"Why is the US spending so much on the F-?" Topic
19 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Aviation Discussion (1946-2011) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 22 Feb 2014 2:58 p.m. PST |
Lockheed-Martin has figured out how to create the perfect uncancellable money pit: Make it politically impossible as a 'jobs issue.' "The F-35 enjoys broad backing in Congress, as contractor Lockheed Martin has spread the work for the plane across 45 US states." Get other countries invested and committed into the program. "Apart from the United States, eight countries are taking part in the program: Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Turkey. Full article here: link |
darthfozzywig | 22 Feb 2014 3:01 p.m. PST |
Missed a good chance for using the subject line "35?" |
Mako11 | 22 Feb 2014 3:04 p.m. PST |
They're using words like "too big to fail" again. That is an oxymoron, and precisely why they should let it fail. Do that a couple of times, and contractors and politicians will lose their jobs, and we'll get back to sanity again. |
GR C17 | 22 Feb 2014 3:46 p.m. PST |
Two words. "Pork" and "Barrel". |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 22 Feb 2014 3:47 p.m. PST |
The biggest mistake is to allow the F-35 program to be 'open-ended,' which lets Lockheed-Martin and its subcontractors drive up the costs the way an unscrupulous autoshop might tell you your car has more problems that need to be fixed (when it doesn't) and it'll cost ya. "The main cause of the delay was a decision to start building the plane before testing was finished. As a result, bugs and other technical glitches keep forcing repairs and redesign work, slowing down production." "The 24 million lines of code for the plane's software have posed a persistent headache, and the jet has yet to attain the level of performance and reliability expected." "Like other weapons programs in the past, the technical problems are driving up the cost of each plane, and that is forcing Washington to scale back the number of aircraft it will buy." L-M doesn't care if the number of planes will be cut back, as long as they're maximizing profits for their shareholders. Stay tuned. |
Ron W DuBray | 22 Feb 2014 4:15 p.m. PST |
They should not be payed for R&D at all, The big weapons corp.s have turned R&D into a money making part of the weapons making process and it should not be. The need to be put back in their place and they need to work just like other companies, make a good product at a good price or no one will buy it and you go out of business. |
14Bore | 22 Feb 2014 4:51 p.m. PST |
|
Brian Bronson | 22 Feb 2014 5:16 p.m. PST |
Lockheed Martin has spread the work for the plane across 45 US states. Only 45? North American Rockwell shared the wealth for the B-1 across 48 states. |
Todd636 | 22 Feb 2014 5:45 p.m. PST |
We should at least get one for every state. What's another trillion dollars? |
Augustus | 22 Feb 2014 8:17 p.m. PST |
I thought we were getting Two-For-One on these and now they pull the ol'Corporate Bait & Switch? OOOooh foiled again! I guess we should be happy |
Lion in the Stars | 23 Feb 2014 12:04 a.m. PST |
They should not be payed for R&D at all, The big weapons corp.s have turned R&D into a money making part of the weapons making process and it should not be. The need to be put back in their place and they need to work just like other companies, make a good product at a good price or no one will buy it and you go out of business. It's one thing when you can make a brand-new, cutting edge jet fighter in 180 days on a budget of $13.1 USDmil, unit flyaway costs of $1.4 USDmil. (That's the P80, adjusted for inflation to 2012 dollars) A modern-day F16C/D has a flyaway cost of ~$26.3mil in 2012 dollars. The Gripen has a unit cost of ~$70mil. So, just to be able to compete, you're talking about an aircraft at least 20x more capable than a WW2 design. Faster, better range, more payload, longer engagement range, more maneuverable. As a consequence of everything demanded of such an aircraft, it's, at the very least, 20x more expensive, too. |
Wellspring | 23 Feb 2014 5:20 a.m. PST |
Agree w/ Mako that too big to fail is a reason to cancel in itself. You missed one other feature that makes it uncancellable. Part of the point of making it One Big Plane that fulfills several needs for the USAF, Navy, and Marines is it supposedly saves cost. But the REAL reason is that interservice rivalry often causes the navy to lobby against the air force's projects and vice versa. Having shared equipment means that every service's lobbying organization is allied behind the project. As for not funding R&D, that's foolish. First, R&D like any fixed cost is going to get costed into the price. Second, it's a transaction-specific cost; without upfront legal protections any contractor would be deeply stupid and irrational to take such a contract. Third, you incur big fixed costs anticipating a certain volume ordered. The feds commit to this years in advance
. but are free to break their own rules and usually cut the number bough drastically. If the military doesn't do it, and the administration doesn't, then congress will. Not to mention the risk of cancellation. It's research, you can't keep the costs from ballooning. What worries me was that the program was a mess from the beginning and its failures are leaving a huge hole in our capabilities even if everything goes according to plan moving forward. |
Zargon | 23 Feb 2014 5:21 a.m. PST |
Who said I don't know what we'll use for WW3 but we'll use sticks and stones for the one after that? This is rotten food dished out and we all say YUM when will the obscenities stop? ;( |
Legion 4 | 23 Feb 2014 12:15 p.m. PST |
"Why is the US spending so much on the F-?"
Short answer, it's easier to spend money on that then the real problems the average US citizen faces economically, medically, socially, etc., etc.
|
Pan Marek | 23 Feb 2014 12:46 p.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 24 Feb 2014 8:46 a.m. PST |
Just saw on CNN. The US ARMY is again, after the belief that the current war(s) are over, may be reduced to levels of before WWII. Yes, more robots, drones, etc., are being introduced but IMO, we are not there yet to add T2s to Infantry Squads. Gen Wesley Clarke [I briefly worked with him when he was still a mear COL and I a lowly CPT], made the point again, that after a war, the US again thinks it can drastically reduce it's military. There is some good reasons for that. As he said, many combat support and support units are/will be NG/Res. However, as he said, and I agree, well trained combat arms like Infantry, Armor, FA, CEs, ADA, need to train more than one weekend a month and 2 weeks in the summer. Even though now many NG/Res. units have a large number of combat vets
But that will rapidly dwindle
Of course it was not mentioned in the report, but I'm sure Spec Ops troops, like SF, Delta, SEALs, etc. will still be kept strong and well trained. Those types see action of all kinds, many times covertly regardless of what is going on. So I'm not going to say it's a mistake take much of the money from the spending on F-?. Air superiority or at least parity needs to be maintained. At least qualitatively. And CAS has proved recently it has been said by some to almost be more flexible and effective that FA was in the 'stan. But strong capable ground forces need to be maintained. When is the last time our recent enemies have even challenged the US in the air ? The jihadist/AQ/Taliban, etc. have no air assets. And Iraq for all intents and purpose had no effective air force
So I hope before the wheat is thrown out with the chaff, they do some long hard thinking about it. History clearly shows after WWII, then Korea, then Vietnam
it was not long before we were at war again
And China is spending the Wal-Mart and Fisher-Price profits on building air and naval assets
But again, the US needs to really think about where the $$$ goes. Especially in light of the non-military problems that the US still has to deal with
Of course
I could be wrong
but I kind of doubt it on all the points I [tried] to make
|
SouthernPhantom | 24 Feb 2014 9:13 a.m. PST |
The non-military domestic problems are the real existential threat. Sure, some general in the PLA's strategic missile forces could snap tomorrow and trigger a nuclear exchange, but the likelihood of that is nil. I'm substantially more worried about us suffering a Soviet-style decay and collapse as reality catches up with what we've been sold. But that's starting to get Blue Fez-ish. |
jpattern2 | 24 Feb 2014 9:22 a.m. PST |
What Legion 4 and Southern Phantom said. History clearly shows after WWII, then Korea, then Vietnam
it was not long before we were at war again
Well, there's your problem, right there. Wars of convenience (for the most part) to keep the military-industrial complex well funded. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Bring the troops home, take better care of our vets, and don't commit troops overseas again unless it's absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, what I consider necessary and what the plutocrats think are two entirely different things. |
Dynaman8789 | 24 Feb 2014 10:01 a.m. PST |
Back to the original post, ALL of that has existed for military procurement before. Once again it is being brought up for the F-35 as if it is something new when it is not. Paying for R&D, nothing wrong with that – the problem is when the company being paid for the R&D is then allowed to keep patents from said R&D, THAT is (should be I mean) a crime. |
|