UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (55) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 756456  
Subject: Hanger Queens Date: 3/12/2012 10:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20111212.a...

U.S. Department of Defense officials are trying to slow down production of the new F-35 fighter because testing is revealing more design problems than anticipated. If the current production schedule remains in place there is a high risk that very expensive modifications will be needed for F-35s that have entered service. The air force has already ordered 58 F-35s to be produced before all testing is completed and plans to produce 472 F-35s this way. The Department of Defense is more concerned about the additional costs than the air force, which just wants to get the aircraft into production as quickly as possible. The air force fears that the production orders will be cut even further if the F-35 does not enter service quickly.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20120312.a...

The U.S. Air Force is still having problems with the pilot's air supply in its F-22 fighters. Recently, there were three more cases of F-22 pilots apparently experiencing problems. The term "apparently" is appropriate because the pilots did not black out, and a thorough check of the air supply system and the aircraft found nothing wrong. There have been nearly 30 of these "dizziness or disorientation" incidents in the last four years. That's about one incident per hundred sorties.

Twice in the past year the entire F-22 fleet was grounded because of the air supply problems. The first grounding lasted 140 days and ended last September. The second grounding lasted a week and ended four months ago.



Air Force office Chuck Spinney wrote a paper in 1980 titled "Defense Facts of Life". Its premise is that the pursuit of complex technology produced expensive, scare, & inefficient weapons. That the Air Force like a addict was destroying itself on its addiction to expensive overcomplicated technological systems in that it didn't have the money to maintain those systems.

Anyone with an interest:
http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Facts-Life-Reality-Mismatch/dp...

I dunno mebbe we should be concentrating on correcting design flaws PRIOR to ramping up production.

Nice article on the procurement hustle.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20120215.as...
The most intractable problem is the decades old contractor practice of deliberately making an unreasonably low estimate of cost when proposing a design. The military goes along with this, in the interest of getting Congress to approve the money. Since Congress has a short memory the military does not take much heat for this never ending "low ball" planning process.

Congress doesn't have a good memory I believe due to the fact of campaign contributions from defense corporations & defense factories located in their districts[jobs].
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ascenzm Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 611525 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/12/2012 10:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Keep in mind this Joe Stalin quote from WWII regarding Soviet tank production, "Quantity has a quality all its own". The US Air Force is attempting to procure small quantities of expensive complex air craft. Maybe it would be better off going after larger quantities of more reliable simpler less expensive air craft.

Mike

http://blog.raceology.com/2005/07/quantity-has-quality-all-i...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 611528 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/12/2012 10:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Keep in mind this Joe Stalin quote from WWII regarding Soviet tank production, "Quantity has a quality all its own". The US Air Force is attempting to procure small quantities of expensive complex air craft. Maybe it would be better off going after larger quantities of more reliable simpler less expensive air craft.

Mike


Yep. It seems to me that if out vaulted defense corporations are unable to produce a working 5th generation fighter; it is very unlikely that another country could. There has been much fear mongering about Chinese J 20 stealth fighter. But all of their current fighters are copies of Russian aircraft. I just don't see them capable of producing such a craft.

The Chinese are gitting into commercial jet manufacture. But they are using GE engines & Honeywell & Rockwell Collins avionics. If the Chinese are so proficient aircraft designers & manufacturers; why are they using US equipment? Certainly such equipment could be made cheaper in China.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tgrmn Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 611553 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/13/2012 8:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
We have enough paid for dormant airframes in the "Boneyard" for all we need.

Deploy the unmanned and missiles prior to running in with the overwhelming 'Classic' firepower.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ascenzm Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 611568 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/13/2012 9:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Yep. It seems to me that if out vaulted defense corporations are unable to produce a working 5th generation fighter; it is very unlikely that another country could. There has been much fear mongering about Chinese J 20 stealth fighter. But all of their current fighters are copies of Russian aircraft. I just don't see them capable of producing such a craft.



One of the reasons the Russians defeated the German Wehrmacht on the Ostfront in the Great Patriotic War aka WWII was their T-34 medium tank. The T-34 was a reliable, easy to manufacture tank designed for the conditions of the Ostfront (wide treads did not get bogged down easily on muddy roads, used diesel engines instead of the gasoline engines of the German panzers, etc.). The German Panther Mark V and Tiger Mark VI panzers were very sophisticated vehicles for the time but were harder to manufacture and maintain.

Mikr

Print the post Back To Top
Author: arrete Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 611618 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/13/2012 1:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The T-34 was a reliable, easy to manufacture tank designed for the conditions of the Ostfront ... The German Panther Mark V and Tiger Mark VI panzers were very sophisticated vehicles for the time but were harder to manufacture and maintain. <<
-----------------

It always comes down to maintenance. Trouble is, it's a lot more fun to fly a fancy plane than maintain one. Maintaince isn't sexy. As a result, it often gets ignored.

When I was in Romania, I got to sit in a MIG. I wouldn't have wanted to fly in it, though. They couldn't get parts, and the tires were so bald, they were only allowed to fly the planes a couple of times a week (I think). As a results, the pilots had trouble maintaining flying competeancy.

I don't know where the parts for the F-35 are made, but with that stupid foreign supplier requirement, there's probably some part that can't be made (easily) here. I never did understand that requirement.

arrete

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 630259 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 6/20/2012 12:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The nightmare continues.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20120620.a...

The U.S. Air Force has admitted that its rate of "pilot air supply" incidents for its 187 F-22 fighters has reached the rate of 26 per 100,000 flight hours. For most other aircraft, the rate is closer to 2-3 incidents per 100,000 hours. Yes, all aircraft have occasional problems with their air supply, but nothing like what the F-22 is going through.
The F-22 problem has been around for over two years and in the news, to the great embarrassment of the air force commanders, for over a year. Finding a solution has turned into a nightmare because it has proved impossible so far, to discover exactly what is causing the air supply problem. In addition to all the bad publicity, F-22 pilots are reluctant to fly their aircraft. In short, pilot moral is not very good.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 672131 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 2/18/2013 9:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
http://news.yahoo.com/f-35-warplane-costs-driven-production-...

A decision to start production of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet before it was fully tested has driven up the $396 billion cost of the troubled project and increased risks, the U.S. general heading development of the warplane has said.

Bogdan, who will travel to Australia in coming weeks for talks on the F-35 Lightning II, said the aircraft was ironically unable to fly within 40 km (25 miles) of a lightning storm because its fuel tanks could ignite.

What a f8*@ing joke! All weather fighter my *ss!

I could be crazy; but I think some people should be fired.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FreethinkerKW Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 672684 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 2/22/2013 4:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Adding a bit more to tj's excellent thread here:

http://boards.fool.com/how-the-f35-nearly-doubled-in-price-3...

The Most Expensive Weapon Ever Built

"We've put all our eggs in the F-35 basket," said Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn. Given that, one might think the military would have approached the aircraft's development conservatively. In fact, the Pentagon did just the opposite. It opted to build three versions of a single plane averaging $160 million each (challenge No. 1), agreed that the planes should be able to perform multiple missions (challenge No. 2), then started rolling them off the assembly line while the blueprints were still in flux--more than a decade before critical developmental testing was finished (challenge No. 3). The military has already spent $373 million to fix planes already bought; the ultimate repair bill for imperfect planes has been estimated at close to $8 billion.

Back in 2002, Edward Aldridge, then the Pentagon's top weapons buyer, said the F-35 was "setting new standards for technological advances" and "rewriting the books on acquisition and business practices." His successor voiced a different opinion last year. "This will make a headline if I say it, but I'm going to say it anyway," Frank Kendall said. "Putting the F-35 into production years before the first test flight was acquisition malpractice. It should not have been done."

The Pentagon and its allies say the need for the F-35 was so dire that the plane had to be built as it was being designed. (More than a decade into its development, blueprints are changing about 10 times a day, seven days a week.) "The technological edge of the American tactical air fleet is only about five years, and both Russia and China are fielding fifth-generation fighters of their own," argues Tom Donnelly, a defense expert at the American Enterprise Institute. "Preserving the cumulative quantity-quality advantage requires that the United States field a full fleet of fifth-generation fighters now."

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 672698 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 2/22/2013 8:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA4JU4201%4...

The Pentagon on Friday grounded its fleet of F-35 fighter jets after discovering a cracked engine blade in one plane.

"The F-35 is a huge problem because of its growing, already unaffordable, cost and its gigantically disappointing performance," the group's Winslow Wheeler said. "That performance would be unacceptable even if the aircraft met its far-too-modest requirements, but it is not."

The F-35 is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program at a total estimated cost of nearly $400 billion.



Yeah. You know what? I think defense portion of the sequestration should be applied to the F-35 boondoggle...oops, I mean program.

Production should NEVER have begun the buggy fighter. We need to follow the money on this to see who is to blame. Production needs to be stopped til the prototype is more reliable. I say prototype because this bird ain't near ready for production.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674338 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/10/2013 12:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/f-35s-...

When the F-35 finishes testing, “there will be no yes-or-no, up-or-down decision point,” said Pierre Sprey, who was a chief architect of the Air Force’s F-16 Fighting Falcon. “That’s totally deliberate. It was all in the name of ensuring it couldn’t be canceled.”

Many independent defense analysts do not share that conviction. To them, the plane’s political engineering and buy-before-you-fly procurement mask deep problems with performance and affordability.

“It was a bait-and-switch operation; we were overpromised benefits and under-promised costs,” said Chuck Spinney, a former Pentagon analyst who gained widespread attention in the 1980s for issuing pointed warnings about the military’s pursuit of unaffordable weapons. “But by the time you realize the numbers don’t add up, you can’t get out of the program.”

Pentagon officials accepted Lockheed’s claim that computer simulations would be able to identify design problems, minimizing the need to make changes once the plane actually took to the sky. That, in turn, led to an aggressive plan to build and test the aircraft simultaneously.

Cautioning that all of those assumptions were flawed, Spinney and other defense analysts urged the Pentagon to see the plane in flight before committing to buy it. But senior Defense Department officials in the George W. Bush administration did not heed the warnings.

Within months, the program began veering off course.

The Air Force, Marines and Navy all sought additional modifications to meet their needs, reducing commonality among the three models. A bigger problem was the fundamental concept of building one plane, with stealth technology, that could fly as far and fast as the Air Force wanted while also being able to land on the Navy’s carriers and take off vertically from Marine amphibious assault ships.

Instead of meeting the original plan of being about 70 percent similar, the three versions now are 70 percent distinct, which has increased costs by tens of billions and led to years-long delays. “We have three airplane programs running in parallel,” Bogdan said. “They are very, very different airplanes.”

Bogdan said the jet has serious sustainability problems. Chief among them are a greater need for maintenance and replacement parts than projected. “If we don’t do things now to change the game, this airplane will be unaffordable to fly,” he said.

But Bogdan’s leverage is limited. Behind his feisty language lies an inescapable reality: The services don’t want to shrink their orders, and Congress doesn’t want to clip the F-35’s wings.

For many legislators, the F-35 is as much about employment as it is about air superiority. Lockheed has repeatedly emphasized to legislators, particularly those who sit on appropriations committees, that the plane supports 133,000 jobs, many of them at 1,300 subcontractors and parts suppliers spread across 45 states. When full-rate production begins, likely in 2018, the company says the employment figure will grow to 260,000.


So it's a jobs program.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674339 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/10/2013 9:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
So it's a jobs program.

Yes and no.

It is a jobs program.
It is also a we have to keep the defense contractors in business.
It was also a very real need (F-16 will be in use for 50 years before the F-35 can replace it).

However, the military has danced this dance before (the F-111) and it did not turn out well that time either. The Navy, Marines, and Air Force have very different needs. The DoD should have funded 3 different aircraft programs (or perhaps just 2). But there was no political will to do so. There is no way an Obama administration would have supported this. The DoD had a very real requirement and it used the only doorway that politics left open to it.

I certainly do agree we could have gotten much better military equipment for a much lower cost IF THE ADMINISTRATION WAS WILLING TO SPEND POLITICAL CAPITAL ON DOING THE RIGHT THING.

But the administration wasn't, so this is what you get instead.

The DoD is the most frequent whipping boy for out of control government spending, but I have worked inside this industry and I can tell you most people who do work in the industry are not figuring out how to "make a buck at tax payers expense." Most people are thinking "this is a very real need that has to be filled to save the lives of our service folks and citizens, how do we get this job done?"

It's very much like entering a boxing ring with both hands tied behind your back. You do what you gotta do.

We do need a plane like this.
We do need to keep the defense suppliers afloat.
We do need to keep the the DoD talent.

I can tell you that when I switched from working for DoD contractor to working for a non-DoD contractor, my pay doubled. These folks are not over-paid.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674344 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/10/2013 9:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Also things are much worse off than people think.

Without proper budgets, the DoD's hands are tied in many ways. Each continuing resolution authorizes each program to retain it's prior years funding. It cannot start new programs and it cannot end old programs.

This means we are wasting money on programs that should have ended 4 years ago and we can't start programs that should have started 4 years ago.

We have 5 aircraft carriers (out of a fleet of 11) that cannot go to sea due to over-due critical maintenance (which can't be started because those would be NEW programs!). They are sitting in port collecting dust. Of the remaining 6, only 1/2 can be deployed at a time, while the other 1/2 get fitted out with news spares and supplies. We keep one carrier full-time in Japan.

This means that right now we have 2 aircraft carriers that we can use somewhere else. In another year we might have to put 2 more into mothballs.

Obama is killing the military, but few people care. Those that do care blame the military for these failings of the democrat executive and congress that refuse to do their jobs.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674345 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/10/2013 10:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The DoD is the most frequent whipping boy for out of control government spending,

I think we can agree that out of control spending occurs in all gov't departments & programs with the full approval of the respective congressional committee members.

I can tell you most people who do work in the industry are not figuring out how to "make a buck at tax payers expense."

I can tell you that when I switched from working for DoD contractor to working for a non-DoD contractor, my pay doubled. These folks are not over-paid.


Oh I agree with the above. But they are not control of the system. I'm talking of the hand in glove relationships of congress & CEOs of the industrial-military complex & generals[many who end up with high paid jobs in that industry upon retirement from the military] in this instance. The same hand in glove also exists between ag corporations & ag states in the creation of ag subsidies.

It was also a very real need (F-16 will be in use for 50 years before the F-35 can replace it).

I'm not so sure about that. The f-16 is still a very capable aircraft evidenced by the fact that is still in production & bought by other governments. The F-22 can provide air superiority to allow lesser capable aircraft to fullfill their missions.

But our generals are in love with high price high tech weapon platforms while sacrificing the needs of the ground pounder*. But then the better rifle are foreign made & thus don't provide jobs or campaign contributions.

*http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20130114.as...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674346 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/10/2013 10:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
...
The DoD is the most frequent whipping boy for out of control government spending, but I have worked inside this industry and I can tell you most people who do work in the industry are not figuring out how to "make a buck at tax payers expense." Most people are thinking "this is a very real need that has to be filled to save the lives of our service folks and citizens, how do we get this job done?"...
____________________________________

Well if the defense industry, did not come out with justifications that they can not be touched because they are a jobs program and all these folks will lost their jobs, there would likely be a lot less folks with the impressions that they are a jobs program.

You can not play to the idiot level and expect the non-idiots to not hear what you are saying. The Dod and their contractors want it both ways.

We need a return to sanity in the rhetoric before we can get a discussion that is sane.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674348 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/10/2013 10:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Oh I agree with the above. But they are not control of the system. I'm talking of the hand in glove relationships of congress & CEOs of the industrial-military complex & generals[many who end up with high paid jobs in that industry upon retirement from the military] in this instance. The same hand in glove also exists between ag corporations & ag states in the creation of ag subsidies.
____________________________

A lot of this stuff is far less nasty than it sounds.

I mean could anything be a more natural, normal sane and intelligent decision than for the folks who were the top folks in the military, knowledgeable on the very specialized subject matter, with track records as leaders to move into the positions?

These are very successful people, and the perfect fits for these jobs. The fact it may make the relationship too cozy, really does not mean that these is any way to do it in a saner manner.

That is why we need competent folks in the oversight capacity.

We actually need an ability for these places to operate at an increased capacity quickly, we need the ability to not just move a product out the door, but to improve it, even if there is a cost over-run and for that not to be the primary motivator.

This industry is different.

Not saying it is good, our oversight sucks big time, but that is a massive failure of the politicians who do not do their jobs.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674382 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/10/2013 3:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm not so sure about that. The f-16 is still a very capable aircraft evidenced by the fact that is still in production & bought by other governments. The F-22 can provide air superiority to allow lesser capable aircraft to fullfill their missions.

The F-16 is not in production. Any foreign military sales of F-16s now comes from refurbishing old planes. The F-16 only maintains its capabilities through costly avionics, engines, and other upgrades.

The F-22 is not in production. Total build in the dozens and no more will ever be made. There is absolutely no way to use the F-22 to replace aging F-16s in any meaningful quantity.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674389 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/10/2013 5:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The F-16 is not in production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_...

There are currently enough orders to keep producing new F-16s until 2016, with hope for more orders.

In April of 2012, the 4500th F-16 came off the line.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/04/01/3852113/lockheed-mar...

The F-22 is not in production. Total build in the dozens and no more will ever be made.

Yes ended. 187 produced.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/273496

Once air superiority is established by F 22; then F-16 can reek havoc.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674390 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/10/2013 5:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
There are currently enough orders to keep producing new F-16s until 2016, with hope for more orders.

According the USAF officers with whom I work, they are not producing new ones. They are pulling them out of Davis Monthan AFB mothballs and refurbishing them.

I would also like to point out that our little debate is a little like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The USAF is by law NOT allowed to change funding to the F-35. That is a result of the continuing resolutions. Even if every member of the DoD wanted to end the F-35, federal law prohibits them from modifying the spending.

So you should really take this issue up with the democrats in the Senate and President Obama who both refuse to do their jobs.

Once you've fixed that particular log jam, then we can start discussing the nuances of the how to get the best combat bang for their tax payer buck.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674404 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/10/2013 7:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So you should really take this issue up with the democrats in the Senate and President Obama who both refuse to do their jobs.

Sure I have a problem with them. But the same sort of crap has & will continue under republican administrations also. It is a culture of corruption within congress & corporations/unions.

Oh a reminder that the F-35 began in 2001. Under you know who's administration. The guy that did the largest entitlement enlargement in 50 years; until Obamacare. In fact, Bush pretty much increased spending all across the entire federal govt.

There is NO difference in spending with either party. The GOP just talks a good game. They have zero interest in reducing the federal government. They just wish to steer federal monies toward their pet projects.

Until insider corporate/unione influence is removed; waste in education, ag subsidies, defense etc will continue with much crying by representative that *[pick any department] will devastated if one penny is cut; in fact much more money needed be "invested" in *[pick any department] to have the best whatever that Amuricans deserve.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674408 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/10/2013 8:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
In fact, Bush pretty much increased spending all across the entire federal govt.

There is NO difference in spending with either party. The GOP just talks a good game. They have zero interest in reducing the federal government. They just wish to steer federal monies toward their pet projects.


I agree that Bush and RINOs have a spending problem.

But you are absolutely 100% wrong about the degree of the problem as compared to democrats.

The sum of budget deficits for all of the Bush years is comparable to the budget deficit of just one year from Obama and the democrats.

A factor of 10 in the scale of the problem means their most certainly is a significant difference between the parties.

I'm not sure why you even discuss education, ag subsidies, roads, etc. Those do not belong in the federal budget and should be removed. If elected president, I would dictate a 15% reduction / year in every department not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution. I'd probably seek a 2% - 5% decline in the ones mentioned by the constitution.

I would also ask Congress to simplify our legal code and eliminate 10% of all laws / year from the books.

I would simplify the regulatory network similarly by 15% / year.

If called in to to rescue a company that is "too big to fail", I would step in, break the company up, fire all executives, sell the assets to the highest bidder, and pay off the debts according to established legal precedents. In my system, unions get nothing and executives get nothing.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674416 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/11/2013 12:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
But you are absolutely 100% wrong about the degree of the problem as compared to democrats.

The sum of budget deficits for all of the Bush years is comparable to the budget deficit of just one year from Obama and the democrats.

A factor of 10 in the scale of the problem means their most certainly is a significant difference between the parties.


In 2004 I gave up voting for the lessor of two evils. Both parties lead to the same destination of bankruptcy. I just as soon allow the democrats lead us to the brink faster so hopefully the American people will rise up to cast out the weasels of both parties & vote in a libertarian majority.

Congress is suppose to be working for us; but they ain't. They're working for the highest bidder. And we are left holding the bag[debt].

The $16 trillion debt only hints at the True U.S. Debt.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732335320457812...

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674417 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/11/2013 3:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I told a friend that there will (not may) be unintended consequences of OwebamaKare. She responded: I've noticed over time that depending upon the writer/researcher/etc., the stats that the person relies on tends to support that person's socio-economic view of the matter. That also tends to have one's political and worldview persuasion attached to it.

So I responded as follows:

America cannot add yet another humongous entitlement program to our already massive national debt and think that OwebamaKare will save us. Indeed, all unbiased reports are that OwebamaKare will go the way of all government entitlement programs: out of control.

In 1945, when Franklin D. Roosevelt urged the passing of Social Security--the original Social Security Act and the current version of the Act, as amended, encompass several social welfare and social insurance programs--the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 159.4 to 1. In 2010, it was 2.9 to 1. Below is a government website.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html

Did the liberals who created this program and shoved it down the taxpayers’ throats anticipate this? No, they did not, which is why the United States will go bankrupt--actually, we’re already insolvent--as a direct result of entitlement programs. It’s only a matter of time before everyone must confront the inevitable. Below is a government website.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

The long-run actuarial deficits of the Social Security and Medicare programs worsened in 2012...

Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

Social Security and Medicare are the two largest federal programs, accounting for 36 percent of federal expenditures in fiscal year 2011. Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth in the coming decades due to aging of the population and, in the case of Medicare, growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP. Through the mid-2030s, population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment will be the largest single factor causing costs to grow more rapidly than GDP.

Conclusion

Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.


Pffffft! There is NO salvaging our bloated, massive, irredeemable entitlement systems. Meanwhile, Nero [Owebama] fiddles while Rome burns and adds one more entitlement system to the raging fire of pending bankruptcy.

Now the question is, on what basis can Owebama be impeached [fired] and OwebamaKare repealed?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674418 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/11/2013 3:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It all just makes you want to cry and still, the Emperor was re-elected--particularly pathetic when Mitt Romney had a plan to take charge of the debt.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 674439 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 3/11/2013 11:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Mitt Romney had a plan to take charge of the debt.

I hope you aren't suggesting the Ryan plan.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3458
"Ryan Budget Plan Produces Far Less Real Deficit Cutting than Reported
Plan’s $4.3 Trillion in Program Cuts, Offset by $4.2 Trillion in Tax Cuts, Yield Just $155 Billion in Deficit Reduction"

I have have lost faith in the republican party after a quarter century of support. I've returned to the libertarian party. The republican party, or I should say the democratic-lite party, is on the same path to bankruptcy just as at a slower pace.

As to Mr Romney, the Massachusetts health mandate is HIS plan. Which is very similar if not the same as Obamacare. Mittie boy like Dubya weren't no fiscal conservative.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 678220 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 4/17/2013 9:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20130417.a...

The increasing costs of the new U.S. F-35 fighter are scaring off foreign buyers. The latest country to express doubts about the cost and effectiveness of the F-35 versus their current jet fighters (often F-16s) is the Netherlands.

Initially the F-35 operating costs were supposed to be the same or lower than other fighters (like the F-16, F-15 or F-18). But then it was noted that those operating costs were creeping upwards. Two years ago, after months of contentious disagreement, the U.S. Air Force came around to agreeing with U.S. Navy claims that the F-35 will cost much more to maintain, rather than (as the F-35 promoters assert) less.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-18/news/sns-rt-us...

Australia's government is looking at buying 24 more Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets amid continuing delays and setbacks in the Joint Strike Fighter project, which is the costliest program in Pentagon procurement history.

That means Australia could buy fewer than the 100 F-35s originally planned, echoing warnings from Canada that it could also look to other options for its future jet fighters. The Netherlands and Italy have also cut back orders.


This is getting embarrassing. Can you say Edsel?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 679369 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 4/24/2013 4:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20130424.aspx

The U.S. Air Force has increased the number of F-16s it wants to refurbish to 1,018. Last year the plan was to refurbish a few hundred of its 22 ton F-16 fighters because their replacement, the 31 ton F-35 was not arriving in time. So far 11 F-35s have been built and another 19 are to be built this year. That’s too slow to deal with number of F-16s that are growing too old to fly. The air force is doing a similar refurb on 175 F-15C interceptors. It may take a decade or more for F-35 production to get to the point where most F-16s can be replaced. Until then the F-16s must be ready to get the jobs done.

This is one of several reasons why many nations upgrade their F-16s. Some of these nations are holding off on ordering F-35s (or cancelling existing orders), either because of the high price or doubts about how good it will be. Aircraft manufacturing and maintenance companies see a huge market for such upgrades. Half or more of the 3,000 F-16s currently in service could be refurbished and upgraded to one degree or another. That’s over $25 billion in business over the next decade or so.

Many air forces are finding that it’s more cost-effective to upgrade via new electronics and missiles and, as needed, refurbishing engines and airframes on elderly existing fighters, rather than buying new aircraft. This is especially the case if the new electronics enable the use of smart bombs or more capable air-to-air missiles. One of the more frequently upgraded older fighters is the American F-16.


Well I suppose the F-35 in some camps be considered a win-win. First a huge defense expenditure of a delayed,buggy aircraft and second stimulus of a second industry of upgrading F-16s.

Who would have thunk it. Obama the supporter of larger defense spending.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 689624 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 7/22/2013 1:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Pentagon Downgrades Specs for Its Premier Stealth Jet — Again

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/pentagon-downgrades-...

For the second time in a year, the Pentagon has eased the performance requirements of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The reduced specs — including a slower acceleration and turning rate — lower the bar for the troubled trillion-dollar JSF program, allowing it to proceed toward full-rate production despite ongoing problems with the plane’s complex design.

For the pilots who will eventually take the F-35 into combat, the JSF’s reduced performance means they might not be able to outfly and outfight the latest Russian- and Chinese-made fighters. Even before the downgrades, some analysts questioned the F-35's ability to defeat newer Sukhoi and Shenyang jets. Despite the JSF’s lower specs, Lockheed bizarrely claims its new plane is now more maneuverable than every other fighters in the world except the company’s own F-22.

In short, the F-35 program is losing altitude as Lockheed’s claims grow loftier. The result is a widening gulf between expectations and reality for a jet that’s supposed to represent the backbone of U.S. air power for the next 50 years.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 693698 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 8/23/2013 9:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
More in depth look at F-35.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-cap...

The RAND study also spends a great deal of time on the core American assumptions concerning “beyond visual range” air to air combat, and the current and future capabilities of SU-30 family aircraft. The implications of its examination do affect the F-35's fighting qualities – and they will be significant to some of the plane’s potential customers.

RAND’s discussion begins by predicting poorer beyond visual range missile kill performance than current models suggest when facing capable enemy aircraft, observing that BVR missile kills since the 1990s generally involved poorly-equipped targets. It also notes the steep rise and then drop in modern infrared missile performance, as countermeasures improved.

Meanwhile, key radar advances are already deployed in the most advanced Russian surface-to-air missile systems, and existing IRST (infra-red scan and track) systems deployed on advanced Russian and European fighters are extending enemy detection ranges against radar-stealthy aircraft. Fighter radar pick-up capability of up to 25 nautical miles by 2020 is proposed against even ultra-stealthy aircraft like the F-22, coupled with IRST ability to identify AMRAAM missile firings and less infrared-stealthy aircraft at 50 nautical miles or more.

The F-35's lower infrared and radar stealth levels mean that these advances will affect it more than they’ll affect the F-22. Especially if one assumes a fighter aircraft whose prime in-service period stretches to 2050.

The clear implication of the RAND study is that the F-35 is very likely to wind up facing many more “up close and personal” opponents than its proponents suggest, while dealing with effective beyond-visual-range infrared-guided missiles as an added complication. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 is described as “double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”

The Rand 2008 war simulation was about the ChiComs invasion of Taiwan.
ChiComs gain air superiority due to number of fighter aircraft they could throw up with significantly more air to air missiles. Thus US air forces were overwhelmed & refueling tankers destroyed meaning US surviving aircraft falling out of the sky without fuel.

The Rand report:http://www.docstoc.com/docs/42891479/Air-Combat-Past-Present...

Lockheed's Retort*:
---------------------
{{{Steve O’Bryan, a Lockheed vice president and former fighter pilot, targeted the war game analysis and its authors. “It was policy people who did that report, [people] with no airplane experience,” O’Bryan said, adding that many critics of the F-35 “are people who are self-proclaimed experts who live in their mom’s basement and wear slippers to work.”

But Stillion and Perdue are both veteran aviators. Stillion flew in RF-4 recon planes and Perdue in F-15s during the Gulf War. “I don’t live in my mom’s basement,” Perdue said.}}}
----------------------------------------
*https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

The missiles number game make me wonder how vulnerable are our trillion dollar aircraft carriers might be to massive missile attack. The ChiComs shoot a 100 or 200 [estimated cost of a million dollar each] ship killer missiles at a carrier. Only one has to penetrate.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 699709 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 10/3/2013 4:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20131003.as...

The Netherlands recently agreed to buy 37 of the new American F-35 fighter-bombers, and possibly more if money became available. Originally the Dutch were going to buy 85, but the escalating cost of the F-35 forced them to reconsider. Some Dutch leaders wanted to stick with the F-16 and upgrade it or consider another new fighter (Gripen, Eurofighter or F-18E). Some of the other original F-35 customers (like Canada and Denmark) have begun looking at alternatives again.

The Dutch had already agreed to buy two F-35s for evaluation but were alarmed at the fact that the F-35 cost 60 percent more (than the F-16, per flight hour) to operate.

Initially the F-35 operating costs were supposed to be the same or lower than other fighters (like the F-16, F-15 or F-18).


Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 704861 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 11/11/2013 4:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
http://news.yahoo.com/more-iraq-afghanistan-vets-going-membe...

During the 30 years he served as an officer in the US Marines, Greg Raths flew fighter jets. Now he is running as a Republican for a seat in Congress representing southern California’s 45th District.

This experience gives him a clear perspective on Pentagon weapons systems like the F-35 fighter jet, he says, which has been plagued with billions of dollars in cost overruns.

“It’s the military industrial machine running this whole thing, but this plane is not performing,” Mr. Raths says. “I’d be more open to cutting some of these programs than pouring more money into them.”


Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716842 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/24/2014 1:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pat-garofalo/2014/01/23/...

If there were a Congressional Boondoggle Hall of Fame, the F-35 fighter jet program would surely merit entry. Officially the most expensive weapons system in history, the cost of manufacturing the jets has increased a whopping 75 percent from its original estimate, and is now closing in on $400 billion. Over its lifetime, the F-35 program is expected to cost U.S. taxpayers $1.5 trillion, between construction and maintenance of the jets, if they ever all materialize.

Oh, and did I mention that the plane doesn't really work?*

So how does such a project stay afloat? Because of jobs! Lockheed Martin, the defense company charged with delivering the jets, claims the program supports 125,000 jobs in 46 different states. That $400 billion for 125,000 jobs would be a lousy deal – at $3.2 million per job it would far cheaper to cut every one of those workers a $1 million check.
But beyond that, there's good reason to believe that Lockheed's estimate is overblown.In a new report for the Center for International Policy, William Hartung claims the number of jobs created by the F-35 is more like 50,000 to 60,000, and that the number of states in which it supports job creation is also far lower than Lockheed would have us believe.

*http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/03/20130306-air-forces-f-35a-n...
The Air Force's F-35A: Not Ready for Combat, Not Even Ready for Combat Training
The currently available software essential to control the aircraft (software Blocks 1A and 1B) is "intended to provide only basic pilot training and has no combat capability. The current aircraft have a number of significant operational restrictions such as limited maneuvering, speeds, and constrained descent rates; no carriage of weapons, no use of countermeasures, and no opening of weapons bay doors in flight." (p. 1.) Also, "student pilots were limited in flight maneuvering to very basic aircraft handling, such as simple turns, climbs, and descents as the flight envelope of speed and altitude was limited, angle-of-attack and g-loading were restricted, and maneuvers normally flown during a familiarization phase of a syllabus were explicitly prohibited." (p. 2.)

Table 3-1 (starting on p. 14.) outlines the many limitations. The following are prohibited:

Descent rates more than 6,000 feet per minute (for reference, Wikipedia shows the F-16C rate of climb to be 50,000 feet per minute)
Airspeed above 550 knots per hour or Mach 0.9 (not the 1.6 Mach or 1,200 mph Wikipedia says the F-35 is capable of);
Angle-of-attack (attitude of flight) beyond -5 and +18 degrees (e.g. not the +50 degrees the aircraft is capable of);
Maneuvering at more than -1 or +5 gs (nowhere near the stated +9g capability);
Take offs or landings in formation;
Flying at night or in weather;
Using real or simulated weapons;
Rapid stick or rudder movements;
Air-to-air or air-to-ground tracking maneuvers;
Refueling in the air;
Flying within 25 miles of lightning;
Use of electronic countermeasures;
Use of anti-jamming, secure communications, or datalink systems;
Electro-optical targeting;
Using the Distributed Aperture System of sensors to detect targets or threats;
Using the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Interrogator;
Using the helmet mounted display system as a "primary reference;"
Use of air-to-air or air-to-ground radar modes for electronic attack, sea search, ground-moving targets or close-in air combat modes. (pp. 14-16.)
In addition, "the radar system exhibited shortfalls that–if not corrected–may significantly degrade the ability to train and fly safely under a typical transition training syllabus, where an operational radar is required. The radar performance shortfalls ranged from the radar being completely inoperative on two sorties to failing to display targets on one sortie, inexplicably dropping targets on another sortie, and taking excessive time to develop a track on near co-speed targets on yet another sortie." (p. 13.)


I dunno would have it be better to actually made some that worked before production was started?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-30/lockheed-s-f-35-poi...
The Pentagon’s current five-year plan calls for increasing F-35 production to 42 jets in fiscal 2015, which begins Oct. 1, 2014, from 29 this year and in fiscal 2013. The rate would increase to 62 in 2016, 76 in 2017 and 100 in 2018, according to internal Pentagon budget documents. The new plan will be released next year with the Pentagon’s fiscal 2015 budget plan.

What amazes me is that on this board there is none of the rage of this boondoggle that there is regarding the Obamacare fiasco.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716843 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/24/2014 1:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
What amazes me is that on this board there is none of the rage of this boondoggle that there is regarding the Obamacare fiasco.

Well, I didn't know about this particular boondoggle, but now that I know about it, I'm enraged.

I'm with Ron Paul on the subject of the military. Why do we have military bases in practically every country on earth? Who appointed us Playground Captain? Why is there no effort at all to reign in 1,000% (+/-) cost overruns on military procurements? The list goes on and on. Our military is a travesty. The entire U.S. military needs an overhaul, in my opinion--with the cost savings to go directly to top flight care our veterans so rightly deserve and desperately need.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 307wolverine Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716849 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/24/2014 2:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What amazes me is that on this board there is none of the rage of this boondoggle that there is regarding the Obamacare fiasco

In my case. I was inundated with military waste for 21 years. I have sorta, kinda become numb to it. I almost accept it as being as normal and natural as the sunrise.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 307wolverine Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716851 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/24/2014 2:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I'm with Ron Paul on the subject of the military. Why do we have military bases in practically every country on earth? Who appointed us Playground Captain? Why is there no effort at all to reign in 1,000% (+/-) cost overruns on military procurements? The list goes on and on. Our military is a travesty. The entire U.S. military needs an overhaul, in my opinion--with the cost savings to go directly to top flight care our veterans so rightly deserve and desperately need.

Let me expand a bit on my last post.

I cannot begin to count the times I have been asked to do something stupid/wasteful. A logical person would ask "WTF?"... and I did plenty of times when I was younger.

Naturally, this did not endear me to the powers-that-be and I was often labeled a trouble-maker. In the military, a trouble-maker is commonly the person who asks why the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.

With the passage of time and "maturity" one learns to curb their tongue and go with the flow, especially if you have hopes of making a career of things.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716853 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/24/2014 2:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I cannot begin to count the times I have been asked to do something stupid/wasteful. A logical person would ask "WTF?"... and I did plenty of times when I was younger. Naturally, this did not endear me to the powers-that-be and I was often labeled a trouble-maker. In the military, a trouble-maker is commonly the person who asks why the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Well, then obviously the whistleblowing can't be accomplished by anyone on the inside. Maybe there should be a military overseer who makes sure the military is spending properly. Maybe jerryjibjab wants the job. LOL!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716871 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/24/2014 3:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What amazes me is that on this board there is none of the rage of this boondoggle that there is regarding the Obamacare fiasco
_______________________________________________

???????

Isn't that a lot like being amazed that someone is far more concerned about termites in the living room than ants in the back yard ?

That point is absolutely absurd.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716879 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/24/2014 6:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Isn't that a lot like being amazed that someone is far more concerned about termites in the living room than ants in the back yard ?

That point is absolutely absurd.


Naw they're both wasteful & thus are both termites. And just because the defense termites eat at a slower pace; the house is still destroyed. So its like worrying the Obamacare termites & ignoring the defense termites. Now that is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716880 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/24/2014 7:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
So it's like worrying [about] the Obamacare termites & ignoring the defense termites.

I agree absolutely.

America needs a strong defense, but our military must be not only the most formidable, but the most streamline, cost effective and carefully financially/geopolitically constructed military in the world.

Worldwide network of U.S. military bases as of 2013

The worldwide control of humanity’s economic, social and political activities is under the helm of U.S. corporate and military power. Underlying this process are various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. These U.S. sponsored strategies ultimately consist in a process of global subordination. […]

II. More than 1,000 U.S. Bases and/or Military Installations

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the U.S. operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War’”, confirms the presence of U.S. military personnel in 156 countries.

The U.S. Military has bases in 63 countries. [WTF?!] Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 U.S. military personnel deployed worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the U.S. is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by U.S. military bases domestically within the U.S. and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).

Much more at http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-mil...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716882 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/24/2014 7:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Speaking of which…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDXuPQ9ML9E#t=16

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716888 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/24/2014 8:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Today my housekeeper and I were discussing Art's theory that everyone goes to Heaven, even the most evil people who ever lived, because it doesn't matter what you believe. Her elderly grandmother, who was a devoted Christ follower, often told the family that she prayed each day that God were grant her the blessing of dying in her sleep. She apparently wasn't intrigued by NDEs because she believed she knew where she would go when she died. Sure enough, when she died several years later, they found her in her bed, propped up on the pillows, but serenely dead. No NDE required.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716889 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/24/2014 8:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Oops…wrong thread.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716894 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/24/2014 10:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Naw they're both wasteful & thus are both termites. And just because the defense termites eat at a slower pace; the house is still destroyed. So its like worrying the Obamacare termites & ignoring the defense termites. Now that is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

I disagree, but to explain why I have to turn to a different analogy.

Defense is putting a roof on your house. They are being incredibly wasteful in doing so, but you do need a roof, the roof is going up, and it is mostly keeping the rain out.

Obamacare is digging a ditch through your living room. They are being incredibly wasteful about it - a ditch could be put through your living room at much lower cost - but the greater fact is that you're better off NOT having a ditch through your living room.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716903 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/24/2014 11:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Defense is putting a roof on your house. They are being incredibly wasteful in doing so, but you do need a roof, the roof is going up, and it is mostly keeping the rain out.

Obamacare is digging a ditch through your living room. They are being incredibly wasteful about it - a ditch could be put through your living room at much lower cost - but the greater fact is that you're better off NOT having a ditch through your living room.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
But in this particular case the roof[f-35] is not only wasteful but non functioning. So we are in the process of putting a non functioning roof which currently won't keep the rain out. Though it possibly might keep the rain out with constant cash infusions to fix the roof but at below promised specifications. I don't believe you would place such a trouble filled poorly designed roof on your house.

The f-35 is a repetition of the idea that one common design can work for all services. We tried this once before. Remember the f-111. It was to such a aircraft. it was a failure. Too heavy for aircraft carriers as result the naval version was cancelled; not agile enough to be a fighter. Also huge cost overruns. The air force managed to make a fighter bomber out of it.

This project is a bridge too far-" Operation Market Garden "
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/pentagon-downgrades-...
For the second time in a year, the Pentagon has eased the performance requirements of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The reduced specs — including a slower acceleration and turning rate — lower the bar for the troubled trillion-dollar JSF program, allowing it to proceed toward full-rate production despite ongoing problems with the plane’s complex design.

For the pilots who will eventually take the F-35 into combat, the JSF’s reduced performance means they might not be able to outfly and outfight the latest Russian- and Chinese-made fighters. Even before the downgrades, some analysts questioned the F-35's ability to defeat newer Sukhoi and Shenyang jets. Despite the JSF’s lower specs, Lockheed bizarrely claims its new plane is now more maneuverable than every other fighters in the world except the company’s own F-22.

In short, the F-35 program is losing altitude as Lockheed’s claims grow loftier. The result is a widening gulf between expectations and reality for a jet that’s supposed to represent the backbone of U.S. air power for the next 50 years


As you may note further up the thread; the Dutch have cut their f-35 order by more than 50%.

Even a few republican congresspersons are having doubts.
During the 30 years he served as an officer in the US Marines, Greg Raths flew fighter jets. Now he is running as a Republican for a seat in Congress representing southern California’s 45th District.

This experience gives him a clear perspective on Pentagon weapons systems like the F-35 fighter jet, he says, which has been plagued with billions of dollars in cost overruns.

“It’s the military industrial machine running this whole thing, but this plane is not performing,” Mr. Raths says. “I’d be more open to cutting some of these programs than pouring more money into them.”


More f-35 cost issues & broken promise:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20130417.a...
The increasing costs of the new U.S. F-35 fighter are scaring off foreign buyers. The latest country to express doubts about the cost and effectiveness of the F-35 versus their current jet fighters (often F-16s) is the Netherlands.

Initially the F-35 operating costs were supposed to be the same or lower than other fighters (like the F-16, F-15 or F-18). But then it was noted that those operating costs were creeping upwards. Two years ago, after months of contentious disagreement, the U.S. Air Force came around to agreeing with U.S. Navy claims that the F-35 will cost much more to maintain, rather than (as the F-35 promoters assert) less.


Could be the Aussiesalng with the Canucks may be cutting their order.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-18/news/sns-rt-us...
Australia's government is looking at buying 24 more Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets amid continuing delays and setbacks in the Joint Strike Fighter project, which is the costliest program in Pentagon procurement history.

That means Australia could buy fewer than the 100 F-35s originally planned, echoing warnings from Canada that it could also look to other options for its future jet fighters. The Netherlands and Italy have also cut back orders.


This aircraft looks to me to be a trillion dollar Edsel. Well perhaps I'm being too generous. The Edsel was a functioning automobile that was ugly. The f-35 will probably cost more than a trillion as orders are cut & thus the unit price will shoot from the stratosphere to outer space.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716906 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/25/2014 3:53 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Defense is putting a roof on your house. They are being incredibly wasteful in doing so, but you do need a roof, the roof is going up, and it is mostly keeping the rain out.

Obamacare is digging a ditch through your living room. They are being incredibly wasteful about it - a ditch could be put through your living room at much lower cost - but the greater fact is that you're better off NOT having a ditch through your living room.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
But in this particular case the roof[f-35] is not only wasteful but non functioning.


I was speaking of the DoD as a whole.

And Obamacare (or for that matter the national government's anti-market interference in the medical-insurance market going back to the 1940s) as a whole.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716907 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/25/2014 7:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Naw they're both wasteful & thus are both termites. And just because the defense termites eat at a slower pace; the house is still destroyed. So its like worrying the Obamacare termites & ignoring the defense termites. Now that is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.
____________________________________________________

Nah ants aren't harmless, it just takes a long long time for them to do their limited harm.

In fact you know they have been doing harm in your back yard for generations, great grandpa always talked about them but never did anything. They even get in the huse at times and are a real issue that has to be addressed at that moment. Most of the cures are going to take a lot of time and a lot of effort and a little attention once i a while keeps them in check

Termites? You do not act, they are not a nuisance for a long time they are a force of destruction taking down your primary residence.

The two are not equal. Yes they are both problems, equal? You have simply got to be kidding me.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716911 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/25/2014 8:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But in this particular case the roof[f-35] is not only wasteful but non functioning.
__________________________________

IMO you are running the same improper logic
\
Something that has a use done poorly or absolutely wrong in this case, is equal to something that can not be done right that has no good outcome.

The two simply are not equal.

You have also moved the goalpost, by picking out one small aspect of a huge endeavor and making it equal to the whole of another endeavor

This is the administrations approach actually.

You have essentially made the F-35 = rollout scenario, ignoring all else about the two endeavors

the analogy simply does not stand as the two entities are nor equatable.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 716920 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 1/25/2014 11:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But in this particular case the roof[f-35] is not only wasteful but non functioning.
__________________________________

IMO you are running the same improper logic
\
Something that has a use done poorly or absolutely wrong in this case, is equal to something that can not be done right that has no good outcome.

The two simply are not equal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes they are equal.They may not be exactly equal in dollars but are equal in magnitude. CBO estimates of Obamacare is $1.3 trillion for 10 year period. The f-35 will initially cost a trillion--assuming the problems can be solved & will not be as effective as promise. Plus ongoing maintenance cost which are incredibly high vis a vis current US aircraft. Was promised to be lower.


They are both systemic problems. The Department of Defense’s acquisition system continues to take longer, cost more and deliver fewer quantities and capabilities than originally planned.

there are numerous examples-f-111, m-16, m2 bradley, DDG-1000, Seawolf submarine.

To ignore the problem is apparently the same ideological blinders that liberals have toward welfare, education, health care gun control IMO.

If we are to be intellectually honest; the same standards must be applied to ALL aspects of the federal government. Yes defense has a constitutional basis that other departments do not have. But I don't see the right of the American people to be swindled to provide for such defense. A clean sweep of reform to ALL areas of federal spending needs to be applied. Otherwise the cost savings in one area will merely wasted in the untouched sacrosanct area.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 717927 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 2/3/2014 10:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
f-35 update:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20140202.as...

The U.S. Department of Defense is being accused of deception for refusing to admit the true cost of the new F-35 in the face of growing cuts in the military budget. Despite these cuts the Department of Defense will not change the number of F-35s ordered nor the unit cost that should be increased becasue of these cuts. Something has to give.The U.S. Air Force still expects to get production models of its 31 ton F-35A in late 2016. This is the cheapest version, costing about $159 million each. The U.S. Navy version (the F-35C) will arrive in late 2019 and cost about $264 million each.

Meanwhile there are the seemingly endless delays.


the increasing costs of theF-35 are scaring off foreign buyers. These users have noted that the F-35 costs 60 percent more (than the F-16, per flight hour) to operate. For European nations, with static or shrinking defense budgets and growing demands to help with peacekeeping operations, more expensive (to buy and operate) jet fighters just don’t fit in.

Initially the F-35 operating costs were supposed to be the same or lower than other fighters (like the F-16, F-15, or F-18). But then it was noted that those operating costs were creeping upwards. In 2011 the U.S. Air Force came around to agreeing with U.S. Navy claims that the F-35 will cost much more to maintain, rather than (as the F-35 promoters insisted) less.

At that time [2010] it costs the navy, on average, $19,000 an hour to operate its AV-8 vertical takeoff or F-18C fighter aircraft. The navy calculated that it would cost 63 percent more to operate the F-35C (which will replace the F-18C) and the F-35B (which will replace the AV-8).

Like the F-22, which had production capped at less than 200 aircraft, the capabilities, as superior as they are, may not justify the much higher costs. The F-35, at least for the navy, is headed in the same direction. The navy can go ahead with the more recent F-18E and keep refurbishing, or even building, the AV-8. The navy recently began examining the possibility of buying fewer F-35s, in the long run, and replacing them with combat UAVs, like the X-47B.
Politics, and lobbying by the F-35 manufacturer, will probably keep the F-35 headed for fleet service, no matter what the cost.

The success of smart bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan has also made it clear that fewer aircraft will be needed in the future.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 732423 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 6/24/2014 11:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
http://online.wsj.com/articles/f-35-fighter-jets-temporarily...
June 15, 2014
F-35 Fighter Jets Temporarily Grounded by Engine Problems

The Pentagon temporarily grounded the entire F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fleet at the start of the weekend after one of the advanced jets suffered an engine oil leak and declared an in-flight emergency.


http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140623/DEFREG02/3062300...

Jun. 23, 2014
F-35 Catches Fire on Takeoff at Eglin AFB

WASHINGTON — A US Air Force F-35 Joint Strike Fighter caught fire when attempting to take off from a Florida Air Force base Monday morning, Pentagon officials said.
--
The pilot successfully shut down the plane and escaped unharmed, an F-35 program spokeswoman said. The fire was extinguished with foam by a ground crew.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 733709 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 7/5/2014 10:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20140705.a...

Britain, aware of the exhaust heat problem with the new F-35B vertical take-off jet, is spending several million dollars to build three small special landing pads where the F-35B may land vertically without damaging the normal air strip used for conventional takeoffs and landings. The U.S. did not originally note this heat problem for prospective buyers but by 2008 it was obvious that the high heat means the F-35B can’t use its vertical landing capability in most places.

The U.S. was embarrassed when it first discovered that the new MV-22 and F-35B created "heat management" problems. At first there was an effort to redesign the exhaust but that did not reduce the heat enough for the F-35B. It was still more than 920 degrees Celsius (over 1,700 Fahrenheit). That was enough to cause heat resistant concrete to spall (come apart in flakes) and the heat resistant portable matting the U.S. Navy developed did not always prevent spalling when installed over concrete. Moreover the special matting was expensive and time-consuming to install.

Since 2008 the U.S. Navy has been furiously working on a solution to the fact that the engine exhaust heat from the tilt-rotor MV-22 and the vertical takeoff F-35B's. The temperatures were too hot for the deck plates on some of the carriers these aircraft would operate from. The gas turbine engines of both aircraft, which blow their exhaust right on to the deck of the carrier while waiting to take off, caused high enough temperatures for the steel under the deck plates to possibly warp the understructure. The navy also discovered that the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.) The navy sought a solution that would not require extensive modification of current carrier decks. This included a lot of decks, both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.


Caveat Emptor

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 734292 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 7/9/2014 12:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Democrats & republicans close ranks.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/211584-lawmakers-shrug-off...

Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee are brushing off the latest setback to the $400 billion and counting F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which resulted in the grounding of the military’s jet of the future.

“I just want to keep it going,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the panel. “It’s too modern to fail. If we’re going to maintain superiority over other countries, we have to have that, we can’t do without it.”

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) argued the engine fire that led to the grounding is a bump in the road.
“When you develop a new system like this you’re going to have hiccups,” he said.


Its not the military–industrial complex. Its the congressional-military–industrial complex

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 735364 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 7/16/2014 4:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-b...
the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 — which can avoid sensor detection thanks to its special shape and coating — simply doesn’t work very well. The Pentagon has had to temporarily ground F-35s no fewer than 13 times since 2007, mostly due to problems with the plane’s Pratt & Whitney-made F135 engine, in particular, with the engines’ turbine blades. The stand-downs lasted at most a few weeks.

“The repeated problems with the same part of the engine may be indications of a serious design and structural problem with the F135 engine,” said Johan Boeder, a Dutch aerospace expert and editor of the online publication JSF News.

Pratt & Whitney has already totally redesigned the F135 in an attempt to end its history of frequent failures. But there’s only so much engineers can do. In a controversial move during the early stages of the F-35's development, the Pentagon decided to fit the plane with one engine instead of two. Sticking with one motor can help keep down the price of a new plane. But in the F-35's case, the decision proved self-defeating.

That’s because the F-35 is complex — the result of the Air Force, Marines and Navy all adding features to the basic design. In airplane design, such complexity equals weight. The F-35 is extraordinarily heavy for a single-engine plane, weighing as much as 35 tons with a full load of fuel.

By comparison, the older F-15 fighter weighs 40 tons. But it has two engines. To remain reasonably fast and maneuverable, the F-35's sole F135 engine must generate no less than 20 tons of thrust — making it history’s most powerful fighter motor.

All that thrust results in extreme levels of stress on engine components. It’s no surprise, then, that the F-35 frequently suffers engine malfunctions. Even with that 20 tons of thrust, the new radar-dodging plane is still sluggish. The F-35 “is a dog … overweight and underpowered,” according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington.

In 2008, two analysts at the RAND Corporation, a California think-tank that works closely with the military, programmed a computer simulation to test out the F-35's fighting ability in a hypothetical air war with China. The results were startling.

“The F-35 is double-inferior,” John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue concluded in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press. The new plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” they warned.



Not to worry think about the number of jobs this boondoggle has created.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 753248 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 11/22/2014 8:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Just 4 months ago the F-35 wasn't able to fly to an airshow.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140715/SHOWSCOUT15/3071...

We still do not have battle ready aircraft. Yet LMT has sold another 43 F-35s to the federal gov't for $4.3 billion.

We need a Truman in Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-26_Marauder

After entering service with the U.S. Army, the aircraft received the reputation of a "Widowmaker" due to the early models' high rate of accidents during takeoff and landings.

In 1942, Glenn Martin was called before the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, or Truman Committee, which was investigating defense contracting abuses. Senator Harry Truman, the committee chairman, asked Martin why the B-26 had troubles. Martin responded that the wings were too short. Truman asked why the wings weren't changed. When Martin said the plans were too far along and besides, his company already had the contract, Truman's response was quick and to the point: In that case, the contract would be canceled. Martin said corrections to the wings would be made.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: tjscott0 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 755380 of 756456
Subject: Re: Hanger Queens Date: 12/10/2014 6:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-10/a-4000-paint...
When the fuel for the F-35 hits higher temperatures, there's a chance the jets will experience what the Air Force described as a "shutdown." To keep each $100 million-plus jet running at Luke Air Force Base, located northwest of Phoenix, the 56th Logistics Readiness Squadron is preparing to repaint its fuel trucks, currently green.

Chief Master Sergeant Ralph Resch explained last week in an Air Force statement. His team of fueling specialists got the idea to paint the trucks from Edwards Air Force Base in the Mojave Desert, where summer temperatures routinely hit 110 degrees. A coat of white paint, which better reflects heats, could help cool down the fuel.

Replacing the green paint job with a white-colored solar polyurethane enamel, even if it helps the fussy F-35s, will create new headaches for the Air Force. Refueling units often serve in combat zones, and a big white fuel truck is a fine target—sticking out "like a sore thumb down range," as the Air Force put it.

Ah a Great aircraft for use in the Siberia! Unfortunately it has been the Middle East that is requiring the use of our air force.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (55) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement