australia considers F35b purchase

[-Neu-]

And an inexplicable obsession with Stealth over everything? As long as First Look, First kill doesn't go to some totally underestimated opponent in a 70s era MiG or,some lucky infantryman equipped with a MANPAD or a machine gun. How VERY embarrassing that would be !!! Unlikely Maybe but, I think it wouldn't be the first time some over hyped,over priced,overdue & mind bogglingly complex piece of supa dupa technology was taken out by something as mundane as a bullet costing a few pence!!

Allan

Unlikely is putting it mildly. Its highly improbable, certainly much less than any other aircraft. Its not inexplicable obsession... anybody who has the ability to incorporate such technology does so: the Russians with the PAK-FA, Chinese with the J-20/31, and the new generation of European UAVs, like Taranis. If you have the ability to put such capabilities into place, you do so.

I'm really not getting what is the source of the hate towards the program. Its unfounded, partly when you get past the rhetoric that has been flung around and start to look at the information coming out of the US government (which is required by law to provide accurate information.) Its certainly not overpriced compared to any other aircraft, in part due to extremely high production volumes and very high levels of commonality. Its capabilities must be demonstrated in an impartial test environment before acceptance into service.

Edited August 7, 2014 by -Neu-

[bentwaters81tfw]

the information coming out of the US government (which is required by law to provide accurate information.)

That would be a first.

If looks like a duck..............

[-Neu-]

That would be a first.

If looks like a duck..............

Its easy from afar to make blanket claims about it, but in reality the DoD acquisitions system has multiple levels of oversight: there are several different reporting authorities within DOD (like OT&E), the government accounting office, Congressional Budget Office, Congress itself... all of these bodies have the legal or direct ability to compel accurate data to be provided. My work actually looks at different government acquisition practices... and the US Government is by far the most open and forthright about its costs and capabilities. Moreover many of those very same countries ( Dutch, Canadian and Australian) have completed their own audits and the results have basically validated the US government's numbers.

Frankly, so much of the opinion being put out into the public sphere is just sensationalist, inaccurate and one sided. All programs face the same sort of criticisms and complaints. The last time this occurred was with the F/A-18E... when people were regularly tearing into it for being slow, incapable, overpriced compared to the untouchable F-14. Now everywhere I see people lauding it for versatility and capability. I'm not saying all of this in order to claim that the F-35 or the US acquisition system is perfect. Both have shortcomings, and flaws... that need to be identified and corrected. But complete and blanket claims that made above really don't reflect the reality of the program.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Its easy from afar to make blanket claims about it, but in reality the DoD acquisitions system has multiple levels of oversight: there are several different reporting authorities within DOD (like OT&E), the government accounting office, Congressional Budget Office, Congress itself... all of these bodies have the legal or direct ability to compel accurate data to be provided. My work actually looks at different government acquisition practices... and the US Government is by far the most open and forthright about its costs and capabilities.

Black defence budget anyone? Toilet seats that cost $5000? Open and Transparent?

Ever read Ben Rich?, and the Skunk Works makes the thing. Their track record shows products cost lots more than the advertised price.

[Giorgio N]

Frankly, so much of the opinion being put out into the public sphere is just sensationalist, inaccurate and one sided. All programs face the same sort of criticisms and complaints. The last time this occurred was with the F/A-18E... when people were regularly tearing into it for being slow, incapable, overpriced compared to the untouchable F-14. Now everywhere I see people lauding it for versatility and capability. I'm not saying all of this in order to claim that the F-35 or the US acquisition system is perfect. Both have shortcomings, and flaws... that need to be identified and corrected. But complete and blanket claims that made above really don't reflect the reality of the program.

And when the Tomcat was selected over 40 years ago there were many experts who claimed it was just an overweight expensive white elephant. It was expensive indeed and the program was financially in such a mess that Grumman almost went broke and was only saved by a large loan from a state owned Iranian bank.

Wonder what people would have said had the Internet existed back then ?

This just to show that some things never really change.. when it will be time to retire the F-35 with something else in 40 years time, people will cry on the web (or its future equivalent) that whatever the replacement it will be a waste of money etc...

[-Neu-]

Black defence budget anyone? Toilet seats that cost $5000? Open and Transparent?

Yes there is a black budget. The F-35 isn't in it, neither is 93% of DoD's budget.

Also, please point me to the line item for a toilet seat that costs $5,000 dollars? That's actually an apocryphal story about NASA in the 1980s... stemming from a TIME magazine cover with a $400 dollar hammer back in the 1980s. Many of the instances of the cost were actually sensationalist and upon further investigation discovered to be within reason or just high.

Do military items cost more than identical ones in the commercial world? Yes: on average 10~30% more. However you have to remember the suppliers generally have to be qualified: many of them need to meet government contracting regulations in addition to DoD ones. But its very rare that you see something that is 100X the proper cost... that's called corruption and its often prosecuted.

Ever read Ben Rich?, and the Skunk Works makes the thing. Their track record shows products cost lots more than the advertised price.

Skunk works? yes... among many others.

Skunk Works does not make the F-35. Skunk Works is AF Plant 42 in Palmdale, which operates independently from Lockheed Martin's other facilities (like AF Plant 4 in Fort Worth), which are actually General Dynamics' old facilities. Skunkworks does do some work on the fighter, but most of the work is completed in other facilities. They were always separated, even in culture... which is pretty clearly stated in Ben Rich's book.

Moreover there is a whole bunch of factors which may result in a program going over budget, overdue or not delivered with the requisite capabilities. If Skunkworks' experiences with very narrowly defined, but technologically challenging capabilities was indicative of all defence projects, then we would have squared that circle long ago. Rather, defence procurements is an incredibly complex process, where almost all programs go over budget and see late deliveries. Considering what they try to achieve (revolutionary technologies over existing systems), that shouldn't be too surprising. Thus its a question to avoid some of the worst excesses... like what occurred with the Eurofighter program or the Daring Class. There was an interesting article on the latter in the US Navy War College Review...

https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/8c48e9ba-b7ca-42f1-868b-451f9ac72cd0/The-Type-45-Daring-Class-Destroyer--How-Project-Ma.aspx

Behind the sensationalist headlines of cost overrun on top of cost overrun, the F-35 has basically hit its cost targets in the past three years, which should continue as production ramps up. That's an important point. Much of the development work remaining is on coding, rather than physical hardware... which means the aircraft structure will remain relatively static from here on in. Thus you'll see the cost decrease as component manufactures refine their production processes. That's a major milestone when you're building an aircraft, or any complex system.

I get that its a big program with a lot of promised capabilities, which makes it easy to dislike. However the program has actually made a bit of a turn around since its low points around 2008~2010. New management, more funding and a better oversight has definitely improved its prospects... none other than the GAO has said so. Doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement, but its not a disaster as some portray it out o be.

Edited August 11, 2014 by -Neu-