• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Super Stealth Plane Breaks Through Cost Barrier

D

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
100,744
Reaction score
53,482
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Super Stealth Plane Breaks Through Cost Barrier | Danger Room | Wired.com

The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing today on the future of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and things are not looking pretty for the next-generation stealth aircraft. It’s likely the Air Force will have to declare the program has soared past a key cost-containment barrier, in addition to being more than two years behind schedule.

The Air Force will have to declare a Nunn-McCurdy breach, which could force a serious restructuring of the program, according to a Reuters story quoting Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter.

A new Government Accountability Office report, issued today, puts it in simple numbers. “Total estimated acquisition costs have increased $46 billion (.pdf) and development extended 2 ½ years, compared to the program baseline approved in 2007,” the report states.

Read More Super Stealth Plane Breaks Through Cost Barrier | Danger Room | Wired.com
Click to expand...

As if anybody is surprised at this point.

We are bleeding so much money in our utterly broken defense acquisitions setup. It seems especially prevalent in the military aircraft industry. Every single new aircraft we try to put out runs way over time allotted and way over cost. The taxpayers are being milked to the bone by these defense contractors, who really have no major incentive to run within the ludicrous "budget" they propose at the start of the program.

I sometimes wonder if we should just buy planes from Russia like everyone else does. :2razz:
 
Deuce said:
Super Stealth Plane Breaks Through Cost Barrier | Danger Room | Wired.com



As if anybody is surprised at this point.

We are bleeding so much money in our utterly broken defense acquisitions setup. It seems especially prevalent in the military aircraft industry. Every single new aircraft we try to put out runs way over time allotted and way over cost. The taxpayers are being milked to the bone by these defense contractors, who really have no major incentive to run within the ludicrous "budget" they propose at the start of the program.

I sometimes wonder if we should just buy planes from Russia like everyone else does. :2razz:
Click to expand...

The JSF makes sense, since it is a multi role a/c that will replace several different models in the AF/Navy/Marine Corps. Unfortunantley, the F-22 program was a completely un-needed program at the time as it is only available to one service and had a singular purpose(air superiority, of which we already had at the time). If that money had been spent on ground transport aircraft or updating other various aspects of the fleet, it would have been a better return on the investment. Obviously they aren't showing good fiscal restraint for the JSF program itself, which is the directors fault. But the theory of having the same multi-role aircraft across several different branches and streamlining the replaceable parts system to have nearly 85-90% similar parts across the services(3 different models of JSF, with carrier landing equipped landing gear for navy and VSTOL for Marines) is a good idea in the long run.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Thread moved from BN-Mainstream media as it does not come from a mainstream media source
 
Thanks mods. I swear, I check every time I post which forum the thread is going in, and EVERY TIME I still screw it up.
 
WI Crippler said:
The JSF makes sense, since it is a multi role a/c that will replace several different models in the AF/Navy/Marine Corps. Unfortunantley, the F-22 program was a completely un-needed program at the time as it is only available to one service and had a singular purpose(air superiority, of which we already had at the time). If that money had been spent on ground transport aircraft or updating other various aspects of the fleet, it would have been a better return on the investment. Obviously they aren't showing good fiscal restraint for the JSF program itself, which is the directors fault. But the theory of having the same multi-role aircraft across several different branches and streamlining the replaceable parts system to have nearly 85-90% similar parts across the services(3 different models of JSF, with carrier landing equipped landing gear for navy and VSTOL for Marines) is a good idea in the long run.
Click to expand...

The bad idea was actually listening to the manufacturer when they told us the price tag. We're not giving these companies a hard limit to control their spending, "Oh, you're over budget? Here's some more money, keep at it for a while."

I also think our research should shift to unmanned aircraft. They're far, far cheaper, since you don't have to build such powerful defensive capabilities into them. Nobody cares if the drone gets shot down, so why incorporate the enormous expense that is stealth?

And drones have proven extremely effective in strike roles. Interface a laser rangefinder with a gps-equipped laptop. Point laser at bad guys, laptop calculates position of target, uploads to drone: "BOMB HERE."

Drone radios back "By your command." They'd better do it in that voice too.

Boom.

As far as air-to-air, drones still need developing to tackle that, but why not just build a glorified RC plane on steroids with a few AIM-120's strapped to it? Make it big and basically built out of balsa wood for all it matters. The point is the cheapest platform that can carry a missile. Who cares if they get shot down? The ordnance is more expensive than the plane!

Controlled via AWACS crew, perhaps.

(edit: DARPA, I am looking for a new job...)
 
Last edited:
This aircraft will NEVER go into production.
 
Yeah it will but by god it is going to cost over $100 million each

I remember when the F16 was selling for $18-20 million
 
Deuce said:
Super Stealth Plane Breaks Through Cost Barrier | Danger Room | Wired.com



As if anybody is surprised at this point.

We are bleeding so much money in our utterly broken defense acquisitions setup. It seems especially prevalent in the military aircraft industry. Every single new aircraft we try to put out runs way over time allotted and way over cost. The taxpayers are being milked to the bone by these defense contractors, who really have no major incentive to run within the ludicrous "budget" they propose at the start of the program.

I sometimes wonder if we should just buy planes from Russia like everyone else does. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Part of the problem does originate with the defence industry itself. However, part of the problem lies with the manner in which the military specs this stuff out. They invariably push the "gee wish" factor to the limit, which in turn pushes industry to push the technology envelope.
 
Let's not forget that the government wastes far more money on other things, like failed social programs and pork. Sometimes they simply lose billions and claim not to know where they went...


1. The Missing $25 Billion

Buried in the Department of the Treasury’s 2003 Financial Report of the United States Government is a short section titled “Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position,” which explains that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003.[2]

The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their expenditures adequately, the Treasury report con*cludes that locating the money is “a priority.”
Click to expand...


It isn't just the Defense Department... at least in the case of the fighter we were getting something useful for the money.
 
Deuce said:
I also think our research should shift to unmanned aircraft. They're far, far cheaper, since you don't have to build such powerful defensive capabilities into them. Nobody cares if the drone gets shot down, so why incorporate the enormous expense that is stealth?

And drones have proven extremely effective in strike roles. Interface a laser rangefinder with a gps-equipped laptop. Point laser at bad guys, laptop calculates position of target, uploads to drone: "BOMB HERE."

Drone radios back "By your command." They'd better do it in that voice too.

Boom.

As far as air-to-air, drones still need developing to tackle that, but why not just build a glorified RC plane on steroids with a few AIM-120's strapped to it? Make it big and basically built out of balsa wood for all it matters. The point is the cheapest platform that can carry a missile. Who cares if they get shot down? The ordnance is more expensive than the plane!

Controlled via AWACS crew, perhaps.

(edit: DARPA, I am looking for a new job...)
Click to expand...

Although I think the role of unmanned aircraft certainley has room for growth and expansion in certain roles, part of me is uncomfortable in assigning these aircraft to CAS missions on a regular basis. Some amount of flexibility to immediately make changes/decisions needs to rest in the hands and controls of a human at the point of attack, rather than in a AWACs hundreds of miles away or in some computer room back in Florida(or wherever they have them). And for XCAS missions, unmanneds need not even be considered. I'm uncomfortable assigning direct support to our ground troops to a robot.

Unmanneds have great advantages as you point out. But I don't know that they are appropriate for all mission types.
 
WI Crippler said:
The JSF makes sense, since it is a multi role a/c that will replace several different models in the AF/Navy/Marine Corps. Unfortunantley, the F-22 program was a completely un-needed program at the time as it is only available to one service and had a singular purpose(air superiority, of which we already had at the time). If that money had been spent on ground transport aircraft or updating other various aspects of the fleet, it would have been a better return on the investment. Obviously they aren't showing good fiscal restraint for the JSF program itself, which is the directors fault. But the theory of having the same multi-role aircraft across several different branches and streamlining the replaceable parts system to have nearly 85-90% similar parts across the services(3 different models of JSF, with carrier landing equipped landing gear for navy and VSTOL for Marines) is a good idea in the long run.
Click to expand...

I have to strongly disagree with the assessment about an air-superiority fighter. The reason for having such a specialized aircraft is so that you have a machine and a group of people thoroughly dedicated to the effort of owning the skies over a battlefield. Historically, controlling the skies has proven to be extremely important. A multi-mission/multi-role team is valuable, yes, but having someone that is dedicated solely to controlling the skies above you is absolutely essential.

I'll have to agree with the sentiment expressed by OP that the acquisition system is broken and that the military has a poor grip on this mess. I'd suggest buying hardware from our allies in order to scare contractors about potential lost business if they don't shape up on the costs side of the equation.
 
WI Crippler said:
Although I think the role of unmanned aircraft certainley has room for growth and expansion in certain roles, part of me is uncomfortable in assigning these aircraft to CAS missions on a regular basis. Some amount of flexibility to immediately make changes/decisions needs to rest in the hands and controls of a human at the point of attack, rather than in a AWACs hundreds of miles away or in some computer room back in Florida(or wherever they have them). And for XCAS missions, unmanneds need not even be considered. I'm uncomfortable assigning direct support to our ground troops to a robot.

Unmanneds have great advantages as you point out. But I don't know that they are appropriate for all mission types.
Click to expand...

Well, the way things are currently run, you have the soldiers on the ground and the controllers in some air-conditioned room in Utah (for example.) The soldiers on the ground ultimately tell them what to shoot and where.
 
Deuce said:
Super Stealth Plane Breaks Through Cost Barrier | Danger Room | Wired.com



As if anybody is surprised at this point.

We are bleeding so much money in our utterly broken defense acquisitions setup. It seems especially prevalent in the military aircraft industry. Every single new aircraft we try to put out runs way over time allotted and way over cost. The taxpayers are being milked to the bone by these defense contractors, who really have no major incentive to run within the ludicrous "budget" they propose at the start of the program.

I sometimes wonder if we should just buy planes from Russia like everyone else does. :2razz:
Click to expand...

A lot of this is because of software problems. The B-2 was over-budget and behind schedule due to this.
 
The_Penguin said:
Well, the way things are currently run, you have the soldiers on the ground and the controllers in some air-conditioned room in Utah (for example.) The soldiers on the ground ultimately tell them what to shoot and where.
Click to expand...

Not in all cases. I was an avionics tech in the Marines on F/A-18 aircraft, jointly stationed with harriers, F-15s and A-10s during the opening part of the OIF conflict. We dropped a lot of lead at the request of ground troops. I would wager much more than unmanned accounted for.
 
Both the F-35 and the F-22 Raptor have a role... the technology and use as well as the fit of these next generation planes are clear. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is a multi-role plane able to fit multiple roles. Each plane has it's place and could fit into the U.S. or other world military's easily. The issue is not the planes... the issue is COST.

The ONLY problem here is the relationship between the Defense Dept. and the Defense Contractors. What is needed is a hard line that says, if you quote a dollar amount per plane, it will not deviate by more than + 5% with a maximum of +7%. If it does, the contractor will eat that cost - period. In that way, the Congress and Pentagon as well as the various military branches can more accurately budget and when choosing a new plane - can be assured they are getting what they pay for instead of costly over-runs. This can easily be done by changing the protocol and procedures with these contractors. It's time we played less softball and more hardball as a country. Yes problems arise, issues occur, timelines are blown - which is why 5%-7% buffer is planned. More than that - and the skin comes from the manufacturer(s), not the taxpayer.

I want both the F-35 and the F-22, just not at the massive costs, delays and over runs being accepted. Change the process, keep the planes. Simple.
 
The_Penguin said:
I have to strongly disagree with the assessment about an air-superiority fighter. The reason for having such a specialized aircraft is so that you have a machine and a group of people thoroughly dedicated to the effort of owning the skies over a battlefield. Historically, controlling the skies has proven to be extremely important. A multi-mission/multi-role team is valuable, yes, but having someone that is dedicated solely to controlling the skies above you is absolutely essential.
Click to expand...
I understand the importance of owning the skies, but the multi-role aircraft we create are capable of providing air superiority. IIRC, didn't the F-22 need to later be expanded avionics wise to become a ground attack platform due to its limited role?

If we maintain a fleet that can maintain air superiority or provide ground support, then we are maintaining a higher degree of flexibility in mission planning and execution which is ultimately the most important thing you need.
 
Ockham said:
Both the F-35 and the F-22 Raptor have a role... the technology and use as well as the fit of these next generation planes are clear. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is a multi-role plane able to fit multiple roles. Each plane has it's place and could fit into the U.S. or other world military's easily. The issue is not the planes... the issue is COST.

The ONLY problem here is the relationship between the Defense Dept. and the Defense Contractors. What is needed is a hard line that says, if you quote a dollar amount per plane, it will not deviate by more than + 5% with a maximum of +7%. If it does, the contractor will eat that cost - period. In that way, the Congress and Pentagon as well as the various military branches can more accurately budget and when choosing a new plane - can be assured they are getting what they pay for instead of costly over-runs. This can easily be done by changing the protocol and procedures with these contractors. It's time we played less softball and more hardball as a country. Yes problems arise, issues occur, timelines are blown - which is why 5%-7% buffer is planned. More than that - and the skin comes from the manufacturer(s), not the taxpayer.

I want both the F-35 and the F-22, just not at the massive costs, delays and over runs being accepted. Change the process, keep the planes. Simple.
Click to expand...

We have 187 F-22's, which should be more than sufficient as our "ace in the hole" fighter. The F-35, while primarily a strike aircraft, is more than capable as an air superiority fighter. Stealth is a tremendous force multiplier.

The F-35 is going to get built no matter what the cost, because we've got an aging fleet to replace. We're starting to see more airframe issues in the older F-15's and F-16s, to the point where they're having to be permanently grounded. We've even had a few structural failures in flight.

My biggest problem is with the way we go about the spending. We give these contractors dumptrucks full of cash and don't have any rules to go with it.
 
Deuce said:
We have 187 F-22's, which should be more than sufficient as our "ace in the hole" fighter. The F-35, while primarily a strike aircraft, is more than capable as an air superiority fighter. Stealth is a tremendous force multiplier.

The F-35 is going to get built no matter what the cost, because we've got an aging fleet to replace. We're starting to see more airframe issues in the older F-15's and F-16s, to the point where they're having to be permanently grounded. We've even had a few structural failures in flight.

My biggest problem is with the way we go about the spending. We give these contractors dumptrucks full of cash and don't have any rules to go with it.
Click to expand...

I think we said the same thing.
 
WI Crippler said:
I understand the importance of owning the skies, but the multi-role aircraft we create are capable of providing air superiority. IIRC, didn't the F-22 need to later be expanded avionics wise to become a ground attack platform due to its limited role?

If we maintain a fleet that can maintain air superiority or provide ground support, then we are maintaining a higher degree of flexibility in mission planning and execution which is ultimately the most important thing you need.
Click to expand...

Hmm... I think I should have explained better what I wanted to say.

I'm saying that we should have both. The specialized planes in areas such as Europe and Japan for threats against specific foes where we're certain that we'll need air dominance. In other parts of the world we can use F-35s. Other nations are either not threatening to us or they're not high-tech enough to challenge the F-35.

The cost factor of the F-22 could have been offset by making an export version of the plane available to Australia, Canada, Japan, UK and Israel. I believe that the Aussies expressed interest in procuring some of the planes.
 
The_Penguin said:
Hmm... I think I should have explained better what I wanted to say.

I'm saying that we should have both. The specialized planes in areas such as Europe and Japan for threats against specific foes where we're certain that we'll need air dominance. In other parts of the world we can use F-35s. Other nations are either not threatening to us or they're not high-tech enough to challenge the F-35.

The cost factor of the F-22 could have been offset by making an export version of the plane available to Australia, Canada, Japan, UK and Israel. I believe that the Aussies expressed interest in procuring some of the planes.
Click to expand...

Only 2 of those countries would have bought them Japan, and Australia (Australia not in any real number)

Israel would have had the US pay for them in any case of Israel getting them

Canada's military budget would not haver allowed buying the F22 neither the UK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom