Lockheed F-35 JSF is 62% OVERBUDGET - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-19-2010, 06:28 PM Thread Starter
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
Lockheed F-35 JSF is 62% OVERBUDGET

That is becoming a really expensive bird..
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html

Quote:
Lockheed F-35 Is 62% Over Cost, Document, Data Show (Update3)
March 19, 2010, 3:28 PM EDT

(Adds GAO report beginning in seventh paragraph.)

March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet fighter, the Pentagon’s most expensive program, has risen about 62 percent in cost and is four years behind schedule, according to Pentagon documents and new data.

Production of the airplane was projected to cost an estimated $143 billion for 2,852 aircraft when it began in 2002. The Department of Defense now says it will cost as much as $232 billion for 2,443 aircraft when calculated in 2002 dollars, according to figures released today.

Development and testing, originally to be finished in March 2012, won’t be done until April 2016, the documents say. Full production of the planes also has been delayed four years from what was once an April 2012 date.

The delays and cost growth stem from a wing redesign, inefficient production, delays in parts deliveries by suppliers and test problems, according to Lockheed Martin, Congress’s Government Accountability Office and Pentagon officials.

“We are clearly not comfortable with the program’s cost growth and development delay,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an e-mail today. That is why Defense Secretary Robert Gates “made the difficult choice to dramatically restructure the program and he did so earlier than normal.”

‘Successful Aircraft’

Still, “There is nothing broken with the aircraft development,” and the plane “will be a very capable, successful aircraft,” Morrell said.

While a new GAO report gives the Pentagon credit for taking corrective measures, it said that under the current plan through 2014 the military plans to buy as many as 307 aircraft at an estimated cost of $58.2 billion “before development flight test is completed.”

“Risks are manifold -- mounting cost and schedule pressure, complex, extensive and unproven software requirements and a nascent, very aggressive test program that continues to experience significant delays,” the GAO said. “Given all these challenges, moving forward with the current plan for ramping up production does not seen prudent.”

Lockheed Martin spokesman Chris Geisel said in an e-mail, “There are several factors that have extended the program since 2001. When all of these are integrated, it is difficult to provide an exact comparison of original milestones to current program projections.”

The biggest factor was a 2004 decision for a wing redesign of the Marine Corps’ short-takeoff and vertical landing version to reduce the weight by more than 3,500 pounds, Geisel said.

Retooling and Redesign

“Every part of the aircraft was reanalyzed,” Geisel said. The redesign required retooling and distribution of 400,000 drawings to subcontractors, he said.

Delays by parts suppliers added two years to the production timetable and $5 billion to the cost, the Pentagon said in 2004.

The F-35 is designed for missions including bombing and air-to-air combat, and it will be used by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. It will replace such aircraft as the F-16 and A-10 and Harrier aircraft flown by the Marines and the U.K.

The program’s delays are being closely watched by eight partner nations contributing $4.4 billion of their own funds for development, including the U.K., Turkey, Italy, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands. The allies plan to purchase at least 730 aircraft after Lockheed Martin enters full production.

Another factor is the F-35’s promise of 80 percent common parts to keep costs down for the three versions under development, Morrell said.

Three Variants

“Everyone counted on the three variants having more commonality in the original estimates than they do in the reality of building them,” he said.

The Air Force and Navy plan to declare their first combat- ready squadrons in 2016. That’s five years behind an original June 2011 Air Force date and four after the April 2012 Navy goal, according to program documents listing original milestones. The Marine Corps’s April 2012 date is two years off the original schedule.

The Defense Contract Management Agency in a November report said the program was revising the fifth version of its flight test schedule.

In spite of the cost growth and four-year delay “there is no alternative for the plane,” said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the industry-funded Lexington Institute in Arlington, Virginia.

“It is too late to start over because Cold War planes are getting old and there is no reason to believe that if we did start over, the results would be better,” Thompson said. “The Pentagon has got to bite the bullet and make this program produce.”

Lockheed Martin shares rose 65 cents to $86.59 in composite trading at 2:40 p.m. on the New York Stock Exchange. Shares have increased almost 27 percent in the last 12 months.

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-19-2010, 06:39 PM
The Janitor
 
32VfromHell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sacred Heart Hospital
Posts: 16,424
yeah, this isnt too good for them, considering some in congress are trying to kill the program, and our executive branch is also looking at killing it too.
32VfromHell is offline  
post #3 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-19-2010, 07:20 PM
Aspiring Bean Counter.
 
Slowhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Howard Johnson's Earthlight Room
Posts: 12,279
A government program running way over budget? No wai!

Slowhand is offline  
 
post #4 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-19-2010, 07:28 PM
Punk Ass Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 13
This administration is inept....
I was never a huge fan of Bush but the current administration is just failing in every measure....

We have the most dominant aircraft in the sky, the F-22, which has both an air to air and air to ground capability, and they cut funding for it and are about to destroy the tooling, so we can never make more than the small amount of 187. (Current cost per plane, which was going to go down with more orders: 138 million)

We now go to the F-35, which is much less capable in the air to air role, less stealthy, less maneuverable..... and we decide to pin our air defense role to it....

NOW.... the cost per unit is 112 million and rising even with a proposed procurement of 2,443 planes (not counting exports)

idiots....

Hammer is offline  
post #5 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-19-2010, 11:22 PM Thread Starter
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by 32VfromHell View Post
yeah, this isnt too good for them, considering some in congress are trying to kill the program, and our executive branch is also looking at killing it too.


You sure you're not confused with the F22?

They're pushing pretty hard for the F35 and wanting to kill the F22. The only thing in the F35 program that the Administration seems to actually want to kill is the "alternative" jet engine program which is pretty much pointless since the production engine is working pretty well..

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
post #6 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 01:04 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: smithville
Posts: 1,993
don't worry,we'll make up the extra $$$ for it.

right along with the healthcare tax we'll be paying.

RON PAUL '08
fast83 is offline  
post #7 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 04:33 AM
The Janitor
 
32VfromHell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sacred Heart Hospital
Posts: 16,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Beavis View Post
You sure you're not confused with the F22?

They're pushing pretty hard for the F35 and wanting to kill the F22. The only thing in the F35 program that the Administration seems to actually want to kill is the "alternative" jet engine program which is pretty much pointless since the production engine is working pretty well..
Yes, the f-35 program and not just the f-22.i think in one of the latest businessweek reports that some where looking at killing the program in a means of controlling our budget and get our national debt down . basically, looking at some very bold and "extreme" measures to control our spending.
32VfromHell is offline  
post #8 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 05:30 AM
Which one's the clutch?
 
Craizie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: R1 love.
Posts: 2,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by 32VfromHell View Post
Yes, the f-35 program and not just the f-22.i think in one of the latest businessweek reports that some where looking at killing the program in a means of controlling our budget and get our national debt down . basically, looking at some very bold and "extreme" measures to control our spending.
Id much rather my tax $ go to updating and reinforcing our military than paying for the health care of some broke dick.

1987 Nissan pick up-wrecked
1984 Ponitiac grand am-sold
1988 Buick lasabre-sold
1987 Nissan 300zx-sold intake/exhaust
2001 Yamaha r6-sold slip on
2004 Yamaha r1-sold full exhaust
1991 Nissan 240sx-torn down,almost built up.
1994 toyota celica-blown up. exhaust
2005 Honda accord-daily.
Craizie is offline  
post #9 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 01:48 PM
Married Man on 14Feb2010
 
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Beavis View Post
That is becoming a really expensive bird..
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html
But it provides a few union people in the DFW area with exhorbinate wages and benefits. Who cares what the cost is?
TexasDevilDog is offline  
post #10 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 01:53 PM
UNFUCKWITHABLE
 
Strychnine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Putting the sensual in nonconsensual since 1984
Posts: 12,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasDevilDog View Post
But it provides a few union people in the DFW area with exhorbinate wages and benefits. Who cares what the cost is?
Exorbitant.





As of a couple days ago Denmark will most likely be dropping the JSF idea and pursue F18s.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...entId=blogDest


.

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Strychnine is offline  
post #11 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 02:42 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strychnine View Post
Exorbitant.





As of a couple days ago Denmark will most likely be dropping the JSF idea and pursue F18s.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...entId=blogDest
The Superbug would be a great choice for Denmark... especially if they go with the "soon to be" upgraded engine option....

Half of me wants to see the F-35 crash and burn so we can save the F-22 tooling.... by the way, the new cost estimate for the F-35 is $114 to $135 million. Quite shocking rise from the $95 to $113 million cost estimate from one week ago.

Kill it now!!

88Kaufmann is offline  
post #12 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 03:37 PM
KOTS
 
BoostedGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Crowley
Posts: 3,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Kaufmann View Post
The Superbug would be a great choice for Denmark... especially if they go with the "soon to be" upgraded engine option....

Half of me wants to see the F-35 crash and burn so we can save the F-22 tooling.... by the way, the new cost estimate for the F-35 is $114 to $135 million. Quite shocking rise from the $95 to $113 million cost estimate from one week ago.

Kill it now!!

Would you like the Navy and Marine Corp to use the F-22 as well? Last time I checked, the F-22 can't sustain the future mission requirements required by both those services... You know the whole short take off requirement. I'm not sure if you noticed but who is a threat RIGHT NOW to our forces in the air? Russia maybe in 10 years? The F-35 won't even need to partake in a "dog fight". Those days are long gone. Your wish to see the F-35 "crash and burn" would be a HUGE economic hit to this country. You do realize it is spread across almost all 50 states right?

95 Turbo GT - Pee yellow
BoostedGT is offline  
post #13 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 04:05 PM Thread Starter
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoostedGT View Post
You do realize it is spread across almost all 50 states right?
And there is one of the problems with the program.

To make it as politically viable as possible, Lockheed has contracted out a ton of the work all over the country. They gave up a bit on quality control and now they're getting substandard materials.

Of course that isn't the ONLY issue (the Marine wing redesign is a HUGE factor) but it is a contributing one.

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
post #14 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 04:08 PM
KOTS
 
BoostedGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Crowley
Posts: 3,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Beavis View Post
And there is one of the problems with the program.

To make it as politically viable as possible, Lockheed has contracted out a ton of the work all over the country. They gave up a bit on quality control and now they're getting substandard materials.

Of course that isn't the ONLY issue (the Marine wing redesign is a HUGE factor) but it is a contributing one.
I agree with you 100%. It is one of the major downfalls of the program, yet it is also one of the main reasons it is still alive. Funny how that works isnt it?

95 Turbo GT - Pee yellow
BoostedGT is offline  
post #15 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 04:11 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
Quote:
Would you like the Navy and Marine Corp to use the F-22 as well?
Nope... Upgraded Superbug and UCAVs

Quote:
You know the whole short take off requirement.
Options:
JATO rockets with existing airframes are much cheaper if the need arises.... Hell they did it in Korea....
Upgrade Harrier airframes to fill in until a valid\more effective solution is developed

Once again.... UCAVs

The Jarheads fly more Bugs than Harriers anyway....

With 12 existing nuclear carriers, I see the short take off requirement as secondary anyway.... sorry....

Quote:
The F-35 won't even need to partake in a "dog fight". Those days are long gone.
BS.... Ever since the advent of the missile, every 10 years or so you hear that WVR ACM is "dead". We have yet to see it happen.

IFF\AWACS\Data links are not infallible
ROE always comes into play
Offensive\Defensive systems have battled it out since the days of the spear and the shield

If what you said was true, a stealthy B-1 with a huge bay of AIM-120s would be the end-all, be-all of air dominance.....

Quote:
Your wish to see the F-35 "crash and burn" would be a HUGE economic hit to this country. You do realize it is spread across almost all 50 states right?
So was the F-22.... your point?

The F-35.... another badly implemented program that's too BIG to fail.... whatever....


Last edited by 88Kaufmann; 03-20-2010 at 04:16 PM.
88Kaufmann is offline  
post #16 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 04:29 PM
KOTS
 
BoostedGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Crowley
Posts: 3,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Kaufmann View Post
Nope... Upgraded Superbug and UCAVs



Options:
JATO rockets with existing airframes are much cheaper if the need arises.... Hell they did it in Korea....
Upgrade Harrier airframes to fill in until a valid\more effective solution is developed
So you would like to continue using the aging Harrier while we go back to the drawing board for another 10 years? I don't think that would be a very wise decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Kaufmann View Post
Once again.... UCAVs

The Jarheads fly more Bugs than Harriers anyway....

With 12 existing nuclear carriers, I see the short take off requirement as secondary anyway.... sorry....
I guess I'm going to show my ignorance here, but how is a nuclear carrier going to fulfill the short take off aspect of future missions? Have you seen the STOVL plans that the Marine Corp has? Positioning of multiple aircraft in dense areas out in the field with no need for a runway is one of many.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Kaufmann View Post
BS.... Ever since the advent of the missile, every 10 years or so you hear that WVR ACM is "dead". We have yet to see it happen.

IFF\AWACS\Data links are not infallible
ROE always comes into play
Offensive\Defensive systems have battled it out since the days of the spear and the shield
Trust me. I don't want to think it either, but lets be realistic here... Who has even come close to touching our F-16's since they were put into service? I can think of a handful that have been shot down. How many TRUE dog fights do you think have taken place in the last 10 years?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Kaufmann View Post
If what you said was true, a stealthy B-1 with a huge bay of AIM-120s would be the end-all, be-all of air dominance.....
Not even close.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Kaufmann View Post
So was the F-22.... your point?
My point is that the F-22 WAS NOT as spread out as the F-35. For one thing, certain government regulations will/did prevent ANY country from touching the F-22. The F-35 has how many partnering countries again? Like I said, one big downfall is that the F-35 has parts coming from all over the US, however, that is one of the things that is keeping it alive. The F-22 might have been somewhat spread out, but it wasn't even close to the scale that the F-35 is now.

95 Turbo GT - Pee yellow
BoostedGT is offline  
post #17 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 05:34 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
Quote:
how is a nuclear carrier going to fulfill the short take off aspect of future missions? Have you seen the STOVL plans that the Marine Corp has? Positioning of multiple aircraft in dense areas out in the field with no need for a runway is one of many.
Boosted, judging by your educated responses, you seem to be anything but ignorant...
Anyway, as you probably know, the Navy\Marine Corp team is the tip of the spear. In 98% of cases, where an amphib ship goes, in the geographical area is a big flat-top ready to support my Jarhead cousins with a range well inland.

My point is there are options other than a 140 million dollar jack of all trades\master of none bird so the Marines can replace their limited number of Harriers.

So the Marines are telling us that there is an immediate need for an insanely large amount of money to be spent so we have an ability to put some fast movers in a remote field, usually in the same range that an Air Force or Navy aircraft on station can handle, to field ordinance that usually a Cobra gunship can deliver (with the exception of bombs of course....) I guarantee that we can deliver a cheap UCAV within 10 years to execute this limited mission along with a Harrier Life Extension Program.... Hell, how long have we been flying B-52s?

Quote:
How many TRUE dog fights do you think have taken place in the last 10 years?
There weren't many between Korea and Vietnam either.... (Where we found out that we actually needed a GUN on the F4....)

Doesn't mean the art is dead, although I'm sure the tactics and players will continue to change...

I agree that the whole point in air combat is NOT to get into a knife fight... but shit happens, and when it does, I want our boys to kick ass, not hope to god that his RCS wasn't screwed up by the ground fire he just flew through....

Quote:
certain government regulations will/did prevent ANY country from touching the F-22.
I see no reason why we couldn't sell "dumbed down" versions of the Raptor to trusted allies. The Japanese and Australians are clamoring for it. That crap is just politics....

Quote:
. The F-22 might have been somewhat spread out, but it wasn't even close to the scale that the F-35 is now.
I happen to remember a LOT of teeth grinding from MANY states when the F-22 funding was cut. A badly implemented and processed program should not be rewarded for crap. There is no reason that these contracts couldn't be re-arranged for F-22 or UCAV production parts.

88Kaufmann is offline  
post #18 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 05:49 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
If you ask me, these aircrafts are both a giant waste of money. I could imagine a million ways money could be better spent to increase overall mission effectiveness.
exlude is offline  
post #19 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 05:50 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude View Post
If you ask me, these aircrafts are both a giant waste of money. I could imagine a million ways money could be better spent to increase overall mission effectiveness.
Exlude... We are all about effective\cost-effective alternatives.... Any specific ideas?

88Kaufmann is offline  
post #20 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 06:09 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Kaufmann View Post
Exlude... We are all about effective\cost-effective alternatives.... Any specific ideas?
We already have aircraft and land/sea systems that are very effective at maintaining air supieriority. We don't need either of these aircraft to stay relevant. Instead, we need to continue to develope our strength on the ground. Armor (personal and vehicular), personal weapon developement, advanced training, etc. That's both less expensive and more relevant to our COE.

The reason the focus isn't where it needs to be is because the money to be made is in ripping our government off on huge, expensive projects that we don't really need. The difference between the F-18 vs. F-22 vs. F-35 is not going to help us win the War on Terror nor will it be the deciding factor vs. Russia or China. Increasing the strength of our boots on ground affects both.
exlude is offline  
post #21 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 06:24 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude View Post
We already have aircraft and land/sea systems that are very effective at maintaining air supieriority. We don't need either of these aircraft to stay relevant. Instead, we need to continue to develope our strength on the ground. Armor (personal and vehicular), personal weapon developement, advanced training, etc. That's both less expensive and more relevant to our COE.

The reason the focus isn't where it needs to be is because the money to be made is in ripping our government off on huge, expensive projects that we don't really need. The difference between the F-18 vs. F-22 vs. F-35 is not going to help us win the War on Terror nor will it be the deciding factor vs. Russia or China. Increasing the strength of our boots on ground affects both.
I agree that you need to occupy land and have boots on the ground to be victorious in battle....

But it is my opinion that you need air superiority, if not air dominance, to gain and hold that ground.

Control of the air is the same as holding the high ground back in the civil war.

Its a team effort... one is no good without the other.

In many respects, current export Sukhoi aircraft perform better than our current front line F-15s\F-16s.... although currently supporting systems such as our developed AWACS\data link systems and new AESA radars help maintain the gap, the comfortable lead we have had in probable adversaries has evaporated.

New armor doesn't mean a hill of beans without air cover....

88Kaufmann is offline  
post #22 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 06:33 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Kaufmann View Post
I agree that you need to occupy land and have boots on the ground to be victorious in battle....

But it is my opinion that you need air superiority, if not air dominance, to gain and hold that ground.

Control of the air is the same as holding the high ground back in the civil war.

Its a team effort... one is no good without the other.

In many respects, current export Sukhoi aircraft perform better than our current front line F-15s\F-16s.... although currently supporting systems such as our developed AWACS\data link systems and new AESA radars help maintain the gap, the comfortable lead we have had in probable adversaries has evaporated.

New armor doesn't mean a hill of beans without air cover....
I'm saying, we have the air cover we need. We don't need to continue to throw disproportionate amounts of money at it, with results that barely increase our mission capability.
exlude is offline  
post #23 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 07:22 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude View Post
I'm saying, we have the air cover we need. We don't need to continue to throw disproportionate amounts of money at it, with results that barely increase our mission capability.
I think we just disagree on that point....

Considering the lag time it takes to get competitive systems out into the field, resting our laurels on legacy air platforms from the 70s with a ton of operating hours is a bad idea...

And don't get me wrong.... I agree that the Army has generally gotten the short end of the funding stick the past few decades....

88Kaufmann is offline  
post #24 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 07:56 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Kaufmann View Post
I think we just disagree on that point....

Considering the lag time it takes to get competitive systems out into the field, resting our laurels on legacy air platforms from the 70s with a ton of operating hours is a bad idea...

And don't get me wrong.... I agree that the Army has generally gotten the short end of the funding stick the past few decades....
And I agree that there is a definite need to rule the skies, I just don't see the new airframes changing the status quo...especially not for the money we put into it. We act like we need these dog fighting badasses in the air when what is needed is progressively better missiles and radar.
exlude is offline  
post #25 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 08:04 PM
Lifer
 
Kart21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: irving tx
Posts: 1,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer View Post
This administration is inept....
I was never a huge fan of Bush but the current administration is just failing in every measure....

We have the most dominant aircraft in the sky, the F-22, which has both an air to air and air to ground capability, and they cut funding for it and are about to destroy the tooling, so we can never make more than the small amount of 187. (Current cost per plane, which was going to go down with more orders: 138 million)

We now go to the F-35, which is much less capable in the air to air role, less stealthy, less maneuverable..... and we decide to pin our air defense role to it....

NOW.... the cost per unit is 112 million and rising even with a proposed procurement of 2,443 planes (not counting exports)

idiots....

How true.

1/2 mile 9 turns 41.3 sec
Kart21 is offline  
post #26 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-20-2010, 08:14 PM
makin' bacon
 
Stevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Longview,TX
Posts: 5,752
Considering the other superpowers have developed technology that counters our technology, I'd rather have modern aircraft that can actually handle one-on-one encounters. Stuff like the Chinese now having missiles that can knock out our GPS and communication satellites should give us a heads-up on not being overly dependent on them.

Stevo

Animal whisperings

Intoxicate the night

Hypnotize the desperate

Slow motion light

Wash away into the rain

Blood, milk and sky


Stevo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome