Big Al still couldn't afford one of these!

When considering technology upgrades or the lack of, you have to consider the airframes and speed and range of the aircraft its replacing.
The F-35 blows all of them away in that respect.
You can stick a new avionics box in an A-10 but you cant makes its radar signature less than that of a Wal-Mart.

Just a note, I'm not a democrat. Spending 382 Billion (156Million per plane) is OVERKILL. That 40 yr old technology has been upgraded and is currently capable of defending against any current (and reasonably foreseeable) threat.Outside of Reagan's buildup, much of our defense technology hasn't had a major upgrade.

We spend more on defense than the combined defense expenditure of the next 5 closest competitors, and its rationale like above that enable rampant military spending.

Ask yourself this, how much do you spend a year on home security systems? Even include your percentage of local and state police through taxes. Is it more than your house payment or rent? More than your yearly health expenditures (including health insurance and tax subsidies to your local hospital)?

Fact of the matter is that while having a defense that can protect the US is important, the military has been built up far beyond a point that any legitimate threat to the US country would require.No problem with killing the F-35B, don't see a huge need for VTOL fighters anyway. This will save a good chunk of $$$.

AW is right, commonality in logistics and training will save billions in the long run. Also, not sure if you've seen this:

Chinese Stealth Fighter / J-X / J-XX / XXJ / J-12 / J-13 / J-14 / J-20 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-xx.htm)

Also, the last thing you kill is R&D on advanced technology, that's what keeps us safe. We are vastly outnumbered by the Chinese and if we sit back and let them catch us technologically, we are in dire straits. We can have economic issues we need to address, but at the end of the day the thing that secures our freedom is that we've got by far the biggest stick. If we lose that, within a few decades the US will cease to exist as we know it today.

Don't buy the left-wing hype on the defense budget, we are currently spending less than 4% of GDP on defense, and the defense budget creates hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs, in addition to the folks in the military.

You should read this:
U.S. Defense Spending and Budget: The Mismatch Between Spending and Resources | The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/us-defense-spending-the-mismatch-between-plans-and-resources)

The real question that needs to be asked is why the U.S. budget has increased by over 18% in two years under Obama and a Dem controlled Congress. We also need to address the spiraling costs of SS, Medicare, and interest on the debt before we go slashing defense procurement to dangerous levels.

You can stick a new avionics box in an A-10 but you cant makes its radar signature less than that of a Wal-Mart.I don't care how big the radar sig is...the A-10 is just too cool. Nothing like a tank with wings.

from Wikipedia, but you certainly can find other current docs for proof:Also read this:

Military budget of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China)

China is spending approximately 2.5% of GDP on its military build up, which has been very aggressive over the last decade. Also check the table at the bottom of the article for raw numbers on military hardware and troop levels. After reading this, if you think we need to kill the F-35.....you must be a liberal. (think Jeff Foxworthy, LOL).

I don't care how big the radar sig is...the A-10 is just too cool. Nothing like a tank with wings.

150% agree. Not to mention that every dang system is redundant. Take out an engine we got another! Blow the radar system, we got another. The Warthog is Awesome!

To get our budget in line, we need to look at everything, that includes defense, and social services.

I looked at the stats on the Wiki article, but let me ask you this: how are those 8000 tanks getting to our soil (or Japans for that matter).
You want to have concern about Chinese developments, look at their anti aircraft carrier missile development - THAT threatens our regional influence (not our homeland security mind you). Show me a country that is developing a stealth mega-fortress troop carrier that can land 10000+ troops on mexican or canadian soil with no warning, and I will genuinely believe in the need for a full scale replacement of our jet fighter corps but you can't, now or in the next 10 years.

Yes China has advanced stealth fighters (in a few years) but you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech. No where did I say I was against an R&D budget, BUT 2,334 new planes is not an R&D budget, it is a full scale replacement. You do that when the budget is in the black OR when your current equipment is on it's last legs. Ours has proven it's not. (for the record, I was in the military in 1991-1996, no conversation here is meant to demean the soldiers that use our equipment, only the political bosses that spend with reckless abandonment and playing on citizen fears to justify their position)

CRedskinsRule wrote: you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech.

This would imply a conflict with China, which is plausible.
So lets say we have a C-5 and C-17 lifeline to Japan/Korea from Hawaii.
How do we protect them over the ocean?

From SS33's article on Chinese stealth:

Considering China’s records in combat aircraft development, a project like the J-12 may prove challenging. It will involves technology advancement in a number of fields including materials, high-performance aviation engine, electronics, flight control software, and stealth technologies. A project of this scale will also require huge amount of investment and considerable knowledge of complex project and manufacturing management. While China may be able to benefit from some “off-the-shelf” dual-use technologies available in the commercial market, it will almost definitely seek assistance from its traditional military technology suppliers such as Russia and Israel. However, none of these two countries possess the experience of developing an advance fighter of this class.

Brigadier Govinda M. Nair wrote in 2005 that "A stealth fighter, XXJ, equivalent to the US F-22 is likely to be inducted by 2015." According to the PLA's Deputy Commander He Weirong, the Chinese fifth generation fighter was expected to be in service with the PLAAF by 2017-2019. In August 2008, a RAND study raised questions about the ability of US tactical aircraft, including the F-22, to counter large numbers of Chinese aircraft in a Taiwan Strait scenario. Though at that time the F-22 was assumed to be able to shoot down 48 Chinese Flankers when outnumbered 12:1 without loss, this did not take into account less-than-perfect US beyond-visual-range performance, or possible deployment of a new Chinese stealth fighter around 2020 or 2025.

In a speech delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates (Economic Club of Chicago, 16 July 2009), he stated "by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese..."

Seriously, we can't put the production on hiatus for 3 to 4 years, when China (our main theoretical war risk) won't have any until 2020 or after?

CRedskinsRule wrote: you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech.

This would imply a conflict with China, which is plausible.
So lets say we have a C-5 and C-17 lifeline to Japan/Korea from Hawaii.
How do we protect them over the ocean?

Hmmm? how does a stealth fighter with limited range reach our planes over the ocean? Further, see the dogfight expectation and comparable quantities available of fighters. In 2020, they may send their force of 50 valuable fighters to attack a C-5 or C-17 lifeline that is guarded by a United States Carrier battle group or two with electronic surveillance monitoring support from Japanese and US naval bases. Maybe they even down one? maybe, at the expense of their full production run? Is it a war scenario, I suppose. Is it one that we can't reasonably defend against with our current assets and reasonable intelligence data, I doubt it

To get our budget in line, we need to look at everything, that includes defense, and social services.

I looked at the stats on the Wiki article, but let me ask you this: how are those 8000 tanks getting to our soil (or Japans for that matter).
You want to have concern about Chinese developments, look at their anti aircraft carrier missile development - THAT threatens our regional influence (not our homeland security mind you). Show me a country that is developing a stealth mega-fortress troop carrier that can land 10000+ troops on mexican or canadian soil with no warning, and I will genuinely believe in the need for a full scale replacement of our jet fighter corps but you can't, now or in the next 10 years.

Yes China has advanced stealth fighters (in a few years) but you don't fight stealth with upgraded fighters, you fight them with R&D into missile tech. No where did I say I was against an R&D budget, BUT 2,334 new planes is not an R&D budget, it is a full scale replacement. You do that when the budget is in the black OR when your current equipment is on it's last legs. Ours has proven it's not. (for the record, I was in the military in 1991-1996, no conversation here is meant to demean the soldiers that use our equipment, only the political bosses that spend with reckless abandonment and playing on citizen fears to justify their position)

When a country makes a landing on another nation that actually has the means to fight back its never going to be by surprise. Yes we have done so to smaller nations but thats only because they did not have the army to really fight back a landing. Like I said earlier I think we could reduce our spending on the military by just cutting waist.