05 May 21
@earl-of-trumps saidThanks. I think what other posters are completely missing is that the relative engineering capabilities of the various countries is irrelevant. Foreign governments have all the engineering specs for the F-35 already, and we have theirs also. The price tag of the F-35 is absurdly higher than reasonable, given that the Pentagon has been repeatedly hacked with no apparent attempt (or ability) to defend against these attacks. Back to my original post, the technology cost of the F-35 thrust upon our taxpayers is being flushed down the toilet by an incompetent military branch.
@wildgrass - said
The issue with the F-35 is it appears absurdly over what a reasonable cost would be for such a marginal advancement in miltary tech.
Well put, as was the rest of the post.
A phenomenal cost for a meager increase of ability in ONE tiny aspect of our war machines. No "value" there.
Or more succinctly, "Not enough bang for the buck".
05 May 21
@kmax87 saidMaybe I'm not following your logic correctly. Are you saying the military paid this company $200 billion, and when they failed to deliver they sued them for $1 billion? The company was paid $199 billion for not doing anything?
See my post above. Wildgrass would have loved the fact that then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney basically cancelled a program that McDonnell Douglas was responsible for. The A-12 Avenger II was to be "an all-weather, carrier-based stealth bomber replacement for the Grumman A-6 Intruder in the United States Navy and Marine Corps." but after Cheney gave them notice to show cau ...[text shortened]... sued till eventually after appeal and blah they settled with Boeing and MD paying 200 million each.
05 May 21
@wildgrass saidSorry, I can do that sometimes.
Maybe I'm not following your logic correctly. Are you saying the military paid this company $200 billion, and when they failed to deliver they sued them for $1 billion? The company was paid $199 billion for not doing anything?
From Wikipedia:- Here's a brief edited timeline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II
The United States Navy began the Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) program in 1983. The program was to develop and field a replacement for the A-6 Intruder by 1994.
The McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics team was selected as the winner on 13 January 1988.
Beginning in early 1990 McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics revealed delays and projected cost increases. Due to complications with the composite materials, aircraft weight had increased to 30% over design specification.
A government report released in November 1990 documented serious problems with the A-12 development program. In December 1990 Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney told the Navy to justify the program and deliver reasons why it should not be canceled. The response given by the Navy and the contractors failed to persuade the Secretary of Defense, as he canceled the program in the following month, on 7 January 1991, for breach of contract.
The government felt the contractors could not complete the program and instructed them to repay most of the $2 billion that had been spent on A-12 development. McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics disputed this in Federal Claims court.
The manner in which the program was canceled led to years of litigation between the contractors and the Department of Defense over breach of contract. On 1 June 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the U.S. Navy was justified in canceling the contract. The ruling also required the two contractors to repay the U.S. government US$1.35 billion, plus interest charges of US$1.45 billion.
Boeing, which had merged with McDonnell Douglas, and General Dynamics vowed to appeal the ruling.
In May 2011, the Supreme Court set aside the Appeals Court decision and returned the case to federal circuit court. In January 2014, the case was settled with Boeing and General Dynamics agreeing to pay $200 million each to the U.S. Navy.
I got my story muddled toward the end, thinking that MD even though they had merged with Boeing were still somehow on the hook for $200 million, forgetting about General Dynamics altogether. Anyhoo, the Govt sure stuck it to them.
07 May 21
@earl-of-trumps saidI appreciate the sentiment but, in reality, bipartisan taxpayer grifts are the worst.
Hey, I got it figured out, y'all, as to why I like this thread a lot...
No one can come in and accuse the F-35 of being racist, nor can they say what ethnicity or gender it is.
Yeah, baby! 😆 😆
07 May 21
@wildgrass saidI totally disagree with your summation that they are paying a fortune for incremental change. At the risk of being called a fanboy, the F-35 represents a quantum leap forward that will see its airframes in service till 2070.
I appreciate the sentiment but, in reality, bipartisan taxpayer grifts are the worst.
07 May 21
@kmax87 said50+ years?!
I totally disagree with your summation that they are paying a fortune for incremental change. At the risk of being called a fanboy, the F-35 represents a quantum leap forward that will see its airframes in service till 2070.
Hmm I guess the F15 has been around that long. Right? And the B52...
08 May 21
5 edits
@kmax87 saidI guess that's it. This debate boils down to measurements of a weapon's value in its overall utility and predicted shelf life.
I totally disagree with your summation that they are paying a fortune for incremental change. At the risk of being called a fanboy, the F-35 represents a quantum leap forward that will see its airframes in service till 2070.
Ultimately (and perhaps obviously) I firmly believe that we don't need the F-35 at all. The US Air Force agrees with me. The US has been at war constantly since 2001. What weapons did we use in these wars? The design for the F-35 is as elegant as a swiss army knife, but it was designed for wars that took place 30 years ago. We wouldn't have better outcomes in winning wars with F-35 vs. F-16. We haven't had a "dog fight" since the Korean War. Why are we spending so much (The most expensive weapon in world history) preparing for such a rare event when we are currently being attacked from foreign powers without them firing a shot? On paper, the US has the most powerful military and Air Force in the world and we've maintained it for 70 years. How many wars have we won with that strategy?
Something's wrong with the "strategic IQ" at the Pentagon. We're fighting (and losing) battles of information and disinformation right now, but we still build tanks. The most effective weapons of the future likely will not use bullets or bombs at all. The aforementioned artificial intelligence which allows sifting and winnowing of information to win wars. But all of that requires investment and prioritization. The Russian hack of the Pentagon is proof that we are not up to the task. And the F-35 is a symbol of the rot.
08 May 21
@wildgrass
Ultimately (and perhaps obviously) I firmly believe that we don't need the F-35 at all.
I have mulled this over but know that overall, I do not have the expertise to give a valued opinion.
I think it is possible we do not NEED this F-35. Oh sure, we WANT the F-35. And EoT wants a $500 million mansion, too.
09 May 21
@earl-of-trumps saidI read a book called The New Rules of War by a former paratrooper Sean McFate. It's an easy read without too much jargon. Using lots of historic examples, general patterns of civilization and human nature, he very convincing argues that the world will not return to 'conventional warfare'. If we spent the money on protecting our electrical grids, nuclear reactors and and backup energy supplies we would be much better prepared and strategically safer than with the F-35. We need new methods to advance national interests and improve security.
@wildgrass
Ultimately (and perhaps obviously) I firmly believe that we don't need the F-35 at all.
I have mulled this over but know that overall, I do not have the expertise to give a valued opinion.
I think it is possible we do not NEED this F-35. Oh sure, we WANT the F-35. And EoT wants a $500 million mansion, too.
09 May 21
@wildgrass said
I read a book called The New Rules of War by a former paratrooper Sean McFate. It's an easy read without too much jargon. Using lots of historic examples, general patterns of civilization and human nature, he very convincing argues that the world will not return to 'conventional warfare'. If we spent the money on protecting our electrical grids, nuclear reactors and and bac ...[text shortened]... ly safer than with the F-35. We need new methods to advance national interests and improve security.
Patton: Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man. If mountain ranges and oceans can be overcome, then anything built by man can be overcome.