After ten years and billions invested some in the Senate want alternatives to F-35 It's well known that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has turned into the most costly weapons program in history for the armed forces. When complete, multiple branches of the armed forces will use the F-35 and it will be sold abroad to allies. The problem for some in Washington is that the delays in delivering the aircraft are mounting, as are the costs to build and maintain the aircraft over its lifespan. The F-35 program has been going for ten years now and some in the Senate Armed Services Committee are now indicating it's time to start looking for a backup plan. Most will find little sense in considering an alternative to the F-35 when it is finally so close to completion. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said, "It seems to me [prudent that] we at least begin considering alternatives." The reason some in the Senate want to start looking for alternatives is the report published last week showing the costs to maintain the F-35 through 2065 spiraling to $1 trillion. Top acquisition official Ashton Carter has maintained that the $1 trillion figure will be reduced when he completes a "should-cost" review of the F-35 in the next few months. Carter is aiming at a 20% to 50% reduction in that $1 trillion figure. Christine Fox, Director of the Pentagon cost assessment and program evaluation office, is skeptical of the cost reduction goals. Fox said, "O&S [operation and sustainment] is hard. Whether we can get it all the way down to legacy [O&S cost levels] is something that I in my office doubt.” Fox points to the cost of fuel being hard to reduce over the life of the aircraft. Lockheed Martin's general manager for the F-35 program, Tom Burbage, says that the sustainment costs for the F-35 can’t be fairly compared to the costs of older aircraft. He says that the F-35 was developed on performance-based logistics plan that is different from legacy sustainment process. He also notes that the F-35 O&S estimates are susceptible to ground rules legacy aircraft are not bound to. http://www.dailytech.com/Senators+W...eed+F35+Joint+Strike+Fighter/article21704.htm Hey someone noticed! Also, the idiocy of funding a replacement engine and contemplating an alternative airplane is just astounding. ----- Casey, I don't think we will have AA UCAVS in that time frame, but it will be possible.
It is theoretically a heavily back loaded deal where relatively few aircraft are built until 2016 and continuing for 15+ years. Ludicrous. Most of the fighters we have now are approaching 30, and will have to go on for another 10 or 20. Maybe more after the F-35 program dies?
With all of the replacements being hit with major cutbacks, the B52 will be flying at least until 2035.
Current Flyaway cost at 200 (f35a) to 240 (f-35b&c) million each. Project approaching 400 billion. Good grief.
Minimum 50 million more per plane. But we stopped making F22's so we could save money......by building a more expensive plane. On the bright side this more expensive, less capable jet will also be in the hands of a bunch of other countries. And then the highest bidder. Thanks Obama.
I'm an ardent supporter of the President, as you know, but this is one decision where I think he blew the call.
Naive about appropriations much? How long has this plane been in development? Who is crafting the funding legislation? How many congressmen have have jobs being created in their district? What's the multiplier effect for those wages in local economies? How much campaign money are the manufacturer's lobbyist throwing around? What are the recommendations from the Joint Chiefs? What are the net effects of international sales for the trade balance? The project still sounds like a turd to me, but there is a massively entrenched military/industrial complex that out lives the cycle of any in the Executive branch. Think the TSA has run amuck since 9/11? These guys have been 100% empowered since Pearl Harbor.
Why are you asking me a bunch of rhetorical questions? Why did they shut down the F22 production? Why can't footballs fit down toilets? Why are we buying a more expensive, less advanced jet? Why are we forcing all branches to have a single platform? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Why did Obama choose the massively delayed F35 over the F22? What will we do when the F15Cs are too old? Why did my Motorola XT910 only come with Spanish instructions? Why are we still building F18s? Would any reasonable person buy a more expensive, less capable machine?
It perplexes me how people go along with the notion that we should dump our tax payer dollars into the military industrial complex so that they can serve as our high tech industry innovators. How many people in america own a f22 or an f35? Spending billons of dollars on necessities that we dont really need, and in the process only making the world a more dangerous place. Instead of spending all this money on defense, how about putting money into industries that will help the everyday citizen on a day to day basis. Transportation, alternative energy mechanisms, medicine, media, space technologies, smart gadgets etc... These kinds of advancements would effect people's lives more than planes they will never fly ever would. Guess what, you could create many jobs out of these projects, the engineers and people with the technical savy are there they just need to be told what to do. The problem is the defense sector and the government have been real close buddy buddy since the civil war, when the union really needed the weapons to defeat the south. Since then the government has based its economy largely off of the military, unfortunately at this point it is virtually ingrained in us. the main pattern i see is this: we will eventually sell these f22's and f35's to our 'allies' which will justify us to create more badass planes like the f2000 because again, we have to keep the air superiority. Its been the same **** for decades, and it still works. Its using fear to justify why we need more multibillion planes to keep us safe, when really we happened to be the country invading/ occupying other territories abroad.
Cut military funding by 50%. Increase NASA funding by 50%. I promise you we will see more technological breakthroughs in ALL fields, not just military, compared to just dumping all our funding into "national defense".
Lol funny, its like thats what all these lobbyists and politicians are talking about when pushing for these multibillion dollar contracts.
Yeah, but B52's are made of steel and aluminum - not composite fibers - no composite fighter is capable of that long of a life cycle.
When they were trying to make up their minds about which aircraft to keep, and which to toss, I think one of the the tipping points may have been over the F-35B, the short take off and landing (STOVL) version (was supposed to be Vertical Takeoff and Landing, but that proved too difficult and even more expensive). The British wanted them for their now retired older aircraft carriers (think Falklands War), needing a Harrier replacement. They also wanted them for their two new mid-sized carriers under contruction. That's ironic, because now they've apparently decided to go with the F-35C carrier model the US Navy is anxious for, have retired their two small carriers, and scrapped their Harrier fleet. The Marines want them for their amphibious assault ships and for rough landing strips while on shore. Some of our other allies with small aircraft carriers, like the Italians, wanted them. In my opinion, they should have just focused on a replacement for the Harrier, instead of this grand multipurpose, triple version, very expensive "all things to all people, and not fantastic at any of them" aircraft. Of course, that's my opinion.
Because you post simplistic partisan things like this: about massively complex issues. If The President actually had the power and accountability you imply, Gitmo would have been closed in February of 2009, the Bush tax cuts would have been allowed to expire and "Obamacare" would be a single payer system; among a long list of stated policy stances he has made that haven't seen the light of day. He's just one player in the big game.
Wow, that is how you justify failure and bad decision making. I was curious. The problem is, he specifically scrapped the F22. Understand now?
