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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

F*O*A*D wrote:
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.

Bull****. Cars and trucks pay through the nose. Electric cars are why
they are thinking of a milage tax. Those landing fees, and overpriced food
courts pay for the FAA and the airports.

On 4/16/14, 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:19:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

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.

You can't even start to compare the direct cash infusions into rail
with the user tax supported government programs like the FAA, TSA or
the highway system.. In fact, gasoline taxes meant to support highways
are diverted to the rails.



There are many many more subsidies to transportation beyond what you
have mentioned. Here's an example. My wife takes a privately operated
commuter bus to and from DC every day. It's about 45 miles each way. The
fare is $3.75. The fare is subsidized by the state of Maryland. The
purchase of tickets for the bus can be handled via a pre-tax dollar
account.

The construction and maintenance and operation of airports is
subsidized. Research and development of passenger jets is subsidized.
The manufacture of passenger jets is subsidized. The ownership of
passenger jets is subsidized. Drilling for the oil from which to make
jet fuel for passenger jets is subsidized.

On 4/16/2014 8:37 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:19:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

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.

You can't even start to compare the direct cash infusions into rail
with the user tax supported government programs like the FAA, TSA or
the highway system.. In fact, gasoline taxes meant to support highways
are diverted to the rails.



There are many many more subsidies to transportation beyond what you
have mentioned. Here's an example. My wife takes a privately operated
commuter bus to and from DC every day. It's about 45 miles each way. The
fare is $3.75. The fare is subsidized by the state of Maryland. The
purchase of tickets for the bus can be handled via a pre-tax dollar
account.

The construction and maintenance and operation of airports is
subsidized. Research and development of passenger jets is subsidized.
The manufacture of passenger jets is subsidized. The ownership of
passenger jets is subsidized. Drilling for the oil from which to make
jet fuel for passenger jets is subsidized.


You're right. May as well add a few more trillions to rail subsidies
for something that very few will use. It's the Democratic way.

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:19:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

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.

You can't even start to compare the direct cash infusions into rail
with the user tax supported government programs like the FAA, TSA or
the highway system.. In fact, gasoline taxes meant to support highways
are diverted to the rails.

And the railroads are run really bad. I was talking to a person shipping
200 WW2 tanks from the SF Bay Area to the East Coast. Was cheaper on
trucks in the end. Railroad wanted $4800 a tank, 3 months to get them
there. Plus the safety inspector wanted bribes to allow them loaded.
Otherwise had to move them like 3/8 inch. Plus after 3 months of travel
they had a short time to unload before rent on the railcar kicked in.
Truck was only $6400 and a week delivery.

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:13:24 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote:
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:19:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:



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.



You can't even start to compare the direct cash infusions into rail

with the user tax supported government programs like the FAA, TSA or

the highway system.. In fact, gasoline taxes meant to support highways

are diverted to the rails.



And the railroads are run really bad. I was talking to a person shipping

200 WW2 tanks from the SF Bay Area to the East Coast. Was cheaper on

trucks in the end. Railroad wanted $4800 a tank, 3 months to get them

there. Plus the safety inspector wanted bribes to allow them loaded.

Otherwise had to move them like 3/8 inch. Plus after 3 months of travel

they had a short time to unload before rent on the railcar kicked in.

Truck was only $6400 and a week delivery.

The railroads in this country are heavily unionized. Paying union wages is expensive, and then the union inspectors are corrupt. Surprise!