardsmen bound for combat unnerve Pentagon chief

Republicans have a loooong history of fucking our troops over before, during and after wars. And the media lets them get away with it.