In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Four hundred BILLION bucks for a boat anchor
bpost
Member Posts: 32,669 ✭✭✭✭
This and Illegal's flooding our nation are real good examples of our government working to better itself at your expense. [:(!]
The Pentagon's embattled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter continues to be plagued with so many problems that it can't even pass the most basic requirements needed to fly in combat, despite soaring roughly $170 billion over budget.
As the most expensive weapons program in the Pentagon's history, the $400 billion and counting F-35 is supposed to be unlike any other fighter jet-with high-tech computer capabilities that can identify a combatant plane at warp speed. However, major design flaws and test failures have placed the program under serious scrutiny for years-with auditors constantly questioning whether the jet will ever actually get off the ground, no matter how much money is thrown at it.
Last year, military officials faulted contractors for all of the mistakes. Contractors claimed they had corrected the issues and that there wouldn't be more costly problems down the road.
During an interview on 60 Minutes, Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, who is in charge of the program, said, "Long gone is the time when we will continue to pay for mistake after mistake after mistake. Lockheed Martin doesn't get paid their profit unless each and every airplane meets each station on time with the right quality."
However, a new progress report from the Defense Department casts serious doubts on the progress of the program.
The DOD's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation cites everything from computer system malfunctions to flaws with its basic design-it even found that the jet is vulnerable to engine fires because of the way it's built.
A separate report from Military.com unearthed another embarrassing issue with the jet that suggests it won't take off on time.
The "precision-guided Small Diameter Bomb II doesn't even fit on the Marine's version of the jet," according to Military.com. On top of that, the software needed to operate the top close-air support bomb won't even be operational until 2022, inspectors said.
The Defense Department's report also suggested that the program's office isn't accurately recording the jet's problems.
"Not all failures are counted in the calculation of mean flight hours between reliability events, but all flight hours are counted, and hence component and aircraft reliability are reported higher than if all of the failures were counted," the report said.
The Project on Government Accountability summed up the report in an independent analysis, concluding that the program isn't realistically going to meet its goal of being operational for the Marines by this summer.
"The F-35 is years away from being ready for initial operational capability. To send this airplane on a combat deployment, or to declare it ready to be sent, as early as the Marines' 2015 or the Air Force's 2016 IOC dates, is a politically driven and irresponsible mistake. DOT&E's report shows that the current plans for the F-35A and B should be rejected as unrealistic. Without meaningful oversight from the Department of Defense or Congress, however, these IOC declarations will go unchallenged," POGO said on its website.
While more problems with the program are identified, the costs keep climbing.
Last year alone, the JSF was $4 billion over budget, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office. At the same time, the program was scaled back to include fewer jets. The GAO noted the Pentagon was spending more for less.
The Pentagon's embattled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter continues to be plagued with so many problems that it can't even pass the most basic requirements needed to fly in combat, despite soaring roughly $170 billion over budget.
As the most expensive weapons program in the Pentagon's history, the $400 billion and counting F-35 is supposed to be unlike any other fighter jet-with high-tech computer capabilities that can identify a combatant plane at warp speed. However, major design flaws and test failures have placed the program under serious scrutiny for years-with auditors constantly questioning whether the jet will ever actually get off the ground, no matter how much money is thrown at it.
Last year, military officials faulted contractors for all of the mistakes. Contractors claimed they had corrected the issues and that there wouldn't be more costly problems down the road.
During an interview on 60 Minutes, Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, who is in charge of the program, said, "Long gone is the time when we will continue to pay for mistake after mistake after mistake. Lockheed Martin doesn't get paid their profit unless each and every airplane meets each station on time with the right quality."
However, a new progress report from the Defense Department casts serious doubts on the progress of the program.
The DOD's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation cites everything from computer system malfunctions to flaws with its basic design-it even found that the jet is vulnerable to engine fires because of the way it's built.
A separate report from Military.com unearthed another embarrassing issue with the jet that suggests it won't take off on time.
The "precision-guided Small Diameter Bomb II doesn't even fit on the Marine's version of the jet," according to Military.com. On top of that, the software needed to operate the top close-air support bomb won't even be operational until 2022, inspectors said.
The Defense Department's report also suggested that the program's office isn't accurately recording the jet's problems.
"Not all failures are counted in the calculation of mean flight hours between reliability events, but all flight hours are counted, and hence component and aircraft reliability are reported higher than if all of the failures were counted," the report said.
The Project on Government Accountability summed up the report in an independent analysis, concluding that the program isn't realistically going to meet its goal of being operational for the Marines by this summer.
"The F-35 is years away from being ready for initial operational capability. To send this airplane on a combat deployment, or to declare it ready to be sent, as early as the Marines' 2015 or the Air Force's 2016 IOC dates, is a politically driven and irresponsible mistake. DOT&E's report shows that the current plans for the F-35A and B should be rejected as unrealistic. Without meaningful oversight from the Department of Defense or Congress, however, these IOC declarations will go unchallenged," POGO said on its website.
While more problems with the program are identified, the costs keep climbing.
Last year alone, the JSF was $4 billion over budget, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office. At the same time, the program was scaled back to include fewer jets. The GAO noted the Pentagon was spending more for less.
Comments
20 years from now. We will be giving these away to rouge regimes for cannon fodder. Or mineral rights for Exxon/Mobil.
Its your tax bill![:o)]
They've spread the suppliers out all over creation, so there's too many lawmakers with skin in the game.
The Small Diameter Bomb was never intended to be on the VTOL (marine) version of the plane until 2022, nor was the software supposed to be operational until that time. There is a project timeline for that sort of thing. And yes the project has some issues but it is an incredibly complex machine. One of my friends is an Engineer on the avionics package.
The B36 is another good example.
The AF is always at the heart of some boondoggle.
The B36 is another good example.
So was the short lived B 47...
I don't get why the Marines got their own version, I don't get why the Marine Corps is in aviation, period, but their own JSF really muddied the water.
I can at least say, I have toured the facility and it was first rate.
http://forums.GunBroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=602159&SearchTerms=jsf
The government is no more competent in buying aircraft than they are at balancing a budget.
Blaming the manufacturer for the product is kind of like blaming the tax payer for the national debt.
Too many players are gone from the aviation field, either folded, merged with other companies, or no longer a supplier to the US military;
Makes sense to me...Then again,"THEY" say the A-10 Warthog is no longer any good...I bet U good $$ their are A LOT of Marines that would disagree with that!!
I'm not a Marine... Never was in the military.
And I KNOW the A-10 is a damned good aircraft.
Maybe not as technically inclined as these new fangled $400 BILLION dollar jobs.
But still a damned fine aircraft!
BuyING a state of the art war bird isn't exactly like buying a new car.
I don't get why the Marines got their own version, I don't get why the Marine Corps is in aviation, period, but their own JSF really muddied the water.
The Joint designation is supposed to indicate that all branches can equally benefit from a common platform. That is certainly a very lofty goal as each has very different needs and definitely complicates the overall program.
quote:Originally posted by Dave W.
BuyING a state of the art war bird isn't exactly like buying a new car.
I don't get why the Marines got their own version, I don't get why the Marine Corps is in aviation, period, but their own JSF really muddied the water.
The Joint designation is supposed to indicate that all branches can equally benefit from a common platform. That is certainly a very lofty goal as each has very different needs and definitely complicates the overall program.
They tried this before with the "TFX" program back in the 60's and that was damn near a disaster. The Air Force was eventually able to use the F-111 but the Navy's "B" version was canned. These one size fit's all aircraft rarely work out.
The AF is always at the heart of some boondoggle.
The B36 is another good example.
It makes me think of the B-2 bomber that crashed on Guam and was a total loss...$1.4 billion.
Cause of the accident? Instead of being inside a hanger, the plane was left out in a heavy rain, which let water get into its delicate control surface electronics and disable them.
Basically: The thing sat outside, got wet and then it crashed.
I am going to guess that Navy and Marine Corps jets are probably water tight. If not, they can likely tolerate a few hours of sitting in the rain while out on an aircraft carrier deck.
Just writing that out ought to illustrate the Quixotic nature of the quest.
quote:Originally posted by Dave W.
BuyING a state of the art war bird isn't exactly like buying a new car.
I don't get why the Marines got their own version, I don't get why the Marine Corps is in aviation, period, but their own JSF really muddied the water.
The Joint designation is supposed to indicate that all branches can equally benefit from a common platform. That is certainly a very lofty goal as each has very different needs and definitely complicates the overall program.
That is exactly why the JSF was developed. If one platform is adopted, substantial savings would be realized.
The last time a platform was shared was over 40 years ago: McDonnell Douglass F-4.
The first JSF was on paper over 15 years ago, before 9,11. That means AF, ARMY, and USMC Chiefs of Staff/Commandant as well as service secretaries have changed many times, thus it is logical requirements have as changed well.
I can't think of any weapons system that was not developed without problems. Even small arms. IE: Cracking slides on M9s and Jamming M16s highlighted in RVN.
I don't get why the Marines got their own version, I don't get why the Marine Corps is in aviation, period, but their own JSF really muddied the water.
Close Air Support
Build new A10's. Modernize and upgrade as necessary, but start from the best danged idea in agile, combat tough, long loiter time close air support and armor busting anybody ever came up with.
Politicians and Defense Contractors wouldn't make all the kick backs and such if they did that!
Build new A10's. Modernize and upgrade as necessary, but start from the best danged idea in agile, combat tough, long loiter time close air support and armor busting anybody ever came up with.
Yeah, a couple of guys (rednecks most likely) saw a huge "minigun" and said "Hey lets build a plane around it, and make it impossible to shoot down"
Would LOVE to have fully functional A10 AND be able to afford to play with it.
F35 is a pie in the sky, money pit that was never intended to be a viable war bird
But they turned out to be pretty good. So did the Blackhawk. I have faith in American engineering, and I'm pretty sure that if we throw another 200 or 400 billion dollars at this they'll come off the line pretty good. Eventually.
I do think, though, that by the time they're really good and effective and such we'll be doing everything with drones. You can buy a whole lot of drones for each $200 million JSF, and if you lose a $10,000,000 drone, well that's just a drop in the bucket.
It does blow my mind that the military wants a $200 million airplane to drop a $600,000 smartbomb on a guy carrying a 1940's assault rifle with 12 bullets in the magazine.
Couple that with borderline retardation with our "ejumacated leaders" and is it any wonder we find ourselves in this fix.
We, in this country, no longer have the manufacturing base to avoid a situation like this. We basically have only 3 companies that can build military fixed wing airframes;
Boeing
Lockheed Martin
Northrop Grumman
That's it, all the others have either gone out of business, no longer build aircraft, or have been swallowed up by the aforementioned companies. Gone are the days where American manufacturing could field a dozen airframes within a decade. Sure, not all were successful, and only a handful ever made it. But now it takes anywhere from 12 -20 years to get one aircraft from drawing board to IOC (if we're lucky).