Posted on 05/03/2010 9:23:17 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
With the best of intentions, Congress and the Obama Administration have implemented a series of acquisition-reform measures that are making the problem worse. Efforts to clarify the cost of programs are sowing confusion. Efforts to reduce risk are raising costs. Efforts to restore confidence are undermining political support. In short, acquisition reform is backfiring.
A case in point is the F-35 joint strike fighter, a program that will replace the Cold War tactical aircraft of three U.S. military services and at least nine allies with a stealthy, multi-role fighter. According to the Pentagon's most recent Selected Acquisition Report on the F-35, it is meeting all of its performance goals, passing all of its tests, and "setting new standards for quality." The program has progressed more smoothly than any other fighter development program in modern times -- even though it is considerably more complicated.
(Excerpt) Read more at lexingtoninstitute.org ...
It gets to the point where it’s hard to know the truth. There are some defense systems that are lemons—the York gun system and the Crusader artillery system. OTOH, every effective defense system is attacked by liberals. Remember the Bradley? You would think it was the worst death trap ever designed. And it has turned out to be a cornerstone piece of equipment for our service men.
My presumption is that any attack on a defense system during a democrat administration is probably just a phonied up way to justify cutting the system to free up some money to spend on labor unions or other pork.
“Oh sure” ping
F-16 ping.
By “F-16” (the most cost-effective MRF ever) I assume they mean the cost will be the same as the “F-22.”
Math error. It happens.
>>I agree. But, the F-35 has been successful so far in its tests. <<
It has been weighed down by extra armor, positioned for non-MRF roles, expected to do F-22 like activities and provide the mission profiles of the F-18 (S/H).
I find it impossible to believe they have lowered the costs of the F-35 White Elephant to the level of the F-18 much less the F-16.
cowtowney sez:
What happens if you have a nuke?
a) you have to guard it
b) you have to maintain it
c) if you don’t use it, you have to remove it from your inventory and remove the nuclear material and do something with it
All of these steps cost money. Lots of it. The military is an inefficient enterprise in general.
Our country is broke. We can no longer do things without thinking about the costs. We never could. We just thought we could.
</cowtowney>
I guess we will have to see it in simulated combat conditions
If its so bad, why are countries like Israel and Britain waiting to snap it up and add it to their arsenal?
Give aways to the middle class that does not need them to buy votes with their own money, are hugely expensive and utterly pointless.
Economy is not parsimony. It is putting resources where the do the most good, and avoiding throwing them away on useless crap.
>>I guess we will have to see it in simulated combat conditions<<
If the REAL prices are as stated and the F-35 can slip into the MRF roles of the F-16 and F-18 I will be the first to happily embrace it.
But to date every report (prior to this one) says that:
* The F-35 is no longer an MRF, but rather a slightly cheaper F-22. It has been clad with armor and firing ability beyond the MRF role.
* The F-35 has been messed with so much that is resembles a government camel: a mouse built to government specifications
* The F-35 is about $4:1 to F-16 (and ~ $2:1 to F/A 18). Other than the assertion here I see nothing that says that will change.
2012 can’t get here soon enough, so we can have an American president and Congress to assist the military in doing their job.
Yep. It is arguably THE most cost effective branch of the government.
>>If its so bad, why are countries like Israel and Britain waiting to snap it up and add it to their arsenal?<<
Because they HAVE TO. The JSF is supposed to be across the NATO spectrum. Sort of the SWA model.
But the reality has been much less than that.
I agree
The 2010 buy for 43 F-35s was about $10.7 billion or over $250 million a copy. Thats a long way above $60 million a copy. Past AF history has been a constant cost growth from such a benchmark. Of course all my quoted costs are program costs. The sevices has so mucked up the fly away cost to the point that they are totally useless.
Godspeed
What is your point of dragging my comment on one thread to another thread? Can’t you just make your argument logically?
My point was that there is a cost and a benifit of having 5,000 nukes and the US can no longer ignore the cost side of that equation.
What’s your argument for ignoring costs?
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.