Costliest Jet, Years in Making, Sees the Enemy: Budget Cuts

Gerald · 11-29-12, 12:25 PM

Vice Adm. David Venlet was named to lead the Joint Strike Fighter program in 2010 after problems had left it behind schedule and over budget.

Quote:

LEXINGTON PARK, Md. — The Marine version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, already more than a decade in the making, was facing a crucial question: Could the jet, which can soar well past the speed of sound, land at sea like a helicopter?

Quote:

On an October day last year, with Lt. Col. Fred Schenk at the controls, the plane glided toward a ship off the Atlantic coast and then, its engine rotating straight down, descended gently to the deck at seven feet a second.

There were cheers from the ship’s crew members, who “were all shaking my hands and smiling,” Colonel Schenk recalled.

Quote:

The smooth landing helped save that model and breathed new life into http://www.jsf.mil/ , the most expensive weapons system in military history. But while Pentagon officials now say that the program is making progress, it begins its 12th year in development years behind schedule, troubled with technological flaws and facing concerns about its relatively short flight range as possible threats grow from Asia.

Advanced costs, $154 million per unit (F-35 )

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us...t-risk.html?hp

Note: November 28, 2012

Gerald · 11-29-12, 01:29 PM

Very interesting topic,OP must have spent time on this, it really shows,

Herr-Berbunch · 11-29-12, 01:47 PM

Unjustifiable costs, scrap it buy a Chinese rip-off of it for a third of the price.

Or some decent aircraft.

Gerald · 11-29-12, 02:05 PM

But we also talk about quality.

Oberon · 11-29-12, 02:47 PM

We (the Lolwaffles) had a big old talk about the F-35 a while back. It's a damn fine piece of kit, top notch stuff...but the price makes its deployment viability restrictive. You would only send it into missions where you could guarantee that it wouldn't get shot at, which defeats the entire point of a war machine. In the end, you're probably better with the latest version of the F-18, but that would mean that we'd have to completely redesign our carriers, which would mean that we would probably wind up not being able to afford even a single one.

Come to think of it, didn't the Enterprise get decommed a while ago?

Gerald · 11-29-12, 02:50 PM

Yes,she is scheduled to be deactivated on 1 December 2012.

Oberon · 11-29-12, 03:06 PM

We could do worse than put forward an offer for her. Then we could snap up some F-18s at a fraction of the price of the F-35s and that would do us well for all that we need out of Andrews airforce for the time being.

EDIT: Not that I am complaining that we are building very modern and effective warships, nor am I complaining about the employment that the construction of these vessels makes. I look forward to seeing the QEII carriers, and I hope we are able to afford both of them. Unfortunately it's the continued rising costs of the procurement of weaponry for our armed forces that forces us to decide between having two very effective, modern carriers or six well armed and capable carriers. An example I keep coming back to is the example of the German Panzers vs the American Shermans, one Panzer commander once said "We could kill four or five of your Shermans for each one of our Panzers, unfortunately, you always brought six" Quantity sometimes has a Quality of its own. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but when one unit costs so much, and can be taken down by a unit which costs a LOT less, then financial logic dictates that the army with the more expensive equipment is going to run out first.

Takeda Shingen · 11-29-12, 03:17 PM

Ugh. The JSF program has been a perfect example of what is wrong with modern defense contracting. After all is said and done we end up with a plane that is marginally more effective than it's predecessors and yet so expensive that, as Oberon alluded to, we can't afford to actually risk them in combat.

Stealhead · 11-29-12, 03:18 PM

Lockheed Martin trying to please its share holders. What was it that President Eisenhower warned about in that speech that one time.....

Oh right the military industrial complex!

Defense is one thing a nation needs it but what we have is just too much and it costs too much money.You should have the most effective fighting force not the most costly.If anything having the most costly is a hindrance.The problem is there is so much money to be made and it is not hard to get a pet project going.

11-29-12, 01:29 PM	#2
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	Very interesting topic,OP must have spent time on this, it really shows, __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

11-29-12, 01:47 PM	#3
Herr-Berbunch Kaiser Bill's batman Join Date: May 2010 Location: AN72 Posts: 13,203 Downloads: 76 Uploads: 0	Unjustifiable costs, scrap it buy a Chinese rip-off of it for a third of the price. Or some decent aircraft. __________________

11-29-12, 02:05 PM	#4
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	But we also talk about quality. __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

11-29-12, 02:50 PM	#6
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	Yes,she is scheduled to be deactivated on 1 December 2012. __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

11-29-12, 02:47 PM	#5
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	We (the Lolwaffles) had a big old talk about the F-35 a while back. It's a damn fine piece of kit, top notch stuff...but the price makes its deployment viability restrictive. You would only send it into missions where you could guarantee that it wouldn't get shot at, which defeats the entire point of a war machine. In the end, you're probably better with the latest version of the F-18, but that would mean that we'd have to completely redesign our carriers, which would mean that we would probably wind up not being able to afford even a single one. Come to think of it, didn't the Enterprise get decommed a while ago?

11-29-12, 03:06 PM	#7
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	We could do worse than put forward an offer for her. Then we could snap up some F-18s at a fraction of the price of the F-35s and that would do us well for all that we need out of Andrews airforce for the time being. EDIT: Not that I am complaining that we are building very modern and effective warships, nor am I complaining about the employment that the construction of these vessels makes. I look forward to seeing the QEII carriers, and I hope we are able to afford both of them. Unfortunately it's the continued rising costs of the procurement of weaponry for our armed forces that forces us to decide between having two very effective, modern carriers or six well armed and capable carriers. An example I keep coming back to is the example of the German Panzers vs the American Shermans, one Panzer commander once said "We could kill four or five of your Shermans for each one of our Panzers, unfortunately, you always brought six" Quantity sometimes has a Quality of its own. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but when one unit costs so much, and can be taken down by a unit which costs a LOT less, then financial logic dictates that the army with the more expensive equipment is going to run out first.

11-29-12, 03:17 PM	#8
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	Ugh. The JSF program has been a perfect example of what is wrong with modern defense contracting. After all is said and done we end up with a plane that is marginally more effective than it's predecessors and yet so expensive that, as Oberon alluded to, we can't afford to actually risk them in combat.

11-29-12, 03:18 PM	#9
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Lockheed Martin trying to please its share holders. What was it that President Eisenhower warned about in that speech that one time..... Oh right the military industrial complex! Defense is one thing a nation needs it but what we have is just too much and it costs too much money.You should have the most effective fighting force not the most costly.If anything having the most costly is a hindrance.The problem is there is so much money to be made and it is not hard to get a pet project going.