F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 4:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/15/2014 12:01 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 11:50 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter hits more turbulence


Developed by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is DOD’s most expensive and most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be nearly
70 percent over budget

Continued software problems related to the Defense Department’s F-35
Joint Strike Fighter program could lead to delivery delays of
less-capable aircraft at a long-term price tag that may prove
unaffordable, congressional investigators said today.

Developmental testing of software deemed critical to the F-35′s initial
warfighting capability remains so far behind schedule, the Marine Corps
may not receive all of the capabilities it expects when it plans to
begin
flying the F-35. In addition, continued delays could push the total
lifecycle cost of the F-35 from its current projected level of $390.4
billion to an estimated $1 trillion — a figure with which DOD program
officials disagree.

“Delays in developmental flight testing of the F-35’s critical software
may hinder delivery of the warfighting capabilities the military
services
expect,� according to a report released today by the Government
Accountability Office. “Challenges in development and testing of mission
systems software continued through 2013, due largely to delays in
software delivery, limited capability in the software when delivered,
and
the need to fix problems and retest multiple software versions. Delivery
of expected warfighting capabilities to the Marine Corps could be
delayed
by as much as 13 months. Delays of this magnitude could also increase
the
already significant concurrency between testing and aircraft procurement
and result in additional cost growth.�

In addition to delivery deadlines and weapon system capabilities issues,
DOD also faces steep financial burdens related to the F-35 acquisition
effort. For the program to continue as planned, DOD will have to
dedicate
an average of $12.6 billion per year through 2037, with several years
peaking at $15 billion, according to GAO. At $12.6 billion per year, the
F-35 would consume almost one-quarter of DOD’s annual major defense
acquisition funding.

“Annual funding of this magnitude clearly poses long-term affordability
risks given the current fiscal environment,� GAO investigators
concluded.
“The F-35 fleet is estimated to cost around $1 trillion to operate and
support over its lifetime. In a time of austere federal budgets, cost
projections of this magnitude pose significant fiscal challenges.�

DOD plans call for spending $400 billion to develop and acquire 2,457
F-35s — known as the Joint Strike Fighter — through 2037, plus hundreds
of billions of dollars in long-term spending to operate and maintain the
aircraft. The F-35 family of next-generation fighter aircraft will
incorporate stealth technologies, which make it more difficult to be
identified by radar, as well as advanced sensors and computer networking
capabilities. DOD is developing three U.S variants for the Air Force,
Navy and Marine Corps, as well as eight international variants that
will be sold to allies.

The F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin, is DOD’s costliest and most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be nearly 70
percent over budget.

- See more at:
http://fedscoop.com/f-35-joint-strik....lS4foNhR.dpuf



- - -

The Pentagon exists more than just partly to keep officers in uniform
and defense contractors in business. What a fripping this F35 program
is.

This is a Congressional boondoggle! I understand the Pentagon, does not
want this thing. But, Congress people want jobs in their districts.


Generals are pussies who can't say no? Surely the defense contractors
can be retrained to produce useful stuff, like high speed rails and the
high speed trains that run on them.

That's not how it works Harry. Calif Bill is correct. The Defense
Department and Pentagon did not want to continue the F-35's development.

It's Congress that is forcing it.

And we have a high speed rail boondoggle already being pushed here in
California.



Would that be a San Francisco-LA-San Diego high speed train? I'd sure
ride it in preference to the damned airplanes and SD airport.

And how many billions should we pay for the privilege of you being able to
ride this train?

wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 21:57:24 -0400, BAR wrote:



The Marines, grunts on the ground, don't usually have A-10's supporting
them. It is usually, Cobra's and F-18's. Back in the day the they were
flying the A-4 as a ground attack aircraft. You need to understand that
the air assets of the Marine Corps have to be carrier capable, LHA, LHD,
CVN type of ships.

The problem with the A-10 is that you have to bring the entire freaking
Air Force along with you in order to use them and they don't integrate
seamlessly with a MAGTF (Marine Air Ground Task Force).

Although A10s may have some handy ground support value, they are
basically tank killers, designed to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe.
They did show their virtue in the deserts of Iraq and Kuwait tho.

You are right that it is an air force platform, not one that has
transitioned to carrier operations.
If there was really a need, I would not be shocked if they could rig
them with tail hooks and a catapult shoe,

Design an A-10 type plane with a couple 20 mm cannon and carrier capable.
An f-15 type plane is probably what we need for air superiority. Shoot
them from a hundred miles. We need a ground support aircraft that will
take a licking and still keep ticking. And choppers are not good for that.

On 4/16/14, 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 4:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/15/2014 12:01 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 11:50 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter hits more turbulence


Developed by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is DOD’s most expensive and most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be nearly
70 percent over budget

Continued software problems related to the Defense Department’s F-35
Joint Strike Fighter program could lead to delivery delays of
less-capable aircraft at a long-term price tag that may prove
unaffordable, congressional investigators said today.

Developmental testing of software deemed critical to the F-35′s initial
warfighting capability remains so far behind schedule, the Marine Corps
may not receive all of the capabilities it expects when it plans to
begin
flying the F-35. In addition, continued delays could push the total
lifecycle cost of the F-35 from its current projected level of $390.4
billion to an estimated $1 trillion — a figure with which DOD program
officials disagree.

“Delays in developmental flight testing of the F-35’s critical software
may hinder delivery of the warfighting capabilities the military
services
expect,� according to a report released today by the Government
Accountability Office. “Challenges in development and testing of mission
systems software continued through 2013, due largely to delays in
software delivery, limited capability in the software when delivered,
and
the need to fix problems and retest multiple software versions. Delivery
of expected warfighting capabilities to the Marine Corps could be
delayed
by as much as 13 months. Delays of this magnitude could also increase
the
already significant concurrency between testing and aircraft procurement
and result in additional cost growth.�

In addition to delivery deadlines and weapon system capabilities issues,
DOD also faces steep financial burdens related to the F-35 acquisition
effort. For the program to continue as planned, DOD will have to
dedicate
an average of $12.6 billion per year through 2037, with several years
peaking at $15 billion, according to GAO. At $12.6 billion per year, the
F-35 would consume almost one-quarter of DOD’s annual major defense
acquisition funding.

“Annual funding of this magnitude clearly poses long-term affordability
risks given the current fiscal environment,� GAO investigators
concluded.
“The F-35 fleet is estimated to cost around $1 trillion to operate and
support over its lifetime. In a time of austere federal budgets, cost
projections of this magnitude pose significant fiscal challenges.�

DOD plans call for spending $400 billion to develop and acquire 2,457
F-35s — known as the Joint Strike Fighter — through 2037, plus hundreds
of billions of dollars in long-term spending to operate and maintain the
aircraft. The F-35 family of next-generation fighter aircraft will
incorporate stealth technologies, which make it more difficult to be
identified by radar, as well as advanced sensors and computer networking
capabilities. DOD is developing three U.S variants for the Air Force,
Navy and Marine Corps, as well as eight international variants that
will be sold to allies.

The F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin, is DOD’s costliest and most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be nearly 70
percent over budget.

- See more at:
http://fedscoop.com/f-35-joint-strik....lS4foNhR.dpuf



- - -

The Pentagon exists more than just partly to keep officers in uniform
and defense contractors in business. What a fripping this F35 program
is.

This is a Congressional boondoggle! I understand the Pentagon, does not
want this thing. But, Congress people want jobs in their districts.


Generals are pussies who can't say no? Surely the defense contractors
can be retrained to produce useful stuff, like high speed rails and the
high speed trains that run on them.

That's not how it works Harry. Calif Bill is correct. The Defense
Department and Pentagon did not want to continue the F-35's development.

It's Congress that is forcing it.

And we have a high speed rail boondoggle already being pushed here in
California.



Would that be a San Francisco-LA-San Diego high speed train? I'd sure
ride it in preference to the damned airplanes and SD airport.

And how many billions should we pay for the privilege of you being able to
ride this train?


Right, because here in the Top of the Heap U.S.A. it's better to waste
trillions on an oversized military than to provide fast, reliable public
transportation in a heavily traveled corridor.

On 4/16/2014 6:41 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 4:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/15/2014 12:01 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 11:50 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter hits more turbulence


Developed by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is DOD’s most expensive
and most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be
nearly
70 percent over budget

Continued software problems related to the Defense Department’s
F-35
Joint Strike Fighter program could lead to delivery delays of
less-capable aircraft at a long-term price tag that may prove
unaffordable, congressional investigators said today.

Developmental testing of software deemed critical to the F-35′s
initial
warfighting capability remains so far behind schedule, the
Marine Corps
may not receive all of the capabilities it expects when it plans to
begin
flying the F-35. In addition, continued delays could push the total
lifecycle cost of the F-35 from its current projected level of
$390.4
billion to an estimated $1 trillion — a figure with which DOD
program
officials disagree.

“Delays in developmental flight testing of the F-35’s critical
software
may hinder delivery of the warfighting capabilities the military
services
expect,� according to a report released today by the Government
Accountability Office. “Challenges in development and testing of
mission
systems software continued through 2013, due largely to delays in
software delivery, limited capability in the software when
delivered,
and
the need to fix problems and retest multiple software versions.
Delivery
of expected warfighting capabilities to the Marine Corps could be
delayed
by as much as 13 months. Delays of this magnitude could also
increase
the
already significant concurrency between testing and aircraft
procurement
and result in additional cost growth.�

In addition to delivery deadlines and weapon system capabilities
issues,
DOD also faces steep financial burdens related to the F-35
acquisition
effort. For the program to continue as planned, DOD will have to
dedicate
an average of $12.6 billion per year through 2037, with several
years
peaking at $15 billion, according to GAO. At $12.6 billion per
year, the
F-35 would consume almost one-quarter of DOD’s annual major defense
acquisition funding.

“Annual funding of this magnitude clearly poses long-term
affordability
risks given the current fiscal environment,� GAO investigators
concluded.
“The F-35 fleet is estimated to cost around $1 trillion to
operate and
support over its lifetime. In a time of austere federal budgets,
cost
projections of this magnitude pose significant fiscal challenges.�

DOD plans call for spending $400 billion to develop and acquire
2,457
F-35s — known as the Joint Strike Fighter — through 2037, plus
hundreds
of billions of dollars in long-term spending to operate and
maintain the
aircraft. The F-35 family of next-generation fighter aircraft will
incorporate stealth technologies, which make it more difficult
to be
identified by radar, as well as advanced sensors and computer
networking
capabilities. DOD is developing three U.S variants for the Air
Force,
Navy and Marine Corps, as well as eight international variants that
will be sold to allies.

The F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin, is DOD’s costliest and most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be
nearly 70
percent over budget.

- See more at:
http://fedscoop.com/f-35-joint-strik....lS4foNhR.dpuf




- - -

The Pentagon exists more than just partly to keep officers in
uniform
and defense contractors in business. What a fripping this F35
program
is.

This is a Congressional boondoggle! I understand the Pentagon,
does not
want this thing. But, Congress people want jobs in their districts.


Generals are pussies who can't say no? Surely the defense contractors
can be retrained to produce useful stuff, like high speed rails
and the
high speed trains that run on them.

That's not how it works Harry. Calif Bill is correct. The Defense
Department and Pentagon did not want to continue the F-35's
development.

It's Congress that is forcing it.

And we have a high speed rail boondoggle already being pushed here in
California.



Would that be a San Francisco-LA-San Diego high speed train? I'd sure
ride it in preference to the damned airplanes and SD airport.

And how many billions should we pay for the privilege of you being
able to
ride this train?


Right, because here in the Top of the Heap U.S.A. it's better to waste
trillions on an oversized military than to provide fast, reliable public
transportation in a heavily traveled corridor.

.... that very few would use.

On 4/16/14, 7:18 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/16/2014 6:41 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 4:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/15/2014 12:01 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 11:50 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter hits more turbulence


Developed by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is DOD’s most expensive
and most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be
nearly
70 percent over budget

Continued software problems related to the Defense Department’s
F-35
Joint Strike Fighter program could lead to delivery delays of
less-capable aircraft at a long-term price tag that may prove
unaffordable, congressional investigators said today.

Developmental testing of software deemed critical to the F-35′s
initial
warfighting capability remains so far behind schedule, the
Marine Corps
may not receive all of the capabilities it expects when it
plans to
begin
flying the F-35. In addition, continued delays could push the
total
lifecycle cost of the F-35 from its current projected level of
$390.4
billion to an estimated $1 trillion — a figure with which DOD
program
officials disagree.

“Delays in developmental flight testing of the F-35’s critical
software
may hinder delivery of the warfighting capabilities the military
services
expect,� according to a report released today by the Government
Accountability Office. “Challenges in development and testing of
mission
systems software continued through 2013, due largely to delays in
software delivery, limited capability in the software when
delivered,
and
the need to fix problems and retest multiple software versions.
Delivery
of expected warfighting capabilities to the Marine Corps could be
delayed
by as much as 13 months. Delays of this magnitude could also
increase
the
already significant concurrency between testing and aircraft
procurement
and result in additional cost growth.�

In addition to delivery deadlines and weapon system capabilities
issues,
DOD also faces steep financial burdens related to the F-35
acquisition
effort. For the program to continue as planned, DOD will have to
dedicate
an average of $12.6 billion per year through 2037, with several
years
peaking at $15 billion, according to GAO. At $12.6 billion per
year, the
F-35 would consume almost one-quarter of DOD’s annual major
defense
acquisition funding.

“Annual funding of this magnitude clearly poses long-term
affordability
risks given the current fiscal environment,� GAO investigators
concluded.
“The F-35 fleet is estimated to cost around $1 trillion to
operate and
support over its lifetime. In a time of austere federal budgets,
cost
projections of this magnitude pose significant fiscal challenges.�

DOD plans call for spending $400 billion to develop and acquire
2,457
F-35s — known as the Joint Strike Fighter — through 2037, plus
hundreds
of billions of dollars in long-term spending to operate and
maintain the
aircraft. The F-35 family of next-generation fighter aircraft will
incorporate stealth technologies, which make it more difficult
to be
identified by radar, as well as advanced sensors and computer
networking
capabilities. DOD is developing three U.S variants for the Air
Force,
Navy and Marine Corps, as well as eight international variants
that
will be sold to allies.

The F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin, is DOD’s costliest and
most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be
nearly 70
percent over budget.

- See more at:
http://fedscoop.com/f-35-joint-strik....lS4foNhR.dpuf





- - -

The Pentagon exists more than just partly to keep officers in
uniform
and defense contractors in business. What a fripping this F35
program
is.

This is a Congressional boondoggle! I understand the Pentagon,
does not
want this thing. But, Congress people want jobs in their
districts.


Generals are pussies who can't say no? Surely the defense
contractors
can be retrained to produce useful stuff, like high speed rails
and the
high speed trains that run on them.

That's not how it works Harry. Calif Bill is correct. The Defense
Department and Pentagon did not want to continue the F-35's
development.

It's Congress that is forcing it.

And we have a high speed rail boondoggle already being pushed here in
California.



Would that be a San Francisco-LA-San Diego high speed train? I'd sure
ride it in preference to the damned airplanes and SD airport.

And how many billions should we pay for the privilege of you being
able to
ride this train?


Right, because here in the Top of the Heap U.S.A. it's better to waste
trillions on an oversized military than to provide fast, reliable public
transportation in a heavily traveled corridor.

... that very few would use.



It's at least a six to seven hour drive from LA to SF, and flying,
taking into account the airport bull****, is a two hour misadventure.
A 200 mph train could make the trip in the same two hours, with much
less hassle. But, of course, we don't have high speed trains running
anywhere in Top of the Heap USA. Or even modern airports. Or highways
that aren't falling apart. But, hey, we do spend what, five times more
on the military than the next largest military spending nation. And get
nothing tangible out of it that we wouldn't get by cutting that military
spending in half.

In article ,
says...


... that very few would use.

Good argument. Not.

On 4/16/2014 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 4:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/15/2014 12:01 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 11:50 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter hits more turbulence


Developed by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is DOD’s most expensive and most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be nearly
70 percent over budget

Continued software problems related to the Defense Department’s F-35
Joint Strike Fighter program could lead to delivery delays of
less-capable aircraft at a long-term price tag that may prove
unaffordable, congressional investigators said today.

Developmental testing of software deemed critical to the F-35′s initial
warfighting capability remains so far behind schedule, the Marine Corps
may not receive all of the capabilities it expects when it plans to
begin
flying the F-35. In addition, continued delays could push the total
lifecycle cost of the F-35 from its current projected level of $390.4
billion to an estimated $1 trillion — a figure with which DOD program
officials disagree.

“Delays in developmental flight testing of the F-35’s critical software
may hinder delivery of the warfighting capabilities the military
services
expect,� according to a report released today by the Government
Accountability Office. “Challenges in development and testing of mission
systems software continued through 2013, due largely to delays in
software delivery, limited capability in the software when delivered,
and
the need to fix problems and retest multiple software versions. Delivery
of expected warfighting capabilities to the Marine Corps could be
delayed
by as much as 13 months. Delays of this magnitude could also increase
the
already significant concurrency between testing and aircraft procurement
and result in additional cost growth.�

In addition to delivery deadlines and weapon system capabilities issues,
DOD also faces steep financial burdens related to the F-35 acquisition
effort. For the program to continue as planned, DOD will have to
dedicate
an average of $12.6 billion per year through 2037, with several years
peaking at $15 billion, according to GAO. At $12.6 billion per year, the
F-35 would consume almost one-quarter of DOD’s annual major defense
acquisition funding.

“Annual funding of this magnitude clearly poses long-term affordability
risks given the current fiscal environment,� GAO investigators
concluded.
“The F-35 fleet is estimated to cost around $1 trillion to operate and
support over its lifetime. In a time of austere federal budgets, cost
projections of this magnitude pose significant fiscal challenges.�

DOD plans call for spending $400 billion to develop and acquire 2,457
F-35s — known as the Joint Strike Fighter — through 2037, plus hundreds
of billions of dollars in long-term spending to operate and maintain the
aircraft. The F-35 family of next-generation fighter aircraft will
incorporate stealth technologies, which make it more difficult to be
identified by radar, as well as advanced sensors and computer networking
capabilities. DOD is developing three U.S variants for the Air Force,
Navy and Marine Corps, as well as eight international variants that
will be sold to allies.

The F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin, is DOD’s costliest and most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be nearly 70
percent over budget.

- See more at:
http://fedscoop.com/f-35-joint-strik....lS4foNhR.dpuf



- - -

The Pentagon exists more than just partly to keep officers in uniform
and defense contractors in business. What a fripping this F35 program
is.

This is a Congressional boondoggle! I understand the Pentagon, does not
want this thing. But, Congress people want jobs in their districts.


Generals are pussies who can't say no? Surely the defense contractors
can be retrained to produce useful stuff, like high speed rails and the
high speed trains that run on them.

That's not how it works Harry. Calif Bill is correct. The Defense
Department and Pentagon did not want to continue the F-35's development.

It's Congress that is forcing it.

And we have a high speed rail boondoggle already being pushed here in
California.



Would that be a San Francisco-LA-San Diego high speed train? I'd sure
ride it in preference to the damned airplanes and SD airport.

And how many billions should we pay for the privilege of you being able to
ride this train?


Krause's whole life has been a free ride.

On 4/16/2014 6:41 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 4:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/15/2014 12:01 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 11:50 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter hits more turbulence


Developed by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is DOD’s most expensive
and most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be
nearly
70 percent over budget

Continued software problems related to the Defense Department’s
F-35
Joint Strike Fighter program could lead to delivery delays of
less-capable aircraft at a long-term price tag that may prove
unaffordable, congressional investigators said today.

Developmental testing of software deemed critical to the F-35′s
initial
warfighting capability remains so far behind schedule, the
Marine Corps
may not receive all of the capabilities it expects when it plans to
begin
flying the F-35. In addition, continued delays could push the total
lifecycle cost of the F-35 from its current projected level of
$390.4
billion to an estimated $1 trillion — a figure with which DOD
program
officials disagree.

“Delays in developmental flight testing of the F-35’s critical
software
may hinder delivery of the warfighting capabilities the military
services
expect,� according to a report released today by the Government
Accountability Office. “Challenges in development and testing of
mission
systems software continued through 2013, due largely to delays in
software delivery, limited capability in the software when
delivered,
and
the need to fix problems and retest multiple software versions.
Delivery
of expected warfighting capabilities to the Marine Corps could be
delayed
by as much as 13 months. Delays of this magnitude could also
increase
the
already significant concurrency between testing and aircraft
procurement
and result in additional cost growth.�

In addition to delivery deadlines and weapon system capabilities
issues,
DOD also faces steep financial burdens related to the F-35
acquisition
effort. For the program to continue as planned, DOD will have to
dedicate
an average of $12.6 billion per year through 2037, with several
years
peaking at $15 billion, according to GAO. At $12.6 billion per
year, the
F-35 would consume almost one-quarter of DOD’s annual major defense
acquisition funding.

“Annual funding of this magnitude clearly poses long-term
affordability
risks given the current fiscal environment,� GAO investigators
concluded.
“The F-35 fleet is estimated to cost around $1 trillion to
operate and
support over its lifetime. In a time of austere federal budgets,
cost
projections of this magnitude pose significant fiscal challenges.�

DOD plans call for spending $400 billion to develop and acquire
2,457
F-35s — known as the Joint Strike Fighter — through 2037, plus
hundreds
of billions of dollars in long-term spending to operate and
maintain the
aircraft. The F-35 family of next-generation fighter aircraft will
incorporate stealth technologies, which make it more difficult
to be
identified by radar, as well as advanced sensors and computer
networking
capabilities. DOD is developing three U.S variants for the Air
Force,
Navy and Marine Corps, as well as eight international variants that
will be sold to allies.

The F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin, is DOD’s costliest and most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be
nearly 70
percent over budget.

- See more at:
http://fedscoop.com/f-35-joint-strik....lS4foNhR.dpuf




- - -

The Pentagon exists more than just partly to keep officers in
uniform
and defense contractors in business. What a fripping this F35
program
is.

This is a Congressional boondoggle! I understand the Pentagon,
does not
want this thing. But, Congress people want jobs in their districts.


Generals are pussies who can't say no? Surely the defense contractors
can be retrained to produce useful stuff, like high speed rails
and the
high speed trains that run on them.

That's not how it works Harry. Calif Bill is correct. The Defense
Department and Pentagon did not want to continue the F-35's
development.

It's Congress that is forcing it.

And we have a high speed rail boondoggle already being pushed here in
California.



Would that be a San Francisco-LA-San Diego high speed train? I'd sure
ride it in preference to the damned airplanes and SD airport.

And how many billions should we pay for the privilege of you being
able to
ride this train?


Right, because here in the Top of the Heap U.S.A. it's better to waste
trillions on an oversized military than to provide fast, reliable public
transportation in a heavily traveled corridor.
You amaze me, How can someone with such a large head have such a small
brain?

On 4/16/2014 7:45 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


... that very few would use.

Good argument. Not.



If open land existed between two remote cities and a high speed train
could actually run at 150 to 200 mph for most of the run it might make
sense and people might use it. But we don't have that space in many
places where people would want to travel and the number of stops between
the cities negates the whole allure of high speed train transportation.

One of the most used Amtrak routes are on the northeast corridor. It
still represents a tiny fraction of the traveling public however. It's
not high speed and will never be high speed. Land doesn't exist and
there are too many required stops.

On 4/16/14, 11:42 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:40:58 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

It's at least a six to seven hour drive from LA to SF, and flying,
taking into account the airport bull****, is a two hour misadventure.
A 200 mph train could make the trip in the same two hours, with much
less hassle. But, of course, we don't have high speed trains running
anywhere in Top of the Heap USA. Or even modern airports. Or highways
that aren't falling apart. But, hey, we do spend what, five times more
on the military than the next largest military spending nation. And get
nothing tangible out of it that we wouldn't get by cutting that military
spending in half.

That is almost 500 miles and your "200 MPH' train would be lucky to
average much more than 80-90 if it made a couple of stops.
They can only go that fast when they are far outside of the city.

We are one terror threat away from the train station BS being just
like the airport BS



Is this yet another of your "we can't do anything about that" memes?

I know, I know...we can't have nice things because...the conservatives
don't want them.

I was thinking three stops... SD, LA, SF.

On the East Coast, eminent domain and take over CSX trackage or whoever
else is not repairing it, rebuild it, add to it, and run high speed
trains from DC to Philly to NYC to New Haven to Hartford and to Boston.

Where you live, bring in Amish wagons and horses.