F-35 Costs, Promises, Taxes, and YOU

[Firewa11]

While I agree it's an awesome aircraft, there are a few issues I have with the whole program and it's intent. Obviously the schedule and price tag. I don't necessarily blame LM for this one, I think it's the whole procurement and military contract system that needs an overhaul. You name your price during your bid. And you stick to it. And if you screw up, you don't go back to your customer and ask for more money or adjust the cost. Aim higher on your cost and your time estimates so you can MEET YOUR GOALS.

Second is the 'all your eggs in one basket' approach. Look at the F-15 airframe issues that came out not too long ago that grounded the whole flock. What happens if something similar happens with the F-35? Your entire AF, Navy, and Marine flock stops flying? And what happens if the Cylons find a weakness with the F-35's and ends up able to shut them off remotely? I know the idea here is to reduce costs, but in reality it's only going to reduce cost for LM, I don't see this really reducing the cost across the board, considering the parts that typically need replacing (besides the engine) vary across the models...

Third, the STOVL version was billed as a replacement for the Harrier, but it won't be able to operate where the harrier currently operates today, without substantial improvements. Mach 1 gas at 1700 degrees will be wreaking havoc on the decks of existing harrier carriers in service today. And it won't be able to work out in a forward operating base without the base having substantial improvements. I think I read something about a 100x100' reinforced special concrete pad able to withstand the temperatures. So aircraft decks are going to have to undergo some pretty signifigant overhauls and FOB's need more advanced construction crews to handle a flock of these birds. Not saying it won't be done, but that's not what was in the pretty brochure that was sold to Congress. I think I read something about the Navy is looking into some sort of decking that has a grid of coolant pipes to run water through so the deck doesn't burn up while a squadron sits on the deck with it's engine idling. I don't recall that being in the brochure...

Fourth, is the VLO (very low observable) bubble and keeping up with it... It's as though the lessons learned on the F-22 haven't really been applied, at least from what I've been reading, which is going to lead to fairly lengthy and costly maintenance procedures any time a crew has to pull off a panel. I mean, I understand that VLO itself is one of those things where you have to pay a lot to enjoy the benefits, and maybe there really isn't an easy solution across the board, but again don't put something in your pretty little brochure and then come back later and say "just kidding".

Don't take my criticism the wrong way. I think the jet itself is pretty damned awesome, and you have all done a fantastic job building this thing. And it's not the job of Engineers to worry about the political fallout or the 'actual use' ramifications to the armed forces guys that have to support and maintain them. But it is our job, John Q. Public, to pay for anything the government writes the check for... and our responsibility to make sure they are doing the right thing, and buying military hardware that is as-advertised, both in price, time to take ownership, and performance.

[GRex]

While I agree it's an awesome aircraft, there are a few issues I have with the whole program and it's intent. Obviously the schedule and price tag. I don't necessarily blame LM for this one, I think it's the whole procurement and military contract system that needs an overhaul. You name your price during your bid. And you stick to it. And if you screw up, you don't go back to your customer and ask for more money or adjust the cost. Aim higher on your cost and your time estimates so you can MEET YOUR GOALS.

Second is the 'all your eggs in one basket' approach. Look at the F-15 airframe issues that came out not too long ago that grounded the whole flock. What happens if something similar happens with the F-35? Your entire AF, Navy, and Marine flock stops flying? And what happens if the Cylons find a weakness with the F-35's and ends up able to shut them off remotely? I know the idea here is to reduce costs, but in reality it's only going to reduce cost for LM, I don't see this really reducing the cost across the board, considering the parts that typically need replacing (besides the engine) vary across the models...

Third, the STOVL version was billed as a replacement for the Harrier, but it won't be able to operate where the harrier currently operates today, without substantial improvements. Mach 1 gas at 1700 degrees will be wreaking havoc on the decks of existing harrier carriers in service today. And it won't be able to work out in a forward operating base without the base having substantial improvements. I think I read something about a 100x100' reinforced special concrete pad able to withstand the temperatures. So aircraft decks are going to have to undergo some pretty signifigant overhauls and FOB's need more advanced construction crews to handle a flock of these birds. Not saying it won't be done, but that's not what was in the pretty brochure that was sold to Congress. I think I read something about the Navy is looking into some sort of decking that has a grid of coolant pipes to run water through so the deck doesn't burn up while a squadron sits on the deck with it's engine idling. I don't recall that being in the brochure...

Fourth, is the VLO (very low observable) bubble and keeping up with it... It's as though the lessons learned on the F-22 haven't really been applied, at least from what I've been reading, which is going to lead to fairly lengthy and costly maintenance procedures any time a crew has to pull off a panel. I mean, I understand that VLO itself is one of those things where you have to pay a lot to enjoy the benefits, and maybe there really isn't an easy solution across the board, but again don't put something in your pretty little brochure and then come back later and say "just kidding".

Don't take my criticism the wrong way. I think the jet itself is pretty damned awesome, and you have all done a fantastic job building this thing. And it's not the job of Engineers to worry about the political fallout or the 'actual use' ramifications to the armed forces guys that have to support and maintain them. But it is our job, John Q. Public, to pay for anything the government writes the check for... and our responsibility to make sure they are doing the right thing, and buying military hardware that is as-advertised, both in price, time to take ownership, and performance.

Your criticism is not based on fact. You are repeating the scare tactics stories that nay sayers use. Those of us that know the facts cannot/will not comment on them.

[Grinner]

Hey Fire...Im not slamming your opinion but all these problems associated with $$$$$ outside of our own pockets is our (our-meaning society) own faults for not stepping in and saying, "WTF Congress!!!!!" Society has this idea that the pelicans (see congress) have a handle on things and that they know what they are doing. If that were so, then do you think seats in congress would be getting paid 6 figs and a retirement for life along with the BEST health care possible?! I think this all goes back to the source of the problem....society! For letting congress running away with all the goods while laughing and pointing @ us like we are idiots.

Im gonna stop for now because this is not the right thread and I don't wanna take away from the OP.
I will now relinquish the soapbox and go sit in the corner and enjoy the movie. I think you & I need to sit and have a BS session in the near future.
(steps down)

[Meat of Snail]

While I agree it's an awesome aircraft, there are a few issues I have with the whole program and it's intent. Obviously the schedule and price tag. I don't necessarily blame LM for this one, I think it's the whole procurement and military contract system that needs an overhaul. You name your price during your bid. And you stick to it. And if you screw up, you don't go back to your customer and ask for more money or adjust the cost. Aim higher on your cost and your time estimates so you can MEET YOUR GOALS.

Second is the 'all your eggs in one basket' approach. Look at the F-15 airframe issues that came out not too long ago that grounded the whole flock. What happens if something similar happens with the F-35? Your entire AF, Navy, and Marine flock stops flying? And what happens if the Cylons find a weakness with the F-35's and ends up able to shut them off remotely? I know the idea here is to reduce costs, but in reality it's only going to reduce cost for LM, I don't see this really reducing the cost across the board, considering the parts that typically need replacing (besides the engine) vary across the models...

Third, the STOVL version was billed as a replacement for the Harrier, but it won't be able to operate where the harrier currently operates today, without substantial improvements. Mach 1 gas at 1700 degrees will be wreaking havoc on the decks of existing harrier carriers in service today. And it won't be able to work out in a forward operating base without the base having substantial improvements. I think I read something about a 100x100' reinforced special concrete pad able to withstand the temperatures. So aircraft decks are going to have to undergo some pretty signifigant overhauls and FOB's need more advanced construction crews to handle a flock of these birds. Not saying it won't be done, but that's not what was in the pretty brochure that was sold to Congress. I think I read something about the Navy is looking into some sort of decking that has a grid of coolant pipes to run water through so the deck doesn't burn up while a squadron sits on the deck with it's engine idling. I don't recall that being in the brochure...

Fourth, is the VLO (very low observable) bubble and keeping up with it... It's as though the lessons learned on the F-22 haven't really been applied, at least from what I've been reading, which is going to lead to fairly lengthy and costly maintenance procedures any time a crew has to pull off a panel. I mean, I understand that VLO itself is one of those things where you have to pay a lot to enjoy the benefits, and maybe there really isn't an easy solution across the board, but again don't put something in your pretty little brochure and then come back later and say "just kidding".

Don't take my criticism the wrong way. I think the jet itself is pretty damned awesome, and you have all done a fantastic job building this thing. And it's not the job of Engineers to worry about the political fallout or the 'actual use' ramifications to the armed forces guys that have to support and maintain them. But it is our job, John Q. Public, to pay for anything the government writes the check for... and our responsibility to make sure they are doing the right thing, and buying military hardware that is as-advertised, both in price, time to take ownership, and performance.

These views look to be coming straight from the newspapers, although not the most reliable source of facts (let alone, the entire picture).

I believe this type of write-up/scrutiny belongs in the politics/religion section

[Firewa11]

No, it's not straight out of the newspapers, it's on a variety of watchdog sites, all of which are actually pro F-35, anti- wasteful government spending. I'm a reasonably intelligent guy and know when I'm being spoonfed a bunch of BS, but LM has actually confirmed quite a bit of this stuff as well, or just refused to comment alltogether... which in this day and age is the same thing as admitting guilt.

I am in complete agreement that it's not the whole picture... totally not arguing that. But I am John Q. Taxpayer. And John Q. Taxpayer can't see the whole picture if it's covered...

[Firewa11]

Ok good point, split it off over here!