• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F-35 continues to be an expensive debacle

Deacon923

Deacon923

Scooter Banks
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
11,136
Reaction score
1,052
Location
Greensboro, NC
Rand Corp analysis says it would have been cheaper to develop three separate planes for the AF, Navy and Marines, and research shows that every time the services have tried this one size fits all approach it's been the same story, so the Pentagon should have known better.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/18/how-not-to-buy-the-most-costly-weapon-system-in-the-history-of-the-world/

For some perspective, each of these planes costs about $160,000,000. They plan to buy about 2,400 of them. For the cost of 246 planes (10% of the total planned fleet), we could restore the entire $40,000,000,000 cut to food stamps over the next 10 years that the Republican House passed in September.
 
DeacMan said:
So in addition to being unable to run healthcare projects the government also can't construct planes. What makes you so confident the government can efficiently run food stamps.
Click to expand...

Because giving out money to hungry people is a lot easier than building a $160,000,000 airplane?
 
DeacMan said:
So in addition to being unable to run healthcare projects the government also can't construct planes. What makes you so confident the government can efficiently run food stamps.
Click to expand...

Aren't the planes built by a private sector organization? Lockheed-Martin, IIRC.
 
I think he is referring to the procurement process.

How many military branches was the F-22 developed for?

I agree it would be hard/impossible to develop a single aircraft that meets the specific needs of each branch, but who are the competitors to design and build these aircraft that the article references? You only had three companies submit design proposals for the JSF contract. That was almost 20 years ago. I wonder how many proposals you'd get today.
 
what is the difference between the navy's version and the marines' version?

maybe that's the fucking problem
 
BigEastDeac said:
I think he is referring to the procurement process.

How many military branches was the F-22 developed for?

I agree it would be hard/impossible to develop a single aircraft that meets the specific needs of each branch, but who are the competitors to design and build these aircraft that the article references? You only had three companies submit design proposals for the JSF contract. That was almost 20 years ago. I wonder how many proposals you'd get today.
Click to expand...

f-22 is Air Force only.

The biggies in the US are Lockheed, Boeing, and Northrup Grumman, and have been for 30 years.

One of the problems identified in the article is that Lockheed has the exclusive contract on the F-35, the article speculates that if multiple companies were working on multiple fighter contracts for multiple services it might help keep each of them on their toes (Hey Lockheed, Boeing just said they could build this feature into the plane for the Navy for $1 bazillion, why do you want $2 bazillion?). Not sure I totally buy that but it is a problem that we're totally reliant on one contractor for all three services to be able to fly.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
what is the difference between the navy's version and the marines' version?

maybe that's the fucking problem
Click to expand...

the marines is probably the most expensive and the most f'd up, they required V/STOL take off and landing capability (like the old Harriers) and apparently that system has been an absolute bitch to engineer and has required multiple redesigns, compromises, and decreases in overall capability.
 
i just mean it seems ridiculous that each branch needs to have its own specialized engineered version
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i just mean it seems ridiculous that each branch needs to have its own specialized engineered version
Click to expand...

Not really. Each branch has it's own specialized needs. The way the Air Force, Navy and Marines use fighter aircraft differs significantly. The Air Force and Navy will never find itself landing on a bombed out enemy airfield near the front line. The Navy needs the ability to take off and land on carriers. The Marines needs the ability to vertical take off from the much smaller ships they sail on. The Air Force's needs are the simplest and least complicated. The question isn't whether they need specialized tools for their job. The question is whether each should have been designed separately rather than trying to make a one-size--almost-fits-all solution.
 
Last edited:
Deacon923 said:
the marines is probably the most expensive and the most f'd up, they required V/STOL take off and landing capability (like the old Harriers) and apparently that system has been an absolute bitch to engineer and has required multiple redesigns, compromises, and decreases in overall capability.
Click to expand...
It's also a system Lockheed likely has no prior experience with. They're also about equally inexperienced building carrier based aircraft.
 
RacerDeac said:
Not really. Each branch has it's own specialized needs. The way the Air Force, Navy and Marines use fighter aircraft differs significantly. The Air Force and Navy will never find itself landing on a bombed out enemy airfield near the front line. The Navy needs the ability to take off and land on carriers. The Marines needs the ability to vertical take off from the much smaller ships they sail on. The Air Force's needs are the simplest and least complicated. The question isn't whether they need specialized tools for their job. The question is whether each should have been designed separately rather than trying to make a one-size--almost-fits-all solution.
Click to expand...

i understand the different roles of the branches. i'm saying maybe the military should rethink their air power strategies.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Aren't the planes built by a private sector organization? Lockheed-Martin, IIRC.
Click to expand...
Based on specs provided by the government, in the middle of the politics of 3+ agencies, and under very strict and unbelievably overbearing government compliance rules/reporting. I swear the primary job of government contractors is just to exercise positive compliance (which is impossible) and mitigate completely BS risk, or get hammered over nothing at audit time. When the slightest appearance of fraud is worse than fraud itself.....Houston, we have a problem.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i just mean it seems ridiculous that each branch needs to have its own specialized engineered version
Click to expand...

"And the OGBie for most self-unaware, inadvertent match for avatar to post in boards history goes to...."
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i understand the different roles of the branches. i'm saying maybe the military should rethink their air power strategies.
Click to expand...

Right. All of our entitlement programs are going bankrupt, the schools are failing and we essentially have an open border to the South...and someone is proposing to take the only part of government that has never failed and take it back to the drawing board. Good grief, Charlie Brown.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Right. All of our entitlement programs are going bankrupt, the schools are failing and we essentially have an open border to the South...and someone is proposing to take the only part of government that has never failed and take it back to the drawing board. Good grief, Charlie Brown.
Click to expand...

LOL. Our military has "never failed"? I love it. Someone call and tell the North Koreans/Chinese, Vietnamese, Iraqis, and Al Qaeda that we never failed. Tell the pilots who were passing out when their oxygen failed in their F-22s, too. Don't forget about the Marines and their wives and kids who got poisoned by the water at Camp LeJeune.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top