Posted on 01/16/2017 10:33:18 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
They built an entry for the xplane contract. They had a late redesign that wasnt fully tested by the deadline and lost.
The way to decrease the per-unit cost of the F-35 is to guarantee more purchases. The final number of aircraft has decreased dramatically over time. If you divide the development costs over fewer airplanes, each one will cost more.
The second way to lower the cost would be to change government procurement to allow multi-year budgets. If there was a secure, ongoing source of funding, the program could run more smoothly and cost less.
What’s wrong with the F-22? Mod that thing for Navy purposes! Carrier landings? I don’t know!
Just start building F-22 Raptors again. Simple.
I remember the Newtster saying the Pentagon should be a triangle.
Trump understands the power of capitalist competition. Something our Washington overlords have been rejecting for decades. It’s been pay us off and grease the skids and you’ll get the contracts. President Trump will have none of that and that’s a great start.
With Russia and China now (both) fielding competitors to the F-35, it seems it is time to start our defense competition on a new jet.
Even better than the F-22. Even better than the F-35.
Sure, introduce competition to the current jet, but it’s time to start on something even better, than anything out there. An entirely new generation.
Of course if anything like this is currently in development, I don’t know and do not want to know.
:D
Just saying. We need to always keep developing.
Always.
The F35 may just gotten it’s baptism of fire with the bombing of the Hamas ammo dump in Syria this past week.
If I remember correctly, Obama ordered the F22 tooling scrapped right after he took office.
Invite Textron/Cessna, Northrup/Grumman, Cirrus, and some of the other innovators as well.
Make it an OPEN COMPETITION, like they used to be.
Put out the parameters needed, and let the geeks go to work on it.
These planes were sold to the Israelis so they can do what they always do:
Combat test the equipment
Work out all the bugs
Maybe the answer is in not awarding the entire contract, to one company.
Maybe have two production sources, for everything. Always have a completion. On everything.
Always keep them, every trying to improve, every single thing.
Then again, I have never been in the military, and of course am not trying to get anyone who is, or has any sort of information to say one word.
To anyone.
But I think maybe, what Trump is saying is the procurement system currently seems to reward one contractor, who then runs with the contract to maximize their profits.
Maybe they need to compete. Even now. Have Boeing, producing a competitor, right now.
Not an F-18, but a real live competitor to the F-35. Maybe even better?
Competition.
Always.
Even the SOVIETS understood that in aircraft design, competition was a GOOD THING.
F-15 Silent Eagle
And I say F-15 Silent Eagle because the F-35 is heavier than a F-15C.... With only one engine... Some cheap and powerful aircraft my arse...
The easiest way to save cost is to build something the right the first time and not change the design and/or requirements every year or two. JSF studies started in 1993, was awarded to Lockheed Martin in 2001 after competition testing and 16 years later it’s still in test.
One of the reasons that the F-35 is so expensive is what happens at take-off & landing is different for all 3 versions of the plane. Even just making a plane that is intended to be capable of catapult take-offs & arrested landing (ie. a navalized version) makes the plane considerably heavier than a plane designed to operate from land. The weight penalty alone impacts performance significantly.
Google the fly-off between the F-15 Eagle and the F-14 Tomcat that was put on for the Shah of Iran. Fascinating reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.