Flying Pig

Navy1960

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2008
5,821
1,322
48
Arizona
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program -- already the most expensive defense acquisition program in U.S. history -- just got even more costly, to the tune of $771 million.

The Pentagon informed the Senate Armed Services Committee Monday that the first 28 production models of the F-35, some of the world's most technologically advanced fighters developed by defense contracting giant Lockheed Martin, were going to cost the additional three quarters of a $1 billion, and the government will be picking up part of the tab.
Lockheed Martin F-35 Fighters to Cost Another $771 M - ABC News

Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. House of Representatives today passed a $662 billion defense bill that seeks to control rising costs of the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 jet, the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program.

The bill, endorsed by negotiators from the House and Senate on Dec. 12, also mandates that members of al-Qaeda be placed in military detention and includes a provision passed by the Senate to impose sanctions on Iran’s central bank. The House passed the defense authorization act 283-136.

The Senate is expected to vote on the bill this week before it goes to President Barack Obama for his signature. The defense authorization act sets military policy and spending targets for fiscal year 2012, which started Oct. 1.

The negotiators agreed to a provision that directs the Pentagon, in a forthcoming sixth F-35 production contract, to place greater risk on Lockheed Martin to absorb overruns.

If costs exceed a negotiated target, the company would absorb the entire amount instead of splitting the increase with the U.S. government. The U.S. is negotiating the fifth contract for the F-35. At $382 billion, the F-35 is the Pentagon’s largest weapons program.
U.S. House Passes $662 Billion Defense Bill Headed for Senate - Businessweek

First let's get a few things out of the way here, one thing is that the F-25 program has become a deep well in which Lockheed Martin has been drinking from for a long long time. The other thing here is that while there is a need to replace the F-16, F15, and the long retired F14 and AV8, this aircraft performance wise, cost wise, and in terms of it's long term survivability is not it. If people wonder why our nation is in such a hole financially one need only look at the 110 Billion dollars in the recent budget for Afghanistan and Iraq and the years we have spent there as well as this program here as an example of how Govt. not only spends money in an unwise manner but they also are delivering a substandard product to the warfighter.



Most theoreticians of aerial warfare believe that quantity triumphs over quality: moderately advanced jets with highly trained pilots will generally beat a smaller number of ultra-advanced jets. But the military-industrial complex looks for profits rather than battlefield advantages.
Israeli News: F-35: Great junk is still junk


Whats realliy interesting about this aircraft is that originally it was sold as a low cost stealth aircraft that would be a common platform across all services. With cost orverruns and a massive over reach on the part of Lockheed Martin this aircraft has become close in cost to the F22 per unit and is no where near it in terms of performance. So again, when our Govt. complains about debt and spending, keep in mind that more often than not there is a reason other than just the old folks getting Social Secuirty that causes such things.
 
An incredible boondoggle. Almost as bad as the B2 nonsense. Money wise it is far bigger but they might actually have a use if they are ever built. The B2 though is a total waste of time and money.
 
The F-16IN Super Viper is a unique new fighter sharing a heritage with the world’s only fifth generation fighters – the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22 Raptor. Evolutionary integration of fifth generation technologies makes the F-16IN the most advanced fourth generation fighter in the world today. This ultimate fourth generation fighter is tailored exclusively to meet or exceed all of India’s Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) requirements.
F-16IN Super Viper | Defence Aviation

Same Radar, Same Helmet Cue system, low signature, with supercruise at half the cost of the the F35 and well you guessed right it's no longer in consideration by India or the USAF why you ask? because Lockheed is now offering the F35. Forgive me here, but I've heard these sort of thing before from contractors and the DOD when it came to aircraft and that resulted in the F4 with no guns for air to air combat. While it may sound like I am not a fan of the F35, my feelings are rather numb on the subject, perhaps for a USAF mission this aircraft might fit the bill, but in my humble opinion the Navy would have been off developing a thrust vectored version of the F18 with a helmet cue system and stealth coatings. It already has the AESA radar and the E/F model is faster than the F35 and if for example you added supercruise this aircraft would be far superior than anything in the skies. So when I hear about how much our debt us out of control and I see this sort of nonsense which I have seen for years go on, I tend to shake my head.
 
An incredible boondoggle. Almost as bad as the B2 nonsense. Money wise it is far bigger but they might actually have a use if they are ever built. The B2 though is a total waste of time and money.

While a beautiful aircraft in terms of its design and engineering, the sheer cost of this aircraft at 2.1 Billion dollars an aircraft make it so expensive that the very loss of one of them which happened in Guam makes them useless. Many people would ask the question why? when such a statement is made and the answer is very simple. the B2 is so expensive that replacing it is more akin to rebuilding a new destroyer for the Navy if one sinks.

Total cost of the First Arleigh Burke Destroyer, USS Arleigh Burke DDG-51 1.1 Billion Dollars

Total Cost of B-2 Stealth bomber 2.1 Billion Dollars
 
These projects get $ into campaign coffers of the districts where they're produced. Until Citizens United is overturned, I don't see too much happening given the size of these mega- corps at the taxpayer- financed trough.
 
Don't misunderstand me I think it's very important that the military have the best systems we can produce and it should be done in a manner that benefits not only the contractor but the warfighter and the American people. These programs that tend are 21 years in R&D before they even deliver a single aircraft into operational service and have cost billions are and should be reformed. If we as a nation can produce and launch a man to the moon in less time that it has taken to deliver an operational F35 then that should give someone some pause. These programs need to be run on a fixed cost and time senstitive basis and be OPEN to competition and all over-runs paid for by the contractor. When this happens a few things will result, one is those that have no business in delivering the right tools to the warfighter will be out of the business of doing so, and the other is the American taxpayer will stop funding these wells of money.
 
An incredible boondoggle. Almost as bad as the B2 nonsense. Money wise it is far bigger but they might actually have a use if they are ever built. The B2 though is a total waste of time and money.

While a beautiful aircraft in terms of its design and engineering, the sheer cost of this aircraft at 2.1 Billion dollars an aircraft make it so expensive that the very loss of one of them which happened in Guam makes them useless. Many people would ask the question why? when such a statement is made and the answer is very simple. the B2 is so expensive that replacing it is more akin to rebuilding a new destroyer for the Navy if one sinks.

Total cost of the First Arleigh Burke Destroyer, USS Arleigh Burke DDG-51 1.1 Billion Dollars

Total Cost of B-2 Stealth bomber 2.1 Billion Dollars

It really is mnd boggling when you figure that 15 years ago a Virginia class nuclear attack sub cost about $1 billion and today is in the range of $2 billion, it does seem way beyond credibiity that they spend more than that on one war plane.
 
The per-unit cost has gotten way out of hand and they have questionable applicability in the asymetric warfare of late. The aging air frames have to be replaced, yes, but w/ something w/ a price-tag in the realm of mere mortals.
 
Last edited:
While the aircraft of today are magnitudes more complex, one still has to remember that the base plane that the P-51 was based on was 157 days from inception to the first one flying.

The kind of nonsense that is going on with the F35 is not only counterproductive, but is a detriment to our national security.
 
An incredible boondoggle. Almost as bad as the B2 nonsense. Money wise it is far bigger but they might actually have a use if they are ever built. The B2 though is a total waste of time and money.

While a beautiful aircraft in terms of its design and engineering, the sheer cost of this aircraft at 2.1 Billion dollars an aircraft make it so expensive that the very loss of one of them which happened in Guam makes them useless. Many people would ask the question why? when such a statement is made and the answer is very simple. the B2 is so expensive that replacing it is more akin to rebuilding a new destroyer for the Navy if one sinks.

Total cost of the First Arleigh Burke Destroyer, USS Arleigh Burke DDG-51 1.1 Billion Dollars

Total Cost of B-2 Stealth bomber 2.1 Billion Dollars




Yep. You look at the capability of a Tico or AB class, and they don't run the risk of being knocked out of the sky by a freakin bird!
 
While the aircraft of today are magnitudes more complex, one still has to remember that the base plane that the P-51 was based on was 157 days from inception to the first one flying.

The kind of nonsense that is going on with the F35 is not only counterproductive, but is a detriment to our national security.




You're forgetting the two years worth of aerodynamic research that Curtiss had allready done for the P-46 that NAA bought to give them a headstart on the project. The aircraft had allready been pretty much designed. What NAA did that was remarkable, was the design and setting up of the production line to make it.
 
Its understood that these aircraft are more complext but here is a little bit more perspective.

F-18 Super Hornet Unit Cost 68 Million per Aircraft

F18 Spec.
The single-seat F/A-18E and two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets carry over the name and design concept of the original F/A-18, but have been extensively redesigned. The Super Hornet has a new, 25% larger airframe, larger rectangular air intakes, more powerful GE F414 engines based on F/A-18's F404, and upgraded avionics suite. Like the Marine Corps' F/A-18D, the Navy's F/A-18F carries a Naval Flight Officer as a second crewman in a Weapons Systems Officer (WSO) role. The Super Hornet aircraft is in production and has equipped 22 squadrons.


F35 Unit Cost


304.15 Million per aircraft

As you can see there is a LOT of room in there for adding such things as Supercruise which the F35 does not have to the F18. so then it begs the question, is this program more of a way to keep the F35 going even though service needs are better met somewhere else.
 
F22 Cost 339 Million per aircraft- What I find as really interesting here is the F22 out performs the the F35 in every single catagory. Whats interesting is the F22 has not seen one single combat sortie since it became operational and the reasoning behind producing so few of them is because the aircraft cost to much and the initial reason for building the F35 was as a low cost alternative. As you can see the F35 is pretty darn close to the F22 , so again have we replaced one aircraft with an under-performing one if that is the case?
 
Just heard this today on a local Washington area broadcast. Drones will play a key role, some armed and some not, in the future. their costs and the fact that 10's - 100's of thousands of $ don't have to be spent on training pilots makes them an inevitability (this show however highlighted civil liberty concerns when used domestically):
Eyes in Sky: Drones on the Homefront | The Kojo Nnamdi Show
Eyes in Sky: Drones on the Homefront
 
Just heard this today on a local Washington area broadcast. Drones will play a key role, some armed and some not, in the future. their costs and the fact that 10's - 100's of thousands of $ don't have to be spent on training pilots makes them an inevitability (this show however highlighted civil liberty concerns when used domestically):
Eyes in Sky: Drones on the Homefront | The Kojo Nnamdi Show
Eyes in Sky: Drones on the Homefront

A military cargo plane from the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station was damaged when an unmanned drone crashed into it during an Afghanistan mission last month, officials have confirmed.

The C-130 Hercules transport plane, assigned to the 914th Airlift Wing of the Air Force, had to make an emergency landing after it was struck by the drone on Aug. 15, authorities said.
Military Cargo Plane Struck by Drone

Dot Com. I think many would be very surprised by the large increase in the number of UAV's and UCAV's in the US Military as well as civilian agencies like the border patrol and even the Houston Police Department testing a UAV in Afghanistan as well as Miami Dade testing of them and domestic law enforcement usage of Predator B UAv's.

It is a sign of just how fast the police state is advancing that drones in American skies have gone from conspiracy theory to admitted fact in about a year.

In a precedent-setting event, local law enforcement in North Dakota nabbed three suspected armed men with the help of a Predator B unmanned drone. It was only after the drone confirmed that the men were unarmed that police moved in to make the arrest.
» Drones Officially Take Flight For Domestic Law Enforcement Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

They are here to stay for a while, because of the nature of what they do and offer the operators in terms of low cost, and high return. Even in this area you are starting to see some programs for some very expensive UCAV's comming and no doubt even these will eventually turn into the next F35 programs.
 
An incredible boondoggle. Almost as bad as the B2 nonsense. Money wise it is far bigger but they might actually have a use if they are ever built. The B2 though is a total waste of time and money.

But we have used the B2, especially your heroes Slick Willy and Obumturd. How do you think they avoided casualties while bombing the crap out of Serbia and Libya? Without stealth technology, plenty of our planes would have been shot out of the sky. So the B2 allowed a couple of anti-defense left-wing turds to look like heroes.

That is so typical, isn't it? Democrat presidents denigrate weapons programs, but they never hesitate to utilize them to the hilt once they get into the driver's seat.
 
An incredible boondoggle. Almost as bad as the B2 nonsense. Money wise it is far bigger but they might actually have a use if they are ever built. The B2 though is a total waste of time and money.

But we have used the B2, especially your heroes Slick Willy and Obumturd. How do you think they avoided casualties while bombing the crap out of Serbia and Libya? Without stealth technology, plenty of our planes would have been shot out of the sky. So the B2 allowed a couple of anti-defense left-wing turds to look like heroes.

That is so typical, isn't it? Democrat presidents denigrate weapons programs, but they never hesitate to utilize them to the hilt once they get into the driver's seat.





Those two are not my hero's. My last hero would be TR in all probability though Reagan would run a close 2nd. The B2 was used because the Air Force felt it needed to justify its existence. The B-1 can do the job almost as good as the B2 and at a tenth the cost. Better yet let the F-15 Strike Eagles do it.

They penetrated airspace that the B2's were prohibited from even attempting because while they are stealthy they can still be seen by the old Mark I eyeball and brought down by a IR or optically guided missile. Hell a 85mm AA gun could do it just as easily.
 
Take a look at history. When technological advanced weapons systems were outnumbered by a substantial margin bu less advanced systems they lost. The Germans outclassed the Soviets in WWII yet the sheer numbers of the Soviets overcame that technological superiority. The same held true on the western front to a degree, especially in the area of tank warfare. In Korea the low tech Chinese smashed the technologically superior allied forces and forced a retreat to the stalemate that exists today. The Zero was the class of the Pacific campaign initially but the US used the strategy of attrition to defeat Japanese aircraft.

The percentages of a costly small technological advanced force being defeated are higher than a large less costly and less advanced force. Its the reverse of force multipliers.
 
An incredible boondoggle. Almost as bad as the B2 nonsense. Money wise it is far bigger but they might actually have a use if they are ever built. The B2 though is a total waste of time and money.

But we have used the B2, especially your heroes Slick Willy and Obumturd. How do you think they avoided casualties while bombing the crap out of Serbia and Libya? Without stealth technology, plenty of our planes would have been shot out of the sky. So the B2 allowed a couple of anti-defense left-wing turds to look like heroes.

That is so typical, isn't it? Democrat presidents denigrate weapons programs, but they never hesitate to utilize them to the hilt once they get into the driver's seat.

Damn. Would someone explain to poor retarded Pattycake that once a tool is already bought and paid for, you just as well use it. Otherwise, it is of no use whatsoever.
 

Forum List

Back
Top