backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by stromgald30.. on Nov 19 at 6:45 PM


STOVL version of the F-35 Lightning II
Program could exhaust development funds in one year

One of the most ambitions aircraft development programs ever undertaken by the U.S. and its defense contractors is the F-35 joint strike fighter. The aircraft has variants that are being built for multiple branches of the U.S. armed forces and for foreign participants in the program like Britain.

One of the problems plaguing the program is that the exact demand for the aircraft is still unknown. With demand unknown, it's hard for the program to justify increasing costs and has led the Pentagon to cut back on some program flight tests and to reconsider some of the program features like the development of a second engine for the aircraft.

In November, reports surfaced that with the increasing cost overruns many of the countries that had intended to purchase the F-35 are now reconsidering the number of aircraft they will purchase. The Dutch parliament for example could reduce the number of aircraft is purchases from the planned 85 to 57 to reduce costs. With several countries, reconsidering their purchases the overall orders of the F-35 could be cut in half.

Military.com reports that the F-35 program is behind schedule and over budget. According to reports that were prepared by the Defense Contract Management Agency for the Defense Department, Lockheed and its contractors are months behind in deliveries of key components and test aircraft for testing.

Even worse than delays is the fact that the reports say the entire development budget for the aircraft could be exhausted within a year. The Pentagon has already said that the development of the aircraft could take two more years and billions more in funds.

Dan Crowley, a senior Lockheed executive running the F-35 program said that the reports about delays and cost overruns were mostly true. However, he maintains that the program is past most of the major delays.

He said, "We're not drawing farther from the schedule. We're going to meet the schedule beginning in 2011."

A new F-35 aircraft had its first test flight on Saturday and the plane was only the fourth aircraft to make a test flight since the contract was awarded to Lockheed in 2001. So far, only seven of the 13 test aircraft have been completed while all 13 aircraft were supposed to have been tested and completed for testing in early October.

The test aircraft that flew this weekend was a milestone for the program. The airplane was the first conventional takeoff F-35A model, the previous aircraft that were tested were the F-35B models designed for short-takeoff-vertical landing. The Two F-35B models have made a total of 37 combined test flights in the last 18 months.

Military.com quotes aerospace engineer Hans Weber saying, "The airplane is so ambitious, it was bound to have problems."

Some fear that the Pentagon might cut flight tests and test aircraft further to save money for the program. Webber said, "You need to do the testing the engineers originally said needed to be done."

As flight tests progress any changes made to rectify problems found in testing will have to be fitted to the other aircraft. This will further drive costs for the program up.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By jonmcc33 on 11/18/2009 9:54:10 AM , Rating: 1
At least it isn't as horrible of a blunder as the RAH-66 Comanche from the US Army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAH-66_Comanche

$6.9 billion US taxpayer dollars wasted.




RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By Iaiken on 11/18/2009 10:23:25 AM , Rating: 5
So the F35 program a terrible blunder, opposed to a horrible one?

As a contractor, your degree of success or failure is not determined by the failures of those before you. After all, Boeing set the schedule and the cost estimates and therefore set themselves up for failure.

My question is, why does the government ever take these jackasses word for cost and schedule? They never hit the marks since they are just throwing out the lowest believable numbers possible in hopes of winning the contract. Then once you have all their pennies in your pocket you can just overrun cost and schedule. At that point, all the government can do is continue to fund it, or cancel it.

PS: The Commanche program was cancelled because of the developments of UAV's that could perform all of the duties of the AH-66 at a lower cost and without putting men at risk.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By jonmcc33 on 11/18/2009 11:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Commanche program was cancelled because of the developments of UAV's that could perform all of the duties of the AH-66 at a lower cost and without putting men at risk.


I know why it was canceled but the helicopter was originally going to be a replacement to the AH-64 Apache. That's a gunship and not a recon chopper. The roles and requirements changed for the RAH-66 over time. When it came down to just a recon chopper the US Army saw the error of their ways with how successful the UAV was. Cancelled the project but it still cost US taxpayers $6.9 billion. That's an expensive mistake.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By Smartless on 11/18/2009 4:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
This is kicking a dead horse but the point is that this wasn't as bad a mistake as the other ones that we know or don't know about. I consider the Airforce 1 and tanker debacle a bigger mistake. B1-B bomber is a good one and the F22 costs $1 billion to make one plane.
By the way, if you read the first line in wikipedia link, it wasn't designed to replace the Apache but more of the AH-1 Cobra. If you can find a link stating that they changed its role over time that's great.

quote:
One of the most ambitions aircraft development programs ever undertaken
Lol ambitions.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By FITCamaro on 11/18/2009 4:57:07 PM , Rating: 4
The F22 is around $120 million a plane.

And what tanker are you referring to? The KC-X tanker program that's being rebid?


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By Smartless on 11/18/2009 7:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected by a lot. Must have pulled that number from a prototype cost or my butt.

Yeah though I think of any project that goes to court and gets restarted as a waste of money. True that its better than starting the project than killing it later, well I don't want to start another flame war about the KC-X.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By ArcliteHawaii on 11/19/2009 2:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
I think you mean that they had already spent one billion by the time they had produced their first plane. Which is an awful lot of research dollars.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By FITCamaro on 11/19/2009 9:05:47 AM , Rating: 2
Pales in comparison to what drug companies spend to produce a single commercially viable drug. Hell the auto industry spends that just to develop a single engine or a new chassis.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By FITCamaro on 11/19/2009 9:07:14 AM , Rating: 2
And trust me, everyone was pissed at what happened with the KC-X tanker. The fault lies with both sides as well as the government.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By FITCamaro on 11/18/2009 12:30:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
My question is, why does the government ever take these jackasses word for cost and schedule? They never hit the marks since they are just throwing out the lowest believable numbers possible in hopes of winning the contract. Then once you have all their pennies in your pocket you can just overrun cost and schedule. At that point, all the government can do is continue to fund it, or cancel it.


First, that's done because that's whats required to win. The current government mentality is whoever is cheapest with the least perceived risk gets the contract. Basically they're using the Walmart mentality. They need to get off this model that the cheapest is the best. Quality should come into the equation.

Second, no the government does not just fund it or cancel it. If you use the money the government gives you and don't get the work done, you either fund it yourself and get it done or are in breach of contract and subject to whatever punishment is imposed.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By Iaiken on 11/18/2009 3:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
To date, there has never been a breach of contract penalty between Boeing and the DOD that covered the monetary loss of the US investment. It's just not realistic to try and claw back that money. There are so few major defense contractors in the US these days that the government can't risk bankrupting any of them.

Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman run the show with a bit of help from Raytheon and General Dynamics. If any of these companies failed financially due to the actions of the government (regardless of whether the company deserved it or not) it would put the future security of America at risk. These players are so large and so intrinsically tied to national security that it would be almost impossible for outside parties to come in and pick up the pieces.

So basically any punitive actions have historically measured up to nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Hell, with the AH-66, the US government paid Boeing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. It's not like they didn't benefit at all from the 6.9 billion dollars poured in their coffers before cancellation.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By FITCamaro on 11/18/2009 5:02:14 PM , Rating: 3
Big difference between canceling a program and a company not getting the job done with the funding provided.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By GreenyMP on 11/19/2009 5:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My question is, why does the government ever take these jackasses word for cost and schedule?


Maybe for the same reason that people think that government run health-care could be zero cost, or that the government could do anything for cheaper than the private sector could. Maybe that is the hope that you voted for. The hope that your government would not lie to you to get something passed.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By supersteve1440 on 11/18/2009 10:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of the components and research of the RAH-66 was incorporated into existing aircraft.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By jonmcc33 on 11/18/2009 1:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
Such as?


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By Lakku on 11/19/2009 12:59:34 AM , Rating: 2
Data communication abilities and some of the upgraded avionics of the Commanche have been put into the AH-64D Longbows etc, to better keep in touch with the chain of command and with all the UAVs. It's all part of the long running Force XXI program that seems like it's been going on for 15+ years out at Ft. Hood.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By DEVGRU on 11/18/2009 10:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
At least it isn't as horrible of a blunder as the RAH-66 Comanche from the US Army.


The only waste was the blunder that the Commanche was never completed and put into production. I'm well aware of why the program was cancelled, but there are much more damning wastes of money in government spending than the Commanche program.

I'd be curious to compare the budget, cost and time over-runs from the original British Harrier program and the US's development of our own AV-8B. ANY fixed-wing VTOL aircraft is going to take significantly more time and money than a comparable conventional aircraft (and thats not even considering things like incorporating stealth features, a revolutionary new tracking and targeting system, etc.).

Over budget and past predicted operational and testing timelines for a state-of-the-art, VTOL, multi-roll stealth figter being made into many verions for many different countries?

Shock. Disbelief.

Pfffff...


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By jonmcc33 on 11/18/2009 11:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
The F-35 JSF program is multi-national. It isn't all coming out of American pockets. A lot of the technology for the F-35 comes from the F-22 which is already a production aircraft.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By FITCamaro on 11/18/2009 12:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Over budget and past predicted operational and testing timelines for a state-of-the-art, VTOL, multi-roll stealth figter being made into many verions for many different countries? Shock. Disbelief.


Exactly. Any cutting edge military system is going to be overcost and take longer than anticipated. Especially one with as many hands in the pot as this.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By albus on 11/18/2009 1:53:56 PM , Rating: 4
It's a pity this can't be outsourced. The Chinese will be happy to partner the development costs.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By MrPoletski on 11/19/2009 9:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exactly. Any cutting edge military system is going to be overcost and take longer than anticipated. Especially one with as many hands in the pot as this.


If you are consistantly under-predicting the costs of your projects then you'd better look at your cost prediction algorithm - because it's not accurately predicting costs and getting it wrong the same way each time.


RE: RAH-66 Comanche anyone?
By stromgald30 on 11/19/2009 6:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
There is constant under-predicting of cost/schedule because that's what the government drives the contractors to do.

They reward the company that convinces the government procurement people that they can meet requirements at the lowest cost.

It was mentioned in an earlier post that the industry is an oligopoly and you can't remove any one of the companies, but that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the defense industry is a monopsony (i.e. single buyer). Both have huge (negative) implications on the way the defense industry/market operates.


Outright lie from the Pentagon
By Amiga500 on 11/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By TerranMagistrate on 11/18/2009 12:15:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
under-performing


I wouldn't be so certain.

The F-35 designed to outperform the aircraft it is meant to replace (F-16, F-18A-D) along with just about every other fourth generation warplane. After all, in the end that's the very point of its existence. Perhaps the weapons payload amount will suffer but that's likely it.


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By Amiga500 on 11/18/2009 12:25:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The F-35 designed to outperform the aircraft it is meant to replace (F-16, F-18A-D) along with just about every other fourth generation warplane.


Quantify outperform.

Better roll performance? Marginally better than a -15, deficient to a -16.

Better pitch performance? Maybe, maybe not - don't know enough to say.

Better energy maneuverability? No. Power to weight and wing loading determines that, it is drastically worse in both compared to a -15 OR -16.

Radar sig? Yes, better here, no arguments.

Range? Compared to a -16 yes, compared to a -15 with CFTs...

Combat persistence? No. Only 4 internal missiles, or raise its radar signature with external loads, which removes its only advantage.

Electronics? Well... fit that radar to an F-15, and enlarge the T/R count due to the larger nose and the -15 will be better.

By only one yardstick is the JAST/JSF/F-35 better than the F-15, and that comes at a massive compromise in loadout capability.

The F-35 costs more, so it has to be asked... what is the point?

Note, I haven't even started comparing it to advanced 4th generation aircraft like the Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale, Mig-35 or Su-35.


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By HotFoot on 11/18/2009 1:26:02 PM , Rating: 3
I cringe when I think about a F-35 trying to do an A-10's job.


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By PrinceGaz on 11/18/2009 6:47:53 PM , Rating: 4
I thought an A-10 was the closest thing to a flying tank, rather than being a modern high-performance fighter like the F-35. Certainly the A-10's selling-point was it could survive the odd light impact and still make it back to base, whereas more conventional higher-performance and less-armoured designs have to be able to evade any significant incoming weapons.

Comparing the A-10 and the F-35 must be like comparing coconuts with melons :)


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By Scabies on 11/19/2009 2:54:20 AM , Rating: 2
from Wikipedia, on the A-10
quote:
The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator and half a wing torn off.


reminds me of the (forgot which) propeller driven aircraft that saw a lot of time working Close Air Support in Vietnam, even though the Jet age was well underway.


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By rcc on 11/19/2009 1:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
A-1 SkyRaider


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By cjc1103 on 11/19/2009 11:00:22 AM , Rating: 2
I seem to recall back about 10 years ago that the F-16 was going to take over the A-10 mission. That didn't go very far - the Air Force back tracked and ended up modifying and upgrading the A-10's so they would last another 20 years. That says to me that the F-35 is not going to be any better at performing the A-10 mission.


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By William Gaatjes on 11/18/2009 5:16:05 PM , Rating: 3
I can still remember that the responsible government department had secretly already decided that the jsf would be purchased. But because of the fair game strategy of the EU they had to play along and had a fake meeting with the french company Dassault. Since Dassault was not aware of what was really going on they did everything they could to get a rafale presentation ready while hoping for a contract. Little did they know that already was decided for the JSF. The same game was played on the Swedish company Saab with the gripen. When i found out about that i was ashamed and pissed off of my fellow country men. I am sure our national air agency is loosing all contracts with respect to the airbus maintenance because of this. Our national agency was purchased a few years ago by air france and all old boeing planes that must be replaced are being replaced by airbus... Since France desperately needs jobs this was a easy decision. No airbus maintenance here. I doubt that was a coincidence, the FAA was always highly satisfied with the maintenance quality of us aeroplanes in my country.


By William Gaatjes on 11/19/2009 6:54:18 AM , Rating: 2
I forgot to mention that at that time the jsf only existed on paper while the rafale, gripen and the eurofighter where beyond the prototype stage. Yet there was already decided for the jsf. And that the responsible department lobbied at the businesses that contracts would rewarded to make parts for the jsf. Now, i can not grasp this. If an US plane is bought , then the parts of that plane will also be manufactured in the US, to create jobs that is. I find that obvious, for i would do the same. And new technologies i would prefer to keep in house. Perfectly obvious. Afcourse no company is or will make anything in my country. The reason why the business was involved, is because otherwise there would never have been decided in favour of the jsf.
Silly dreams...



RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By MrPoletski on 11/19/2009 9:46:01 AM , Rating: 2
The F-35 can hover, not sure for how long though, that has got to be useful.

Also, vertical landing (they dont say takeoff though) is gonna make this very friendly to carrier deployment (if only it had a second engine).

but aside from that, you make very good points.

I would be interested to hear your comparison of the F35 with the eurofighter though;)


By stromgald30 on 11/19/2009 6:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
Um, there's a naval version of the F35, and the UK is using the SVTOL version for their carriers IIRC.

The whole 'single engine is unacceptable' stance from the Navy hasn't held water for the past 2-3 decades with all the advancements in engine technology. The whole F-16 and F/A-18 fiasco proved that. The Navy is just a stubborn bunch, but with the tighter purse strings today, they're coming to their senses.


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By HotFoot on 11/18/2009 1:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm opposed to systems and programs of such ungainly complexity as this one. One poster said above 'three planes for the price of three.' How true. It seems there was better value in the past when there were a greater variety of purpose-built aircraft.

I'm also thinking some serious work needs to be done with respect to the emphasis on stealth. What I read is that stealth and the other advanced features of the F-22 are absolutely game-changing. But when all that technology means that the world's largest economy can only afford very few aircraft, so much of the advantage is lost. Compound that with the low availability rates compared to previous generation aircraft, and the resources at the commander's disposal keeps dwindling every year.

It just seems to me that there is no sense of balance in these programmes. The extremely optimistic figures produced at the beginning of the programme are not properly scrutinised. Consider that the U.S. faces being out-gunned in the sky in the coming decades and you have to realise this isn't a trivial matter.


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By Amiga500 on 11/18/2009 2:42:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What I read is that stealth and the other advanced features of the F-22 are absolutely game-changing.


They are very over-rated. The USAF are making very dangerous assumptions in thinking of the next war.

Right now, the B-2, F-22 and F-35 can be detected at very long ranges by GCI long wave length radar (but not by airborne units, be they AWACS or fighter based radars). As a result, opposing fighters can be vectored to the approximate vicinity by ground control, and attempt detection using passive methods, such as RWR or IRST.

Missiles such as the MICA IR can be slaved off passive systems (such as the Rafale's IRST) and has a range of over 60km. Bye bye F-22.

People will no doubt point to the F-22s excellent RWR/ECM system, which can detect, identify and localise any EM signatures very quickly. But no emissions is no emissions. If a (for instance) Rafale is running entirely passively, then there is simply nothing to detect.

Oh, and nobody believe the bull about LPI radar. That was licked a long time ago, and its only something the USAF uses to confuse the ignorant in congress.


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By corduroygt on 11/18/2009 4:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
Can a Rafale's IRST sensor pick up a F-22 heading towards it from 60km?


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By D2Lalma on 11/18/2009 6:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
I think no.
The method that was made to shot down a stealthy aircraft is:
A long wave radar detects the F22 (even the old modifiled SA6 detected the F117 from 200km+) now we know aprox where is the F22 but we dont have a lock status. An IRIS radar is fired to the F22s direction and when it is 20-30km far from the F22 it gets a lock status.

So no a rafael+irist can not. A rafael+irist+long wavelenght radar can.

Sorry for my bad english.


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By skyward on 11/18/2009 6:55:29 PM , Rating: 3
And there is the problem with whole IRST or passive methods idea. By the time you get a lock on, you are in the F22 kill area for a long time. The F22 can lock and shot at 100km away. you just need one F22 to have its radar on or AWACS and the only F22s don't need its radar to be on.


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By Amiga500 on 11/19/2009 3:23:18 AM , Rating: 2
An IRST is highly sensitive to atmospheric conditions. If it is damp, performance degrades significantly.

If it is dry, a supercruising F-22 should be detectable at ranges of the order of 50km.

(Even though the F-22 does have a cooling system for the wing leading edges to try and reduce forward IR signature, its not a miracle worker. Go at Mach 1.5, and your nose, vertical stabilisers and engine intake leading edges will all become very heated through skin friction - none of these surfaces are cooled)


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By Jedi2155 on 11/19/2009 2:18:59 AM , Rating: 3
I think the US is making the same mistakes are Germany did in WW2 with their tanks. Putting too much resources into small number of fighters and nearly completely ignoring the cheaper designs.

Germany lost the tank war because counter-measures were found, and because they had too few of the tanks compared to the massive number of Shermans & T-34's. I think we should keep our present number's of F-22 and the halved number of F-35's. UAV's are cheap, and pilotless. Or even cheaper older designs that have proven their worth like the A-10 which costs less than $20 million/copy. It seems the majority of assaults the US does overseas is just air-strikes which I think the A-10 is still perfect for with great loiter ability at 1/5th the cost of a F-35.


RE: Outright lie from the Pentagon
By Amiga500 on 11/19/2009 3:15:00 AM , Rating: 2
I don't quite know why I have been down rated for posting a fact.

Perhaps the downraters could do with educating themselves on the subject first.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-jsf-hit-b...

quote:
Another fact was discovered via a military employee of one of the European air forces, who works within the JSF project team, and is a liaison person for several air forces. He says that flying in 2012 with the JSF may be safe and the JSF can be used as a plane to fly around. But, the several software modules for weapons system integration will not be ready. Ground attack capability is the priority, so early-build F-35s will primarily be “bomb trucks” until the additional software modules can be tested and loaded. Air superiority capabilities will be restricted, and completed only after 2015. This means that full multi-role capability is possible by 2016 at the earliest, if and only if no major problems occur in development and testing of the weapon systems software.


Nothing new
By FITCamaro on 11/18/2009 12:34:31 PM , Rating: 5
Government programs run over budget and behind schedule. Especially military ones. Its a fact of life.

Of course I know giving people things for free is far more important than developing the fighter that has to defend this country for the next 30-40 years since our current F15s and F16s are quickly running out of their usable life. And there aren't enough F18s and F22s to do the job.




RE: Nothing new
By GodisanAtheist on 11/18/2009 4:09:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Of course I know giving people things for free...


-If only they were free.


RE: Nothing new
By corduroygt on 11/18/2009 10:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
What do you mean, it's free for the 47% who don't pay taxes and likely to use it most :)


RE: Nothing new
By PrinceGaz on 11/18/2009 7:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
developing the fighter that has to defend this country for the next 30-40 years since our current F15s and F16s are quickly running out of their usable life. And there aren't enough F18s and F22s to do the job.


What?!? Do you really think the US and A will need fighter aircraft to defend it in any likely future war? Who do you think you will be fighting in a war which requires those kind of aircraft? Europe? Yeah, you'll need something to match the Eurofighter Typhoons if it came to that, though I doubt the US and Europe will ever go to war (so long as both have moderate politicians in charge). China? They've already won the economic war, the last thing they want is a military war as it will damage their booming economy. Russia? Putin may raise concerns in some people but so long as he can re-build the country with its massive gas reserves, he won't want to upset anyone so long as they pay their gas-bill to him.

The only real enemy today are terrorists, and you can't fight terrorists with jet fighters. The only way to defeat a country over-run with extremists intent on terrorist-attacks is to do it on the ground, not from the air. The more people you kill in air-strikes, the more terrorists you end up with. Short of carpet-bombing or nuking the whole country (not really viable, though I have sometimes wondered whether a sudden pull-out of all troops from Hellmand province and a systematic coverage of the area with tactical-nukes to wipe out almost everyone, would be worth considering), aerial-attacks against our real opponents today are largely futile.

Jet fighters were needed in cold-war days. I think they're now largely obsolete as cold-war days are long gone.


RE: Nothing new
By FITCamaro on 11/19/2009 9:14:11 AM , Rating: 2
Ever here of the Boy Scouts? They have a motto. Be prepared.

This idea that we will never need combat aircraft again is absurd. If they're unneeded, why is China building a fighter to try to match or exceed the F35 and F22?

If anything we don't need an Army and/or Navy. Air superiority is how wars are won today. If you control the skies, you can deliver a bomb wherever you want it to take out ground forces or ships.


Shocked!
By Motoman on 11/18/2009 12:39:51 PM , Rating: 4
I am shocked, shocked I say, that a government/military project could possibly become behind schedule and/or over budget. SHOCKED!




RE: Shocked!
By dtm4trix on 11/18/2009 5:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am shocked, shocked I say, that a government/military project could possibly become behind schedule and/or over budget. SHOCKED!


Especially in the United States. When have one of our contractors ever been on time and under budget in the modern era?


RE: Shocked!
By corduroygt on 11/19/2009 11:57:51 AM , Rating: 2
Because the Eurofighter was completed ahead of schedule and under budget? Oh wait...


RE: Shocked!
By stromgald30 on 11/19/2009 6:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the US. Europe has it's own (and possibly worse problems). Capitalist/market economics just don't go well with a defense industry. Especially if there's not a large demand.

Of course in China they don't have these issues, since the government controls the whole industry and artificially controls demand/supply.


I thought it was going to be cheaper
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 11/18/2009 11:02:31 AM , Rating: 3
than the F22. Isn't that the reason the f22 was scrapped?




By MrBlastman on 11/18/2009 12:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
Keep drinking that beer. :P The F-22 wasn't scrapped, it is in service right now. :) I saw one myself not too long ago actually. Gates just lowered the order limit ceiling, that is all.


By Noya on 11/19/2009 12:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Isn't that the reason the f22 was scrapped?


No, it was scrapped so the F35 contract$ can continue and the need for a new export fighter (since the Raphael, Grippen, Mig-35 etc are all better aircraft than the tweaked 30+ year old F15/16/18 that we keep trying to hustle to our "allies").


What did you expect?
By corduroygt on 11/18/2009 10:05:32 AM , Rating: 5
It's three planes (Conventional, STOVL, Naval) for the price of three!




Uhhh duhhhh
By William Gaatjes on 11/18/2009 1:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
My country is one of the countries interested in the JSF.
After a reporter investigation it was already predicted it would be well over budget and not finished within the expected time frame . This was approximately 18 months ago.

It happens with state of start material and essentially 2 product lines. 1 for the US and another for sale. Obvious afcourse, i would do the same.




RE: Uhhh duhhhh
By William Gaatjes on 11/18/2009 1:21:10 PM , Rating: 3
State of the ART . State of the ART , nabbit.


and the sky is blue...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/18/2009 11:02:52 AM , Rating: 4
and the sun rose in the east this morning. Now that is news.




The best way to increase funding
By Owik2008 on 11/19/2009 1:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
The US needs to start the cash for clunkers program. Trade in your old Cessna and get an F35... deal of a lifetime, stocks are limited!




By Owik2008 on 11/19/2009 1:40:00 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and you can land it in the parking lot :D


News?
By chris2618 on 11/18/2009 11:12:43 AM , Rating: 2
A government funded project is late and over budget not much of a surprise I thought that was expected. News would be if one came in on budget and time




Is this really news?
By probedb on 11/19/2009 4:15:32 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know about the US but in the UK every defence project runs over time and budget and usually doesn't work as intended either ;)




"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki