6 stitches = $800

[Zipper]

There is no way the EU is going to sell jets to Iran. The Europeans detest them as much as we do. Germany and the U.K. would never allow it.

China won't bite the hands that feeds it. They have more economic leverage against the west.

 

[Nords]

Lets just say one nightmare sceanario is that Europe starts selling advanced fighters and other advanced military hardware to China. China has lots of cash and has shown a willingness to beef up it's military for the Taiwan show-down.

I think the EP-3 incident in 2000 proves that China has some of the world's most dangerous pilots.

At aircraft control, anyway. I have no idea if they understand how to use targeting radar or missiles...

 

[Sheryl]

And that's what happened to me.  I would have never dreamed I would have these health issues in my early 50's.  It is very humbling. 

Ditto.

 

[HFWR]

No major problems here, just slowly falling apart...

 

[Texas Proud]

Lets just say one nightmare sceanario is that Europe starts selling advanced fighters and other advanced military hardware to China. China has lots of cash and has shown a willingness to beef up it's military for the Taiwan show-down.

Another sceanrio is one of advanced fighters and equipment to Iran.

Both of these countries have lots of cash and a mindset to deter the US.

They don't have to threaten the US directly. They just have to make an engagement lots more painful and the outcome much less certain to pursue their objectives.

First.. I doubt very seriously that they would sell them to these countries... I do not know how much 'better' it will be than our current planes.. but doubt it will be that much better.. the newer planes are more for radar evading than any performance increase (from what I read)...

And finally.. in today's world.. you do not need that much of a better plane... but better missles.. in an air war today (if one actually happened).. the enemy would be destroyed without the pilot ever seeing them.. long range missles!!!

So, again... I do not see a need for new fighters..

OH.. and as an FYI... what was the 'better' bombing system in the Iraq war in the 90s The B-52.. a 40 to 50 yo design..

 

[lets-retire]

Who is going to buy the new fighter? I don't know, and if I did I wouldn't be sitting making the peanuts I do. The French do not have our best interests in mind, they have their own. I can't fault them for that, but I don't trust them either. Remember they were a primary violator of the Food for Oil scam program.

I saw specs on the fighter being developed in an article about scraping the F-22 a while back. It is a better all around aircraft than our older fighters but not as good as the F-22. I agree that many times it will be a one shot one kill type of aerial fight. Do we want to be up there with a loud and very visible aircraft or something that quieter and more stealthy? The winner will most likely be the one who sees the enemy first. It has been proved many times that the technology isn't always the deciding factor in a fight. In this case since were are delving into stealth technology I think it might be a little different.

When the Iraqi soldiers were asked what they feared the most it was the B-52. In the first Iraq War this aircraft was used in areas that had little civilian population. It was used as a traditional carpet bombing aircraft. I have no doubt the B-52 would not be used in a urban environment. It can be used in a higher threat area. If it is, you will see the number of our aircraft being shot down skyrocket. The high threat areas are struck by stealthy B-2's and F-117's and unmanned vehicles.

Each aircraft has a role. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter. Ask any military strategist, who knows what they are talking about, and you will see that taking and holding the high ground in paramount to a successful operation. That is all the fighters are designed to do. If we do not have the technology to accomplish this task then the rest of the spending on the military is wasted money. Ask any grunt, when they are in trouble who do they call for. It isn't more ground pounders. It is artillery, helicopters, fighters, and missiles.

 

[astromeria]

The French do not have our best interests in mind, they have their own. I can't fault them for that, but I don't trust them either. Remember they were a primary violator of the Food for Oil scam program.

I have to chuckle (ruefully). According to the report produced by the independent inquiry headed by Paul Volker, ilicit sales of iraqi oil--with the tacit consent of the US--provided nearly 10 times as much income to the Saddam Hussein regime as the Oil for Food program:
http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/faq.aspx

If you want to worry about violating agreements, how about the Geneva Conventions--one of the most important accomplishments of human beings in the 20th century, IMO.

If we don't keep the best interests of the French in mind, why do you expect them to do that for us? You must think very highly of the French to hold them to a higher standard!

 

[lets-retire]

Sorry to disappoint, but if you've read my posts you should have been able to figure out that I think we need to take care of ourselves first.  If we give everything and have nothing to look out for ourselves then we won't be able to help anybody for long.  We do not have anybody but our own best interests in mind.  Just as the French have their interests in mind.  If others join then they will have some of their interests looked after by the group, otherwise they are on their own.  Look at everything the government does.  It is a give and take relationship for all countries involved.  Our country does not do anything without the expectation of some type of return.

 

[Texas Proud]

Who is going to buy the new fighter?  I don't know, and if I did I wouldn't be sitting making the peanuts I do.  The French do not have our best interests in mind, they have their own.  I can't fault them for that, but I don't trust them either.  Remember they were a primary violator of the Food for Oil scam program. 

I saw specs on the fighter being developed in an article about scraping the F-22 a while back.  It is a better all around aircraft than our older fighters but not as good as the F-22.  I agree that many times it will be a one shot one kill type of aerial fight.  Do we want to be up there with a loud and very visible aircraft or something that quieter and more stealthy?  The winner will most likely be the one who sees the enemy first.  It has been proved many times that the technology isn't always the deciding factor in a fight.  In this case since were are delving into stealth technology I think it might be a little different.

When the Iraqi soldiers were asked what they feared the most it was the B-52.  In the first Iraq War this aircraft was used in areas that had little civilian population.  It was used as a traditional carpet bombing aircraft.  I have no doubt the B-52 would not be used in a urban environment.  It can be used in a higher threat area.  If it is, you will see the number of our aircraft being shot down skyrocket.  The high threat areas are struck by stealthy B-2's and F-117's and unmanned vehicles. 

Each aircraft has a role.  The F-22 is an air superiority fighter.  Ask any military strategist, who knows what they are talking about, and you will see that taking and holding the high ground in paramount to a successful operation.  That is all the fighters are designed to do.  If we do not have the technology to accomplish this task then the rest of the spending on the military is wasted money.  Ask any grunt, when they are in trouble who do they call for.  It isn't more ground pounders. It is artillery, helicopters, fighters, and missiles.

I don't disagree... but we have those AWACs up there that can keep track of the plane taxiing at the airport... we also have some of the best radar jamming equipment around..

Also, and I could be very wrong in this... the B-52 can drop smart bombs just like the other planes... it is just that we do not drop that many when we want to bomb something...

 

[lets-retire]

Also, and I could be very wrong in this... the B-52 can drop smart bombs just like the other planes...  it is just that we do not drop that many when we want to bomb something...

I think you are correct about the bombs.  The problem is most of the cities will have some sort of air defense system.  The B-52 has a radar signature of, well a B-52.  It is easily seen and shot down if there are no escort fighters, to act as blockers.  That is why it is cheaper and safer to buy and fly the F-117 and the B-2, less support aircraft and personnel.  The F-22 will be able to sneak up on whatever enemy we have at the time and destroy fighters both on the ground (not the primary role), before they are scrambled as well as in the air (primary role).  As was stated earlier, in the future it will most likely be the first to shoot will be the one coming home.

The AWACS looks at things in the air. But we do have a J-STAR aircraft that looks down, so I get your point. There are more ways to hit a target than radar guided missiles, but again I understand your point. I'm sure there will be other developments in targeting systems soon that render these types obsolete.

 

[eridanus]

I put a kitchen knife into one of my fingers by mistake, and six stitches (plus one x-ray) later, I get an ER bill for $800. Thankfully my co-pay is only $50. But how does anyone live without health insurance these days?

I did the same - 6 stitches and an x-ray. My bill was $2000. Insurance cut it to...$1700, of which I'm responsible for all of it. Methinks the HSA PPO plan is bunk.

 

[lets-retire]

Was that a cut on you hand?!?

 

[BarbaraAnne]

We just got our new insurance information from DH's company and noticed that Emergency Room copay is now deductible plus 10% of the cost of the emergency room charges.  Our deductible is $2000 per person.

It used to be a $50 copay...

Another way, besides premiums, that insurance is getting more expensive...

 

[eridanus]

Was that a cut on you hand?!?

Yes. It was in-network and the insurance company is national and well-known.

I pay out-of-pocket for my primary physician visits and paid for some PT therapy I had last year due to a sports injury. Those bills seem fair. It galls me that I'm paying $85 for one (!) vicodin pill, even after insurance.

 

[lets-retire]

Wow! My wife went in the other day after having a seizure and knocking herself senseless. She received a three inch cut above her eye and had the thing super glued. She had a CT scan, x-rays, goooood drugs, had to stay for observation and consultation with a neurologist, IV's, EEG, an ambulance ride, and I'm sure a few things I forgot. The bill came to just over 7,000. I like my doctor a lot better than yours. Mine has reasonable fees.

 

[eridanus]

Wow! My wife went in the other day after having a seizure and knocking herself senseless. She received a three inch cut above her eye and had the thing super glued. She had a CT scan, x-rays, goooood drugs, had to stay for observation and consultation with a neurologist, IV's, EEG, an ambulance ride, and I'm sure a few things I forgot. The bill came to just over 7,000. I like my doctor a lot better than yours. Mine has reasonable fees.

You got your money's worth.

It's not really what the hospital charges that's important. It's what the insurance company is letting them charge. Yeah, I've been ripped a new one.