The most expensive weapon ever built

[kyleb]

Lockheed did really good maneuvering the government into a position where they must succeed, regardless of the cost (that's cost to us, not to them).

I would suggest that the US Government was the group putting together the requirements and backed itself into the corner. Lockheed's response was "If you want it, we'd like to be the ones to build it."

 

[wsuffa]

I heard a good description of the JSF program yesterday while sitting through a bunch of meetings as the Navy and Congress battle over priorities....

'Congress sees JSF like Bank of America....It is too big to fail'

And there's your problem right there....

Read about FAA's AAS program failure sometime.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Fearless Tower]

Color me skeptical. I suspect the AC-130 holds that title, judging by the sheer quantity of released video, but I could be wrong.

Might just be for shock and awe and easier to shoot good "watch us splatter this guy planting an IED for 200 yards in every direction" videos from the Herk.

All I'm going to say is that there have been alot of kills that didn't get the fanfare (or the credit) that an AC-130 gets when it lights up an AQ party.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Can't take off vertically from lily-pads or carriers or asphalt because it melts them.

FWIW, the AV-8 has never been able to take off vertically with any kind of payload.

The F-35B can take off just fine (if not a little better) than a Harrier from a LHD. It just doesn't look as sexy as an AV-8 leaving the deck - JSF is slower on the takeoff and with the nozzle vectored down it looks alot like a dog taking a dump as it leaves the flight deck.

 

[Geico266]

Can we assume something like this happened?

There are days I regret leaving the aerospace / defense contractor world.... then I watched this video and remember why I left.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I would suggest that the US Government was the group putting together the requirements and backed itself into the corner. Lockheed's response was "If you want it, we'd like to be the ones to build it."

Having been involved in the acquisition business on the DoD side, I would say it is likely both Govt and contractor. Typically, the DoD doesn't really know or can't decide what they really want which results in ambiguous requirements to which the contractor steps in and sells them something that they don't really need. The input from the end users is rarely part of the process.

 

[X3 Skier]

Having been involved in the acquisition business on the DoD side, I would say it is likely both Govt and contractor. Typically, the DoD doesn't really know or can't decide what they really want which results in ambiguous requirements to which the contractor steps in and sells them something that they don't really need. The input from the end users is rarely part of the process.

I for one will totally contradict that at least in the case of the Advanced Tactical Fighter. If TAC wanted something Lockheed and Northrop were promising and the Program office convinced them it was not feasible within the time and money allocated, it was not a requirement.

The fact that Congress gutted the budget for the first two years was the cause on most, if not all of the problems in development. It was greatly aided by the lunatic fringe in Fort Fumble demanding a common set of avionics modules for the USA Comanche Helo (canceled) and the USN A-12 (canceled) and the F-22/F-23 airplanes.

In the case of the JSF, the boneheads in Fort Fumble convinced themselves money could be saved by a common platform (not having learned anything from the common avionics module debacle) over the objections of the USAF and USN. The only reason the JSF exists at all is the USMC could not afford a replacement for the Harrier by themselves.

Cheers

 

[denverpilot]

All I'm going to say is that there have been alot of kills that didn't get the fanfare (or the credit) that an AC-130 gets when it lights up an AQ party.

Fair enough. Plenty of killing going on for everyone to get a trophy.

Best trophy ever: Come home alive.

 

[Bob Noel]

Fair enough. Plenty of killing going on for everyone to get a trophy.

Best trophy ever: Come home alive.

respectively I submit the best trophy is: bringing your buddy home alive.

 

[denverpilot]

respectively I submit the best trophy is: bringing your buddy home alive.

Good point. Although most folk who've done that want no credit for it other than the trophy in their heads, which is beyond humble and commendable.

The really amazing people just make a habit of it, pulling out people over and over and never saying a word about it.

I was happy to see the powers that be finally commend the USAF tanker pilots that served in VN a couple of years ago.

Pretending they never left their pretty little orbits over Laos, and never dragged anyone's shot up asses back home, at low level across an imaginary line on a map, for decades, and meanwhile their quiet knowledge of what they did they kept to themselves without complaint, or need of acknowledgement... is a case-study in honorable duty.

Same goes for the controllers who never "officially" provided vectors or told anyone where they might find an aircraft in distress that needed fuel.

Dropping down low-level in a flying JP-4 bomb just begging for an incendiary round over hostile ground, with nothing to shoot back with, and not even rudimentary electronic warfare gear, took cojones bigger than JetMan's.

And I've already posted a photo of those in another thread.

Navy guys doing the same job in different aircraft on the Tonkin Gulf side of the place, were honored too.

Proud to know one of the USAF guys. He went on to fly for United for a long and much less exciting career.

 

[comanchepilot]

The only airplane that needs to be designed from scratch is an attack airplane to replace the F-117. . . Recon is done by drone and satellite. They had several perfectly good fighter airplanes that be tweaked with new engines, avionics and paint to be stealthier, faster thriftier airplane.

My gosh - you mean they could not turn the Tomcat into the next generation fighter with engines, avionics etc? That would have saved a few billion. Its not like you need stealth for a true air superiority fighter. . . . I could turn a barn door into a top quality air superiority fighter with thrust vectoring . . . and more thrust than weight.

Bringing us to an attack aircraft . . . the J35 is just ugly and when you hang bombs on it - its not stealthy anymore - so - hanging bombs on an attack aircraft takes away its stealth. One more time - bombs on an stealthy attack aircraft makes it less stealthy. Ok then, moving on.

Anything left? Why can't the Hornet E/F do the job? The F-15C/E? Make them better - no reason to scrap them . ..

one need only look at the forced retirement of the A10 Thunderbolt - - give the airframe to the Marines - who actually need CAS and they'll figure out a way to use it.

 

[kyleb]

. .

Bringing us to an attack aircraft . . . the J35 is just ugly and when you hang bombs on it - its not stealthy anymore - so - hanging bombs on an attack aircraft takes away its stealth. One more time - bombs on an stealthy attack aircraft makes it less stealthy. Ok then, moving on.

Anything left? Why can't the Hornet E/F do the job? The F-15C/E? Make them better - no reason to scrap them . ..

one need only look at the forced retirement of the A10 Thunderbolt - - give the airframe to the Marines - who actually need CAS and they'll figure out a way to use it.

Retiring the A-10 would be a huge mistake. It is a tremendous platform for loiter/observation/CAS in environments without sophisticated air defenses.

The Navy (and Air Force too) really needed the A-12 or equivalent to replace the A-6 and F-111. Stealthy, medium range attack. That's a huge hole (IMO) in our arsenal today. Instead, we have no stealth attack aircraft, and don't have anything short of a B-1, 2, or 52 that can go very far without tanker support.

Regarding the F-35 with bombs. It has internal bays for weapons if stealth is necessary (theoretically, when the opponent still has an air defense network). The external stores are (again, theoretically) for situations where there is no serious anti-air threat.

 

[Pi1otguy]

Retiring the A-10 would be a huge mistake. It is a tremendous platform for loiter/observation/CAS in environments without sophisticated air defenses.

Not to put numbers over lives, but at "only" $12 million (1994 dollars) each isn't the A-10 cheaper? What's the armor look like on these things? Last few wars had a few A-10s limp home with some real damage that would have taken down lightly armored planes.

 

[JeffDG]

Comanche missed one of the critical issues: trying to make one platform good at everything.

How many times have we here debated which airplane is better? It depends on the mission, just like the military.

Why, dear God, would you sacrifice weight for carrier-spec landing gear for the USAF that can't seem to operate on less than 3 miles of pavement? And if you do two models with different landing gear for these two, why not optimize the planes for each?

Trying to combine fighter/bomber/attack into one airframe means you end up with something that is a series of compromises to each mission. The F-14 was one helluva fighter. The A-6 was one helluva attack bird. The B-52 is still one of the greatest strategic bombers ever created. Would I want to dogfight in a B-52? Just because you can sling bombs onto an F-14 doesn't mean you should!

 

[nauga]

Just because you can sling bombs onto an F-14 doesn't mean you should!

It worked reasonably well, however.

Nauga,
with a pickle, pause, and pull.