On 4/16/14, 7:18 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/16/2014 6:41 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 4:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/15/2014 12:01 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/15/14, 11:50 AM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter hits more turbulence
Developed by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is DOD’s most expensive
and most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be
nearly
70 percent over budget
Continued software problems related to the Defense Department’s
F-35
Joint Strike Fighter program could lead to delivery delays of
less-capable aircraft at a long-term price tag that may prove
unaffordable, congressional investigators said today.
Developmental testing of software deemed critical to the F-35′s
initial
warfighting capability remains so far behind schedule, the
Marine Corps
may not receive all of the capabilities it expects when it
plans to
begin
flying the F-35. In addition, continued delays could push the
total
lifecycle cost of the F-35 from its current projected level of
$390.4
billion to an estimated $1 trillion — a figure with which DOD
program
officials disagree.
“Delays in developmental flight testing of the F-35’s critical
software
may hinder delivery of the warfighting capabilities the military
services
expect,” according to a report released today by the Government
Accountability Office. “Challenges in development and testing of
mission
systems software continued through 2013, due largely to delays in
software delivery, limited capability in the software when
delivered,
and
the need to fix problems and retest multiple software versions.
Delivery
of expected warfighting capabilities to the Marine Corps could be
delayed
by as much as 13 months. Delays of this magnitude could also
increase
the
already significant concurrency between testing and aircraft
procurement
and result in additional cost growth.”
In addition to delivery deadlines and weapon system capabilities
issues,
DOD also faces steep financial burdens related to the F-35
acquisition
effort. For the program to continue as planned, DOD will have to
dedicate
an average of $12.6 billion per year through 2037, with several
years
peaking at $15 billion, according to GAO. At $12.6 billion per
year, the
F-35 would consume almost one-quarter of DOD’s annual major
defense
acquisition funding.
“Annual funding of this magnitude clearly poses long-term
affordability
risks given the current fiscal environment,” GAO investigators
concluded.
“The F-35 fleet is estimated to cost around $1 trillion to
operate and
support over its lifetime. In a time of austere federal budgets,
cost
projections of this magnitude pose significant fiscal challenges.”
DOD plans call for spending $400 billion to develop and acquire
2,457
F-35s — known as the Joint Strike Fighter — through 2037, plus
hundreds
of billions of dollars in long-term spending to operate and
maintain the
aircraft. The F-35 family of next-generation fighter aircraft will
incorporate stealth technologies, which make it more difficult
to be
identified by radar, as well as advanced sensors and computer
networking
capabilities. DOD is developing three U.S variants for the Air
Force,
Navy and Marine Corps, as well as eight international variants
that
will be sold to allies.
The F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin, is DOD’s costliest and
most
ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be
nearly 70
percent over budget.
- See more at:
http://fedscoop.com/f-35-joint-strik....lS4foNhR.dpuf
- - -
The Pentagon exists more than just partly to keep officers in
uniform
and defense contractors in business. What a fripping this F35
program
is.
This is a Congressional boondoggle! I understand the Pentagon,
does not
want this thing. But, Congress people want jobs in their
districts.
Generals are pussies who can't say no? Surely the defense
contractors
can be retrained to produce useful stuff, like high speed rails
and the
high speed trains that run on them.
That's not how it works Harry. Calif Bill is correct. The Defense
Department and Pentagon did not want to continue the F-35's
development.
It's Congress that is forcing it.
And we have a high speed rail boondoggle already being pushed here in
California.
Would that be a San Francisco-LA-San Diego high speed train? I'd sure
ride it in preference to the damned airplanes and SD airport.
And how many billions should we pay for the privilege of you being
able to
ride this train?
Right, because here in the Top of the Heap U.S.A. it's better to waste
trillions on an oversized military than to provide fast, reliable public
transportation in a heavily traveled corridor.
... that very few would use.
It's at least a six to seven hour drive from LA to SF, and flying,
taking into account the airport bull****, is a two hour misadventure.
A 200 mph train could make the trip in the same two hours, with much
less hassle. But, of course, we don't have high speed trains running
anywhere in Top of the Heap USA. Or even modern airports. Or highways
that aren't falling apart. But, hey, we do spend what, five times more
on the military than the next largest military spending nation. And get
nothing tangible out of it that we wouldn't get by cutting that military
spending in half.