F-35 May Be Delayed Further, Cost More; Pentagon’s Price Tag For Stealthy Warplane Tops $382 Billion

Source: MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may see its entry into U.S. military service delayed further because of problems in the stealthy jet’s software and design, further driving up its costs, according to a media reports.

Draft results of a comprehensive F-35 review were presented Monday to Ashton Carter, the Defense Department’s chief acquisition officer, news services reported, citing unidentified sources.

Already the Pentagon’s costliest weapon acquisition, the price of the program’s development phase could increase by an additional 10%, to $55 billion — a price that would make the aircraft 1.5-times more expensive than the jets it will replace, according to a Bloomberg report.

Last spring, the Pentagon determined the total cost for the jet had risen by 64% above initial estimates, topping $382 billion.

Read more: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/f- ... r-cost-more-reports-2010-11-02

The fact tax money goes to boondoggles like this is lost on the tea party crew.

We need to go with just enough technology, after the prices have dropped, and make more of them instead of just a few super-expensive ones.

Same goes for million dollar missiles we can run up a mosquito's butt. I don't think we need that accuracy, and if we do, then we should not be firing missiles in the first place.

Ah, for the days when a war was a war, like Germany in WW 2, where we were actually attacked, instead of being attackers. Back then we didn't give a crap about who we hit, because we had the moral high ground, and they'd really, really pissed us off.

Now it's all about corporate aquisitions and territory. Sux being an American in the time while idiots roam.

I'll give you a choice:

a. I clear an aircraft to drop one $25,000 smart bomb that I know for sure will hit within a 2 foot radius of where I want it.

or

b. I clear an aircraft to drop three to four $10,000 dumb bombs and hope the pilots skill is good enough to get one of them within 10 feet of where I want it.

The smart bombs also allow aircraft to be much more efficient with their flight time. This means that they can support a lot more missions because they only need to drop one bomb and move on and can stay at a higher altitude which conserves a lot of fuel, the most expensive part of a fighter.

A "dumb" bomb cost about $10, yes such bombs are cheap. In a "Dumb Bomb" the Fuse can run $100-500 dollars (Yes, much more expensive then the bomb itself, but still cheap).

Generally the "Smart Bomb" and the "Dumb Bomb" are the same bomb, but with a different fuse/aiming system. For example the GBU-30 is a kit to be fitted to 1000 pounds "Dumb Bomb".

On the other hand a "Smart Bomb" can run into the Thousands, starting at about $20,000 each

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/docs/991119-jdam.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam.htm

Thus we are NOT comparing Four $10,000 "Dumb bombs" with one $25,000 "Smart Bomb" but a $25,000 "Smart Bomb" and 100 "Dumb bombs". At times I would want one bomb in one location, but the next time I would want the 100 bombs hitting everything above ground.

Now the one $25,000 vs 100 $250 bombs have other costs, First the plane and pilot to get either to the target. A $10,000 piper cub can delivery either bomb, but unless it was upgraded to drop the "Smart bomb" with a lot of expensive add ons, the Cub will drop either as a "dumb bomb". This brings up the subject of which is better, a 100 dumb bomb that hits near the target but can be dropped NOW, or a smart bomb that can hit the target on the first pass, but can NOT do so for another one to two hours? Again a decision up to the person calling in the Fire Support.

According to the best estimate we have there are 87,000 GBU-30 smart bomb kits (The most common kit today). 87,000 sounds like a lot, but remember ONE B-52 can carry up to 70,000 pounds of bombs. if you assume 1000 pound bombs, then each B-52 can carry 70 GBU-30 bombs. Over a 200 day year (the Rest of the year the Plane may be out of action for various reasons) that means each B-52 can drop 14,000 of these bombs, which mean Six B-52s can use ALL of these GBU-30 kits within a year. Ignoring the kits being used by the rest of the planes being used in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just pointing out how few of these bombs are out there. Enough for how we are using them, but no where near the number we near to replace dumb bombs in most situations.

List of US Smart Bombs and Missiles:
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/ussmartmunitions.html

few planes can even compete with it. I have to say I dont know what China would have up it's sleeve right now, but the superhornet and other planes can likely handle them.

Besides, even though china has a big bad million man standing army - it's clear they have chosen economic warfare instead of conventional.

They have their own advanced fighter program and are working on SU-33 clones in the meantime as a carrier deployed aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-XX

The J-10 is operational and competitive with western aircraft. The J-11 is a copy of the Su-27 and it's a capable aircraft as well.

The JSF is suppose to bring all three services to a common platform so that the military can save on replacement parts (which are one of the most expensive parts of maintaining fighter jets.)

The F-18 itself was originally hoped to be used by both the Air Force and Navy. Only the Navy ended up fielding it. The Air Force fielded the F-16 instead. They are both great aircraft, but the joint use concept failed in that instance.

The F-4 Phantom II was adopted by both the Navy and the Air Force. That plane wasn't the best fit for either service. It was designed on the premise that cannon were no longer needed for air-to-air combat, and proved that premise wrong. The plane was short on endurance and slow to turn. It did go fast, but not a whole lot more.

The different forces should develop their own weapons for their particular needs. Joint use requirements really guarantee only that the fighter will be overly expensive, heavy, and generalized. In short, they end up being a compromise. I doubt the F-35 will end up doing any of its missions exceptionally well. Probably the only reason it's still around is for the money it brings to certain congressional districts and retired military brass acting as consultants or lobbyists.

The F-18 is a decent air to air platform and a good air to ground platform. The Harrier and the A-10 are very good air to ground platforms. The F-16 I am not as familiar with but I believe it is a good air to air platform and a decent ground to air platform.

The JSF will be a good air to air platform and a great air to ground platform. The two variants will provide the different services the small differences they need out of the platform.

The F-22 will be the primary air to air platform, with the JSF being a close second.

There are a lot of upgrades in there that will allow these platforms to outperform other multi-role platforms.

nothing says a JSF has to be a new thing, maybe the best of what is currently operational instead.

in the Super-hornet. It would still require a new design and at that point you might as well stick with the JSF.

Scrap this thing first!

An airplane that costs $382 billion! Good god, are we stoopid or something? How can we as a nation afford such a piece of machinery? What other power on earth is so threatening that we need this kind of expense? It is absolutely unbelievable. I thought the cost of the B-1, $100,000.00 a copy, was out of this world. Now this?


Edited because I assumed something dumb:

OK, it seems I showed my stupidity by assuming each copy would cost $382b but that is the cost of producing 2457 copies of the plane which works out to $155,474,155.00 a copy. That is still an ourageous price tag for something we don't need. There is no nation on our enemies list that can even approach what we have now. Heck, if we built 10,000 A-1 Skyraiders we could accomplish more than these whiz bangs in fighting small unit guerrilla warfare.

Although you can be sure they'd find some way to pay outrageously for that plane as well. I still cannot understand why we aren't putting the A-10 back into production - is it simply because the drones (the weapons most likely to incite anti-american sentiment) have taken over that mission?

I can not remember which part, I believe it is the wing, has to be made as one solid piece. At the time the A-10 was in production only one machine could make that part, it is now scraped. Building that machine would be expensive and only way to justify it would be to produce a huge number of A-10s, a number no one is taking about today.

During Vietnam the US Air Force did order new A-26 Douglas Invaders, for the same reason is calling for more A-10s, it could hang around for a long while till the enemy showed its head and then attack the enemy, unlike the Jets of the time period (I am talking of Vietnam) which could NOT linger long over the target. Plans were made to put the A-1 and even the P-51 back into production for ground support, but only the A-26 went beyond the discussion stage. The Reason was simple, the A-26 was the best support plane the Air Force had in 1944 when it came out. The A-26 was still the best support plane in the Air Force inventory till replaced by the A-10 in the 1980s. The reason was its ability to linger over the battlefield. In many ways the A-10 was a "re-design" of the A-26, but updated for jets, a 30mm anti-tank gun, and operation by a crew of one, which was possible by the 1970s given the huge advance in technology since 1944.

The same with the A-10 today, there has been a huge advance in technology since the A-10 came out. The A-10, if being designed today, will be different from the A-10 that we have just do to the change in technology (The differences between the A-26 and A-10 may be more radical, but it also reflects the change in technology over a 25 year time period.

A further problem is the life expectancy of the A-10. Right now, do to the immense control of the Air by the US Air Force, US Navy and US Marines, we do not field anything bigger then a 155 mm howitzer. If we need something bigger or longer range we turn to Air Power not Artillery. This fact also affects our option. In Vietnam, the Air Force could NOT hit a two feet wide target, but the 8 inch Howitzer could. Thus in Vietnam when long range fire was called for Artillery was preferred (The Israeli even maintain some Vietnam Era 175mm Howitzer for the same reason, long range and accuracy). These 175mm Howitzer had a range of 34 Kilometers (Israeli versions have an range of 50 KM or about 31 miles).

These big guns tended to be retired at the fall of the Soviet Union. By the 1970s "smart bombs" had finally achieved the accuracy of Artillery and could be drop anywhere on about 20 minutes notice. Thus in the 1990s the US Military retired anything over 155 mm (As long as the Soviet Union Existed there was the possibility that the Soviets could deny air cover for US Forces, thus large Artillery pieces were kept for this contingency.

Now, while large guns are retired, long range missiles have become more and more common. It is possible within 20 years that Air Planes may be replaced by such long range missiles. Such Missiles offer many advantages over Artillery and Air Planes, first since they are missiles, they only go to the target, not to and from. Thus can be as small as 1/4 the size of a plane (No need to carry fuel to AND from the target and thus less fuel it used for less fuel is carried). Being Smaller makes such missiles harder for Anti-aircraft missiles to hit while sending to the target the same weapons load. Such missiles can have ranges beyond today's Air Craft, simply do to the fact they are only going to the target, there is no pilot that has to come back.

Accuracy can be as good as today's missiles and smart bombs, the only significant change would be the need to some sort of ground navigation system to back up a global positioning guidance system.

My point is we are about to see a radical and rapid change in Fire Support for ground Forces. Air Craft may go the way of Heavy Artillery, replaced by long range missiles, Such Missiles could be fired from ships or ground. This will bring with it quicker and Cheaper fire support. Given that fact, why put the A-10 back into production when it will be sent to the scrap yard in 10 years? That is the biggest reason the A-10 is NOT put back into production.

that would have to be one hell of a price tag (on that special machine) to make the F-35 look like a rational choice!

A SU-29, upgraded with US Military electronics would be the best plane in the world. That honor presently goes to the F-15 (I am NOT counting the F-22 Raptor for reason to be stated below). The F-15 is getting near the end of its service life, not because it is obsolete, the last one built was in the 1970s and the Air Frames have been through enough punishment that it is time to retire them. As a plane, the SU-27 is as good as the F-15, the F-15 is better do to the better US electronics. That General just said buy and upgrade the SU-27 instead of wasting money on the F-22 Raptor.

The F-22 is a better plane then either the F-15 or Su-27, but given no one else has anything better then the SU-27m what is the real advantage of the F-22? No matter which plane you are flying (F-15, American electric equipped SU-27 or a F-22) the other side will lose. Thus why waste the money on the F-22? Especially by the time someone else comes up with something as good as the F-22, unmanned planes/missiles will be the norm making any fighter plane just something flying in the sky to be shot down (And that is only 10-20 years away).

The same argument can be made with the F-35, why? anything it can do, existing planes can do. We are looking at a future where planes will be replaced by missiles and/or drones. By the time these planes are ready, the US Navy is expected to have its next generation of Cruisers armed with 200 plus miles range guns (With projectiles with "smart" warheads that can change direction to hit the target). Even longer range missiles are in development.

I also will NOT go into the area of the next most likely war zone, some Third World City. All the targets while within Artillery range, but no ability to call for support do to fear of hitting civilians (and that fear driven more by NOT wanting to recruit for the insurgents more then any concern about actual civilian lives). How will the F-35 or the F-22 perform is such a conflict? There fly over, showing their support, but unless it is clear that the whole block is in revolt, no bombs will be dropped. Both the F-22 and F-35 will fly home without doing anything.

Given that situation why build either? We are NOT looking at any conflict with any major power for at least 10 years (It will take China that long to be able to do anything other then be a target for American Missiles). Europe is more able to fight the US toe to toe, but why? Russia dislikes the US, but again why would the US engage Russia? Thus no war for at least 10 years (at that time China desire to drive the US from off its shores could be supported by an actual Chinese ability to do something about it). The problem is not only will the world be different then the world we are facing today, so will the weapons. We do NOT know what weapons we will need in ten years, but the weapons we have now will be as good as any of the proposed new weapons if war comes in ten years. Given that fact why waste money on buying weapons that will be obsolete in ten years, when we already have obsolete weapons that would be as good as those new weapons of today would be in ten years.

The F-22 and F-35 should be dropped. I support development and research but actually building these planes is NOT worth it, just drop both of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-29

This is EXACTLY the sort of plane our fighter pilots should be flying!

Oh, you mean SU-27... Those are a bit more expensive, but not at all so in comparison to the F-35.

Nevertheless, I'm certain defense contractors like Lockheed Martin could stuff themselves like a pig at a trough "upgrading" SU-27s, or even SU-29s with home-grown U.S. technology and Chinese outsourcing.

Can you imagine a billion dollar SU-29? I'll bet Lockheed-Martin can. It would be almost as good as Wonder Woman's invisible airplane.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_plane

Unlike the Iowa Class Battleship (which had been designed to go at the same speed as the Carriers of WWII) the Montana Class of Battleship were to be true battleship, not only carry the 16inch guns of the Iowas, but also be able to take shells from those same guns (Something the Iowas were NOT designed to do, thus the Iowas could do 33 knots not the 28 knots max of the Montana Class).

More on the Montana Class Battleship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Montana_%28BB-67%29#USS_Montana_.28BB-67.29

Construction of the Montana Class (and the last two Iowa Class) battleships were started during WWII, then stopped do to the steel shortage caused by the need for steel for the Carriers and other steel users during WWII. The last two Iowa class Battleships were also canceled for the same reason. The Montana Class Battleships were the best battleships ever designed but it was clear by 1942 that by 1945 they would have been designed to fight an enemy that no longer existed (The Japanese Fleet was at the bottom of the Sea, the British and French Fleets were for all practical purposes part of the US Navy, and the Soviet was a land based nation with limited shore line) when the US was facing an enemy such ships would be marginal at best (The Soviet Union).

Just like the Montanas, the F-35 and F-22s are both great planes, you will NOT hear me say otherwise, but for use against whom and where? What can either plane do that the existing US air power can NOT provide? The US has total Air Superiority over Iraq and Afghanistan, the main conflict is at platoon level, town level combat. The Su-29 you provided a picture of would be as good in such combat as the F-35 and F-22 (Even today's planes are of marginal use, even the Taliban knows the US can hit them with air power within 20 minutes, thus the Taliban plan to fight for no more then 20 minutes at a time).

Remember we are losing Afghanistan NOT on a national level, not by an invading army, but by an internal revolt. You have to end that Revolt and the best way is to address the cause of the Revolt (i.e. drilling more wells, providing paved roads and other domestic improvements will do more to defeat that revolt then the number of bombs we drop, no matter how accurately). Thus there is no need for the F-22 or F-35 when it comes to Iraq of Afghanistan.

As to China and a possible war with China, that is at least ten years away. All China can do NOW if a war breaks out is be a target for Us bombs from today's planes (and then fall back into the same defense plan as being used by the Taliban in Afghanistan, i.e. guerrilla war against the invading US Military, a situation the US can only call a nightmare). The F-35 and F-22 will NOT enhance the existing capability of the US to bomb China, and will not help the US in any Chinese Guerrilla War. Thus just like the Montana was the best battleship of WWII, the fact it could NOT be finished till after there were no more targets for it to hit made it obsolete, the same with the F-35 and F-22s.

If we project ten years, the F-35 and F-22 would again be of little additional benefit in a war like we are fighting in Afghanistan AND by then the days of the man fighter may over. Thus by the time either the F-35 or F-22 gets into the field in substantial numbers to have any effect on the battle field, the days of the manned air craft may be in its last days (if not already obsolete).

Thus like the USS Montana they are design to fight a war no longer being fought and a type of war no one will fight again. As such they are a huge waste of resources that would be better directed to ending the war in Afghanistan and Iraq AND preparing the US Military for its next major battle which will will either be another Iraq/Afghanistan or a high tech war with China. In either conflict both will be minor players at best (either do to being obsolete by the time the war starts, in the case of China OR of no real additional advantage over what we are flying now). Lets save the money and spend the money on something that will have value in the battle field of 2020-2050, like long range missiles and communications connections to such missiles so they can be called into action when needed. A smaller, lighter tank that is easier to transport around the world then the M1 (Which was designed to stop the Soviet Red Army that disappeared in the late 1980s). Lets spend the money on something useful, not a technology wonder that will never be used (or if used, for something it was NOT designed to do, like provide off shore fire support for Infantry off the coast of Vietnam, which was what the USS New Jersey, an Iowa class Battleship, did in Vietnam and Korea).

If any of the big economies got into a World War II firefight it would be the end of them even if the nukes didn't launch. The oil tankers and pipelines that feed the machine are as easy to take down as hydrogen filled Zeppelins.

Our entire "National Defense" is a World War II fantasy game having many deadly and destructive consequences.

the truly EXOTIC plowshares we could have!

source: http://www.windustry.org/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

You know, the one where we got our asses waxed in Independence Day...

"Don't yew DARE touch our preshus Militaree! How the hell yew expect us t'keep bombin the shit outta the 911 towlheds? Now veterans . . . THEM's a diffrunt storeh . . ."

Same thing - they love soldiers, yet once they LEAVE the military, forget about it. McCain's voting record on veteran's issues is atrocious, for instance.

Remember the un-armored Humvees in Iraq that got a lot of soldiers killed, or the crappy third-rate body armor?

Teabaggers are good at putting yellow ribbons on their SUVs and waving flags, but they don't do a goddamn thing for REAL soldiers or veterans.

Ever?

Spend even a tenth of that on schools, and you have armed Tea Baggers in revolt.

Probably multiple someones.

We are a war-based economy. I'm sure it will kill us as a nation.

Can you think of a better way of creating new "terrorists" than by terrorizing entire populations with little buzzing machines raining down death (seemingly?) at random? Those people look at us and see a nation too cowardly to put even one person in harm's way in order to kill them.

The problem with "we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is that for the most part we don't present a target over there. So, although we can certainly kill a lot of people "over there," the ones we don't kill will just as certainly try to come here to pay us back for killing their innocent child, brother, sister, mother, father, granddaughter, grandfather, whatever.

Did nobody learn anything from the Princess Bride? "You killed my father. Prepare to die." Those sentiments are universal among the human race.

'On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers
to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible
to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 35,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it
was over 100,000.' http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm


The city of Dresden after it was bombed in World War II

Victims of the Dresden bombing raid.

But drones are not "good" just because there are other bad things going on in the world. Using such a comparative standard would lead to a blessing of anything short of exterminating millions of innocent people.

for you.

Social Security and the retirement age are about to be dinged to enable the continued teet sucking by the Defense Contractors to rule this country.

There's NOT strategic or tactical reason why the war budget couldn't be cut by 3/4...

Then stop being the Earth's occupier...

And clean up the messes at home...

But neither right-wing of the Corporate War Party will even put this sane idea on the table...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Security benefit equals 318,333,333 months of Social Security benefits.

What was that you said about death panels?

Check my math. I used to be really good at math, but I am very rusty at it now.

Purveyor

Yeah, the same F35 the US government more or less told Norway to buy, becouse or else..... You know, when Norway was in the business of seeing what aircraft was best for the job, and allmoust desided that a JAS 39 Gripen was better than the F35.. But of course after some "convinsing" from the then Administration of Bush jr, the Parlament in Norway desided of course, to buy the F35 instead of the JAS 39 Gripen, who posible would be more sutiable to most of what Norway needed from a airforce...

But of course, they have not all the gadgeds that the F35 have, no Stealth and so one... But the JAS 39 Gripen, is far less expansive than the F35 from Locheed Martin.... And absolutely capable for what Norway need... And of course the JAS N who Norway was offered was more suited to our needs than the orginal JAS.. We have a lot of water to protect, and I really doubt that the F35 wil be the best to protect our large parts of what we also have to protect..

And if we not are getting the JAS, we might go for new F16Block 60-62 Instead of, or maybe the F18 super hornet.. We know the F16 as we have had it for more than 30 year now, and even tho our F16 is MLU4, it is an older aircraft than the newest block with F16.. With a F18 super Hornet we would have a rather large aircraft, and two engined, something we have not have had since F5 who also was two engined (and by the way the F5 was also in service to the late 19990s, and was going out of service first in 2004...

And, if we are not to attac Russia or something like that, I really doubt we need the Rolls Royce, when we can do it with a Bently, or maybe a Mercedes Maybech...

Diclotican

better plane .. cheaper .... no contest ....

It's qualified to land on US carriers, and as a 4.5 generation fighter is quite capable. And it's available for importation from France right now, unlike the F-35 which is always 10 years out.

Lockheed Martin is utterly incapable of producing ANYTHING at less than 10,000x the original estimate. FUCK LOCKHEED MARTIN.

Because if we've already spent that much on the F-35, we should probably finish it. Maybe we can make up at least some of the expense by selling it.