The most expensive weapon ever built
- Thread starter steingar
- Start date
dell30rb
Final Approach
Sounds to me like they thought money would be saved by having a single design and adapting it to fit roles filled by the F-15, F-18, F-16. Maybe the best course would have been to design three new airplanes from scratch.
jasc15
Pre-takeoff checklist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Apollo#Program_cost said:
Skylane81E
Final Approach
I can't remember the year but I remember hearing a date in the not to distant future when the defense budget would only allow the purchase of one plane, the navy would get it on odd dates, the airforce on even and the marines on leap day
oldShar
Cleared for Takeoff
This has been an ongoing argument for the past few decades.
Bureaucrats are interested in (their [and CBOs] perceived) bottom line, not functionality
onwards
Pattern Altitude
So how much had already been spent on this plane? I'm just curious. If it's about done, then I would grind my teeth and say "just buy them and get it over with already". Most of the $400B is spent in the design phases (cost+) if I understand Pentagon projects correctly, not in the actual purchase of the planes themselves, but I'm not sure.
Threefingeredjack
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 3,171
- Location
- Central Oregon/Hawaii
- Display Name
Display name:
Threefingeredjack
They tried that in the 60s with the TFX...which only saw service in the USAF as the F-111. I subscribe to Aviation Week, and they have had many many articles about the disarray and design issues facing the F-35. Lockheed has fumbled and bumbled through this process, with considerable help from competing service requirements and turf wars. The whole project will be taught in future management schools as an example of how not to run a big program. IMHO by the time it is ready to fly, the opposition will be in Star Wars tie fighters.
zaitcev
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,257
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete Zaitcev
Oh you think that is bad, check upon the Su-34 program. They just formed the 1st squadron at last - with half of the airplanes in "old" camo, half in the "new". Not two of them are exactly alike thanks to continuing updates, so maintenance crews sometimes cannot find the subassembly they have to fix. Sounds almost like the German fleet of Bf-109s in 1943, except they only have 12! All the while the discussion continues to rage if they even match the capabilities of Su-24 that they are supposed to replace.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
As the Russian Colonel explained to the new Lieutenant: Son, it's not the most competent that wins, it's the least incompetent...
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
I don't think the ruskies have a monopoly in that department.
Just look at the TU95. Can you imagine the bills for that thing? We used to inspect them from 150 feet, and they us. We would be thinking, How do they keep all those gearboxes and propellor blades on the thing?
Tony_Scarpelli
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,645
- Location
- Wichita, Kansas
- Display Name
Display name:
Tony_Scarpelli
We waste too much money in the military anyway....its all a game to award favored vendors....a realistic look would conclude it is always a sub optimum result.
Lets just sequester it.
Lets just sequester it.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Yup, refers to all of us. Perhaps even in the business world.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not disagreeing with that, but I would point out that this is just a part of an overall government problem that is not limited to the DoD.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Sad part about the JSF is that if they cancel it, it is really going to hurt the Marines the most. I think that everyone else could probably live without it, but the Marines are seriously struggling to keep the AV-8s in the air, and that is even after we got all the spare parts from the Brits after they stopped flying theirs.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Yeah, because they really need a jet to land on the beach and, er, ahhh........
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Has nothing to do with landing aircraft ashore, but has everything to do with contingency ops when the CVN is not around.
I don't have any hard numbers to back it up, but I suspect that we have eliminated more terrorists with AV-8s in the last 5 years than we have with any other manned fixed wing aircraft.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Last edited:
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
Sounds like the only thing they were lacking was some expertise from Boeing on how to outsource.
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
The vertical landing helps with that.
Gary
En-Route
So.... what is the F-35's "mission"? We talk about the "mission" all the time when someone asks what plane to buy.
Gary
Gary
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Kill stuff pretty much....with a very capable intel gathering system integrated into it.
It has some pretty sweet capabilities, but obviously at a very high cost....kind of like the price of any high tech gear when first developed.
In the naval and USMC rolls I see the V/TOL abilities in fleet protection for other than carrier task force participants.
X3 Skier
En-Route
To do real fleet defense, you need long legs to get to the cruise missle carriers before launch which the F-35 does not have.
A friend of mine who was at one time Director of OT&E for Fort Fumble is found of pointing out the AV-8 never took off verticaly and dropped anything on anybody. Thus STOVL for the Marines, no VTOL except at air shows.
Cheers
Last edited:
X3 Skier
En-Route
One of Norm Augustine's Laws. He called it Coolidge's revenge who allegedly first said it.
Cheers
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,612
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Well, having been around since the 50's I don't think we can argue that it wasn't successful or that it is one hecka cool looking airplane.
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,554
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
So how much had already been spent on this plane? I'm just curious. If it's about done, then I would grind my teeth and say "just buy them and get it over with already". Most of the $400B is spent in the design phases (cost+) if I understand Pentagon projects correctly, not in the actual purchase of the planes themselves, but I'm not sure.
There is a lot of truth in your statements. While the F-35 may be something of a boondoggle, if we need those capabilities, continuing the program from where it is today is a better choice than starting over.
But in general, my belief is that "do everything great" weapons rarely do. We'd be better served by a few specialty aircraft (stealthy attack aircraft ala F-117) and a bigger fleet of more conventional aircraft - upgraded F-15's, 16's, and 18s. Of course, the drone fleet is going to obsolete all of the manned platforms in the not-so-distant future.
redlineshifts
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2013
- Messages
- 23
- Display Name
Display name:
Redlineshifts
While I think it would be foolish to disagree completely with this statement, the "future" is still a lot further off than most people think(in my opinion).
Manned aircraft still have a very valid purpose on the battlefield for the (nearer) future. I believe I MIGHT see a shift to majority unmanned in my lifetime, but I believe it will be close to the end of it(40ish years out).
I could be short sighted on this for selfish reasons(job security), but I believe it is true.
Part of the reason I believe this is the current unmanned(attack) platforms still leave a lot to be desired as a support asset. They are invaluable for the "on station" time they can provide, but the payloads still leave something to be desired and in ANY sort of actual air to air environment, they are worse than useless.
They have a long way to go yet.
Where are all the unmanned 747's at?!? If unmanned platforms are combat capable they should have no problem hauling people around A to B.
Only a fool would deny that unmanned platforms will not be the future, I just believe the future isn't as near as most people believe.
edit: On a side note, I trained on a brand new aircraft with extremely impressive "upgraded" capabilities. I will be deploying with the older less capable aircraft to Afghanistan due to budget issues.
Last edited:
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,612
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
In real cost terms I think the expense of the F35 is mitigated by the fact that it is replacing something. In that sense it's probably systems like the B2 and F22 that are unreasonably expensive because they most likely are never going to be used in an actual theater of combat operations.
I mean has the B2, or even the B1 for that matter, ever been actually used?
I mean has the B2, or even the B1 for that matter, ever been actually used?
redlineshifts
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2013
- Messages
- 23
- Display Name
Display name:
Redlineshifts
I can't speak on the B2, however the B1 has most definitely been used. The B2 exists mostly for a war we have not yet had to fight.
"During the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom, eight B-1s dropped nearly 40 percent of the total tonnage delivered by coalition air forces. This included nearly 3,900 JDAMs, or 67 percent of the total. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the aircraft has flown less 1 percent of the combat missions while delivering 43 percent of the JDAMs used."
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
True, but the Marines have no requirement for anything other than a STOVL. The only requirement there is that it needs to be able to takeoff without a cat shot.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
The JSF is not a defensive asset....at least not as a primary mission. It is a Strike aircraft...an offensive weapon launched to locate the enemy on the ground and put warheads on foreheads.
That is why it is so critical for the Marines. The F-35B (STOVL) provides the ARG (Amphibious Ready Group) with a fixed wing strike capability. That mission has been handled by the AV-8s, but the AV-8 capability is fairly limited and we can barely keep them in the air.
The USN CVN based version (F-35C) is not intended to replace anything....it is only intended to compliment the Hornets, so you could argue that other than the Amphib Navy, the rest of the Fleet does't lose much if JSF is canx.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Personally, if we want to kill worthless government spending, I'd much rather see them kill the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship program....alot of money for a ship that doesn't do anything well.
Shorrick Mk2
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 68
- Display Name
Display name:
Longing for Long Tien
B2 first saw action in Kosovo / Serbia (most noticed target - the Chinese embassy in Belgrade...), then Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
BOTH....the whole program was mismanaged from the get-go. The two different hull designs is a fiscal debacle designed to keep shipyard workers employed.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Raptor cost 74 billion dollars and has seen two wars where it hasn't so much as fired a shot. Whatever.
Armageddon Aviator
Cleared for Takeoff
We already have an excellent multi-role fighter...it costs a small fraction of that insanely expensive F-35 white elephant...
The F-16I, a highly modified version of the F-16 is exceeding the Israeli Air Force expectations...a great bird that could save the U.S. hundreds of billions...
They say that "necessity is the mother of all inventions"...:wink2:
Needs a runway though. Need STOVL for the baby flat tops. The 35 has a secure place in need, hopefully it will fulfill.
Armageddon Aviator
Cleared for Takeoff
Who needs "baby flat tops" when you have so many nuclear aircraft carriers ?
A VTOL aircraft ( like the Harrier ) was a must for the British after they decided to scrap their conventional carriers ( budget constraints )...
But when you maintain such a big fleet of conventional carriers, developing and producing a hugely expensive VTOL is a waste of time and money IMHO...
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,952
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
We do not have enough huge carriers that the "baby flat tops" are unnecessary. The capabilities of each are complementary.