|
C'mon, Finn. That's not my point at all. My response was about why we might need to replace the assets, not engage in the debate about "worthwhile social pograms."
Of course, if you want to go down that road, you'd also have to read the rest of the article, which talks about how the Air Force is retro-fitting some of its fleet where it will provide bang for the buck, so that they can maximize the usefullness of current assets so those assets can "multi-task." The Air Force is upgrading the newer F-16's in their inventory because the more recent production designs reflect upgrades that support how the F-16 is being used today, which is a bit different that the missions it was expected to support when it was originally introduced.
At the end of the day, due to creative upgrading and utiliztion, as well as top-notch maintennce and support, aircraft that was designed in the late 1960's and initially deployed in the mid 1970's (the F-15 and the F-16) will continue to be deployed until 2025 (F-16) and beyond (F-15). This will far exceed the aircraft's original expected shelf life, providing petty decent ROI, an allowing for a more gradual and cost effective phase - in of newer assets like the F-35....
...all of which will help stretch the taxpayer dollar to help buy grandma more health care...
|