US Pentagon pissed over F-35 costs, lashes out at Lockheed and contractors.
147 replies, posted
[QUOTE]AVALON, Australia (Reuters) - The Pentagon program chief for the F-35 warplane slammed the main contractors on the program, Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney, accusing them of trying to "squeeze every nickel" out of the U.S. government and failing to see the long-term benefits of the project.
U.S. Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan made the comments on Wednesday during a visit to Australia, where he has sought to convince lawmakers and generals to stick to a plan to buy 100 of the jets, an exercise complicated by the second grounding of the plane this year and looming U.S. defense cuts.
Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp , is sole supplier of engines to the $396 billion F-35, or Joint Strike Fighter. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the radar-evading jet, the biggest weapons program in history.
"What I see Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney doing today is behaving as if they are getting ready to sell me the very last F-35 and the very last engine and are trying to squeeze every nickel out of that last F-35 and that last engine," Bogdan told reporters at the Australian International Airshow in southern Victoria state.
- See more at: [url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-27/business/sns-rt-us-lockheed-fighter-australiabre91r05h-20130227_1_pratt-whitney-first-production-engine-matthew-bates#sthash.UI1nhDd9.dpuf[/url][/QUOTE]
Lockheed later admitted that the in-flight meal robot was not a critical component.
I feel like this is exactly what they've been doing lately. They know their contracts are secure, might as well step it up.
I feel bad for the forces that were duped into relying on this aircraft to supplement their forces.
It's like when I used to go to my parents trying to convince them to get me a $2000 super PC when I would never need something that awesome.
The f-35 is a perfect example of what happens when you allow a project to have an unlimited budget.
It should be, your project fails to meet it's goals? Tough shit, you get canned. Cry some more. (Exceptions can be made if a project shows promise, but this should be the rare exception and not the rule.)
if I can recall, they went through the same shit with North American after the Apollo 1 incident showed they were dumping money into a contractor who was not keeping up to spec. I think they began handing out contracts to Rockwell after that.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39749050]The f-35 is a perfect example of what happens when you allow a project to have an unlimited budget.
It should be, your project fails to meet it's goals? Tough shit, you get canned. Cry some more. (Exceptions can be made if a project shows promise, but this should be the rare exception and not the rule.)[/QUOTE]
Right here. This is the way it should be. Didn't keep your budget? Tough titties, it's cutting into your profit now, suck it the fuck up and fix it. Want to add something new? We'll think about it, but [I]only[/I] if it can be done in our timeframe, not TWO more years.
I wonder why the Canadian government seems like it is still going to buy these jets, the public at large is no longer interested in owning something that costs this much and fails this hard.
And rightfully so. We've spent nearly half a trillion in taxpayer funds on a jet that can't even outfly a fucking Cessna 172 because it's so unreliable.
If I were the pentagon I'd be demanding combat-ready F35s be deployed in time to provide air support for our retreating troops, and if the jets fail to arrive the program gets nipped.
To be fair, if the government had pulled the plug there'd be outrage over wasting billions of dollars on cancelling a project with such promise. In these situations there is no way to win.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39751061]To be fair, if the government had pulled the plug there'd be outrage over wasting billions of dollars on cancelling a project with such promise. In these situations there is no way to win.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy[/url]
Except that's we used to do. And considering how stupidly long lived things like the B-52s have shown to be, I'd say it worked pretty damn well.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;39749029]It's like when I used to go to my parents trying to convince them to get me a $2000 super PC when I would never need something that awesome.[/QUOTE]
besides the fact that that $2000 super PC will become a $200-500 average computer in only a few short years
Now if you had communism instead of that barely functioning capitalism, this wouldn't have happened.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;39751416]Now if you had communism instead of that barely functioning capitalism, this wouldn't have happened.[/QUOTE]
let's play the naming game
name a single successful communist society
the answer is none
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;39752702]let's play the naming game
name a single successful communist society
the answer is none[/QUOTE]
North Korea
the reason various governments are circle-jerking so hard over the F-35 is that it's a fixed wing fighter plane that can hover for as long as it has fuel (hours)
the only other hover-capable aircraft, the harrier, can only hover for 2-5 minutes before going to the hangar because the exhaust vents get so hot they burn off coolant like crazy.
a fleet of f-35's can open new worlds of combat
[QUOTE=smeismastger;39751416]Now if you had communism instead of that barely functioning capitalism, this wouldn't have happened.[/QUOTE]
don't start this shit
[QUOTE=meppers;39752895]the reason various governments are circle-jerking so hard over the F-35 is that it's a fixed wing fighter plane that can hover for as long as it has fuel (hours)
the only other hover-capable aircraft, the harrier, can only hover for 2-5 minutes before going to the hangar because the exhaust vents get so hot they burn off coolant like crazy.
a fleet of f-35's can open new worlds of combat[/QUOTE]
The harrier can hover for 10 minutes. I've seen it go for longer at airshows too. No plane needs to hover for as long as it has fuel like the f 35b I'm guessing you are talking about.
[QUOTE=meppers;39752895]a fleet of f-35's can open new worlds of combat[/QUOTE]
I'd say they already opened a new world of design problems.
[QUOTE=meppers;39752895]the reason various governments are circle-jerking so hard over the F-35 is that it's a fixed wing fighter plane that can hover for as long as it has fuel (hours)
the only other hover-capable aircraft, the harrier, can only hover for 2-5 minutes before going to the hangar because the exhaust vents get so hot they burn off coolant like crazy.
a fleet of f-35's can open new worlds of combat[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but that is totally wrong. STOVL/VTOL capability is used exclusively to permit operation on an airstrip or carrier that would normally be too small for a fixed-wing plane of a given size. It's extremely inefficient and burns enormous amounts of fuel, and if it can be avoided it is.
An F-35 would never hover to remain on station, it would perform low-speed circles to minimize fuel consumption. What makes the F-35 attractive is that it can take off and land on vessels smaller than supercarriers, allowing smaller nations to build viable carrier groups.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39753191]I'm sorry but that is totally wrong. STOVL/VTOL capability is used exclusively to permit operation on an airstrip or carrier that would normally be too small for a fixed-wing plane of a given size. It's extremely inefficient and burns enormous amounts of fuel, and if it can be avoided it is.
An F-35 would never hover to remain on station, it would perform low-speed circles to minimize fuel consumption. What makes the F-35 attractive is that it can take off and land on vessels smaller than supercarriers, allowing smaller nations to build viable carrier groups.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately they're going to be using it for everything and it won't be able to win a dogfight.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39753280]Unfortunately they're going to be using it for everything and it won't be able to win a dogfight.[/QUOTE]
Uh F-35s are built for BVR
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
That's kind of the point of the whole stealth thing
[QUOTE=Jund;39753372]Uh F-35s are built for BVR
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
That's kind of the point of the whole stealth thing[/QUOTE]
Yeah and if the enemy has a stealth aircraft or complex ECM/AWACS he will have the upper advantage. Its a stupid plane for a stupid idea, they tried to make the F-35 a one size fits all. As far as I've heard F-22's get into dogfights with F-16's in Red Flag.
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
That's kind of the point of not having a airplane that performs like shit and costs $100mn.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39753429]Yeah and if the enemy has a stealth aircraft or complex ECM/AWACS he will have the upper advantage. Its a stupid plane for a stupid idea, they tried to make the F-35 a one size fits all. As far as I've heard F-22's get into dogfights with F-16's in Red Flag.
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
That's kind of the point of not having a airplane that performs like shit and costs $100mn.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say anything about the price, I'm saying that F-35s were built for BVR
Stealth aircraft? So like, Russia and China (maybe)? The US?
It's a multirole aircraft and nowadays even a shitstain Somali warlord can afford SAMs
[QUOTE=Jund;39753631]I didn't say anything about the price, I'm saying that F-35 were built for BVR
Stealth aircraft? So like, Russia and China (maybe)? The US?
It's a multirole aircraft and nowadays even a shitstain Somali warlord can afford SAMs[/QUOTE]
They're going to be replacing the majority of fighter aircraft with F-35's. That is a bad thing, considering the lifespan is supposed to be 40 years and nobody knows how the world is going to look 30 years from now.
That's what the USAF gets for choosing Pratt Whitney over General Electric to supply it's engines.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39753689]The F-22 was also built for BVR.
They're going to be replacing the majority of fighter aircraft with F-35's. That is a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
We're slowing down F-22 production because it's useless in the wars currently being fought today
Doesn't mean that the ones that already exist will disappear off the face of the Earth
[QUOTE=Jund;39753732]We're slowing down F-22 production because it's useless in the wars currently being fought today
Doesn't mean that the ones that already exist will disappear off the face of the Earth[/QUOTE]
F-22 production isn't slowed, its been closed for a long time. As for the rest of your post, what is your point? The F-35 is a bad idea.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39753750]F-22 production isn't slowed, its been closed for a long time. As for the rest of your post, what is your point? The F-35 is a bad idea.[/QUOTE]
No shit I never said it was a good idea
Don't try to invalidate my points by pretending I said things that I never did
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.