|
The boys must have their toys...
F*O*A*D wrote:
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. It will still take 6 hours. You have stops along the way, trains do not travel 200mph most of the time, or even that fast. You do not think that there would not be a TSA for trains, if they were fast and popular? How much do you want to subsidize the ticket? $100? $300? We would be much better off with a car train. Drive you car on the train, get out go to the club car. 6-7 hours later, you drive off the car. Now you do not have to rent a car, you are relaxed, maybe drunk, and if you could do it for $200, you are cheaper than driving. And if the train ran on time, even if not driving, you could use the club car to travel. Why do you need a 2 hour trip. Takes only about an hour difference from my house to LA, driving vs. flying. If no delays at the airport. Book ahead, and you can fly for less than a $150 RT. And that is with a tax paying business, not a tax sump, government business. |
The boys must have their toys...
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. Take the greyhound. |
The boys must have their toys...
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:12:50 -0500, Califbill wrote:
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: Pentagons F-35 Joint Strike Fighter hits more turbulence Developed by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is DODs 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 Departments 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-35s 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 DODs 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 DODs 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. Take the greyhound. One would think that Krause's messiah would have fixed the military budget to his liking. |
The boys must have their toys...
|
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/16/14, 3:12 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote: 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. It will still take 6 hours. You have stops along the way, trains do not travel 200mph most of the time, or even that fast. You do not think that there would not be a TSA for trains, if they were fast and popular? How much do you want to subsidize the ticket? $100? $300? We would be much better off with a car train. Drive you car on the train, get out go to the club car. 6-7 hours later, you drive off the car. Now you do not have to rent a car, you are relaxed, maybe drunk, and if you could do it for $200, you are cheaper than driving. And if the train ran on time, even if not driving, you could use the club car to travel. Why do you need a 2 hour trip. Takes only about an hour difference from my house to LA, driving vs. flying. If no delays at the airport. Book ahead, and you can fly for less than a $150 RT. And that is with a tax paying business, not a tax sump, government business. Every form of motorized travel in this country is subsidized, Bilious. I don't like commercial airlines. I do fly, but I don't enjoy it. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/16/14, 3:36 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:12:50 -0500, Califbill wrote: 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: Pentagons F-35 Joint Strike Fighter hits more turbulence Developed by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is DODs 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 Departments 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-35s 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 DODs 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 DODs 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. Take the greyhound. One would think that Krause's messiah would have fixed the military budget to his liking. I see that your trip to Europe did nothing to raise your level of intelligence. I don't have a messiah. Neither do self-described christians. Your boy Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies, as the old testament outlined. Better luck next time. |
The boys must have their toys...
|
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/16/14, 3:47 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:37:04 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:17:22 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: The distance from Union Station, Washington, DC to Penn Station, NY, is about 226 miles. The Acela departing NY at 0600 arrives in DC at 0855. That's two hours and fify-five minutes. Driving time for me would be about 4 hours. It would take Harry about 20 minutes longer to get there from Huntington, MD (all according to Google Maps). It would take me about an hour to drive to Union Station, find parking, walk to the train and board, and I'm supposed to be there a half hour before departure time. That adds another hour and a half to my almost three hours of travel time. So, for a lot less money, and saving about a half hour, or more, in time, I can drive to New York. New York is one of the few places that you want to take the train to. The airports suck and there is nothing to do with your car except pay through the nose to park it. Most of the country is not that way tho,. You are pretty much screwed in LA without a car and all of Florida is the same way unless you are just going to stay at the hotel the whole time and never get much more than walking distance away. Those folks are still served better by the airlines. Park the car in New Jersey and take the ferry across the water. That's what my Dutch friends did. They loved it. We also took the train once, but for four people, that gets much more expensive than the car. I can't imagine a more horrific four hours traveling than being in a car with Herring on a trip to NYC while he "regales" the other passengers with an endless number of racial/ethnic jokes and slurs. By the time you got to the Jersey Pike, you'd have to get out at a rest stop and puke. |
The boys must have their toys...
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com