Comments on: Carter Reassures, SASC Sets F-35 Hearings

By: doggieman

doggieman — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:10:13 +0000

Anybody remember the Navy A12 (cancelled Jan. 91) — we’re hearing the same sad stories!

By: Dfens

Dfens — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:20:12 +0000

In the mean time, the average soldier has an inadequate weapon that jams all the time and won’t reach out and touch anyone at the ranges required in the mountains of Afghanistan. The difference being that no US government contractor in their right mind would kill the goose that laid the golden egg by developing a new infantry rifle that was worth a crap. Better to have all this controversy swiriling around the M-16 that wasn’t worth a flip in Vietnam, that way they get that free development money to waste by the boatload instead of having to produce anything.____With private funding, the sniper rifles, which are more complex and require much more precision work, have iterated a number of times going from the venerable old .308 NATO to .300 Winchester magnum, there is some work being done with the .338 Lapua — the .338 caliber being a famous one for long range use against wiley elk in Montana. The .50 cal has given the sniper unprecedented capabilities in supressing not only enemy personnel, but also has been used to destroy missiles, armored vehicles, IEDs, you name it.____Clearly, you have two systems, one that works, one that doesn’t. How much more obvious could it be?

By: Dfens

Dfens — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:55:04 +0000

Let’s look at what privately funded development has done for our armed services lately. Well, there’s the sniper rifle in general, developed by benchrest shooters everywhere. Then there’s the .50 cal sniper rifle specifically, which was developed by target shooters across the country and by private investments by the Barrett company. Also, Lockheed ponied up a billion of thier own funds to create the J model of the C-130. A lot better deal than you got from the $15 billion you spent on Boeing’s AMP you’ll never see.

By: Dfens

Dfens — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:00:47 +0000

Ironically the F-35 will kill the F-16, which is the only fighter currently in production that could be converted to stealth fairly easily. Extend the chine to the tip of the nose, angularize the intake a bit, and go to a dual or no vertical arrangement and voila a $35 million reasonably hard to detect little fighter.

By: Dfens

Dfens — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:55:14 +0000

Keep doing the same thing over and over again and see how that works out for you, ya' dimwits. Hey, wait, here's an idea. Why not pay the contractors nothing for development? You know, like we did back when we had a functional weapons procurement system? Hell, at least pay contractors less profit for development than you do for production. If you're going to give them 10% for production, don't give them more than 3% for development. That way at least they'll want to produce something. Or, maybe you think the fictional weapons that come of these "develop and dash" programs will keep you safe. Morons.

By: Butters

Butters — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:47:51 +0000

Getting to pick and choose where your tax dollars go is probably not gonna happen, but that doesn’t mean that the JSF fanboys should be denied the opportunity to financially support their dream machine.

Maybe Lockmart can set up a public donation fund for the ‘Save the F-35!’ campaign. After all, it worked for Greenpeace’s baby seals…

By: William C.

William C. — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:38:26 +0000

So the taxpayer should get screwed for the sake of paying for some illegal immigrant’s welfare, healthcare, and housing instead? I would rather have 100% of my tax dollars go to military procurement.

By: Dfens

Dfens — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:18:51 +0000

It gets better. They’ll cancel the program once all the free money, ‘er development work is over and start a new one. That way you, the idiot taxpayer, can maximize outlay and minimize benefit. It will be a lot like the C-130 AMP (avionics moderinazation program) that way. $15 billion down the rat hole with not a single operational airplane to show for it. A lot like that, except this one will cost much much more. You idiots must love getting screwed, because we play the same games over and over and you just never tire of falling for it.

By: roland

roland — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 06:27:24 +0000

Lower the cost and produce 30,000 of them if the price is right.

By: Trophy

Trophy — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:34:14 +0000

Maybe the service chiefs are getting suppressed or simply fired for speaking up.

By: Cocidius

Cocidius — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:18:25 +0000

Airframe commonality between the F-35 variants was supposed to be above 80%. In reality its running below 40%, which is precisely what Weaponhead is talking about. We are building 3 totally new fighters which share similar airframes, avionics, and some parts, etc. Is it any wonder why the costs have become so high, and why LM is having difficulty flying the different JSF variants? http://worldwidewarpigs.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-...

By: Weaponhead

Weaponhead — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:17:36 +0000

There has been a continuous pattern of deception throughout DoD to cover up the lack of progress on F-35. This has apparently been done to delay the truth until they could say that we have to keep paying since we’ve already invested too much to lose.

Now they bang the drum of “no other options” which is total nonsense. Option exist: F-22, F/A-18E/F, Silent Eagle, Block 60 F-16, accelerate F/A-XX /NGF/JUCAS, field next generation cruise and air-to-air missiles.

JSF was supposed to be a “low” cost complement to F-22 it is headed to become just as “exquisite” as F-22. So instead of 3 aircraft for the price of one we now have 3 aircraft for the price of 4.

By: aerooooooooo

aerooooooooo — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:49:52 +0000

for one time they need see in the future (the real future) and forgot their paper and their ambitious.
exept if american people will give more to the army…

By: Gray Eagle

Gray Eagle — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:17:13 +0000

Here we go again! One fighter to satisfy the needs of the Air Force, Navy and Marines. Adequate for many missions, poor in others, and superior in none. I thought they would have learned from the TFX / F-111 fiasco.

By: Formula

Formula — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:03:18 +0000

Additionally, USG personnel (Civilian and Military) with adequate experience in acquisition and acquisition reform need to have direct oversight 24/7 for each system that they have expertise in. Accountability for lack of Performance or inadequate Performance must be dealt with harshly in terms of withholding award fees or severely reducing them. This will be a monumental effort, but at this stage in the game the right course of action with the right people must happen now. Hidden/personal agendas should not be tolerated and each Service, the DoD and the President need to identify what “alternatives” exist to make the F35 the greatest, safest, and most lethal aircraft ever built. I’m afraid our current Administration and Service Chiefs are missing critical alternatives to this Program’s long term success.

By: Formula

Formula — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:03:11 +0000

If they are really serious about changing this Program and turning it around, they better look at its leadership. There is no excuse for Gates not really knowing what is happening on one of his major Programs. This guy was in the CIA and he is not aware of what is happening in his own back yard on his watch?????? The other issue is the Service Chiefs NOT speaking up and NOT telling what they really feel about every aspect concerning the F35 Program. My suggestion to them is to NOT worry about Gates or what he thinks, its your obligation to speak up for your individual Services as to what you think is right for the Program regardless what Gates agenda is. Also, the GAO and JAT from this day forward should conduct quarterly reviews for the entire F35 Program and publish reports to Congress.

By: CharlesHouston

CharlesHouston — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:15:42 +0000

What a surprise! A large development program (industry, government, whatever) that goes over budget and behind schedule!! What is the chance that we are gonna end up buying only a couple of hundred F-35s?

By: Cocidius

Cocidius — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:54:32 +0000

The biggest question is what’s plan B if this program fails? Looking at the Gates style of leadership, I’m not optimistic that they’ve even considered that the F-35 may not be a viable option to carry 95% of US airpower.

How does a house of cards sound when it falls?

By: Drake1

Drake1 — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:27:33 +0000

I can’t wait for those Senate Armed Services Committee Hearings to hear the questions that Sen. McCain is going to ask.

By: Eric Palmer

Eric Palmer — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:59:04 +0000

What a circus