+Veltro2k 6,340 Posted January 13, 2011 Expensive Jet http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110113/pl_afp/usmilitaryaerospacef35_20110113153609 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+daddyairplanes 9,692 Posted January 13, 2011 hey F-16 was the Electric Jet, the F-35 can be the Expensive Jet! shall the air force get them some Silent Eagles and F-16I standard Vipers while waiting on the JAST imean JSF i mean X-35 i mean F-35. whew! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nesher 629 Posted January 14, 2011 they should have known the price tag will increase... the F-22 program had the same issue instead of whining about it, they should help the program reach it's destinations and not let billions go to waste Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted January 14, 2011 The problem is there is NOTHING else. This isn't 30 yrs ago where if one program flounders you have another waiting in the wings. The only option is buying more planes from the 1970s, in the case of the F-16 that is as the others are all out of production. The DoD put all its eggs in one basket and now they're scrambling because it's spilling. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,877 Posted January 17, 2011 Why don't they put relative figures and do a real comparison - oh silly me that wouldnt be news if it pertained to the actual truth. Program has cost overrun - wow tell me something new. Last I heard the F-35B was on probation for a few years - LM need to make some structural changes or something - the A and C seem to be on track. Essentially you have 3 different Jets - looks like enough of a difference to class them as the F-35, F-36, and F-37 - like you see with Flankers - suspect the single designation is to get around the "You are only having one jet" type argument! So maybe a question to ask is - would getting 3 different jets with the same capabilities by more expensive - or cheaper - you decide........... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ezlead 42 Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) Read your history books. It's McNamara and the old TFX program(F-111) from the 60's all over again. Tri-service aircraft come along by accident,not by design. F-4 Phantom II;designed for Navy,bought by all. Edited January 17, 2011 by ezlead 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xclusiv8 35 Posted January 18, 2011 would they not loose tons of money if they canceled it now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the test pilot 5 Posted January 18, 2011 well, i still think it's hardly worth the money all the west is betting on it. Even the A, from what i heard, is so heavy they had eliminate Chaff, Flares and Fire extinguishing equipment... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted January 18, 2011 To cancel it now would be a tremendous waste of money. A lot that has been spent has been to fix the issues. To buy a smaller number or can it once you've worked it out seems really stupid. What are you going to replace it with, starting another new program that is guaranteed to have its own issues but not be ready for 20 years? This recent obsession with total program costs and how many will be bought before they shut it down is ridiculous. They're STILL building F-15Es and F-16s and just recently stopped building legacy Hornets. The problem isn't with the program itself anyway, the problem is the people running it can't estimate costs for crap. The whole idea of concurrent development and production was to cut costs, but that only works as long as no significant issues are found (a pretty big assumption). If they are, then you have early production models that are at best out of sync in their configuration and at worst totally unusable pending fixes that cost more than just waiting and building the plane "fixed" would have. Then you start having the production delayed, and that drives up costs in the early years on a per plane basis. So, in short, the model picked made assumptions about how it would go, but if those assumptions turn out too far off the mark there is no "cheap" way of fixing them. Either you continue as originally planned and have a bunch of planes that need to be fixed or you delay production and, well, it costs just about as much in the long run as "fixing" them would! The main thing is going to be to keep the F-35 in production for decades to leverage all the money put into it the last 10 yrs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,877 Posted January 18, 2011 Well said JM Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted January 18, 2011 To cancel it now would be a tremendous waste of money. A lot that has been spent has been to fix the issues The problem isn't with the program itself anyway, the problem is the people running it can't estimate costs for crap. Very true, and valid points. However, the underlining fact is that Lock-Mart won the contract based on what they said the airplane could do, within the specs and timeline the DoD put out and at the cost they initially quoted per aircraft. So far, they haven't delivered. And who has to pick up the tab? We do, but we aren't in the position to keep dumping money into something that has outgrown it's usefullness. The F-22 has still yet to reach it's full potential due to funding that was earmarked for purchasing more aircraft, having to go toward fixing the OT&E problems. When do you finally say enough is enough and move on? The Army saw the light and pulled the plug on the Comanche after dumping billions into it. We've got the ability to build very modern and capable "legacy" aircraft (F-15E, 16Blk 50+ and 18E/F) but are stuck in the stealth mindset. Low cost UAVs can do the same job for cheaper, and won't place the human into the high threat ring. The manned aircraft can come in behind and finish off the rest. Just my $.02 -S 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,319 Posted January 18, 2011 They need to dump the B and C model and put all the branches on the same plane like they did the F-4. That would save billions. The F-35A is coming for the USAF and the damn thing is ready to go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ezlead 42 Posted January 18, 2011 The F-35A is not 'beefed up' enough for carrier use. They should build the 'C' model for all the services. It would be a capable aircraft for all the services. The Marines would have to keep their Harriers for a while longer. It would be interesting to know just what problems are causing the cost overruns. Is it something that is a safety of flight problem or is it something that LockMart just keeps getting more money for. LockMart knows they have the government by the 'short hairs'. Are they just milking a so-called problem to keep getting billions more money? What would it cost to make the F-22 carrier suitable? My 2 cents 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Viggen 614 Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) Axe the F-35B. If the Marines need more Harriers, they can always get some from the RAF. If the whole F-35 program was to get axed, which of the following would be the most cost effective alternative? Purchase more Block 50/52+ Vipers Overhaul and upgrade older, low hour Vipers at AMARG to modern standards Block 60s (Wouldn't we have to pay royalties to the UAE from some stupid reason then?) Purchase a smaller number of F-15Es ...Super Hornets Edited January 18, 2011 by Viggen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted January 18, 2011 Well, in my opinion the F-35, along with most other modern weapon system procurement procedures is burdened by the following: 1) Technology: Making the bleeding edge always takes longer than expected, with bugs to work out. It also always costs more. Also, 'feature creep' tends to be rolled into this...the thinking is over the development cycle, we get the 'what if we add or change this'. This happened during the B-2s development cycle, resulting in a major redesign and delay. You've seen this with modern civilian aircraft as well (A380 and B787). Finally, a lot of time is spent making sure to not repeat mistakes of previous iterations of similar aircraft (think of lessons learned in operations of the F-117 and F-22 being applied to the F-35) 2) Politics: This is the big one I think. Every state (or nation) wants a piece of the action, resulting in a requirements and QC nightmare. In addition, the constant political practice of 'stretching out' the development time on a weapon system to save money in the short term drives me crazy because it ALWAYS drives up cost (and feature creep sneaks in because of this). It's like applying for a loan on a house...the longer the loan period, the more you ultimately pay. 3) Contracts: The USG cannot write a contract to save its life. Contracts should be written to the extent that if certain goals or points cannot be met at certain times, that penalties (such as fines, or reduced cost) should be enforced. There will always be wasted spending somewhere in a program, and sometimes the waste is generated by the very government oversight designed to avoid waste. I can tell you horror stories of the logistics side of the house...how government regulations actually wasted more money and time then if it was simply left up to the organization how to spend its budget. Personally, I like ezlead's idea of the USAF buying the C model, though I'd like the internal gun back. It's much easier to take out the Navy bits...or live with the increased 'beef' which would translate into increased life spans. FC 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted January 19, 2011 The problem is last I looked the C was significantly more expensive than the A. Granted converting all the A model purchases to Cs would bring the cost down, they'd still cost more which means fewer planes for the USAF although the USN would likely then be able to get more. However, with the Super Bug program under full steam, the USN has never been antsy about getting the C anyway, they'd be fine with being last as long as they get a few more Bugs to make up the slack of retiring legacy Hornets. The problem with axing the B is the Marines currently have ships designed around the Harrier that suddenly would be helo-only...well, like the RN currently is facing, actually! I'm not into the Marine's maritime assets, so I have no idea with how old or new their fleet of those ships are, but it seems they have quite a bit of life left and if they're forced to get Cs that means they have to be on USN carriers, displacing USN squadrons. Again, it would save money (although I've seen data that suggests that, minus the engine, the F-35B costs less than a 35C, but the engine difference makes the B slightly more) as the USN would likely cut back on the number of its squadrons (since all the Marine squadrons would integrate with the CVWs and replace some USN), but what sort of capability reduction are we looking at for that savings? The Army pulled the Comanche because they saw they'd designed a helo that, while very advanced, was more than they needed as well as overpriced. We weren't losing Apaches and Kiowas to radar-guided SAMs and AAA, we were losing them to small arms fire, RPGs, and MANPADs. The Comanche had little over the Apache in the ability to avoid those threats and its survivability is hard to say. Of course, the Army then cancelled the Comanche's replacement (aka Kiowa replacement) for runaway cost growth on a far simpler program, so... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted January 19, 2011 The problem with axing the B is the Marines currently have ships designed around the Harrier that suddenly would be helo-only...well, like the RN currently is facing, actually! I'm not into the Marine's maritime assets, so I have no idea with how old or new their fleet of those ships are, but it seems they have quite a bit of life left and if they're forced to get Cs that means they have to be on USN carriers, displacing USN squadrons. A recent report stated that the jet blast of the B-model in VTOL mode was too hot for the current deck plating on the ships. This becomes another issue for the Marines, in that they will have to dump more money into refurbing the ships to accomodate the aircraft. When was the last time the mission required the use of STOL/VTOL? 2003 maybe? The USMC has been attached/assigned to CVWs for years. They routinely replace or augment the USN squadrons. In 2006 VMFA-251 was assigned to the Ike. They split the Det between the ship and a land base. I've seen other units since, doing the same. If one version were to be procured, I'd have to agree that the C-model is the best choice. -S Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tedberchtold 0 Posted January 19, 2011 I must say the 35 to me was a total waste of time and money from the beginning!! the 22 is a fantastic extremely capable airframe and could have been modified to fit these other roles as well! this is pork barrell spending at its finest! the cost to build these aircraft is absolutely absurd! everyone knows if the government is paying the bill "add another thousand" or in this case another mill! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted January 19, 2011 You don't buy F-22s to replace F-16s and A-10s and AV-8Bs. That's like replacing a fleet of Chevys with Lexus. The Chevy will get it done for less. The problem is they screwed up on how to get the Chevys built. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meganmon 0 Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) Good news for F16 buffs and Luke AFB. http://www.aviationweek.com Edited January 20, 2011 by meganmon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted January 20, 2011 Good news for F16 buffs and Luke AFB. http://www.aviationweek.com What? Your link went straight to the AvWeek front page. -S Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,877 Posted January 20, 2011 What? Your link went straight to the AvWeek front page. -S Does he mean this? http://www.f-16.net/news_article4281.html or maybe promoting Aviation week! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted January 21, 2011 When I was in the 58th in 2001, I once made the joke about the Wing getting Vipers in place of the Eagles. The pilots nearly kicked my butt. Hmm, looks like I ended up being right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast 153 Posted January 21, 2011 As has been said before you can turn a Navy plane into an Air Force plane but not the other way round... though there are exceptions... The F-4 F-18 A-7 to name a few... I think the biggest issue is that the USAF wouldn't be happy to do that again... Just build the F-35C it has provison for a Gunpod so thats not too much of an issue also makes it easier to fix the gun if its broken... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted January 21, 2011 Well, the difference there is you can be stealthy OR you can carry a gun...not a great choice! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
