JSF to cost TWICE the original bid

[colomtnflyer]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/12/pentagon.f35/index.html

Washington (CNN) -- The cost of the Pentagon's newest fighter jet will be more than double the original price, solidifying the F-35 joint strike fighter as the most expensive Pentagon weapons program ever.

 

[flyersfan31]

'Cause they assemble it with $600 hammers.

 

[ScottM]

Gotta fund Area 51 and the alien research somehow.

 

[wabower]

And so? You were thinking the final price was going to be half the estimate?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/12/pentagon.f35/index.html

Washington (CNN) -- The cost of the Pentagon's newest fighter jet will be more than double the original price, solidifying the F-35 joint strike fighter as the most expensive Pentagon weapons program ever.

 

[murphey]

And when Boeing asked me to move to Wichita to work on the avionics, I said no. "Why?" they asked. "And how long have you been in this business? Boeing is not getting the contract for JSF". (they were horrified at my attitude!). "Besides, do I want to be unemployed in Colorado, or unemployed in Wichita?"

No contest.

 

[Henning]

Is this supposed to be a surprise? Is there a weapons system or platform in recorded history that hasn't come in over budget? Heck, a bit over double budget is a lot better than others have come in at. Look at the Manhattan Project for a real budget buster, we're still paying on that debt. We need to start using some of those nukes to get our moneys worth out of them.

 

[weilke]

We need to start using some of those nukes to get our moneys worth out of them.

I'm sure you have some targets in mind.

 

[Bob Noel]

of course, one question is whether the original estimate was realistic.

I've seen completely unrealistic cost and schedule estimates and then
years later the PM's were shocked (oh my!) when the project came in
late and over budget.

 

[kyleb]

of course, one question is whether the original estimate was realistic.

I've seen completely unrealistic cost and schedule estimates and then
years later the PM's were shocked (oh my!) when the project came in
late and over budget.

As I stated on the Red Board, the Pentagon and its contractors are much happier with a project that is over budget than with one that didn't get approved in the first place because they put the real numbers in front of Congress at the beginning.

 

[Geico266]

Do we really need a new fighter? Seems to me there isn't much competition. I mean, when was the last time we lost a fighter to enemy fire.

 

[ScottM]

Do we really need a new fighter? Seems to me there isn't much competition. I mean, when was the last time we lost a fighter to enemy fire.

I think there is a real need for new airplanes. The question is if this is the right new fighter. This is a great fighter if one is still fighting the USSR but that is not our enemy any longer. Could we get by with something designed to meet the needs of today's air threat better and cheaper?

 

[kyleb]

Do we really need a new fighter? Seems to me there isn't much competition. I mean, when was the last time we lost a fighter to enemy fire.

To answer your question, I'm pretty sure we lost at least one aircraft (an F-18) to a Mig 25 during the first gulf war.

When to upgrade is always the question. There have been more than a few significant improvements (particularly stealth) since the F-15, 16, and 18 were designed 35-40 years ago. You can add all sorts of system upgrades, but stealth is hard to add to an existing airframe.

I'd want my pink derrierre' in a stealthy airplane if I was going into combat.

And if I was going into a cloud, I'd want a glass panel and a stack that included a Garmin 430W, even though the steam gauges and legacy stack worked just fine in the past.

 

[Geico266]

To answer your question, I'm pretty sure we lost at least one aircraft (an F-18) to a Mig 25 during the first gulf war.

When to upgrade is always the question. There have been more than a few significant improvements (particularly stealth) since the F-15, 16, and 18 were designed 35-40 years ago. You can add all sorts of system upgrades, but stealth is hard to add to an existing airframe.

I'd want my pink derrierre' in a stealthy airplane if I was going into combat.

And if I was going into a cloud, I'd want a glass panel and a stack that included a Garmin 430W, even though the steam gauges and legacy stack worked just fine in the past.

We still have the stealth fighter to take the "eyes" (radar) out of the enemy to gain air superiority before the combat fighters take over. One loss is too many, but it certainly is an acceptable rate.

I say mothball production run of the F-35 program and upgrade and use what we got. We are still using the B-52's.

JHMO.

 

[dmccormack]

For the majority of missions being flown in Afghanistan (and were flown in Iraq), this will do very nicely:

But the Air Force still has a thing for shiny, slick and expensive.

 

[kyleb]

We still have the stealth fighter to take the "eyes" (radar) out of the enemy to gain air superiority before the combat fighters take over. One loss is too many, but it certainly is an acceptable rate.

I say mothball production run of the F-35 program and upgrade and use what we got. We are still using the B-52's.

JHMO.

They retired the F-117 fleet and scrapped most of 'em. We do have the F-22, which can stealthily carry a small bomb load, but not the 2,000 lb weapons the F-117 carried.

 

[kyleb]

For the majority of missions being flown in Afghanistan (and were flown in Iraq), this will do very nicely:

But the Air Force still has a thing for shiny, slick and expensive.

And with a pilot sitting up front. ;-)

But the real question is "Where do we fight next, and what are their capabilities?" If it is a sub-3rd world military, we could use P-47's. If it was a N. Korea, you'd want a more survivable platform.

 

[dmccormack]

And with a pilot sitting up front. ;-)

But the real question is "Where do we fight next, and what are their capabilities?" If it is a sub-3rd world military, we could use P-47's. If it was a N. Korea, you'd want a more survivable platform.

After the air cover is established, CAS is the requirement.

OV-10, A-10, and the like are ideal platforms. Far cheaper to operate, rugged, and long loiter times -- unlike F-16, F-16, and FA-18

 

[Trapper John]

But the real question is "Where do we fight next, and what are their capabilities?" If it is a sub-3rd world military, we could use P-47's. If it was a N. Korea, you'd want a more survivable platform.

Good point. But I saw a story where the F-35 is intended to replace the A-10. Seems to me to not be a very good idea, especially at $112 million each.


Trapper John

 

[Geico266]

They retired the F-117 fleet and scrapped most of 'em. We do have the F-22, which can stealthily carry a small bomb load, but not the 2,000 lb weapons the F-117 carried.

The F-22 is a lethal stealth platform. I did not know they scraped most the the F-117s. Thanks for the update.

I have a question. As an example, the F-117 was very successfull first strike bomber, a tad unstable in flight according to pilots that flew them, but successful in their assigned mission. No combat losses that I am aware of. Why not just make a new fleet of the same plane? I realize it's not as sexy as having a brand new fighter, but the build costs, maintenance, and training of pilots is a known value.

 

[Clark1961]

The F-22 is a lethal stealth platform. I did not know they scraped most the the F-117s. Thanks for the update.

I have a question. As an example, the F-117 was very successfull first strike bomber, a tad unstable in flight according to pilots that flew them, but successful in their assigned mission. No combat losses that I am aware of. Why not just make a new fleet of the same plane? I realize it's not as sexy as having a brand new fighter, but the build costs, maintenance, and training of pilots is a known value.

One was downed by a SAM in the former Yugoslav debacle. IIRC, it was in Bosnia.

 

[kyleb]

The F-22 is a lethal stealth platform. I did not know they scraped most the the F-117s. Thanks for the update.

I have a question. As an example, the F-117 was very successfull first strike bomber, a tad unstable in flight according to pilots that flew them, but successful in their assigned mission. No combat losses that I am aware of. Why not just make a new fleet of the same plane? I realize it's not as sexy as having a brand new fighter, but the build costs, maintenance, and training of pilots is a known value.

My cynical side says the F-117's were scrapped so the Air Force can go to the Congress and say: "We scrapped the F-117's because you promised the taxpayers viable replacements - the F-22 and F-35. And now you're leaving the country practically defenseless by cancelling/reducing the scope of the F-22 and F-35 projects"...

That's a fairly common occurrance. Once the last C-141 was built, the Air Force quickly had the big tooling scrapped. The USAF wanted the C-5 and knew that if the tooling for the C-141 existed, some penny-pincher would suggest cancelling the C-5 and its development costs and purchasing 3x as many C-141's instead.

The *next* airplane is the one they always want. Right or wrong.

 

[Bob Noel]

That's a fairly common occurrance. Once the last C-141 was built, the Air Force quickly had the big tooling scrapped. The USAF wanted the C-5 and knew that if the tooling for the C-141 existed, some penny-pincher would suggest cancelling the C-5 and its development costs and purchasing 3x as many C-141's instead.

The *next* airplane is the one they always want. Right or wrong.

Do you realize what it costs to keep the tooling around?

And what would you have done with the loads tha C-141 couldn't carry?

 

[murphey]

Do you realize what it costs to keep the tooling around?

And what would you have done with the loads tha C-141 couldn't carry?

I do. A very large (huge!) building. But in the overall scheme of things, that large building, and the environmental protection to mothball the tooling, is substantially less than a new system from scratch.

I worked at the F-16 factory in Ft. Worth many years ago (when it was still General Dynamics) and walked (yes, that'r right, walked) the length of the manufacturing facility - 2 miles IIRC. Now, that did not include subcontractor facilities, nor the avionics shack (as they called it - the classified facility that installed all the goodies). But even with all that, it's still cheaper than starting from scratch.

 

[kyleb]

Do you realize what it costs to keep the tooling around?

And what would you have done with the loads tha C-141 couldn't carry?

I'm not arguing for or against either aircraft. Just pointing out the realities of the situation. There is always a side that wants more of the cheaper (presumably less capable) item and another side that wants the next great thing. Each side will do what it takes to push its point.

For example, the F-22 was crucified by its detractors who claimed its unit cost was too high. A huge driver of that unit cost was because the detractors had driven the production total on the program from 800+ airplanes to <200 airplanes. The detractors didn't bother mentioning that in their arguments.

On the other hand, you have the USAF, which wants the next great thing. So they take overt actions to take cheap alternatives (the F-117 or more C-141's) off the table because they want the JSF and/or the C-5.

 

[EvilEagle]

My cynical side says the F-117's were scrapped so the Air Force can go to the Congress and say: "We scrapped the F-117's because you promised the taxpayers viable replacements - the F-22 and F-35. And now you're leaving the country practically defenseless by cancelling/reducing the scope of the F-22 and F-35 projects"...

The F-117 was WORTHLESS. Thankfully I never got shacked into flying that thing, but it was a great idea that served us well for years, but it was too hard to maintain, not survivable and was ridiculously underpowered. Plus, bringing only 2 LGB's to the fight isn't bringing a lot for all the requirements they have (sanctioned airspace, routes, etc).

Now, having said that - the F-35 is going to be equally as worthless. What an epic failure that program already is. Buy more Raptors and some new F-15's and we'll be just fine. But that makes entirely too much sense...

 

[steingar]

I would love it if the government held a competition for a $10 million fighter jet. That is, whatever the companies could kluge together that would cost $10 million. Any company that built airplanes could compete. Best airplane wins. Buy lots of them,f or $10 million each. Period. No overruns. No redesigns.

 

[EppyGA]

I would love it if the government held a competition for a $10 million fighter jet. That is, whatever the companies could kluge together that would cost $10 million. Any company that built airplanes could compete. Best airplane wins. Buy lots of them,f or $10 million each. Period. No overruns. No redesigns.

That doesn't seem like a bad idea.

 

[jtheune]

except it's costs over a million dollars to train a pilot and then there is the cost to feed them afterwards. It's cheaper to have a few very good planes rather then a huge number of less capable planes. To bring it back into focus for POA, remember that most of our goodies in terms of avionics came about because of the miltary spending on new toys.

 

[flyersfan31]

They're proposing bringing back the OV10 because it would be well-suited for Afghanistan. Probably will be loaded down with crap so it won't be able to take off.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

except it's costs over a million dollars to train a pilot and then there is the cost to feed them afterwards. It's cheaper to have a few very good planes rather then a huge number of less capable planes. To bring it back into focus for POA, remember that most of our goodies in terms of avionics came about because of the miltary spending on new toys.

That's what I was thinking - there are a whole bunch of collateral benefits that come from military research and development.

I think it's important to stay on the cutting edge of technology - he who has the bast equipment has a loaded deck (not an absolute lock, but definitely an advantage).

At the same time, it's important to keep things in perspective - there's no reason that I'm aware of that something like the A-10 isn't as good a platform today as it was in the 1980's a great platform. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?

So, I see and understand both sides. All things in moderation, I guess.