Bye-bye F-35?

#26
#26
PKT_VOL said:
This will change when he's in office.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But at least he is bringing the argument to the forefront that these government contractors are milking the system with the blessings of congress. It. needs. to. stop. If you bid a contract, you better damned well produce for what you say you will. Cost overruns of 200% or more is completely unacceptable. Cancel the projects. Today.

And for those of you that are in love with SpacEx, keep your eye on that company. They are doing the exact same thing. Underbidding contracts and going back to the well for more. And no I don't have a link, only sources from the Space Center.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#27
#27
SpaceCoastVol said:
Maybe. But at least he is bringing the argument to the forefront that these government contractors are milking the system with the blessings of congress. It. needs. to. stop. If you bid a contract, you better damned well produce for what you say you will. Cost overruns of 200% or more is completely unacceptable. Cancel the projects. Today.

And for those of you that are in love with SpacEx, keep your eye on that company. They are doing the exact same thing. Underbidding contracts and going back to the well for more. And no I don't have a link, only sources from the Space Center.
Click to expand...

You are also making the assumption that the accounting numbers are correct. I think that premise is faulty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
SpaceCoastVol said:
Maybe. But at least he is bringing the argument to the forefront that these government contractors are milking the system with the blessings of congress. It. needs. to. stop. If you bid a contract, you better damned well produce for what you say you will. Cost overruns of 200% or more is completely unacceptable. Cancel the projects. Today.

And for those of you that are in love with SpacEx, keep your eye on that company. They are doing the exact same thing. Underbidding contracts and going back to the well for more. And no I don't have a link, only sources from the Space Center.
Click to expand...

And putting ULA on notice their sole source bidding process and charging what the hell they want days are over.

I know you love you some Boeing, but dang, at least a company out there is trying to make some competition.
 
#29
#29
What is the obsession with a jack of all trades aircraft? They want a fighter, that can also double as a bomber, that can also double as close air support. So how do you make a plane fast enough to engage other fighters but slow enough to do CAS missions? Or maintain maneuverability but with the frame to carry a heavy bomb payload? Seems like it would be cheaper to design three aircraft that are excellent at each mission rather than one aircraft that is sort of ok at each mission. And doesn't cost half a trillion dollars to design and still doesn't work.

I don't see any point to changing the A-10 design. Build new airframes and keep the tech current but there's no good reason to retire the idea. There are lots of weapons that have stood the test of time. There are still 1911a1's in military inventory (70yrs old minimum), and I don't think there's been much changed on the M2 .50 either. Some things just work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, AM64 and tumscalcium
#31
#31
Grand Vol said:
And putting ULA on notice their sole source bidding process and charging what the hell they want days are over.

I know you love you some Boeing, but dang, at least a company out there is trying to make some competition.
Click to expand...
I was raised on Boeings. Too old to learn French. That being said, the arrogance of Boeing is infuriating. And as long as the ExIm bank is in existence they will gouge the American carriers and offer deals to foreign carriers. It is really an interesting phenomenon when you think about it. Just look at US carriers and their purchases. We are becoming an Airbus airline and Iran is trying to buy $80 billion worth of Boeings. Weird. I am not in high warble over it. I find it interesting.

I am in high warble over contractors... ANY contractor... gouging the government over and over. Whether it is ULA or SpacEx. I want them put on notice that there is a new sheriff in town.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#33
#33
hndog609 said:
Maybe, but at this point can we afford to start over? We've got some awfully old and increasingly outdated platforms out there. Maybe we can just do a lot better job of moving forward with the current program with a closer eye on cost controls?
Click to expand...

Let's just say that the F-35 isn't flawed - either operationally or by funding - that it's really a good airplane. The concept is that it would be technologically superior to anything enemies like China or Russia or an unknown could produce. Who in his right mind knowing all the leaks, involvement by foreign countries, etc could actually think that anything about the F-35 is still secret - simply too long and too open in the making? You know those special plays on the football field that get blown up because they were too slow in developing to surprise anyone?

This isn't a plane like the A-12/SR-71 designed, built, and tested in secrecy and in the days before the internet made access to anything and everything possible. Apple and the rest have given the Chinese all they need to reproduce sophisticated electronics - seems like strategic thinking was never a factor in the global economy. Apparently if you give the enemy what they need to destroy you, they will be your friend forever.

We've demonstrated again and again that politically imposed rules of engagement render technology in weapons systems obsolete. A small complement of stealthy aircraft dedicated to night use makes sense; basing a larger force when most won't wind up being used at night or beyond visual range doesn't seem reasonable for the expense. Somehow a stealthy airplane - fast and probably vulnerable to ground fire - with a whopping 200 rounds of ammunition for a gun is going to replace a flying tank like the A-10 for close air support?

Sure getting close undetected is an advantage, but to what cost when you consider expense, performance, mean time between failure, etc. An F-22 aptly demonstrated it's ability against F-15s, but then the F-22 may well be a better plane than the F-35, and would the same ROEs in effect for that F-22 be the ones actually applied in battle? Whether the fault lies with politicians bringing home the bacon or the military, the country really needs some Billy Mitchell types asking hard questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#34
#34
DancingOutlaw said:
What is the obsession with a jack of all trades aircraft? They want a fighter, that can also double as a bomber, that can also double as close air support. So how do you make a plane fast enough to engage other fighters but slow enough to do CAS missions? Or maintain maneuverability but with the frame to carry a heavy bomb payload? Seems like it would be cheaper to design three aircraft that are excellent at each mission rather than one aircraft that is sort of ok at each mission. And doesn't cost half a trillion dollars to design and still doesn't work.

I don't see any point to changing the A-10 design. Build new airframes and keep the tech current but there's no good reason to retire the idea. There are lots of weapons that have stood the test of time. There are still 1911a1's in military inventory (70yrs old minimum), and I don't think there's been much changed on the M2 .50 either. Some things just work.
Click to expand...

its funny because the military is trying to sell the single platform as a way to cut cost and stream line things; but each branch still has different requirements and variations. it would no doubt help on the maintenance side of things if implemented but you lose so much of your efficiency in combat operations to not be worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#39
#39
SpaceCoastVol said:
I was raised on Boeings. Too old to learn French. That being said, the arrogance of Boeing is infuriating. And as long as the ExIm bank is in existence they will gouge the American carriers and offer deals to foreign carriers. It is really an interesting phenomenon when you think about it. Just look at US carriers and their purchases. We are becoming an Airbus airline and Iran is trying to buy $80 billion worth of Boeings. Weird. I am not in high warble over it. I find it interesting.

I am in high warble over contractors... ANY contractor... gouging the government over and over. Whether it is ULA or SpacEx. I want them put on notice that there is a new sheriff in town.
Click to expand...

One has to ask whether or not it's too little, too late. 25+ years ago, you had all sorts of aircraft manufacturers and a lot of competition for fighter, attack and bomber contracts. And in so many different designs and companies, the price was driven down. Just think:

Boeing
General Dynamics
Lockheed Martin
Grumman
McDonald-Douglas
Rockwell
Northrop
Fairchild
North American Aviation
Sikorsky
Bell
LTV

were competing at one time for a single design. Now? Now we have mainly three companies competing: Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop. And really only one competing for the heavies: Boeing. And knowing such, they can drive the price up since there is no competition.

I really, really, really want to see the acquisition program overhauled significantly. I have no problems with the next USAF tanker being an Airbus design if, and only if, it provides superior performance to a Boeing design and is made in the USA with engines and spare parts sourced/produced in the USA. Who gives a rat's backside if it's designed overseas? If Boeing can't make a superior product at a lower price, they need to learn how real fast. Same thing with the CSAR-X program from years ago when the requirements kept changing (and getting lower) in order to include the Boeing HH-47. And eventually the GAO had to step in because it got so ridiculous it had to be stopped. And the USAF still needs a replacement for the HH-60 series. Sad that Boeing had that much clout in the USAF.

Anyway, I like seeing upstart companies like SpaceX and even the old hats like EADS knocking the hell out of companies that have been taking advantage of the situation with the USG for so long.
 
#41
#41
SpaceCoastVol said:
Can you elaborate on this?
Click to expand...

The argument would go that there is certainly real waste, abuse, and mismanagement in those accounting numbers.

However, a big part of those numbers include the Air Force's black budget. The white F-35 Program is the easiest way to camouflage the Air Force's black spending.
 
#42
#42
PKT_VOL said:
The argument would go that there is certainly real waste, abuse, and mismanagement in those accounting numbers.

However, a big part of those numbers include the Air Force's black budget. The white F-35 Program is the easiest way to camouflage the Air Force's black spending.
Click to expand...

The Stargate costs a hoop of money to operate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#43
#43
Grand Vol said:
One has to ask whether or not it's too little, too late. 25+ years ago, you had all sorts of aircraft manufacturers and a lot of competition for fighter, attack and bomber contracts. And in so many different designs and companies, the price was driven down. Just think:

Boeing
General Dynamics
Lockheed Martin
Grumman
McDonald-Douglas
Rockwell
Northrop
Fairchild
North American Aviation
Sikorsky
Bell
LTV

were competing at one time for a single design. Now? Now we have mainly three companies competing: Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop. And really only one competing for the heavies: Boeing. And knowing such, they can drive the price up since there is no competition.

I really, really, really want to see the acquisition program overhauled significantly. I have no problems with the next USAF tanker being an Airbus design if, and only if, it provides superior performance to a Boeing design and is made in the USA with engines and spare parts sourced/produced in the USA. Who gives a rat's backside if it's designed overseas? If Boeing can't make a superior product at a lower price, they need to learn how real fast. Same thing with the CSAR-X program from years ago when the requirements kept changing (and getting lower) in order to include the Boeing HH-47. And eventually the GAO had to step in because it got so ridiculous it had to be stopped. And the USAF still needs a replacement for the HH-60 series. Sad that Boeing had that much clout in the USAF.

Anyway, I like seeing upstart companies like SpaceX and even the old hats like EADS knocking the hell out of companies that have been taking advantage of the situation with the USG for so long.
Click to expand...
But hey.....we got "Better Buying Power 2.0" from Mr Kendall now lol
 
#50
#50
PKT_VOL said:
The argument would go that there is certainly real waste, abuse, and mismanagement in those accounting numbers.

However, a big part of those numbers include the Air Force's black budget. The white F-35 Program is the easiest way to camouflage the Air Force's black spending.
Click to expand...

'The Art of The Deal'-Aim way high, and negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. Pick your own level to stand firm.

We may be seeing the start of a pattern lasting through the Trump administration.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top