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

[unhappycamper]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/in-federal-budget-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-is-at-risk.html?hp&_r=0&gwh=5C042DC1AAFB8FBBD582B71285CF2A41



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.


Costliest Jet, Years in Making, Sees the Enemy: Budget Cuts
By CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: November 28, 2012

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?

~snip~

With a record price tag — potentially in the hundreds of billions of dollars — the jet is likely to become a target for budget cutters. Reining in military spending is on the table as President Obama and Republican leaders in Congress look for ways to avert a fiscal crisis. But no matter what kind of deal is reached in the next few weeks, military analysts expect the Pentagon budget to decline in the next decade as the war in Afghanistan ends and the military is required to do its part to reduce the federal debt.

Behind the scenes, the Pentagon and the F-35’s main contractor, Lockheed Martin, are engaged in a conflict of their own over the costs. The relationship “is the worst I’ve ever seen, and I’ve been in some bad ones,” Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan of the Air Force, a top program official, said in September. “I guarantee you: we will not succeed on this if we do not get past that.”

In a battle that is being fought on other military programs as well, the Pentagon has been pushing Lockheed to cut costs much faster while the company is fighting to hold onto a profit. “Lockheed has seemed to be focused on short-term business goals,” Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, said this month. “And we’d like to see them focus more on execution of the program and successful delivery of the product.”

[kooljerk666]

1. Most expensive POS since the B-36

(B-36 biggest most expensive bomber ever, that is till the next one, lasted in service only 10 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36)


I have been complaining about this one & calling attention to the CBC report on this junker for ages.


The F-16, FA-18 F-20 and Harrier are built by Lockheed F-16, Boeing FA18 & Harrier & Northrop F-20 we could get 2500 FA18/Harrier & 2500 F-16/F-20's, 5000 brand new aircraft for less money than 2400 f-35's.

Northrop is in California where House Armed Services guy is & the cheapest to buy & operate out of all of them.

4 different aircraft from 3 manufacturers for a lower price & better performance than the F-35 only makes sense.


Lockheed and the rest of the MIC better understand the gravy train has stopped.

[BlueStreak]

2. Christ almighty !!! Why do we need 2400 of these things?

For that money we could buy a couple hundred space shuttles. What would we do with a couple hundred space shuttles? Nothing useful, just like the F-35.

Tell me again how these things DEFEND the average American.

These are OFFENSIVE weapons designed to control geography for the benefit of multinational corporations, most of which will never pay a dime of US taxes to pay for that $400 billion bill.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. The are replacing the F-16, F-18, F-15s, and AV-8s

That is a lot of birds

[BlueStreak]

4. Tell me again why we need all those F-16, F-18, F-15s, and AV-8s

And explain why we need to replace those aircraft with behemoths that cost 10 times as much?

Seriously, what is the mission?

What can these do that we can't accomplish at 1/1000 the cost using drones?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. It represents a down sizing of US combat airplanes as it is

and drones cannot currently do air superiority effectively.

The current number reflect current policies of the Obama administration. Change the policies and the numbers will change.

[BlueStreak]

6. Downsizing?

Maybe down-numbering.

If we have 100 things that cost $100 each and we replace them with 50 things that cost $1000 each, is that downsizing?

The simple truth is that for the last 50 years, the military-indistral-complex has never had to concern itself with costs. It was always a blank check.

Time to bring some austerity to the military budget. If not austerity, can we at least have some accountability?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Some sheer times numbers matter

Just ask the Panzer Corps on the Eastern front

The level of accountability is legion at the detail level is massive. However, what you see is macro level accountability and decision making. For that you start with the Whitehouse

[BlueStreak]

8. When do you expect to see another Panzer-style battle?

Didn't happen in Korea.
Didn't happen in 'Nam.
Didn't happen in Kuwait, and only to a limited degree in Iraq.
Didn't happen in Afghanistan.

Russia is not organizing for that. Germany is not.

The only country in the world that might have the resources for that now is China, and it is pretty hard to march across the Pacific Ocean.

If an army is organizing that kind of force, we really will have a few years to adjust to that. That simply is not the threat we have today.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. I was using WWII tanks as an analogy for current aircraft requirements

And in its most basic form, it boils down to: If you don't have enough at the right place and the right time...you are screwed.

Again, this is a policy issue. The number of JSFs has dropped considerably from initial forecasts and right now the President presumptively agrees with the number being planned.

[BlueStreak]

10. It is about politics, not about defense.

I hope to live another 30-40 years. We will not have another WWII style of war in my lifetime. Ain't gonna happen. We'll have all sorts of other shit, but not that.

I agree with your point that Obama is complicit in this along with everyone else in the establishment. But I don't see how that changes the facts.