A few quotes from an article that is written about a City Council that is writing Senator Durbin on behalf of the F-35 program. Note that they talk about the jobs that the program provides AND NOT the capabilities that the airplane brings. Additionally note that we're seeing a weird group of individuals coming together to try and stop this program. Various Congressman, Think Tanks, Bloggers (me included...but for my own reasons) and even Lobbyist (but they'll never match the numbers that LM bring to the table). Read the whole story but the pertinent quotes follow....
"In the financial industry, we have this phrase, 'too big to fail,' and I'm wondering if this project is so large in scope that it was too big to cancel," Durbin said. "Have we reached a point when it comes to acquisitions in the future that we have to take this into consideration?"&
"I think the uptick of activity that you see coming from (Lockheed Martin) is indicative of concern over the future of the program," said Miles, who started an online petition calling for the F-35's cancellation. "Everyone recognizes that the program as planned is unsustainable. There simply isn't $1.5 trillion to spend on a weapons system that doesn't work."Its really clear for the Marine Corps. Bill Sweetman said it a couple of years ago and I dismissed him out of hand. To paraphrase...
You would have your EFV if you (meaning the Marine Corps) weren't buying a transport helicopter (the V-22) that costs as much as a fighter, a fighter that costs more than anything else thats ever been done (except the B-2)...we should have followed the Airbus model and standardize avionics between three different airframes...then you would have what you really want.The son of a bitch was right. I hope I never run into him because I owe him a bottle of his favorite adult beverage and a 5 star dinner...hopefully he'll be so drunk and full that he forgets how right he was.
The Marine Corps is making bad choices and once again finds itself in a STUPID situation. We're having to tailor our forces to fit equipment instead of buying equipment to fit our doctrine AND our forces.
The concern of politicians has long been with the jobs that the obscenely high Pentagon budget can provide. This applies mainly to bases and to procurement.
ReplyDeleteOn procurement, the New England congressional delegations formed a bloc to keep Bath Iron Works producing ships and a congressman from Connecticut bragged that he had gotten submarine production at New London doubled. It works overseas, too. The US ambassador to Poland bragged that the value of the economic offsets (jobs) for the Lockheed sale of F-16s was double the contract value, and recently Denmark has made it clear that its fighter selection (F-35 is a candidate) would depend upon the jobs created in Denmark.
(Why would Denmark need a expensive jet fighters except to provide jobs?)
So we need to cut the USMC (and other services) a little slack. Like with the Abrams Main Battle Tank, it doesn't matter much what the services want or need, nor it's the jobs. And jobs is a game that corporations know how to play using politicians.
In fact overseas, as in the Poland example, the corporation (Lockheed in this case) are the agents for implementing the jobs creation -- called "offsets" in those cases. In the U.S., corporations like Lockheed act similarly. The F-35 program, it's said, has sub-contractors in 48 states which forms unbreakable ties between the program and the politicians who vote the funds. And then there are the bases and their tenants.
Senator McCain? A vocal critic of the F-35? McCain said that the F-35 is among the "Great, National Scandals?"
SENATORS McCAIN AND FLAKE APPLAUD AIR FORCE DECISION TO BASE THREE ADDITIONAL F-35 SQUADRONS AT LUKE AIR FORCE BASE
Washington, D.C., Jun 27, 2013 – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) today released the following statements regarding the Air Force’s decision to locate three additional squadrons of F-35 fighter aircraft at Luke Air Force Base in Glendale, Arizona. The three squadrons announced today are in addition to the three squadrons the Air Force selected to base at Luke AFB last August.
“Today’s announcement by the Air Force of its decision to locate three additional squadrons of F-35 fighter aircraft at Luke Air Force Base is great news for the West Valley of Phoenix, the State of Arizona, and the United States Air Force,” said Senator John McCain. “This announcement means that six squadrons of F-35 fighters – totaling 144 aircraft – will make their home at Luke once the F-35 program delivers fully operational jets. . . ."
i admit the reality that you're stating but the next question is this.
Deletewith a rising China, is this the best use of SCARCE defense dollars? forget sunk costs, is the cost of going forward too high to pay?
i say yes.
i say that one questionable program is not worth killing several other worthy ones.
that's where we're at with the F-35. its just not worth the cost.
Oh I agree with you, I'm just focusing on paragraph 1 a. 2. of the ops order: situation, capablities of enemy forces. We need to understand what and who we're up against, and how they operate, that's all. And the higher importance of jobs relative to system worth, in response to:
Delete"A few quotes from an article that is written about a City Council that is writing Senator Durbin on behalf of the F-35 program. Note that they talk about the jobs that the program provides AND NOT the capabilities that the airplane brings. "
answer this hypothetical.
Deleteif its between the F-35 and ObamaCare for immediate funding which wins? i think thats what we're up against because i don't believe that youngsters will sign up for OC which means that funding will be in a deficit. which means that liberals are going to be looking for programs to cut. since the Pentagon has already sacrificed everything else, i think they're going to get nothing.
Medical costs in general are going through the roof, and that affects not only Obamacare but also Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare. The average daily cost of a hospital room in 1985 was $212, currently it's $4,000, and can be as much as $15,000. In California the average price of an inpatient stay rose to $20,858 in 2009. A heart bypass which costs $8,500 in India is $144,000 in the U.S., etc.
DeleteSo there is a double effect when twenty- and thirty-somethings opt out of Obamacare (at least until the higher penalties, excuse me taxes, cut in.
Relative to F-35? Jobs vs. medical care? It won't be on those terms. As noted above, the pols will usually vote for (i.e. can't voter against) jobs in their districts. Meanwhile, the sub-standard US medical system will get worse, in part because Americans have unhealthy lifestyles. Americans' health, according to a recent study, ranks below 16 other developed nations.
Don, the American healthcare system is outstanding, if you are insured.
DeleteI guess you didn't see the movie Sicko.
Deletewiki:According to Sicko, almost fifty million Americans are uninsured while the remainder, who are covered, are often victims of insurance company fraud and red tape. Furthermore, Sicko points out that the U.S. health care system is ranked 37 out of 191 by the World Health Organization with certain health measures, such as infant mortality and life expectancy, equal to countries with much less economic wealth.[6] Interviews are conducted with people who thought they had adequate coverage but were denied care. Former employees of insurance companies describe cost-cutting initiatives that give bonuses to insurance company physicians and others to find reasons for the company to avoid meeting the cost of medically necessary treatments for policy holders, and thus increase company profitability.
Alright, you just lost all credibility by quoting that leftist lardass Michael "lying" Moore.
DeleteIt was a ridiculously biased movie, made to shit all over the USA, like ALL of his bogus, lying "documentaries".
Moore should live in Cuba, where his ass belongs.
If the movie was ridiculously biased, tell us how, since it basically agrees with accepted facts. The fact is that for most people in the USA the health/medical system sucks.
DeleteThe World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems shows the USA at #37, between Costa Rica and Slovenia.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
from National Academies Press:
The United States is among the wealthiest nations in the world, but it is far from the healthiest. Although life expectancy and survival rates in the United States have improved dramatically over the past century, Americans live shorter lives and experience more injuries and illnesses than people in other high-income countries. The U.S. health disadvantage cannot be attributed solely to the adverse health status of racial or ethnic minorities or poor people: even highly advantaged Americans are in worse health than their counterparts in other, "peer" countries.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13497
“Once a man holds public office he is absolutely no good for honest work.” --Will Rogers
ReplyDeleteHere we go.
ReplyDeleteSol, I take it you are a C-17 fan, right?
You do know that a C-17, a CARGO plane, costs 193 MILLION dollars. That's more than a F-22 or an F-35.
And Mr. Sweetman obviously forgot about what a MASSIVE cluster f*ck that EFV morphed into. Too have, leaky, with all sorts of hydraulic problems.
But the C-17 weighs almost ten times what the F-35 does, so that makes it a bargain at about $700/lb vs. over $5,000/lb.
DeleteSo what.
DeleteIt's a big dumb cargo plane that's subsonic.
IT shouldn't cost over 50 million.
It can't even kill anyone for chrissakes, not to mention it had a troubled development too and was late and overpriced. How the hell doe a CARGO plane have a troubled development?
The C-17 can fly within 25 miles of lightning, and a Lightning II can't do that, and it hasn't proven yet that it can kill anyone.
DeleteNot just to make this a four... but Sweetman's note of USMC 'could have had the EFV' would have really amounted to a long-term unalterable massive tactical calamity.
ReplyDeleteThe cancellation of EFV was perhaps one of the most important decisions in recent USMC-history, since EFV would have frozen the ARG within perpetual reach of possibly even barrel-artillery with e.g. PzH-2000 (or DONAR module) now able to do 30miles with its 155mm.
And with the EFV around every ARG-Commander's neck being forced to come too close to ever more capable shore-defenses, this likely would have put the lid on for good on any viable amphibious assault process without a CSG always attached to the ARG/MEU (?).
That would then typically mean waiting for the CSG, without any surprise to overwhelm the defender, and thus giving the adversary, its allies plus mercenaries on land and afloat/submerged plenty of time to really humiliate the amphibious assault force.
Stopping the EFV in its technical and tactical dead-end track freed up much more conceptually-coherent developments far beyond floating APCs and other such romantic ideas.
It will likely be fast heavy-lift LCUs in GCE-First Wave correct numbers that will at long last provide the missing link hampering the Marines's amphibious ambitions for decades.
Exactly.
DeleteThe EFV was gobbling cash, had 2 prototypes that were very unreliable, and it was trying to be a 30 ton IFV that could do 25 knots and drive well on land.
All for the "low" price of 23 MILLION dollars. AKA 4 M1A2 tanks....
The F-35, in contrast, has over 100 airframes assembled, with dozens of jets flying.
In fact, next year, there will be more F-35s flying than French Rafles, a 1980s era Eurocanard.
yeah David and i could use the F-35 argument. there is no alternative. its cutting edge technology. it just needs more time. we have seven built already and the price will go down once we ramp up to low rate production. we haven't tested it yet but we're going to declare IOC with it not being able to swim from ship to shore.
Deleteif all that shit sounds silly with the EFV then multiply it by 10 with the F-35. just replace a few words and thats what we're hearing about your pretty little, over priced, fraudulent, slow, dumpy, still not working airplane.
well, the EFV was an attempt to make a boat crossed with an IFV. That simply can't work, unless you want a crappy boat and a good IFV, or vice versa.
DeleteThe F-35 is 3 similar looking airframes, with common engines, avionics, radars, wheels, ect. for 3 different service branches. It isn't try to cross a fighter jet and a blimp or something.
I know it has/had problems, but the latest that it could have been canceled was in 2009, when the Raptor was still in production.
you're halfway there not let me help you cross the finish line.
Deletethe EFV very well could have worked if we were willing to spend whatever it takes to get it to service OR declare it fit for service before it even finished testing. admit it David. what the Marine Corps and USAF are doing with regards to that is CRIMINAL. have the courage to admit that is wrong. next also admit that with every other program that blew through projected costs, suffered cost over runs, and despite ALL THAT still had its requirements lowered and weren't canceled? i can't think of one.
THIS IS A NEW LOW IN PENTAGON PROCUREMENT.
additionally for the clowns like sferrin that state stay the course the question must be asked but can't be answered. how long do we keep pumping good money after bad?
the answer is enough is enough. LM has started a MASSIVE ad campaign to keep this lemon in production. they're making money hand over fist and the US govt, meaning we the people are paying to make a few people rich and to keep a few more employed.
we have the die set for the F-22. put it back in production and get us enough of those airplanes to cover any scenario. then allow the same tech in the F-22 to be sold to our allies. thats the solution.
last but not least the Marines can buy the X-32 and put F-35 bits in it or design a clean sheet and do the same. but we have enough harriers to last until at least 2030 if not beyond. AND YES. the harrier with the super hornet can handle MARINE CORPS MISSIONS!
David, aren't you satisfacted that :
Delete-F35A and F35C has less in common than Rafale A,B and C
-F35 has only his unproven furtivity to beat Rafale in combat.
-F35 operating cost sky higher than rafale, which is used and producted less ( http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes )
-F35 is killing every surrounding programs
-Rafale reactor can be changed within 3 hours, try just unmount F35 reactor in this delay.
-Rafale is bireactor, and cost less.
So stop free bashing on rafale, it doesn't help your advice.
Ps : Since when the fact of being the most complex weapon program over the world is a good argument for the F35 ? Certainly a bigger issue !
Ps2 : I can bet that all currently produced F35, and perhaps next LRIP, will end like F117 : destroyed by a digger in desert... dur to upgrade cost over build cost !
I don't understand why USMC still want VSTOL F35 and not STOBAR in 2013 : the "overcost" of B variant, use, maintenance, development, the smaller payload, is bigger than the cost of buyin carrier instead of LHD..
The testimony of Ass't Commandant General Paxton to Durbin's subcommittee on the F-35 in June is accessible here.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.f35.com/about/testimonials/general-john-m.-paxton-jr.-marine-corps-assistant-commandant/
"While operating ashore, the F-35B is not constrained to major airfields of 8,000 feet or more. The ability to operate from short, less than 3,000 foot runways provides a more than three-fold increase in the number of airfields worldwide that STOVL aircraft can utilize. Additionally, STOVL aircraft can operate from expeditionary airfields constructed from airfield matting or established on non-airfield infrastructure such as highways or large parking lots; a capability repeatedly demonstrated during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom."
As much as I am a fan of the F22 and not crazy about the F35, bringing back the F22 isn't going to happen. (We all know that).
ReplyDeleteA few years ago when they asked how much it would cost to bring it back, what was the answer? Couple of billion, right? How much is it now? Double that? Maybe more? You can't bring it back anyways, some of the suppliers are gone and more than likely you would have to migrate tech from F35 BACK to the F22, which means you are making an F22B or C...which means more design work, new testing,etc....finally, LMT would be in charge after you have canceled or delayed F35, I doubt that we would see them give Uncle Sam a discount, watch the F22 cost more than triple what they cost when we got the last one off the production line....LMT is going to suck us dry one way or the other.
The mistake with the F22 is Congress should have authorized the sale to South Korea, Japan, Israel, Australia...and if someone removed their head out of their ass long enough at the USAF, they could have piggy backed a couple of USAF F22 orders on top of the foreign orders for a couple of years. Price was still high but Block 40s and better Blocks were just around the corner when F22 was canceled.
Anyone wonder if China would be so aggressive if Japan had 20 F22s in service with another 40 on the way? They would at least think twice before sending jets and ships across South China Seas....
We are stuck with F35 but there are ways to mitigate the cost of this program and spend some money on the needs of the services, not just this gold plated jet fighter.
Going back to F22 isn't a solution :
ReplyDeleteA big conception problem was the mass of computer liquid cooling, for all the chips.
Do you know that last smartphones have more computing power than the F22 ?
His old chips, sold more than gold price, aren't yet upgraded.. LM doens't beleive in modern technology perhaps ?