PDA

View Full Version : The Jet That Ate the Pentagon



boatbuddha
05-02-2012, 08:19 AM
Some of us have been complaining about the F-35 for years.


This month, we learned that the Pentagon has increased the price tag for the F-35 by another $289 million -- just the latest in a long string of cost increases -- and that the program is expected to account for a whopping 38 percent of Pentagon procurement for defense programs, assuming its cost will grow no more. ....


If the F-35's performance were spectacular, it might be worth the cost and wait. But it is not. Even if the aircraft lived up to its original specifications -- and it will not -- it would be a huge disappointment. The reason it is such a mediocrity also explains why it is unaffordable and, for years to come, unobtainable.


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_jet_that_ate_the_pentagon?page=0,0

Bob Adams
05-02-2012, 08:25 AM
This should be required viewing!


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/The_Pentagon_Wars.jpg/220px-The_Pentagon_Wars.jpg

boatbuddha
05-02-2012, 08:26 AM
This should be required watching!


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/The_Pentagon_Wars.jpg/220px-The_Pentagon_Wars.jpg


I actually remember that movie.

skuthorp
05-02-2012, 08:31 AM
Is that the on we are waiting for as well? I don't reckon it'll ever go into production myself. Technical obsolescence will overtake it before that if not the unafordability of it.

BrianY
05-02-2012, 08:34 AM
I'm no expert on this stuff, but it seems to me that every time the Pentagon tries to build any kind of 'one size fits all" multi-purpose, multi-branch weapon/vehicle/aircraft, it fails miserably and/or costs several times more than anticipated. Why do they continue to do this and why does Congress continue to fund these boodoggles? I understand that every congressman was to spread jobs around his district and these projects certianly do scatter jobsa ll over the country, but wouldn;t the same thing be achieve by building multiple mission-specific systems at the same time?

This is just crazy.

tigerregis
05-02-2012, 08:35 AM
Big problem up here in Canuckistan too. We'll just have to stick to our Migs.

Paul Pless
05-02-2012, 08:35 AM
Makes these look like a real bargain. . .

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Lockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpg

boatbuddha
05-02-2012, 08:44 AM
I'm no expert on this stuff, but it seems to me that every time the Pentagon tries to build any kind of 'one size fits all" multi-purpose, multi-branch weapon/vehicle/aircraft, it fails miserably and/or costs several times more than anticipated. Why do they continue to do this and why does Congress continue to fund these boodoggles? I understand that every congressman was to spread jobs around his district and these projects certianly do scatter jobsa ll over the country, but wouldn;t the same thing be achieve by building multiple mission-specific systems at the same time?

This is just crazy.


Bingo. Pentagon procurment policy has favored fewer numbers hyper-expensive muli-role units over greater numbers less expensive single role units. It's crazy.

skuthorp
05-02-2012, 08:47 AM
Dont they know you can buy these right out of the box?
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/LEGO-STAR-WARS-X-WING-STAR-FIGHTER-6212-ASSEMBLED-/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/$(KGrHqVHJFYE916-2RLnBPndvR7(1Q~~60_58.JPG

Gerarddm
05-02-2012, 08:59 AM
Yes, the one size fits all, or multi-mission idea, does not work well for ships either.

Simple is good. Look at the Browning M2 .50 machine gun, still bringing truth and justice after 80-plus years.

Paul Pless
05-02-2012, 09:01 AM
simple is good. Look at the browning m2 .50 machine gun, still bringing truth and justice after 80-plus years.

+1


simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

:d

stevebaby
05-02-2012, 09:08 AM
Is that the on we are waiting for as well? I don't reckon it'll ever go into production myself. Technical obsolescence will overtake it before that if not the unafordability of it.Yes, it's the Joint Strike Fighter that we're buying.
"Program issues
Alleged Chinese espionage

In April 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that computer spies, apparently Chinese, had penetrated the database and acquired terabytes of secret information about the fighter possibly compromising its future effectiveness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program

We should just wait a couple of years. By then we'll be able to get Chinese copies off ebay at 1/10 the price and they'll probably throw in free postage to seal the deal.

David W Pratt
05-02-2012, 10:38 AM
An elephant is a mouse designed by the Pentagon

Concordia 33
05-02-2012, 10:48 AM
Some of us have been complaining about the F-35 for years.


This month, we learned that the Pentagon has increased the price tag for the F-35 by another $289 million -- just the latest in a long string of cost increases -- and that the program is expected to account for a whopping 38 percent of Pentagon procurement for defense programs, assuming its cost will grow no more. ....


If the F-35's performance were spectacular, it might be worth the cost and wait. But it is not. Even if the aircraft lived up to its original specifications -- and it will not -- it would be a huge disappointment. The reason it is such a mediocrity also explains why it is unaffordable and, for years to come, unobtainable.


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_jet_that_ate_the_pentagon?page=0,0


Sounds about right. Though I admire the technology and capability of the B2 stealth bomber, I understand it cost about the same to build as an Aircraft Carrier.

Phillip Allen
05-02-2012, 10:55 AM
this is the point of the Military-Industrial complex
Lockheed Martin has been doing this for a long time and their closest rival in the F35 was Boeing. Boeing had never entered the biding for a modern jet fighter. I don't know about probability but it is entirely possible that the only reason Boeing was let into the process was to give legitimacy to the well ensconced Lockheed

BrianW
05-02-2012, 11:05 AM
I'm no expert on this stuff, but it seems to me that every time the Pentagon tries to build any kind of 'one size fits all" multi-purpose, multi-branch weapon/vehicle/aircraft, it fails miserably and/or costs several times more than anticipated.

This one turned out pretty good...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BrianW/Afghanistan%202012/dustyblackhawks.jpg

wardd
05-02-2012, 11:26 AM
I'm no expert on this stuff, but it seems to me that every time the Pentagon tries to build any kind of 'one size fits all" multi-purpose, multi-branch weapon/vehicle/aircraft, it fails miserably and/or costs several times more than anticipated. Why do they continue to do this and why does Congress continue to fund these boodoggles? I understand that every congressman was to spread jobs around his district and these projects certianly do scatter jobsa ll over the country, but wouldn;t the same thing be achieve by building multiple mission-specific systems at the same time?

This is just crazy.

f-111

fishrswim
05-03-2012, 01:22 AM
this is the point of the Military-Industrial complex
Lockheed Martin has been doing this for a long time and their closest rival in the F35 was Boeing. Boeing had never entered the biding for a modern jet fighter. I don't know about probability but it is entirely possible that the only reason Boeing was let into the process was to give legitimacy to the well ensconced Lockheed

Ummm. Well actually, the Boeing Military Aircraft unit is the old McDonnell Douglas military aircraft unit based in St Louis (F-18) and they have a long history in that business. BTW the Lockheed Martin unit is the old General Dynamics Military aircraft unit that developed and sold the F-16 worldwide.

Phillip Allen
05-03-2012, 01:25 AM
Ummm. Well actually, the Boeing Military Aircraft unit is the old McDonnell Douglas military aircraft unit based in St Louis (F-18) and they have a long history in that business. BTW the Lockheed Martin unit is the old General Dynamics Military aircraft unit that developed and sold the F-16 worldwide.

the purchase by Boeing of MD was part of that whole deal... MD lost the early bidding and Boeing got the final cut down to two... it was AFTER that that Boeing bought MD, I believe...

skuthorp
05-03-2012, 03:02 AM
I note that our Defense Minister has said that 'acquisition of new aircraft (the JSF) will be delayed for two years as a saving measure' Oh yes, spin again. Of course it won't be bl**dy ready, and probably not then. What's a MIG worth these days anyhow?

PeterSibley
05-03-2012, 03:17 AM
Yes, it's the Joint Strike Fighter that we're buying.
"Program issues
Alleged Chinese espionage

In April 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that computer spies, apparently Chinese, had penetrated the database and acquired terabytes of secret information about the fighter possibly compromising its future effectiveness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program

We should just wait a couple of years. By then we'll be able to get Chinese copies off ebay at 1/10 the price and they'll probably throw in free postage to seal the deal.

China should have the equivalent ready just in time for the outbreak of US Chinese hostilities .

Not good. The MIC may end up being the US's worst enemy

skuthorp
05-03-2012, 03:21 AM
From a business profit point of view the MIC would make more money just building the stuff they know about, R&D costs a bomb don't you know.

Ron Williamson
05-03-2012, 05:26 AM
Perhaps,but they get pretty good money up front for the new,shiny stuff.
R

dredbob
05-03-2012, 08:46 PM
Anybody remember the A-12?

LeeG
05-03-2012, 10:06 PM
Not sure of the accuracy in this statement. Is 8million lines of code a lot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35#Program_cost_increases_and_further_delays


The Center for Defense Information estimated that the program would be restructured with an additional year of delay and $5 billion in additional costs.[72] On 5 November 2010, the Block 1 software flew for the first time on BF-4 which included information fusion and initial weapons-release capability.[73] As of the end of 2010, only 15% of the software remains to be written, but this includes the most difficult sections such as data fusion.[74] But in 2011 it was revealed that only 50% of the eight million lines of code had actually been written and that it would take another six years and 110 additional software engineers in order to complete the software for this new schedule.[75]

skuthorp
05-04-2012, 04:09 AM
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb29/steppinontoes/funnies/flying-pig.jpg