Death from above.

[davidsinn]

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/561/f22araptorsb2spiritguam.jpg
They have a combined RCS somewhere in the range of a softball. That, ladies and gentlemen is a Bravo Alpha picture.

[simon]

More like death to social security.

The B-2 Bomber: $50 billion for 22 planes, with the youngest one a decade old.

The F-35 fighter: The US has budgeted $350 billion, the program started 15 years ago and still there isn't a single production one flying.

That's "Billion" with a B.

[PHall]

Those aren't F-35's, they're F-22's. The F-35 is still in early Flight Test.
And the picture is of the south end of the runways at Anderson AFB, Guam where the B-2's and F-22's are deployed.

[A.Member]

More like death to social security.

The B-2 Bomber: $50 billion for 22 planes, with the youngest one a decade old.

The F-35 fighter: The US has budgeted $350 billion, the program started 15 years ago and still there isn't a single production one flying.

That's "Billion" with a B.

Do you have any idea as to the average age of the USAF airframes currently in service?  It's nearly 24 years!

The B-52 currently averages over 45 years!  Think about that.  Then consider it's scheduled to remain in service through 2040! 

One of our front line fighters, the F-15 is 25 years old.  They're seeing fatigue issues:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/10/national/main3697827.shtml

...as is the A-10:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=db80a154-0968-4f3c-ba97-593c0917901c

and the F/A-18:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/10/24/317937/fatigue-cracks-force-fleet-wide-fa-18-inspections.html

You get the point...aging airframes are a problem.

And sorry to burst your bubble but one of the primary responsibilities of the federal government is to provide for a national defense, as opposed to the many social arenas into which it now treads.   On the flip side, it's entirely your responsibility is to plan for your retirement, not the government.

[SarDragon]

On the flip side, it's entirely your responsibility is to plan for your retirement, not the government.

Then I want back everything I've paid into the SS system. Like that's really going to happen.

As long as my money is in there, I have a vested interest in where it's going.

[davidsinn]

More like death to social security.

The B-2 Bomber: $50 billion for 22 planes, with the youngest one a decade old.

The F-35 fighter: The US has budgeted $350 billion, the program started 15 years ago and still there isn't a single production one flying.

That's "Billion" with a B.

I'd rather my money went to that than that black hole that is SS. I will never see a dime of what I've paid in.

[A.Member]

On the flip side, it's entirely your responsibility is to plan for your retirement, not the government.

Then I want back everything I've paid into the SS system. Like that's really going to happen.

As long as my money is in there, I have a vested interest in where it's going.

As do I.  However, if you're depending on the government to support you through retirement, then good luck to you.

While a better job of controlling spending can be done across the board, defense spending isn't the real issue.  Spending on entitlement programs (social security, Medicare, etc.) accounts for somewhere between 10 - 13% GDP - more than twice that of defense spending (again, a task that is actually defined as a primary role of the federal government, as opposed to the others). 

But this discussion is now off-topic.

OP:  Cool pic!

[simon]

Does anyone disagree that the US overpays defense contractors and that the government should not have dipped into the public's social security?

That was my only point.

[jeders]

Tick-tock, tick-tock, wait, is that Mike I see coming to key the lock?