US said to sell Taiwan 66 fighter planes

[Eugene]

US said to sell Taiwan 66 fighter planes

Mon Jul 17, 4:08 AM ET

TAIPEI (AFP) - The United States has agreed to sell Taiwan 66 advanced fighter
jets to counter China's continued arms build-up, it was reported.

A Taiwanese delegation proposed the procurement of the fleet of F-16C/D fighters
during an annual military meeting with Washington early this month, the China
Times said.

<snip>

A Pentagon report last year estimated that China's defense spending was two
to three times the publicly announced figure and that the cross-strait military
balance was tipping in Beijing's favor.

Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060717/wl_afp/taiwanusmilitary

[TomInTib]

1. This is too rich. The Chinese are lending money to the US.

The US is taking these deficit funds and building F-16s and selling them to Taiwan.

[Psephos]

2. F-16s are built by LockheedMartin, not the government

What the government granted was clearance to Taiwan to make the purchase. No US government money is involved. LockheedMartin pays corporate income tax, so some of the proceeds will end up as tax revenue in US Treasury coffers.

If Taiwan couldn't purchase the fighters from the US, it likely would turn to France for Mirage fighters, or even Russia for Sukhoi's or MiG's newest offerings. Hard to see how that would be better in practical terms.

Peace.

[TomInTib]

3. I was not aware that LockheedMartin was not on the receiving end

of taxpayer largesse.

Now THAT's a Great American Corporation. No tax abatements for their facilities and no bloated defense contracts.

My family was the operating arm of Brown&Root for decades. I know who pays for that shit. And it doesn't come from the piggy bank or the shareholders.

ALL of the R&D funding for the F-16 came from Congress. Every cost-overrun dime.

With a sweet guaranteed buy-in.

[Psephos]

4. I agree about corporate welfare to defense contractors

but I don't see how that's relevant to whether or not Taiwan buys F-16s from LockheedMartin or instead buys Mirages or MiGs. BTW, Dussault (maker of the Mirage) and MiG and Sukhoi are heavily government subsidized, too. As is every maker of fighter aircraft of which I'm aware.

Presumably that's because fighter aircraft are used by governments, not civilian customers.

Peace.

[TomInTib]

5. I understand.

But if I am lending money to a party who is working at cross-purposes, I will be pretty pissed off and gleefully usurous.

[Psephos]

6. Excellent point n/t

[Herkdrvr]

7. Actually...

The F-16 was one of the few programs that ran on a tight budget, primarily because it was NOT a favorite of Congress back in the 1970s, and if it did run over-budget, Congress would have killed it. Back in the early 1970s, the USAF didn't even really want the F-16. You can thank the late Col. John Boyd for the F-16...the last fighter that was actually developed the right way.

As for subsidized fighters...it takes government money to develop a modern fighter simply because the technology is so far out there, it's too expensive for a company to develop a fighter on their own budget. Look at Northrop as an example...they poured tons of their own money into the F-20 Tigershark, and despite being a decent lightweight fighter, they didn't sell a single airframe.

If you cut corners in fighter development, you'll wind up with a mediocre product that no one will want. The F-20 was very good, but still nowhere near as good as an F-16 or F-15.

On the flip side...the F-22 program makes me sick...it's amazing how little we are gaining from that program, yet we continue to pour billions into an aircraft that was designed to do one thing...shoot down other airplanes. Yep, al Qaeda has alot of fighter aircraft out there...meanwhile our fleet of tankers is corroding and the C-130 fleet has cracked wings....