DensityDuck:

I agree the F-104 was not a stellar fighter other then going fast. The SR-71 on the other hand is one of the most significant military aircraft designs in history. Remember that it was designed in the late 50’s, in a age dominated by the slide rule, not super computers. Most of the performance envelope of Habu remains out of reach of even modern 4.5 and 5th generation fighters today.

I partially agree with your statement that customer needs can drive up cost. However, Lockmart has spent tens of millions of dollars on PR pushing the point for 9+ years that they could deliver the F-35 at between 30–60 million each. And as we’ve all seen, this is a bald face fabrication of the highest order.

To put in perspective how much money is being spent on hype by LM on the JSF, see the attached below at ELP’s site. How much taxpayer money is paying for the video clip of the F-35B STOVL landing on this huge downtown video screen? Does this look like the actions of a company interested in cutting costs?
http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/f-35-b…

And I like how you blame the cost of the F-35/F-22 on Lockheed. LM gives the customer what the customer asks for. Every dollar in those contracts is tied directly to a customer requirement–even if that requirement is for feelgood tests, or for pointless studies into alternate engine arrangements.

As I’ve often said, capability has a cost. If you want to do “X”, then you need to pay “Y”. As X goes up, so does Y.

Uh, yeah. Gates throwing his full support behind the F-35 is like a rat fleeing a sinking ship. You’re sounding like Bill 2.0 more and more each day.

The last 10 years is an illustration of how far this once great company has strayed from the amazing aircraft created under the leadership of “Kelly” Clarence Johnson. Lockmart created the most revolutionary fighter in the last 20 years with the F-22, but made it so expensive that even the US military couldn’t afford it. And then followed that up with the F-35 which started at a price of 30–40 million each back in 2001, and is now running somewhere between 112–150 million each. These two projects together have created one of the most dismal track records in aerospace history, and wasted hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars along the way.

Justice would be best served at the hands of a team of Federal Investigators, which is perfectly reasonable considering that this company has been playing fast and loose with the military aerospace future of the United States and half of our international military partners for many years now.

Considering Lockheed hasn’t needed a bailout yet I think they are doing quite a bit better at management than all of these banks and businesses whose employees are evidently more important than the defense worker.

Lockheed knows that it’s business depends solely on how deep it can get it’s feeding tube into the DoD, the only real change is the renewed emphasis on “customer communications”. Simple code for more pork lobbying and insurance for the inevitable day when Lockheed has to get a bailout.

Real efficiencies in a market economy come from introducing new lower cost products and mass lay-offs. Bill and friends sound exactly like middle management in the USSR sounded in the 70s.

All this is saying is that the tax payer has been paying to much for Lockheed Martin products all this time. I would think this should be of interest to the Department of Justice.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner