F-35: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5
I do tend to wonder if the author is on the Boeing or General Dynamics payroll. But at the same time, ignoring negative war games outcomes (or sometimes twisting the results to a positive) seems to be SOP at the Pentagon. Before I joined the military I never would have guessed doe-eyed optimism was a common trait among generals... |
Sometimes it seems like some big brain comes up with what he thinks will be the ultimate tool, goes out and gets someone to build it, and then slants all the results to make him look like a genius when it all falls apart.
Grizzly turrets. Apache helicopters that blow out their own breaker panel when firing to one side. |
I'm going to go out on the limb and say that article is inaccurate, poorly researched, misleading and lacks boobs.
I can't respond to that article during work hours. I have a lot to say about that article, the authors points and the F35 program. Thanks for posting fatBuckRTO. Its a great topic. Bookmarking this thread and to hopefully discuss later. |
Quote:
|
This is going to take a bit. Lot of stuff in this article and I have a few errand to run but I'll start
Quote:
Here is a more recent ESTIMATE (which can go up or down) 2012 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82S03L20120329 2013 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...99F0Q320131016 Quote:
Quote:
HOWEVER its that reason why costs have balloned so much. The F35B is a cock sucking money whore. Quote:
Quote:
wonder where he is going with that one? There is a lot more here where he bitches about the F35B which is going to Marines and The Royal Navy. Yeah it has problems. Yup its pricey. Yup stupid militaries with requirements for jets on small ships. What about the F35A which will be built in greater number? You know...the cheap one. The one with better range and capabilty? What about F35C which has 50% more range than F35B. I'm a little lost here because I'm skimming and I got run out real quick Cost per plane...coming down http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...G02/309280007/ I'll be back |
Do you work for LockMart Owego, Paul?
I dont know a lot about the F35 other than they look pretty badass sitting on the flight line but the Pentagon does have a habit of throwing bad money after good when it comes to large, over due, and over budget programs. Its as if once a program reaches a certain price threshold it cant be killed. |
Damn me and my short term memory. Completely forgot about this thread.
The issue with military contracts is that it takes so long to fill out the paperwork that by the time you finish the first set of docs requesting the docs that initiate a requirements signoff, some lobbyists tells some congressman to hold a committee to test the feasibility of doing something that to the program that benefits the lobbyists sugar daddies. Then the lobbyists hit up generals and generals start pressuring committee members and then committee members start asking generals crap and then Election cycle break where everyone goes on the road and promises crap. In the mean time, $$$ get pulled to go to a program with more muscular lobbyists behind it and then some think tank starts handing out papers saying .... yada yada yada Mission creep magically appears and then rework, renegotiation more funding Then as the years go by, as new weapons system development new threats and countermeasure pop up...you have to figure that in. Then someone complains that you are over budget and spending to much so they cut production numbers which then gets factored into the formula used in cartoons. Total cost\production number = cost per unit So lets say you have a good estimate on program cost and you budget properly. Figure the program is going to take 5-7 years until you begin serious testing. Lets assume no changes in requirements come down. Congress decides they would rather spend money on new Congressional marble bath house with gold covered faucets and velvet covered minorities to serve champagne in honor of Senator X's 15 reelection. So they cut the units ordered from 500 to 150 and then they also cut funding to an alternative engine for the project. Now the unit costs have gone up the wazoo and lobbyists from competing companies, hippies and the like scream WASTE!!! The thing that cost 11 billionty dollars!!! per thing. Then the questions get asked. Why do we need this? What does it do? then someone says "Why can't it do X ? It cost 11 billionty per thingy so it should at least be able to do X!!!" Then the committees happen. Then the threats begin. Then the new requirements come rolling in. Then .... I don't know. I guess I don't know. Maybe sometimes, a manufacturer needs to keep the production lines rolling. So everyone works together to toss em a couple of bucks. Get program A to use a component from district 12 or something. So you figure something out. Sometimes, you overlook stuff in testing because it threatens the contract. (Fix it later...the threat of cancellation early in the program is a lot stronger than when you have billions in supply chain, leases and orders in play. ) I guess I'm not sure. I apologize for the rambling. I'm multitasking too much today |
Coming back in 2020 to say I told you so
|
Lol
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.