Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DMVIAGRA on April 08, 2012, 06:45:59 PM
-
(http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/jsf/images/1-f35.jpg)
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s long term operating costs are once again at the forefront of the debate about how much the stealthy swiss army knife will cost. Just yesterday, Frank Kendall, acting undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics (AT&L) told lawmakers that while acquisition costs are coming under control the real issue is going to be the price tag associated with keeping the jets flying over the decades.
“We’re doign everything we can to drive down the cost of the Joint Strike Fighter,“said Kendall during his March 29 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to be confirmed as full-time undersecretary of defense for AT&L.
“I do think that the strike fighter is getting under control, we’re attacking the producting costs by putting stong incentives on the contractor to control cost and to get the changes that have to be made cut in quickly. Now we’re focusing on the sustainment costs which are larger actually than the production costs, we’ve made some progress there this year in some areas but we’ve slipped in some areas as well. That’s where we think the greatest potential [for savings] is. [Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter] testified a year ago about getting large fractions of that cost down and I think we can approach that. So I’ve set a goal for us to accomplish that.”
Now Reuters is reporting that the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office estimates that it will cost $1.45 trillion over the next 50-plus years to buy and operate the JSF fleet. Wow.
Apparently, much of this is due to the cost of inflation over the coming decades:
While inflation accounts for more than one-third of the projected F-35 operating costs, military officials and industry executives were quick to point out that it is nearly impossible to predict inflation over the next half-century.
They also argue that no other weapons program’s costs have been calculated over such a long period, and that even shorter-term cost projections for other aircraft do not include the cost of modernization programs and upgrades.
The new cost estimate reflects the Pentagon’s proposal to postpone orders for 179 planes for five years, a move that U.S. official say will save $15.1 billion through 2017, and should avert costly retrofits if further problems arise during testing of the new fighter, which is only about 20 percent complete.
The Pentagon’s newest numbers say that the jets will cost $112.5 million, plus $22 million for the engine, apiece to buy in 2012 dollars (that figure includes the cost of R&D work), according to Reuters. That’s $135 million per plane, plus an additional $26 million for the engines when adjusted for inflation.
Here’s Reuters breakdown of that massive number along with several competing estimates about the F-35’s cost — notice how the Pentagon’s official cost psychics (CAPE), the GAO and the F-35 program office all have different predictions for the F-35 price tag:
The new estimate, based on calculations made by the Cost Assessment Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, includes operating and maintenance costs of $1.11 trillion, including inflation, and development and procurement costs of $332 billion.
The Government Accountability Office last week projected it would cost $397 billion to develop and buy the planes, up from its earlier forecast of $382 billion.
The Pentagon office that runs the F-35 program office has a lower estimate for lifetime costs, although it is still around $1 trillion, according to two sources familiar with the estimates. Both industry and government have put a huge emphasis on reducing operating costs and keeping the plane affordable.
Remember a couple of years ago when a leaked slide from NAVAIR claimed that the F-35 — a plane originally sold on the premise that it will offer 5th-generation fighter performance with a low price tag — would be far more expensive to operate than the Navy and Marine Corps current crop of fighters?
That document claimed the Navy and Marines’F-35C carrier variant and F-35B short Take-off and vertical landing variant JSFs would cost $30,700 per hour to fly versus the $18,900 an hour that the AV-8B Harrier and F/A-18 Hornet cost to fly. Naturally, Lockheed disputed these claims.
Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/30/f-35-to-cost-1-45-trillion-over-next-50-years/#ixzz1rUmvzDvy
DoDBuzz.com
-
I can not believe that cost assessment.
-
Not for nothing, but has anyone ever tried to predict a systems cost so far into the future?
What's the precedent?
-
Waste of metal, I'd spit on it if I could
-
Translation:
the military industrial complex is going to make a fortune off this weapons platform. So dont mess it up for the private corps....
-
I would not be so upset if that plane was not such a piece of junk!
-
There is a world-class irony in this discussion. We are talking about defense, right? The idea that there is a threat, right? The single greatest threat as manifest from all great nations going back to recorded history is not external enemies, but the enemy within.
America will not be defeated first by an enemy abroad, but from rot and corruption within. Purchasing such junk as the F-35 is the rot and corruption within. We seem to think we can continue to spend a trillion here, and a trillion there on future, as un-yet-earned money. We think the good times will last forever. History shows, it does not. Our total national debt is rapidly approaching $16 trillion. That is larger then our entire national economy. If you factor in the trillion here and trillion there of future promises just like this F-35 our national debt and future obligation is approaching $120 trillion, in our lifetime!!
Let's put this into context. Right now we are borrowing about $1 trillion every year. That means we are spending $1 trillion more then we really have, more 'play now, pay later' mentality. If you are 20-years old now and lived to be 80-years old, we would first cut spending by $1 trillion to bring it into balance...then...we would spend $2 trillion a year for the rest of your lifetime just to breakeven, on top of our operating budget.
That is not perfect math because the Wizards of Liberty Street intend to inflate our way back to health.
The F-35 is beyond criminal. In 20-years we will think treason. I remember reading a story of a bankrupt hockey player who made millions moaning the fact that one night he spent $500 on a bottle of wine. He was almost in tears thinking of how he could use that $500 for legitimate purposes for his family now. He was stunned to think of how stupid he was. When it comes to the F-35 America would be better off getting our fiscal house in order and building a brandnew F4U than bankruptcy and the F-22/35 junk. Rot from within.
Boo
PS History shows that the death of empires is ubber violent. Not a fun future though we write it. We can change it.
-
mtrockmor is right on. The only thing I would argue is that the cost of the F4u is beyond reach too. Hell a paper airplane is beyond reach.
-
Most F-35s are going to be sold to other countries (our allies), not kept for the USA. Cut the program, and those other countries will buy from the EU, Russia, or even China instead. All those operating costs? That revenue will go to the aircraft industry of those other countries and not the USA. Cut the F-35 program and you infuse 1.45 trillion into foreign economies instead of our own.
-
A majority will be flying under the US flag. Only a few other countries are going to fly it and even these are reducing the number of purchases, just as we are. If you consider our foreign policy, foreign aid and various "gifts" we are paying for large portions of their costs anyway. It is much as Egypt owns the largest fleet of M1A1 Abrams outside of the US. Yes, they bought them with the money we gave them in the first place.
Much of this is a shell game and examples of corporate welfare, street lingo is crony capitalism.
Considering that we will bare the vast bulk of this future debt, our allies would be just as happy to buy a ubber modern F-16 or F-15 SE well before they buy some Russian or Chinese junk. Funny, we are already losing sales to the Swedish Grippen, French Rafael and Eurofighter due to much lower acquisition and operating costs. A revamped F-16 or F-15SE owns the future in a responsible way, and could be done in a manner that would not cost the taxpayers of America a penny, unless we pull another Egypt.
Boo
-
A majority will be flying under the US flag.
Only 44% will be sold to the US, the other 56% to the US' allies. 44% is not a majority.
Yes, everyone is reducing their orders, but there's no reason to believe they are reducing them out of proportion to the amount the US is reducing them, so the ratio remains the same.
A revamped F-16 or F-15SE owns the future in a responsible way, and could be done in a manner that would not cost the taxpayers of America a penny, unless we pull another Egypt.
Don't have a significant technological advantage over the hypothetical enemy's aircraft. Australia is buying F-18s while waiting on the F-35 to be finished. But in a free world economy, if they really want those older models, they can probably get them. The fact that they are still in line for the F-35 says that they want something better. If the US doesn't sell it to them, they may have to wait an additional 5-10 years, but eventually they'll get it from the EU, Russia, or China instead. And then the US will lose its technological superiority and expertise in fighter aircraft, and the EU, Russia, and China will gain it.
-
Quickest numbers I can find are likely suspect but not too far off.
US 2,443 of all models
UK 138
Italy 131
Netherlands 85
Australia 72 (options for more)
Canada 65
Denmark 48
Norway 52
Turkey 116
Israel 100
Singapore 100
Total of 3,350 ordered of which US makes up 72.9%.
We are pushing for many other countries to buy this bird to include Japan, Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Greece, India, Taiwan, South Korea, Spain and UAE. Likely some of these will buy something simply to make America happy. Likely we will lose many sales to the Grippen, Eurofighter or upgraded F-16s, Mig-29s, etc. We will also likely see many orders cut back due to cost overruns.
Boo
-
A complete waste of money - we should've kept our F-111's and bought the latest version of the F-15E with the money we're wasting on interim F-18F's and the cash we've sunk into the F-35
Tronsky
-
Here is more evidence that we are completely off with both the F-22 and the F-35. We are going to borrow over a Trillion from China, etc to buy 2,300+ F-35s and this is our competition...30 Su-30s that are roughly on par with the F-15E!
The F-22/35 program is another form of corporate welfare. And it is helping implode our country.
Boo
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20120411.aspx
-
1.45 trillion is not too much to pay for the world's greatest fighter aircraft, bar none. The F-35 will remain unchallenged in the sir for at least the next 40 years.
-
1.45 trillion is not too much to pay for the world's greatest fighter aircraft, bar none. The F-35 will remain unchallenged in the sir for at least the next 40 years.
who and what exactly is challenging our current aircraft? it's all about spending money, not about being challenged.
semp
-
who and what exactly is challenging our current aircraft?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM7Tka5ir70
-
War opens with China. B-2 bombers, stealth cruise missiles, EA-18G Growlers and hundreds of F-15Es, F-16s and F/A-18C/D/E/F's pour through gaps created in Chinese defensive systems to completely overwhelm in destroy airfield after airfiedl. By 8 AM 60-80% of the Chinese airforce lays in smolder piles. China attempts a response with a barrage of SSMs, with little response as most have also been destroyed. Those that do launch are intercepted with Aegis cruisers/destroyers using RIM161/ SM-3 missiles.
By noon day 1 the balance of power has completly shifted in the Pacific Rim and on the world stage. American forces spend the next week on search and destroy missions for the remnants of the Chinese military, dozens of ships and submarines have been sunk. Peace treaty is brokered.
This has not happened because the Chinese know it is true, among many other reasons. If you read Sun Tzu's The Art of War the fancy Chinese 5th Generation stealth plane is briliant. They spend a couple billion on a test bed, America turns around and borrows $1.5 trillion from China in launching the response with the F-35. For a couple billion China helps bankrupt their enemy. I highly doubt China and America will ever shoot at each. The Chinese won't need to.
Boo
-
25 billion a year, nearly 10 times what we're spending on the F18 this year, more data: http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Weapons.pdf (http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Weapons.pdf)
-
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
(http://tariganter.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/us-military-expenditure-2001-2012.jpg?w=540)
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/map%20iran.JPG)
(http://www.antiwar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/world-defense-spending1_0.jpg)
Add the patriot act I & II, the NDAA etc etc... the USA as it was once known, is gone. And by the way the federal govt will stop at nothing to be the best military force on the planet, not even running the country bankrupt wills stop them. They will bury the country before giving up the global military dominance.
-
33Vortex... :aok
Boo
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM7Tka5ir70
how many of those do they have? and can they be flown to the us? and even if they sell them to some other countries are those countries going to have decent pilots to fly them?
it's not about those airplanes it's about money being spent. no plane should cost billions of dollars to produce each. i still remember back in the 80's how secretaries were being paid 60 to 70k a year in the aerospace industry. that's where most of the money is being spent to pay salaries of people that have basically nothing to do but it inflates the sale price of airplanes. and it makes the company that produces those airplanes look good to wall street. we have wasted trillions of dollars on other airplanes that got nowhere. on ships that the navy didnt want.
it isnt about making america safer, it's about making american companies a lot of money.
semp
-
The price you pay to be the world police.
(http://images.susu.org/unionfilms/films/backgrounds/hd/team-america-world-police.jpg)
'Merica F--- Yeah!
-
All roads lead to Rome....I mean DC. What if we simply wanted to be free again?
Boo
-
no plane should cost billions of dollars to produce each.
No plane does. The most expensive plane today is the B-2 bomber at about $1 billion flyaway cost.
-
No plane does. The most expensive plane today is the B-2 bomber at about $1 billion flyaway cost.
it cost way more than that. a lot of r&d is paid for in advance and not included as part of the price of the airplane. but seriously instead of improving old technology it's better for a company to start a plane "from the ground up" as they make more money that way. remember the "cost plus" contracts in the iraq/afganistan? it's the same thing.
semp
-
All roads lead to Rome....I mean DC. What if we simply wanted to be free again?
Boo
All roads still lead to Rome, the fact that they go through other places before getting to Rome does not change that fact. The US is not the world police, it is the world bully.
-
A complete waste of money - we should've kept our F-111's and bought the latest version of the F-15E with the money we're wasting on interim F-18F's and the cash we've sunk into the F-35
Tronsky
Dunno Tronski. The F-111 was a great bird, but they required way too much maintenance per flight hour. I was an F-111 maintainer way back in the early 80s and the cost effectiveness of flight hours vs maintenance requirement was pretty dire way back then.. If you mean replacing the Aussie F-111s with the F-15E yeah I'm all with you. Actually operating them right now would be a burden on any Air Force's budget.
-
Dunno Tronski. The F-111 was a great bird, but they required way too much maintenance per flight hour. I was an F-111 maintainer way back in the early 80s and the cost effectiveness of flight hours vs maintenance requirement was pretty dire way back then.. If you mean replacing the Aussie F-111s with the F-15E yeah I'm all with you. Actually operating them right now would be a burden on any Air Force's budget.
My Uncle says the same thing he was a crew chief on the F-111s during the same time period. In fact he told me a story about designating a certain plane to basically be a bird to pull pieces off of to fix other planes.
-
In fact he told me a story about designating a certain plane to basically be a bird to pull pieces off of to fix other planes.
That's not an unusual practice or at least it wasn't while I was in. We even did it on A-10s if there was a bird with major problems that was going to be down for maintenance for a long length of time. It could be designated a the "Can Bird" for cannibalization bird. If another plane needed a part which wasn't in stock you'd order the part for the can bird then remove it and use it on your aircraft. Where was your uncle stationed when he worked on F-111s? I did my F-111 time at RAF Upper Heyford in the UK from 1980-1983.
-
it cost way more than that. a lot of r&d is paid for in advance and not included as part of the price of the airplane.
If you include ground facilities, spare parts for 25 years, and development costs: About $2 billion per unit.
"The procurement cost per aircraft as detailed in General Accounting Office (GAO) reports, which include spare parts and software support, was $929 million per aircraft in 1997 dollars. The total program cost projected through 2004 was US$44.75 billion in 1997 dollars. This includes development, procurement, facilities, construction, and spare parts. The total program cost averaged US$2.13 billion per aircraft."
The F-35's total lifecycle cost over 50 years is estimated at $618 million per plane.
-
That's not an unusual practice or at least it wasn't while I was in. We even did it on A-10s if there was a bird with major problems that was going to be down for maintenance for a long length of time. It could be designated a the "Can Bird" for cannibalization bird. If another plane needed a part which wasn't in stock you'd order the part for the can bird then remove it and use it on your aircraft. Where was your uncle stationed when he worked on F-111s? I did my F-111 time at RAF Upper Heyford in the UK from 1980-1983.
He was in the US for his entire time I'm not really sure where, but I know he was never out of country. It should be during during the exact same time however. He graduated high school in 76' then joined the Air Force a year later an must have been in for 8 years or so. Dale Anhalt, if you know him.
-
The F-35's total lifecycle cost over 50 years is estimated at $618 million per plane.
And with the real chance of massive inflation over time, this number will skyrocket. America cannot borrow as much cash from China as we have without inflating our way out of repaying it. Oh vey!!
Boo
-
Inflation devalues the currency, so even if the $ amount increases over time due to inflation, the actual value remains the same.
-
Keynesian theory is that wages keep pace with inflation. There is a pnemubra of inflationary debt that allows politicians to feel good with the idea that 'debt doesn't matter.' This is any debt within the inflationary target rate of 2%. Debt is so out of control right now the Fed is floating the possibility of moving the target to 4%. Seems small but it hides the real devil inside: Not even the mighty dollar can continue to buy planes at over $600mil a pop in today's dollars.
Boo
-
$600 million a pop... over 50 years.
-
First published in 1955, burned in 1961, now available for free (http://www.whale.to/b/mullins5.html) on the interwebs. ;)
The theory that wages keep pace with inflation is highly questionable, especially when it is not in the interest of the major players (owners) of the system. It is under the pretext that the system is clean and not manipulated by any part, reality does not work that way. Ever played monopoly?
-
First published in 1955, burned in 1961, now available for free (http://www.whale.to/b/mullins5.html) on the interwebs. ;)
The theory that wages keep pace with inflation is highly questionable, especially when it is not in the interest of the major players (owners) of the system. It is under the pretext that the system is clean and not manipulated by any part, reality does not work that way. Ever played monopoly?
back in the 80's both parents could work for minimun wage and pay rent on an apartment and have enough money to pay bills and buy food. we were renting at the time a 3 bedroom apartment with 2 bath for 400 bucks. we would spend around 200-300 food for a family of 7 a month clipping coupons and hitting sales like crazy. we werent rich but we got by . we only had 1 car and the gas was around 90 cents a gallon. drive in theater was 4 bucks per carload. my first heavy jacket cost me 8 bucks at zody's.
try feeding a family of seven on 8 bucks an hour with both parents working now a days. hell we live in a two bedroom apartment and pay 950 bucks a month. I remember in the early 2000's making 50,000 a year and due to child support I couldnt afford to rent a place to live and pay for gas at the same time. my daily gas bill was about 80 to 90 bucks as I drove 200 to 300 miles a day. I lived in my truck for six months. I used to laugh as I always thought i was the only homeless guy that was required to have a cell phone. I still make about the same amount of money but I am always one paycheck away from being homeless at any time. I have managed to save some money for retirement but taking it out would basically cost me a lot more.
middle class is a rare thing of the past and even those who consider themselves middle class are one or two paychecks away from food stams.. now a days either you are rich or you are poor. those in the "middle class" are just not drowning as fast.
semp
-
He was in the US for his entire time I'm not really sure where, but I know he was never out of country. It should be during during the exact same time however. He graduated high school in 76' then joined the Air Force a year later an must have been in for 8 years or so. Dale Anhalt, if you know him.
I joined in 78 and stayed until 94. I never met Dale, then again it's a big Air Force. :D
-
werent there discussions exactly like this while the F-111's budget escalated and the delivery dates receeded into the distance about 50yrs ago? :D
-
werent there discussions exactly like this while the F-111's budget escalated and the delivery dates receeded into the distance about 50yrs ago? :D
Can your source that? I'm not being cheeky, just interested in the discussion. I do know that an F6FHellcat cost $150,000 in those days, which would run around $3 million today? I know, apples to apples though within the context of the technological impact within an ecomony, the replacement F\A-18E\F runs $65 million. Over the lifetime, more but no where near $600 million plus.
Keynesian economics shows up everywhere. It is literally "play now, pay later." At some point we've got to stop. My daughter is 6-years old and the impact of buying power in the years to come...one way of looking at this, and I won't get into the weeds but our current stock market is in the 12,000 range with a serious dip back in 2008. How much of this growth is real economic growth versus being propped up via inflationary forces? Well, how many jobs have been created versus how many millions have either dropped out of the work force and\or opted into near permanent welfare. A "jobless recovery" is hardly possible.
In any case, just my two cents but I'd rather us rebuild Hornets and Falcons then go this route. But that's just me...
Boo
-
I thought there were ongoing problems with the development and then delivery drift, recalls etc. due to the cutting edge tech.
in those days the worry was more about performance for the cost, rather than cost for the performance, but they are different sides of the same engineering coin. in the end it did its job and although not cheap, not a complete waste of money for its capability over a long period of time.
-
All in all, this is where Keynesian economics will get you. www.usdebtclock.org
Politicians speak of fiscal responsibility, so does the banks, and they try to hold a moral high ground when speaking of it. Yet they show no signs of actually having any sense of what fiscal responsibility actually is in their actions since they consequently and pretty much without exception steer their country (take your pick) towards bankruptcy.
Iceland it seems, is the only country actually having some sense of democracy and common sense left in their politics. See this (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-28/icelandic-anger-brings-debt-forgiveness-in-best-recovery-story.html) article.
-
The Icelandic government doesn't have an army it can turn on its own citizens to protect themselves.
-
The Icelandic government doesn't have an army it can turn on its own citizens to protect themselves.
Very real point you raise. It's been noted that much of Europe benefits from the safety net provided by the US. Lots to debate in this though evidence of some payback is the reality that European countries are buying the F-35 to fight??? In any case, I think we are coming full circle here.
Boo
-
iceland as a model of economic responsibility?
you are havin a laugh.
-
iceland as a model of economic responsibility?
you are havin a laugh.
Don't put words in my mouth I never said. This was a decision by the Icelandic govt forced by pressure from the people, it is called democracy. Consider that Iceland has a population of merely 300.000. In Italy on the other hand, people were told that the situation was much too serious to be handled democratically and that it was time for action instead. Their rationale (excuse) being that a democratic process takes too long and the people does not know enough anyway to make a informed decision. This is how democracy is overruled and dismantled.
-
the people does not know enough anyway to make a informed decision.
this is true, and the debt writeoff is a great example. any domestic debt written off will come out of the pockets of Iceland's foreign creditors. these creditors will never again invest in Iceland. how many of the Icelanders who petitioned their government appreciate this? not many would be my guess.
-
One note about progressives and the lot, they are decidedly anti-democracy.
Now, to the rank and file, they bleed the passion of democracy. It is all about 'people power' etc. When you delve into the intellectual depths of their movement democracy is simply a tool to the ends. The end is a perfect, utopian society where all the right decisions are made. And these decisions are too difficult for the average person to understand, let alone vote on. Thus it requires the "enlightened" intelligencia to make these difficult decisions for the masses. This is why socialists societies veer away from democratic institutions. You want evidence? Look no further then our current administration with almost 50 "tsars." Unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats with a tremendous amount of authority, who only answer to the President and his office. And not to be partisan, the previous administration had them as well, though no where near this scale.
Modern progressives are boldly going home to momma, democracy is for show: Intelligencia will make these decisions.
It is well that Iceland has a rough time with foreign investors. They blew it big time. And considering the US Federal Reserve has purchased over 60% of their own bond auctions lets us know that investors are suspect of us as well. 60%+?! This is the very definition of inflation.
And the game is to float items like $600+ million shiny toys to destroy empires long since gone. America can dominate for the next 50 years with our 4th generation package.
Boo
-
Well, the issue is that the US will destroy itself from within at some point during this decade. I reckon quite a few people on this forum, took an oath to defend their constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Well, the domestic enemies are running free in Washout DC while the US finest are off on foreign soil fighting phony wars. It's all smoke and mirrors serving the ultimate goal of total dictatorial control of the US by the feds. The TSA recently ordered 450 million .40 cal pistol rounds and 170 million rounds of .223 (5.56 NATO). On top of that the Department of Homeland Security has ordered 2,717 of these. It might be the proverbial top of the iceberg, who knows what else they are doing? Well by the way, ~30,000 operational UAVs in domestic airspace by 2020.
(http://www.lolzilla.net/images/32537626889319204328.jpg)
They have been very busy in the last two decades in developing hi-tech weaponry (beam/energy crowd-control & lethal) which will be used against the public in the coming financial collapse. Hyperinflation, riots, possibly civil war & a perfect excuse by the feds progressives to seize absolute control.
Now, please understand that I'm not saying this stating that it's absolute truth. It may or may not happen, but in light of what has been going on for some time now I think the trend is quite clear.
-
:noid much?
-
Don't get soft now but this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYEx9BiJNfE&feature=g-vrec&context=G232607eRVAAAAAAAABA) is a pretty cool vid. Just remember the truth is multi-faceted and you may think you have it, but you don't. You never do, nobody does. When you think you have it all figured out, you're wrong.
I love engineering and the tech going into these planes is some of the best achievements to this day. What these tools are used for, a completely different matter.
-
If any of you have access to US Netflix, search for the 2002 NOVA program about the "Xplanes".
It's a ten year old program NOVA did on the contest between the F32 and the F35 for the JSF contract.
I remember watching it when it was first on, but I just about fell off my chair watching it again ten years later - so much has changed it's hard to believe.
The original budget for the ENTIRE JSF program, including the USAF, USN, and Marine fighters was to be 200 Billion, and at the time was and still is the largest procurement in defense history. The only little difference today is that the projected budget released this week by the US Defense Dept. is that the cost will likely exceed 1.5 TRILLION dollars. Only a small difference of about 700 percent.
The program talked about how this new JSF would "solve" the problem of the "100 million" F22 fighters. What a laugh that is, they thought that they could build the JSF back then for 33 million a piece. What in the hell went wrong I wonder.....the world sure is a strange place, back then we thought we were all going to be rich, could build the most advanced fighters in history for a pittance, and China was a broke bellybutton country begging for most favored nation trading status, and now it owns over ten percent of the US debt and is on track to overtake the US defense budget in another decade or less.
-
Please take whatever Vortex says with a grain of salt, he still believes 9-11 was an inside job.
-
If any of you have access to US Netflix, search for the 2002 NOVA program about the "Xplanes".
It's a ten year old program NOVA did on the contest between the F32 and the F35 for the JSF contract.
I remember watching it when it was first on, but I just about fell off my chair watching it again ten years later - so much has changed it's hard to believe.
The original budget for the ENTIRE JSF program, including the USAF, USN, and Marine fighters was to be 200 Billion, and at the time was and still is the largest procurement in defense history. The only little difference today is that the projected budget released this week by the US Defense Dept. is that the cost will likely exceed 1.5 TRILLION dollars. Only a small difference of about 700 percent.
The program talked about how this new JSF would "solve" the problem of the "100 million" F22 fighters. What a laugh that is, they thought that they could build the JSF back then for 33 million a piece. What in the hell went wrong I wonder.....the world sure is a strange place, back then we thought we were all going to be rich, could build the most advanced fighters in history for a pittance, and China was a broke bellybutton country begging for most favored nation trading status, and now it owns over ten percent of the US debt and is on track to overtake the US defense budget in another decade or less.
You are being optimistic of the $1.5 trillion lie they are trying to sell now. This is nothing more than absolute lunacy spending this much money on a single engine fighter.
-
Dunno Tronski. The F-111 was a great bird, but they required way too much maintenance per flight hour. I was an F-111 maintainer way back in the early 80s and the cost effectiveness of flight hours vs maintenance requirement was pretty dire way back then.. If you mean replacing the Aussie F-111s with the F-15E yeah I'm all with you. Actually operating them right now would be a burden on any Air Force's budget.
That was the argument for retiring them "early" was maintenance cost in favor of the F-35 - but the airforce did have the spares and expertise to keep the pig flying for at least another 10 years, and now we have no capacity to project the kind of bombing power the F-111's gave us without heavy tanker support which we are now solely reliant on with the mix of upgraded FA-18A HUG's and the small number of F-18F's we have. Cost is indeed a major issue, but we could have obtained a significant number of highly capable upgraded F-15's to replace our F-111's for less than the F-18F's & F-35. Our more important "neighbours" now have a mix of older & new Su-27/30 Flankers and SAM systems and although I am more than confident of the skill of our pilots, we no longer have the capacity to truck bombs to those targets and it will get worse if the latest Flanker mounted chinese/russian made AWAC killers make their way south and this will not change even with the F-35 which are no where in sight.
I personally believe this is based on the long held belief that we realistically only have a small number of possible opponents and in a big fight the USAF will park sqd's in northern Australia, or a USN carrier group in the Timor sea which is a huge mistake on our part.
Tronsky
-
Please take whatever Vortex says with a grain of salt, he still believes 9-11 was an inside job.
:lol
Class act Delirium. :aok
I'd be happy to destroy whatever reasoning you entertain to reach the conclusion, but this is not the place. There is no reasoning with ignorant people and in the end, it all comes down to believing, for few people are actually up to seeing truth for what it is & whatever it is, no more no less. Besides, you are totally wrong in the above statement. Go figure.
-
I'm still remembering the conniptions over the B-2----(THOSE were $500 million per copy, which would have lessened had we built more)