Want to Look for Government Waste

[mikoyan29]

Since you brought up V/STOL Capabilities (which evidently don't work well either on this plane), the Harrier in current dollars would cost 48 million (based on a cost of 24 million in the 80's). The Harrier is in line with F-15 costs. So we have a plane that is about 5 times as much as its other predecessor.

My basic problem with all of this is that airplane costs went up but the when up fairly slowly and then all of the sudden these costs exploded. Why do we tolerate this? It's not just with this program but with just about every other major program that has been launced in the past 30 years.

the Seawolf
DDG-1000
The Zumwalt Class Destroyers
The Crusader Artillery Piece
the Stryker
The LCS


The Arleigh Burke was probably the exception.

[TheHuckster]

How many 737's do you see with Stealth Technological, or VTOL capabilities? Well..i guess you could land a 737 vertically.. once..

If you have strong enough headwinds, it's totally possible.

Stealth and VTOL are great features, but they've also been around for decades. I wouldn't have a problem if the Harrier and stealth bomber cost 5 times as much as a 737 for that reason... but they have to remain consistent in order to make sense. Having a the next generation VTOL fighter jet cost 10 times more than the previous generation Harrier doesn't make sense.

[mikoyan29]

And don't get me wrong. I like airplanes. Especially military ones but we expect the government to make cutbacks, yet the folks squawking the loudest about that don't say anything about Defense spending. In fact, they say that we should throw more money at the military. And because the other party doesn't want to be painted as weak or soft on the military or unpatriotic, they pretty much go along. So we end up with a situation where there is little to no oversight and costs spiralling out of control.

[kamn]

While not about planes, but tanks, an old article comes to mind...

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...omment-page-2/

You sure that the defense budget couldn't be lowered? Even a little?

[wolfie]

This may sound radical, but if the complexity of the F35 is because it is supposed to be able to replace such a wide variety of aircraft, why not, for less than the price of an F35, buy an F15, an F16, a Harrier, and an A10 (all with upgraded avionics packages, of course)?

Some of the roles the F35 is intended to fill require opposite designs. For instance, when in level flight, the axis of the gun barrels on an F15 or F16 points above the plane's flight path, while that on the A10 points below the flight path. There's a reason for that - the F15 and F16 are optimized for air-to-air, and in a dogfight, having the gun aimed above the flight path makes it easier to get a bead on the other guy. The A10 is optimized for air-to-ground, and having the gun aimed below the flight path lets you get a bead on an enemy tank without making as steep a dive.

There are similar arguments regarding the other aircraft, but (using A10 as an example) can the F35 operate at a low enough speed to turn tightly enough to keep an enemy tank in sight (after initial spotting) while setting up for an attack pass in virtually all weather conditions, and the times when it can't due to low visibility, the enemy tank commander isn't likely to be going anywhere since the visibility is poor enough that he's likely to run into a trap without seeing it? Can the F35 "kill" tanks using (relatively) cheap cannon rounds, or does it need to use expensive air-to-ground missiles? Can the F35 get hit and still make it back to base? If the answer is "no", then the F35 can't match the capabilities of the A10.

True, buying updated versions of multiple varieties of current aircraft instead of a single F35 leaves you with planes that, individually, aren't quite as capable as the F35. On the other hand, buying cheaper planes lets you buy more of them, and on the battlefield quantity has a quality of its own - an M1A2 can make mincemeat out of a T55, but one M1A2 against a dozen T55s is going to be handed its ass.

[Greenday]

There are similar arguments regarding the other aircraft, but (using A10 as an example) can the F35 operate at a low enough speed to turn tightly enough to keep an enemy tank in sight (after initial spotting) while setting up for an attack pass in virtually all weather conditions, and the times when it can't due to low visibility, the enemy tank commander isn't likely to be going anywhere since the visibility is poor enough that he's likely to run into a trap without seeing it? Can the F35 "kill" tanks using (relatively) cheap cannon rounds, or does it need to use expensive air-to-ground missiles? Can the F35 get hit and still make it back to base? If the answer is "no", then the F35 can't match the capabilities of the A10.

I'm pretty sure the F-35 could, with ease, blow that A-10 out of the sky and then proceed to blow the tank to hell.

Why don't we stick with the F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s? Because they aren't the best anymore. Russia's Su-35 is better than those air-to-air. The Chinese continue to develop their jet fighters. I'm still fairly confident that the F-22 could outfly ANY of those jets though and the F-36 has a pretty good shot too.

It doesn't make sense to have tons of different planes if we can make ones that fulfill multiple roles. Wars won't always continue to be against guys using second hand weapons that have no real organized army to speak of. And when we do eventually go to war against a 1st world country, I want us to be the technologically superior side.

[smileyeagle1021]

And when we do eventually go to war against a 1st world country, I want us to be the technologically superior side.

Or you know, learn from our past mistakes and avoid going to war in the first place. World War 2 was necassary, if Hitler wasn't stopped, he would have taken over all of Europe... World War 1 though was an unecessary tragedy of Greek proportions. Which situation is more likely is a giant question mark, so I don't oppose all upgrades to the military, but lets face it, the people that exist now that are likely to be the next Hitler will probably be a nuclear war where no plane makes it off the ground, each side will launch their nukes and they will land where they will and in the end, probably neither side will still be standing. And even the non nuclear countries, namely China, it doesn't matter what technological edge we have (unless we are nuking them) because they have so many people that they could throw stones at us and still win by sheer numbers alone.

[protege]

Or you know, learn from our past mistakes and avoid going to war in the first place.

Ideally, that would be awesome. However, it's not always possible. Suppose North Korea decides to fire a rocket at us. Even if we're not the aggressor, I'd still rather the US have the technological edge

I have a feeling that the reason our Federal spending is so out of control, is that there's no way to hold our various officials accountable. Either voters don't care, or simply don't enjoy sifting through all the bullshit thrown around come election time. Even if there was a way to hold them accountable, what's to stop them from spending a crapload of cash at the end of their term?

[mikoyan29]

I'm pretty sure the F-35 could, with ease, blow that A-10 out of the sky and then proceed to blow the tank to hell.

Why don't we stick with the F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s? Because they aren't the best anymore. Russia's Su-35 is better than those air-to-air. The Chinese continue to develop their jet fighters. I'm still fairly confident that the F-22 could outfly ANY of those jets though and the F-36 has a pretty good shot too.

And we have what? Less than 200 F-22's. We better hope that any war that flares up where we actually need those is in a pretty limited area.

My point in this thread is that basically our plane costs are spiralling out of control and we aren't getting the spiralling out of control improvement in these planes. And because of the way the contracts are worded and what not, when shit happens, we aren't getting a break on the price of our planes. I mean the F-22 has been in development for 20 years. We weren't even getting incremental planes in those 20 years. and after this 20 years, we still can't use the plane because the oxygen system doesn't work properly. We aren't talking about the stealth capabilities or something like that. We're talking a system that has been used in planes for at least 70 years. The F-35 has all sorts of problems. Just pick one of the models. and if one of our allies should decided that the Typhoon or F-16 or one of the other planes is good enough, our costs will go up.

The Republicans want everyone else to curtail costs, where's the people asking the military to curtail costs? IF anything, most of those budgets throw more money at the military.


One more thing....when the cost of single plane starts to approach the cost of a capital ship...It's going to start being used like a capital ship to where we'll need escorts for a plane that supposedly can defend itself.

[Greenday]

And we have what? Less than 200 F-22's. We better hope that any war that flares up where we actually need those is in a pretty limited area.

One more thing....when the cost of single plane starts to approach the cost of a capital ship...It's going to start being used like a capital ship to where we'll need escorts for a plane that supposedly can defend itself.

If deployed correctly, I'm not sure whose air force would be able to stop a fleet of Raptors. Combine the stealth technology with it's extreme maneuverability and they are as deadly as their name suggests.

Come on, that's just plain awful as far as analogies go. It's a jet fighter. Despite the advances in range in fighters, it is completely impractical to use a plane as a capital ship-type vehicle. Also, these fighters can actually protect themselves no problem unlike capital ships.

[mikoyan29]

If deployed correctly, I'm not sure whose air force would be able to stop a fleet of Raptors. Combine the stealth technology with it's extreme maneuverability and they are as deadly as their name suggests.

Come on, that's just plain awful as far as analogies go. It's a jet fighter. Despite the advances in range in fighters, it is completely impractical to use a plane as a capital ship-type vehicle. Also, these fighters can actually protect themselves no problem unlike capital ships.

200 fighters is an awfully small number to cover something like say "The Pacific" or "The Atlantic".

And as stuff starts to cost more, it starts to become a more valuable military asset. And yes, the plane itself may be able to protect itself but its base can't.

I don't know, it just seems like we are spiralling down to a point to where we can't afford enough of something to adequately defend ourselves. But hey, lets go after Amtrak, who gets the equivalent of 4 of these white elephants.

[smileyeagle1021]

With all this talk of trying to make the perfect plane that does everything for everyone and the spiralling out of control costs, versus our current system of having specialized planes, really can be summed up with a business anology. There is a reason that IBM never made a computer with a built in printer, why Poloroid only sold digital cameras that had built in printers for only about 2 years before they were pulled off the market, why the majority of washers and dryers that GE makes are separate washers and dryers and not a singular unit that does both. Some things make sense to be combined (fax and phone are a good example, they both are similar technologies that are often used at the same time, cell phone and pager being combined into the early smart phones definitely made sense, same function same technology), but these new jets are trying to combine things that really are specialized enough that they really should be separate specialized planes. If we need to upgrade our bombers, let's upgrade our bombers. If we need to upgrade our air to air combat planes, let's upgrade them. If we need to upgrade our ground support aircraft, our stealth planes, our whatever, then let's upgrade them. But we can, and should, stop wasting money on a pipe dream of one plane to rule them all.

[Gravekeeper]

US military spending is obscene and far beyond what it actually needs to be or in some cases even what the military wants it to be. But congress keeps forcing shit on them. Hey you've got hundreds of tanks rotting in the desert. Lets build more tanks! Even if you don't need or want them and they'll just be left to rot in a desert. But we can't let our big business buddies not turn a profit under the guise of jerbs.

If your company can't stay afloat unless it gets billion dollar sweetheart deals from congress every year then it should go under. But the GOP only believes in the free market so long as its not affecting any of their lobbyists ;p

[wolfie]

but these new jets are trying to combine things that really are specialized enough that they really should be separate specialized planes.

Hence my earlier post comparing the A10's air-to-ground specialization to air-to-air specialization. In A2G, it's better if the plane's gun is aimed below the line of flight, while in A2A, it's better if it's aimed above - mutually exclusive options. Also, planes that can fly fast (i.e. well above Mach 1) have trouble at low speeds. The A10 can keep a tank in sight from the sighting pass to the attack pass due to its tight turning radius (this tight turning radius also contributes to its "most weather" capability), and the tight turning radius is due to its good manouverability at low speeds. There's a price to be paid for that, however - its top speed is in the same ballpark as a WW2 P51 Mustang (cue jokes in the "fast mover" community about the rear of the canopy being armoured for protection against birdstrikes, and the naval version being dropped because sea-to-air refueling would require the fleet oilers to slow down too much). Not the sort of plane you want to use when chasing supersonic MiGs.

Many times the USAF has wanted to get rid of the A10 because it fills what's basically an Army role (but handled by USAF due to deal between the services where the Army doesn't fly fixed-wing aircraft). It only does one job, but it does that job better than any other plane the USAF has.

The consumer electronics version of the F35 would be a combined flatscreen TV/cellphone/computer.

[Gravekeeper]

Come to think of it, when was the last time an Ameriican piece of military hardware was developed on time, on budget and without a massive list of design flaws? It seems I've heard a fair amount the last couple years about these ridiculous projects that end up in utter failure while wasting millions of dollars. >.>