Trump's Tariff Threat Turned Out To Be A Farce

34 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Kind of my point. Military spending is over half our yearly budget while our roads, bridges, transportation, schools, and healthcare needs go to pot. Sadly I don’t see it changing anytime soon. Too many big players in the war business.

While our defense budget is definitely out of the control, this is not entirely correct.  The 2019 Federal budget is 4.746 trillion, while Department of Defense budget is 576 billion.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789

19 minutes ago, dfelt said:

If we took a balanced budget and lived within that budget like we did under Clinton in the 90's and reduced Defense around the world and spent that money from Foreign bases we really do not need to US Infrastructure we would be stronger and better off for it.

This is US military spending vs GDP, it seems we are spending now not much more than during Clinton era

Comments like these are why we cannot talk politics. People take things personal.. real quick. 

20 minutes ago, dfelt said:

If we took a balanced budget and lived within that budget like we did under Clinton in the 90's and reduced Defense around the world and spent that money from Foreign bases we really do not need to US Infrastructure we would be stronger and better off for it.

Our unbalanced budget seems so out of control I don't even know how we get it in line.. It seems like a perfect and extremely obvious idea but I, personally, have no clue how it gets fixed. 

15 minutes ago, ykX said:

While our defense budget is definitely out of the control, this is not entirely correct.  The 2019 Federal budget is 4.746 trillion, while Department of Defense budget is 576 billion.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789

This is US military spending vs GDP, it seems we are spending now not much more than during Clinton era

You are technically correct and I should have clarified my point a bit. Half of that budget is toward social security. When it comes to discretionary spending though, we have this. 

12 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Comments like these are why we cannot talk politics. People take things personal.. real quick. 

Our unbalanced budget seems so out of control I don't even know how we get it in line.. It seems like a perfect and extremely obvious idea but I, personally, have no clue how it gets fixed. 

GTFO with that. My pointing that out has no bearing on ones ability to discuss politics. I can discuss it all day long. I have for decades now. I discussed the many failings of Obama back on the old MT threads and caught hell for it from the ultra liberal crowd but at least they still tried to discuss it. Here, however, it seems to be Trump supporters who are incapable of debating a damn thing that dares to point out flaws in Trumps policies. Those folks say they don’t want to discuss yet continually troll the subject with snarky remarks and pointless down votes. I will not apologize for pointing that out when I have been about as unbiased in the political realm as I can possibly be. Democrat or Republican, I have criticized them both. 

Oh and before one comments on my down vote remarks, at least understand that when I down vote, I try to back it up with a post explaining the down vote. 

For the record, I agree with your budget remark. That’s why I pointed out the huge problem with said budget. It’s beyond out of hand. 

19 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Comments like these are why we cannot talk politics. People take things personal.. real quick. 

Our unbalanced budget seems so out of control I don't even know how we get it in line.. It seems like a perfect and extremely obvious idea but I, personally, have no clue how it gets fixed. 

And I’m guessing posts like these two have no bearing on the ability to have a political discussion? What’s that they say about glass houses? 

53 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Kind of my point. Military spending is over half our yearly budget while our roads, bridges, transportation, schools, and healthcare needs go to pot. Sadly I don’t see it changing anytime soon. Too many big players in the war business.

 

Oh and while we do need to address the piggy bank situation, we should also address so much of our money being in our peoples piggy banks (like China and Japan, two of our biggest debt holders). It certainly goes both ways.

 

@ocnblu-Debate the facts you seem in such a rush to down vote. It’s not that hard really. Or maybe it’s because you can’t really debate the facts. Who knows because you’ve never said. 

Trillion dollar deficits are certainly not doing us any favors.  And yes, there are rational conservatives. Had dinner at a  great Italian place with my friend Andy last night...he is an NRA instructor and a very politically conservative guy. But he deals in facts and reality...

22 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Comments like these are why we cannot talk politics. People take things personal.. real quick. 

Our unbalanced budget seems so out of control I don't even know how we get it in line.. It seems like a perfect and extremely obvious idea but I, personally, have no clue how it gets fixed. 

Tax increases and cuts to the military and various programs. We have sold the country out with huge deficits for 60 years, time to pay the piper.

27 minutes ago, ykX said:

While our defense budget is definitely out of the control, this is not entirely correct.  The 2019 Federal budget is 4.746 trillion, while Department of Defense budget is 576 billion.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789

This is US military spending vs GDP, it seems we are spending now not much more than during Clinton era

The military still needs serious cuts though.

43 minutes ago, dfelt said:

So True, the 1% of War machine could care less about the rest of the country. We are spending Billions protecting Arab Oil going to countries we see as Enemies, aka China, North Korea, and Russia. Why are we paying for this oil protection and not the Arabs?

If we took a balanced budget and lived within that budget like we did under Clinton in the 90's and reduced Defense around the world and spent that money from Foreign bases we really do not need to US Infrastructure we would be stronger and better off for it.

101 of basic investing is to pay yourself first, then your bills. Invest in oneself makes one stronger and not open to manipulation. Currently the US is on track to be a Debtor nation not a 1st world super power.

Stopping foreign aid is the first step to making ourselves whole.

12 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Tax increases and cuts to the military and various programs. We have sold the country out with huge deficits for 60 years, time to pay the piper.

I know but my point is it is easier said than done. The military employs millions of people and we can't just cut all of those jobs with nowhere for them to go.

I agree and disagree at the same time. 

31 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

GTFO with that.

No. ?

Ask yourselves this: how did infrastructure do under balanced budget Clinton? Everything glass smooth & crack free? 

Of course not! And your answer as to why is simple: Gov’t was involved. 

The ‘answer’ is NOT what percentage of the budget goes where. Again; big picture. People talk about the fiscal future of federal healthcare but you never hear a whisper about Medicare fraud running 100 billion annually in fraud. I’ve paid attention to some local infrastructure projects, the costs are always astronomical. Why? Again it’s simple; the people approving these projects are Gov’t pencil pushers who do not care how much of your money gets spent. In fact, many of them wear huge project price tags as a BADGE OF HONOR.

How do you get local, state & fed spending & budgets under control? Fire everyone & start over. Take the last budgets approved & cut them by 2% on every renewal. Strike down the entire system that encourages municipalities to spend every dime they have to avoid a budget cut next year & instead incentivize cost cutting/ savings measures. 

Theres a ton of incremental, healing methods that would strength future fiscal health, but almost no one is willing to enact them because the atmosphere is so toxified.

23 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I know but my point is it is easier said than done. The military employs millions of people and we can't just cut all of those jobs with nowhere for them to go.

Sadly job cuts are a reality and this sucks, but you have to do tough cuts especially when the Military says they do not want it, but a political house rep forces them to keep spending 100's of millions on thousands of stored tanks.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/

Then the military is ignored by someone keeping their ass in congress and wasting millions.

There are more than 2000 M1 Abram tanks parked in the California high desert.

https://www.cagw.org/content/tanking-taxpayers

These tanks are getting new computers, refurbished, keeping a few thousand employed keeping something the Military has stated is useless and not wanted all for a few jobs and keeping a defense contractor going when their time is over.

To CIRCLE this back to this topic, Tariffs are the same thing, there is a time and place for products to be built locally and to be sent to other countries where they can be built cheaply. A blanket Tariff war with a statement of bringing jobs back to America, Making America Great Again, etc. is useless in this educated society. The days of our Industrial Revolution are over as are use of Coal and other harmful products when we created better forms and ways of doing things. Tanks are a DEAD Product, time to recycle them rather than waste money on them. Companies come and go, not to be protected by idiot politicians.

We should be protecting relevant technology we create such as Solar: Russell Ohl was the first inventor, who created the silicon solar cell in 1941. in 1954, the three American researchers Gerald Pearson, Calvin Fuller and Daryl Chapin were able to create a solar panel that could the had the efficiency level of 6% with direct sunlight.

Instead, we allowed China to come in with cheaper poorer quality products and take over the industry. This is the failure of both GOP and Democrats who FAILED to protect our young industry at a time when it was needed. This is where China should have had Tariffs applied, now we only pretty much have China as a supplier. That is AMERICA's FAULT!

Tariffs can and should be used to protect starting industry especially when we invested so much money in creating it rather than let it be stolen and undersold by other countries.

Wait- I thought tariffs never worked?

Just now, balthazar said:

One could argue solar power is a dead, money-flushing industry. And although pushed as a way to ‘end foreign oil dependancy’, Gov’t once again failed by allowing power generation infrastructure at the ground level to be controlled by foreign corporations. Same issue, different master.

or; same problem via same Gov’t.

One could argue that... and be wrong.   I work in the energy sector.   While there is some foreign ownership of power generation, most of it is US or Canadian.  The distribution of energy is also US run, if anything with too much domestic government interference, but that is the fallout of the Enron scandal 

Relative to dfelt’s post: where are solar panels almost all made? This was supposed to be national level priority but politicians did nothing to make it that way.

3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

One could argue that... and be wrong

3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

While there is some foreign ownership

Balthazar did not say ALL.  ANY is too much.

1 minute ago, balthazar said:

Relative to dfelt’s post: where are solar panels almost all made? This was supposed to be national level priority but politicians did nothing to make it that way.

Trump did put tariffs on solar panels though. 

21 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Sadly job cuts are a reality and this sucks, but you have to do tough cuts especially when the Military says they do not want it, but a political house rep forces them to keep spending 100's of millions on thousands of stored tanks.

Just for the record, I'm not saying it doesn't need to be cut back. I was just stating it isn't easy to just flip a switch and have all of those people out of jobs(I know it wouldn't be a 100% job cut). 

3 hours ago, ocnblu said:

LOL after all the anti-Trump posts in random (not even a whiff of "political" anywhere else) threads are left up on the boards after being reported?  Riiiiight...

What was it you said?  

Oh yeah...I remember...

But before I get slammed...

I want you folks to understand something

17 hours ago, daves87rs said:

but their are times when an epic troll is needed.... ? 

I do requests...

11 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Wait- I thought tariffs never worked?

Correct, I do not believe they do work, but then in our discussion and thinking about the Solar Industry, I could change my thinking in regards to protecting our intellectual right in making sure what we designed and thought up survives here in the country.

At this point it is probably a lost cause just like how Tesla has lost out on producing Solar Cells locally compared to China or Japan.

I think this also comes down to holding onto the tech one creates rather than selling out to the highest bidder a few years later for a payday.

Asians have always thought of the long game.

39 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Ask yourselves this: how did infrastructure do under balanced budget Clinton? Everything glass smooth & crack free? 

Of course not! And your answer as to why is simple: Gov’t was involved. 

The ‘answer’ is NOT what percentage of the budget goes where. Again; big picture. People talk about the fiscal future of federal healthcare but you never hear a whisper about Medicare fraud running 100 billion annually in fraud. I’ve paid attention to some local infrastructure projects, the costs are always astronomical. Why? Again it’s simple; the people approving these projects are Gov’t pencil pushers who do not care how much of your money gets spent. In fact, many of them wear huge project price tags as a BADGE OF HONOR.

How do you get local, state & fed spending & budgets under control? Fire everyone & start over. Take the last budgets approved & cut them by 2% on every renewal. Strike down the entire system that encourages municipalities to spend every dime they have to avoid a budget cut next year & instead incentivize cost cutting/ savings measures. 

Theres a ton of incremental, healing methods that would strength future fiscal health, but almost no one is willing to enact them because the atmosphere is so toxified.

Funny you should bring up Bill. While he had his flaws, he actually helped spearhead increased spending on infrastructure, all while dealing with a GOP majority congress. 

“Roads and bridges, airports and seaports, highways and canals are all critical parts of a country’s infrastructure. Without them, goods and services cannot move efficiently, raising costs for consumers and dramatically limiting the potential for growth. The Clinton administration recognized this and sought to increase investments in these areas. In 1992 federal spending on transportation infrastructure totaled $40.9 billion, in inflation-adjusted 2000 dollars. By the year 2000, the last year of President Clinton’s term, that total was up 15 percent to nearly $47 billion.”

Source:

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2011/10/28/10405/power-of-progressive-economics-the-clinton-years/

9 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Trump did put tariffs on solar panels though. 

That totally misses the point. National energy production should be nationalized as much as is prudent/ possible.

And for all Bill Clinton’s flaws, he was probably the last president that was able to work across the aisle and negotiate with both parties. Our current president can’t even negotiate with his own party. Example? The Saudi Arabia arms deal that the GOP wants to stop but Trump wants to push through. Obama also had issues with his own party but they seem to be much worse now under Trump. There just simply is no bipartisanship anymore. 

1 minute ago, balthazar said:

That totally misses the point. National energy production should be nationalized as much as is prudent/ possible.

That’s a bit socialist don’t you think?

9 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Just for the record, I'm not saying it doesn't need to be cut back. I was just stating it isn't easy to just flip a switch and have all of those people out of jobs(I know it wouldn't be a 100% job cut). 

There is an Idea, inform them that their job will change from one of maintenance and refurbishment to one of Recycling with an end date knowing the Tank, production and maintenance will come to an end. Giving the business a chance to change its business model, have the employees recycle the tanks and bring that era to a close and hopefully the business is able to figure out another form of business such as lite attack vehicles. Or they could become a major recycling company for old outdated military gear.

1 minute ago, balthazar said:

That totally misses the point. National energy production should be nationalized as much as is prudent/ possible.

Do you mean government run or just American owned? 

5 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Bill.... actually helped spearhead increased spending on infrastructure, all while dealing with a GOP majority congress. 

It should not simply be about dollar amount but efficient, cost-effective use of precious dollars. 

3 minutes ago, balthazar said:

That totally misses the point. National energy production should be nationalized as much as is prudent/ possible.

I am gonna say No to the National Socialist thing of energy production and yes to they use American made products.

1 minute ago, surreal1272 said:

That’s a bit socialist don’t you think?

Only if national defense is socialist

3 minutes ago, dfelt said:

There is an Idea, inform that their job will change from one of maintenance and refurbishment to one of Recycling with an end date knowing the Tank, production and maintenance will come to an end. Giving the business a chance to change its business model, have the employees recycle the tanks and bring that era to a close and hopefully the business is able to figure out another form of business such as lite attack vehicles. Or they could become a major recycling company for old outdated military gear.

I think it is a bit early to recycle the Abrams fleet while our opponents increasing substantially their armored forces.  Abrams proved that it is far from obsolete and we still might (and I think most definitely) will require it in the future.  It is much easier to maintain and upgrade than to build something from scratch, especially if you need something like a tank in a big hurry.

8 minutes ago, balthazar said:

It should not simply be about dollar amount but efficient, cost-effective use of precious dollars. 

Not disagreeing with that but you asked “what about Bill?” And I merely offered the evidence that he at least tried. Implementation is a whole other matter. 

12 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Do you mean government run or just American owned? 

American owned. God forbid Gov’t run!!

3 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Not disagreeing with that but you asked “what about Bill?” And I merely offered the evidence that he at least tried. Implementation is a whole other matter. 

Trying is good but Implementation is the only measure by which we move forward.

4 minutes ago, balthazar said:

American owned. God forbid Gov’t run!!

Trying is good but Implementation is the only measure by which we move forward.

Again, not disagreeing there. At least Bill saw the need for it and got some increases to it done. 

13 minutes ago, ykX said:

I think it is a bit early to recycle the Abrams fleet while our opponents increasing substantially their armored forces.  Abrams proved that it is far from obsolete and we still might (and I think most definitely) will require it in the future.  It is much easier to maintain and upgrade than to build something from scratch, especially if you need something like a tank in a big hurry.

I've thought the same thing about the airforce fleet.  Why can't we build new A-10s and B-52 with upgraded electronics and engines?  Copy/Paste the airframe design and then build the modern stuff in.

It's gotta be easier to design a specific use engine for a new B-52 than design a whole new bomber.  And the B-52s are still proving their value today... they can be sky based "Aircraft Carriers" for a bunch of drones and never get within weapons range distance of their targets. 

13 minutes ago, balthazar said:

American owned. God forbid Gov’t run!!

Trying is good but Implementation is the only measure by which we move forward.

I’m thinking the use of the term “nationalized” is what brought on that question. 

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I've thought the same thing about the airforce fleet.  Why can't we build new A-10s and B-52 with upgraded electronics and engines?  Copy/Paste the airframe design and then build the modern stuff in.

It's gotta be easier to design a specific use engine for a new B-52 than design a whole new bomber.  And the B-52s are still proving their value today... they can be sky based "Aircraft Carriers" for a bunch of drones and never get within weapons range distance of their targets. 

If I am not mistaken B-52s are scheduled to fly till 2050.  Pretty amazing if you ask me.

Just now, ykX said:

If I am not mistaken B-52s are scheduled to fly till 2050.  Pretty amazing if you ask me.

Indeed I saw that. That's a very robust airframe considering no replacements are being built. 

6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I've thought the same thing about the airforce fleet.  Why can't we build new A-10s and B-52 with upgraded electronics and engines?  Copy/Paste the airframe design and then build the modern stuff in.

The Airforce and Navy actually do that very same thing you mentioned.

On select aircraft and ships.

I dont remember when was the last update on the B-52.

I dont know enough about the A10

But I guarantee you the F-15, F16 and F18 all went through several updates.

The F16 is still being used.

The F18 and F15 will both be retired as the F35 is supposedly taking both of their place. 

The F15 has been many many times updated in its close to 50 (or perhaps even surpassing) year service. 

6 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

The Airforce and Navy actually do that very same thing you mentioned.

On select aircraft and ships.

I dont remember when was the last update on the B-52.

I dont know enough about the A10

But I guarantee you the F-15, F16 and F18 all went through several updates.

The F16 is still being used.

The F18 and F15 will both be retired as the F35 is supposedly taking both of their place. 

The F15 has been many many times updated in its close to 50 (or perhaps even surpassing) year service. 

The F35 program is a perfect example of budgets run amok. Every year, the cost were and continue to skyrocket past the original budget numbers for it. 

Hornet on the left. Super Hornet on the right.

Obviously with new electronics, radars and stuff.

6 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

The Airforce and Navy actually do that very same thing you mentioned.

On select aircraft and ships.

I dont remember when was the last update on the B-52.

I dont know enough about the A10

But I guarantee you the F-15, F16 and F18 all went through several updates.

The F16 is still being used.

The F18 and F15 will both be retired as the F35 is supposedly taking both of their place. 

The F15 has been many many times updated in its close to 50 (or perhaps even surpassing) year service. 

Yeah, I know they upgrade the old ones, but instead of spending a trillion dollars on the new F35, why not build new F16s and F18s with upgraded engines etc?  They're not building any new B-52s.... I'm saying they should be. Just reuse the old design for the airframe (since it was apparently so good) and upgrade the engines and electronics. 

Same idea as the fact that Boeing still builds 737, but upgrades them in various ways. 

Just now, surreal1272 said:

The F35 program is a perfect example of budgets run amok. Every year, the cost were and continue to skyrocket past the original budget numbers for it. 

Yup...

And its such a shytty aircraft.

Then you got NATO countries, like Canada, who were supposed to buy said POS aircraft for a certain price tag, because it was a joint effort to engineer and build it, but these countries, like Canada, saw that the F35 is truly a POS aircraft and now want nothing to do with it. Pissing of the American government.

But then again, even the US Air Force wants nothing to do with this POS aircraft...but they kinda stuck with it...

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Yeah, I know they upgrade the old ones, but instead of spending a trillion dollars on the new F35, why not build new F16s and F18s with upgraded engines etc? 

I'd assume it's because building a newly designed aircraft is much more profitable to defense contractors and the politicians they own. 

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Yeah, I know they upgrade the old ones, but instead of spending a trillion dollars on the new F35, why not build new F16s and F18s with upgraded engines etc?  They're not building any new B-52s.... I'm saying they should be. Just reuse the old design for the airframe (since it was apparently so good) and upgrade the engines and electronics. 

Same idea as the fact that Boeing still builds 737, but upgrades them in various ways. 

How well are those updates working for them right (referring to the 737s)? Maybe not the best example lol. 

The B-52s have seen numerous updates over the years because they are simply indispensable tools that continue to prove their worth. On a side note, my dad was an instructor on the B-52s back in the 60s. He knew every part of that plane down to the last rivet. His speciality with them was electrical. 

2 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

I'd assume it's because building a newly designed aircraft is much more profitable to defense contractors and the politicians they own. 

4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Yeah, I know they upgrade the old ones, but instead of spending a trillion dollars on the new F35, why not build new F16s and F18s with upgraded engines etc?  They're not building any new B-52s.... I'm saying they should be. Just reuse the old design for the airframe (since it was apparently so good) and upgrade the engines and electronics. 

Because F35 is supposed to give much better capabilities, something F16 or F18 upgrade is not capable to do it.  Stealth is one of them.

F35 is immensely complex project,  much more than most people realize.  It looks like a disaster now, but I think eventually it will be one of the greatest planes in the world.  Most likely the last manned one too.

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Yeah, I know they upgrade the old ones, but instead of spending a trillion dollars on the new F35, why not build new F16s and F18s with upgraded engines etc?  They're not building any new B-52s.... I'm saying they should be. Just reuse the old design for the airframe (since it was apparently so good) and upgrade the engines and electronics. 

Same idea as the fact that Boeing still builds 737, but upgrades them in various ways. 

Several reasons.

1. Technology advances.  More maneuverable aircraft maybe need going faster, higher, climbing steeper and faster and the older airframes might not be able to cope with all those stresses.

2. A huge airplane like the F22 actually has a smaller radar signature than what those older airplanes show on radar.

3. You said it yourself.  Sometimes its really about the money. The big money that is given to the military and defense budgets so these companies could crank out...military toys.

a) because those military toys are really and trully neede

b) sometimes its just to keep people working...

c) sometimes its just to enrich the people behind those huge military contracts

Just now, surreal1272 said:

How well are those updates working for them right (referring to the 737s)? Maybe not the best example lol. 

 

The B-52s have seen numerous updates over the years because they are simply indispensable tools that continue to prove their worth. On a side note, my dad was an instructor on the B-52s back in the 60s. He knew every part of that plane down to the last rivet. His speciality with them was electrical. 

The 737 Max issue was human error in terms of making optional a safety feature that should have been standard. 

I'm sure the B-52s have seen a lot of updates.... but like I mentioned, they're not building new ones. 

One of the things that Trump scrapped was the replacement for the KC Tankers.  It was going to cost some ungodly amount to replace them with a new design when the current ones work perfectly fine and the AF likes them.    Why not build new ones of the same design then?

1 minute ago, ykX said:

F35 is immensely complex project,

Too complex.   Maybe for nothing...

2 minutes ago, ykX said:

Because F35 is supposed to give much better capabilities

supposedly...

Even the US Airforce has no faith in it...

2 minutes ago, ykX said:

something F16 or F18 upgrade is not capable to do it. 

This is true...

Although the F16 was designed with stealth in mind.  It was the beginnings of stealth production in fighter jets. 

The F16 also has crazy maneuverability.   I believe it to be the first fighter in history to have fly by wire tech.  Meaning, the avionics systems are computer controlled.  A human could not control the F16 at its highest potential...

The F18 was never really that good of an aircraft either. But it did serve the US well.   Thanx in part to the rest of the US Airforce's and US Navy's other supportive aircraft. 

9 minutes ago, ykX said:

It looks like a disaster now, but I think eventually it will be one of the greatest planes in the world.

Not likely. 

The F16 and the F15...YES!!!

NOT the F35.  It was nearly scrapped even...

10 minutes ago, ykX said:

Most likely the last manned one too.

Yes. The F35 and whatever other aircraft the Russians and the Europeans and the Chinese will bring out in the next 10-15 years to rival the F35 will probably be the last human  flown military airplane. 

Like I said, If Im not mistaken, the F16 started the path to computer controlled avionics. 

3 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Even the US Airforce has no faith in it...

It seems pilots that actually fly it have a different opinion.

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/

11 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The 737 Max issue was human error in terms of making optional a safety feature that should have been standard. 

There is a lot more wrong with it...

Boeing execs knew about certain problems...

https://www.plant.ca/general/boeing-made-mistake-in-handling-max-737-warning-system-problem-ceo-184448/

Quote

 

The US Federal Aviation Administration has faulted Boeing for not telling regulators for more than a year that a safety indicator in the cockpit of the top-selling plane didn’t work as intended.

Boeing and the FAA have said the warning light wasn’t critical for flight safety.

It is not clear whether either crash could have been prevented if the cockpit alert had been working properly. Boeing says all its planes, including the Max, give pilots all the flight information – including speed, altitude and engine performance – that they need to fly safely.

But the botched communication has eroded trust in Boeing as the company struggles to rebound from the passenger jet crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia.

“We clearly had a mistake in the implementation of the alert,” Muilenburg said.

 

Im am vindicated...since some members in here did not want to believe me when the 2nd crash happened...

and there maybe more to come...as investigations about Boeing's cover-up are on-going...

7 minutes ago, ykX said:

It seems pilots that actually fly it have a different opinion.

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-most-critical-test-180971734/

Thanx.  Ill read it later.

I ALWAYS appreciate reading about airplanes!!!

You'd think I'd have a greater interest in aircraft; my father is a retired mechanical/aerospace engineer for the Department of the Navy / Jet Propulsion Lab. Last engine project he worked on was the F35's engines.

2 hours ago, ykX said:

Because F35 is supposed to give much better capabilities, something F16 or F18 upgrade is not capable to do it.  Stealth is one of them.

F35 is immensely complex project,  much more than most people realize.  It looks like a disaster now, but I think eventually it will be one of the greatest planes in the world.  Most likely the last manned one too.

I’m sure it will be, at almost triple the initial cost estimate. 

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The 737 Max issue was human error in terms of making optional a safety feature that should have been standard. 

I'm sure the B-52s have seen a lot of updates.... but like I mentioned, they're not building new ones. 

One of the things that Trump scrapped was the replacement for the KC Tankers.  It was going to cost some ungodly amount to replace them with a new design when the current ones work perfectly fine and the AF likes them.    Why not build new ones of the same design then?

The Boeing 737 was a Boeing error. This is already been established. Boeing screwed up big time. 

Regarding the B-52, yes they aren’t building anymore. Maybe they should because past attempts to replace with garbage like the B1 Bomber have been failures. The B-52 is a rare case of “if ain’t broke, don’t fix it” (or try to replace it). All that money wasted to replace could have been rerouted towards making more and making than even better.