Posted on 04/28/2016 1:49:06 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Edited on 04/28/2016 2:17:14 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Washington (CNN)Sen. John McCain slammed the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's troubled history Tuesday, saying it "has been both a scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule and performance."
The development of the Joint Strike Fighter, a fifth-generation stealth jet, has been beset by spiraling costs and schedule delays. The program's price tag is nearly $400 billion for 2,457 planes -- almost twice the initial estimate.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
Yes sir, ole Johnny boy is up for reelection!
Odd how a politicians distaste for project overspending, and government waste overall, increases dramatically in an election year.
Come On Arizona!
Retire this old geezer!
If a horse was as lame as old Juan it would have been sent to the glue factory years ago.
This sounds like everything the Obama administration does.
i dont like him, but with military preparedness he is good.
he has said this stuff before.
he’ insane, but he’ right here.
is this how a nation gets undone? spending half a trillion on a plane that is a disaster?
i know i know, dogfights dont matter any more, i’ve been told. still would have been nice if it didn’t lose to everyone.
i admit lack of knowledge about military hardware, so without insults, please make me happy and tell me i’m wrong.
“i admit lack of knowledge about military hardware, so without insults, please make me happy and tell me i’m wrong.”
You’re wrong. :-)
At more length, the F-35 should be a good plane once the various systems are fully functional. One of the main delays has been around various software components, which aren’t easy to develop and integrate.
The $400 billion for 2,457 planes figure is a bit deceptive. There are two different ways to calculate the cost of an aircraft. One is “unit cost”, where the entire cost of the program is divided by the total number of planes. By that metric, the F-35 is $162 million per plane (if the $400B number is accurate). However, all of the R&D/engineering costs are “sunk costs” once the work is done. In other words, the government’s not going to get its money back if the program is cancelled. The point being that if the plane is good, one might as well go ahead and produce them if the “flyaway cost” is reasonable.
The flyaway cost is the incremental cost to produce the next airplane (just the cost of manufacturing, no R&D costs figured in). Right now the F-35A flyaway cost is about $100 million per plane. It is dropping due to increased manufacturing efficiencies and is expected to hit $80-$85 million per plane by 2019. That is in the ballpark of the Super Hornet, one of the aircraft it’s intended to replace - one which doesn’t have stealth or many other high-tech features of the F-35.
I think ultimately the F-35 will be a competent dogfighter, but that isn’t its main role. It’s primarily an attack aircraft that can also handle air-to-air, suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD), electronic warfare and close air support (via smart weapons). In the air-to-air role, the main way it’ll be employed will be at longer ranges, preferably before the enemy knows its in the area. This is possible due to stealth.
Well, that was more of an essay than I set out to write...
How many times did McInsane vote for it?
The USAF wanted a stealthy fighter that could, occasionally, drop bombs and give the illusion of close air support. The problem is that if you want to carry a meaningful ordnance load, you have to mount the ordnance under the wings and your stealth goes away. The F-35A has yet to prove itself as able to dogfight and survive against the F-16 and F-15 it is supposed to replace.
The Marines wanted an AV-8B Harrier replacement and the F-35B was the answer. The lift fan, only used for takeoff and landing, is otherwise dead weight during all phases of flight and limits fuel load and ordnance carried. The internal bomb bay of the aircraft is limited to 4,000 lbs. More ordnance requires external carry (as well as external fuel tanks) and that kills any stealth advantage.
The US Navy wanted a fleet defense fighter and it got the F-35C that has had protracted development issues, not the least of which was a redesign of its tail hook for carrier landings. The F-35C is far behind in its development.
All of this “commonality” has managed to produce the world's most expensive and delayed in development aircraft that really cannot do any of its proposed jobs well. The F-35 is a turkey. The Services would be better to continue development of the F-16, F-15, and F-18 fighters and fighter/bombers because they DO WORK in the jobs intended.
What is a scandal and tragedy is that McCain is still in office!
Typical problem of trying to make one plane do everything!
So, really it’s a scagedy. Or maybe a trandel.
I know airplanes, jet propelled or otherwise, have two basic ways of landing and only one of them is good.
Therein lies the sum total of my knowledge concerning aircraft.
I was hoping someone with detailed knowledge of the aircraft would chime in as to whether it’s a good deal or a high states taxpayer boondoggle.
Problem is, the son and grandson of US Navy Admirals has ridden his one trick pony into the ground.
As much as he may be a “defense hawk”, thereby doing *some* good, how much damage has he done with his “reach across the aisle” love of liberals?
I say too much damage to allow him to continue.
... says the Senator who crashed in (was it 3 or 4) Navy jets and never saw an armed conflict he didn’t want to get involved in. Wherever you stand on the F-35 this amounts to “piling-on”.
Another reason the F-35 will probably still be a good investment is the “lifetime cost” of the fleet. That is the cost to maintain & operate. Here is where the A-B-C kicks in. Because of systems commonality, these planes will be much easier to maintain than 3 or 4 different aircraft. Now before anybody jumps-in and says “yeah, but the A-10 is a better...” I understand that argument and actually agree with it. The military won’t be sending A-10’s in the grass much longer with all the deadly MANPAD’s out there. So the utility of the GAU-8 cannon is going away, anyway. Heck, look at the Spectre Gunships. They are trying to find ways to out-range the MANPADS. So far they have a few ideas and weapon/sensor arrangements, but youre not likely to see those gunships much longer either.
Shut up and go away, you obnoxious old gas bag.
McCain is just upset he never got the chance to crash one.
F-35 CAS role software (to fire gun) not ready until 2019? Also, only 182 rounds in a gun that fires 3,300 rounds-per-minute? 4 seconds/2 bursts? I think the A-10 wins the CAS role battle:
http://www.defensetech.org/2015/01/02/a-tale-of-two-gatling-guns-f-35-vs-a-10/
How many Serbian refugees will it transport. A lot I would imagine since it is all children.
Total cost of the full production run is expected to be $1.4 trillion not $400 million. This is an Obama backed disaster of a procurement this country can ill afford. And where was McNuts in 2009 when Obama dropped the F-22 in favor of this pig.
To the best of my knowledge (and anyone who really knows please chime in), our pilots have never been given rules of engagement which allow them to shoot BVR (beyond visual range) in an actual conflict, although we have had the technology to do so for over forty years.
So we are spending vast sums of money for a capability which the politicians (and their overseers in the handwringing media) will not allow to be used.
McCain prefers the old biplane he flew in World War I.
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.