|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Navy Officials: JSF Costs Under Control|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
|
||
|
|
30 day suspension nemesis |
When you try to be all things to all people, you usually fail. I've been on the board of directors of several gun clubs that attempted to satisfy the Pistol shooters; the rifle shooters; the trap shooters; the skeet shooters; the sporting clays shooters; and the fishermen and others. Although all of these guys had similar goals and were friends. the results were a mess!!
I've come to the conclusion that being all things to all people is a fools errand. I'm afraid that the JTS is just that type of errand but home based at that funny looking five sided building is a city full of crooks. I wish all those involved the best of luck but as far a believing the "Officials",... yea,... Right. REMEMBER: YOU ARE DEALING WITH A COMITTEE. THEY WILL PRODUCE A PRODUCT BASED UPON CONCESSUS. A PLATYPUS IS: "A DUCK BUILT BY A COMMITEE!". and that will not change simply because we call it by some nifty number and toss Billion$ at it. Good luck. JD |
|||
|
Member |
1521...
Reading the article reminds me of the problems we had with the AV8B Super Harrier. The engine mounting problems, were compounded by the need to be able to move the exhaust in a 90 degree arc. Same as this engine. STOVL aircraft have special design needs, just to get them off the deck, not to mention a recovery. As to costs, the ups and downs of "out of sequence" production are usually absorbed by the company. The costs associated here are due to the movement of the assembly, redos, and re engineering changes on the fly. A costly process at best, but necessary in the first article production. Also, the GAO report looks like a response to the lobby of Congressional penny pinchers. To retreat to a simpler version reminds one of the time one of these folks wanted to build P51s again, as a cheaper version of the F15. end |
|||
|
Member |
Lets hope this compromise airframe will be as great as we are told, and not a platapus or another F111. No one has of yet been able to do this so called airplane for all reasons. For our own sake i hope its doesnt turn out to be a turkey instead of an airplane. Waiting to see.
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell -- and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed.
Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf |
|||
|
Where are the Carriers? |
Who is zoomin' who?
take what is wasted and stolen and give it to Workin' class rubes like me. "Thank you, for your support." - Bartles & Jaymes |
|||
|
|
Member |
I am sorry and too experienced to believe any developmental test and evaluation program of any airframe is under control at this stage. Be it NAVY or A/F (known as the customer) in charge, it is “B/S” and smacks of political cover up. There is NO government program over 5 million dollars being managed to the point where costs are under control, or as expected or within limits at or below budget, and on time or schedule. If it were happening, it would be in the throws of being cancelled.
When you see or read articles such as this it really means the program is about to undergo investigation by the GAO and is in trouble in terms of being on schedule. Far too often when they get to this point, they just amend the schedule, clean the slate and say all is OK!! What is needed is a firm fixed price contract where the customer tells the contractor to produce “X” amount of articles within a defined period of time at a pre-agreed cost and the article will be able to meet or exceed these specifications. What usually happens is the CONTRACTOR tells the customer that the program is doing fine, they (the customer) really did not want the airplane to be capable of doing this or that, but it will be able to do what the contractor defines and oh yes, the cost will be 10x more than originally agreed to because the customer allowed the increase of blue cars on the freeway which slowed production in their satellite production facility located two states over. Instead of the customer being in the driver’s seat, it is the CONTRACTOR who drives and toots the whistle to the approval of the politician who is protecting the contractor in fear of losing jobs due to non producing which will cause the politician to be voted out of office. (You scratch mine I will scratch yours). Most large scale contracts such as the F-35 is designed as follows…portions of the aircraft are made in EVERY state in the lower 48 states. That means jobs spread throughout the country and more importantly political clout is to strong to effectively control. It is almost impossible to cancel due to poor performance or cost overruns.  |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Forget it! Looks like the F-35 is going to be another money pit that will never fill up and the A/C will never fly as advertised. The AF should cut it's loss's and just buy an AF version of the Super F-18 and call it a day. The Navy can just buy more Super F-18's and be just fine. The Marines will just have to wait and up-grade what the have, Sorry.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Seems we now start to get the articles and questions raised that I said was coming a year ago. I asked why was it so behind schedule and so full of issues on its first publicity stunt..oops, I mean first flight and I was called everything but a patriot for it.
Are you that optimistic or simply refuse to feel reality slapping you? There has been more money spent now on the JSF than the extraordinary amount spent on the F-22. At least with the F-22 the USAF got what it wanted, a bad ayss interceptor/ASF. It CAN and WILL be better at its job than the F-15. Although it took 20+ years and several hundred billion, at least it is a success. The F-35 is too heavy, too limited as a stealth aircraft in what it can carry(4 weapons, 2 in STOL version)without comprimising the stealth. too short range for a 5th gen fighter. It is totally incapable of performing as a true CAS aircraft as it cant really loiter long and can only carry 4 weapons in stealth mode. Then there is the issue of cost,
Compared to the last set of numbers it doesnt look like $48 million/unit cost estimate is going to be accurate and is now 56 for the AF version 62 for the USN and about 70 for the USMC version! Does someone really want to give the Marines a 70 million dollar airplane?? They WILL use it for its intended purpose and they will be pissed off when it cant cut it. As far as the Navy is concerned, I cant see it being any vast improvement over the F-18 and the Super Hornet's very competitive low RCS is something to be proud of and can be improved upon even a bit more to meet the needs of the next 15-20 years. Its only competition among potential hostiles is MiG29s and the F-18 super hornet holds its own and has a BVR advantage on all but the newest MiGs. And, Boeing DOES have a TV engine concept too.
Define "major" would you please. To Lockheed Martin, major is 2 or more years. This thing will be a Jack of all trades and Master of NONE. TennSlim said,
With all due respect sir, Lockheed doesnt absorb anything thats not another company to reduce competition(as does Boeing)they are not going to absorb squat, the taxpayers will pay for it kicking and screaming all the way to the first national bank of China to sign the loan. I will admit Im extremely critical of ANY big ticket item. Like F22FT said, fixed price contract supplying strictly what we want and what we are going to pay for it. cant do it? dont bid it. Im sure the lure of billions of bucks will get someone to do it. If you gave Sukhoi 400 billion and tell them to build the best and you have 15 years to do it, you might just end up with something damn near invisible and capable of supercruise at M3. |
|||
|
|
suspended 90 days as of 5/19/09 |
Considering the gestation period for this 'baby', costs should be the last thing that are 'out of control'. That being said, how much did the latest tech upgrade and re-design cost?
It may be tangentially related to 'flying pigs' but engineers still haven't found a way to make a silk purse from a sow's ear: but they can however make all three fly-by-wire. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
|
|||
|
|
Member |
An interesting turn of events were made public this week. The Marine Tilt Rotor (V-22) aircraft, accordint to the Marines and the DoD, is in need of new engines. This brand new aircraft, just barely 1 year old needs new engines!?!? Unbelieveable. I have to ask if the same DoD and Navy officials who over see the contracts, their compliance and new weapon systems for the V-22 are the same bunch saying the F-35 costs are within bounds or under control. Sorry, I just can't believe the V-22 engine problem just showed itself nor do I believe the F-35 in on schedule and within budget. If I am wrong, I will eat my hat but I have seen too much of the B/S in flight test to believe the F-35 program costs are undercontrol.
The bottom line here is the tax payer will have to absorb any overages. About the FFP contract issue I mentioned in my prior POST, it will work because the customer buys aircraft in "LOTs" which are tied to the yearly DoD budget. Each LOT has improvements that become necessary and are incorporated as the aircraft matures or advancements are made that would (improve) overall performance, or new weapon systems improvements that require MODs to the aircraft. Each lot is just a little better than the last delivered and the cost per is negotiated accordingly on each LOT. Each LOT usually, on fighter type aircraft have about 25 - 35 aircraft in it and covers about 3 -5 years. As the government allowed the contractors to merge there are now only a few remaining to build the various aircraft needed. When you are the sole provider, you can drive a contract that may not be in the best interest of the tax payer. Competition is not what it used to be. We will just have to wait and see how it turns out and if the true story/facts are made public. This is an election year and not one politician is bold enough to challenge a big multi-billion dollar contracts that equates to thousands of jobs (or votes). |
|||
|
Member |
A little insight as to how these over-runs and delays happen: I have a friend who works in Rockford, IL, working on some of the components LM, Boeing, P&W, GE, etc. use for engines. They are asked to design and produce components. A bunch of engineers get together and come up with a few ideas. They contact whoever requested it and say we have options a, b, or c. Here are the prons & cons. What one will work best? Company says either a or b. Friend's team starts work on a. When it's nearly finished, requesting company calls back and says they really need option b. So it's back to square one. And apparently, it happens very frequently.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
I don't believe the F-35 proposal ever looked like it was going to be another F-111. For each role it was going to replace (F-16, F-18, AV-8) it simply looked like an F-16-like solution (very capable, but certainly not some kind of super wonder-jet, like the F-22 is and the F-15 was). As opposed to the F-111, which simply was a bad idea even at the conceptual level, which could never be effective for any of the roles it was designed for.
But the F-35 has been severely overweight for years and years. I think the engineers honestly thought the plane they proposed could work, but our level of technology just isn't there. And it took all this time and all this money trying at it to find that out. That's just my uneducated guess, but if it's true, I can only fault the F-35 program so much since it shouldn't be expected that all risky, state-of-the-art weapons platforms can actually be made to work. That it's state-of-the-art and designed around taking advantage of much new technology makes the program (in my mind) partly an experiment itself, in addition to just an engineering challenge. And you don't know what the result of an experiment will be until you try it.
Well keep in mind that a big selling point on the F-35 was the huge parts commonality and its being designed specifically to be low maintenance compared to any previous planes. That and being designed around some unbelievably superior electronics you could probably never get into an F-18. Oh yeah, and the non-VSTOL variants having that empty fan compartment already sitting there ready and waiting for a solid-state laser to be put in at some time in the future. I mean, how can you turn down the proposal with that little detail in there? Because, if the F-35 worked, then when the laser came along (as it inevitably will) you'd already have tons of planes that could accept it.
That's a moot point since they don't have anywhere near the level of technology our companies have. They'd have to spend some of that money catching up first. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
$400 billion buys technology till the turn of the century in Russian prices and thanks to Boeing and GE, that technology has come further than you westerners realize. Russia is years ahead in radar and missile tech. I have often said and it bears repeating, the ONLY reason there isn't a 5th generation fighter for sale by Russia today is tooling problems. The design and other technologies required for the aircraft itself are already done. Its the building it part thats causing problems, particularly in the composite materials manufacturing processes. |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
I loved their "Foxbat"
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
The one question not asked is, "how noisy are they going to be and will anyone want them in their backyard?" The so-called super-hornet is too damn loud to be a good neighbor, even for someone who served half a career on carriers. Somehow the environmental effects are never plugged into the requirements until too late. And there goes training. And I truly share the concern that this thing will be another F-111 and the Navy will still be without a Fighter for another 20 years. And no, the F/A 18 ain't a fighter. And it's too damn loud to be an effective attack plane.
|
|||
|
|
Super Member |
Don't agree with your post on the capabilities of the F/A-18. If you're worried about noise, then reactivate Cecil Field in Florida, it was a mistake to close it anyway!!!... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
yeah, simply a pair of engines with wings. no high end technology at all, but man, what an awesome ride! It was a good run if an engine lasted even 200 hours with a MTBO of only 40 hours! reliable? hardly. This was a common sight at airfields where the MiG25 flew  |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Navy Officials: JSF Costs Under Control
