Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No, I guess being retired military, 20+ years in aerospace and defense sectors, still having friends and family deep in the industry, I surely think it's raining when some one urinates on my back. I quit, it's obvious you guys know more than anyone else so you just keep giving Uncle your money trusting him and the Defense profiteers will spend it wisely. I guess when someone takes a ethics class it couldn't be window dressing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fish rot from the head down... lemme tell you something about ethics and major corporations that comes from a Boeing source who was on the telecon feed when Stonecipher gave an ethics seminar. Somebody spoke up and questioned him about why he was taking a hundred or so of his buddies on a Palm Springs golf trip on the company's dime, and the response was... "I took these people golfing every year when I was at Sundstrand, I did it every year at McDonnell Douglas, and I will every year I'm at Boeing. And I can fire everyone in this room and replace all of you within one hour." (emphasis added)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I guess being retired military, 20+ years in aerospace and defense sectors, still having friends and family deep in the industry, I surely think it's raining when some one urinates on my back. I quit, it's obvious you guys know more than anyone else so you just keep giving Uncle your money trusting him and the Defense profiteers will spend it wisely. I guess when someone takes a ethics class it couldn't be window dressing.

Doesn't feel very nice does it? Nobody here was personally insulting anybody else's motives or perspectives until you started doing so.

To be fair, the Pentagon routinely considers canceling EVERY major program, on a regular basis. Nothing is too sacred and nothing too critical that it doesn't have a mess of GO types ready to squash it and allocate the funds elsewhere. The F-35 is not the most critical weapons program, not even in the top 3, its just the most overhyped, most expensive, and largest target in the room.

I disagree. Without the F-35, Tac-air just declines into irrelevance, built on a fleet of rapidly aging aircraft mostly built in the 1980s. Its the capability that has been the most widely employed over the past twenty years; seeing service in all but one major conflict the US military has been involved in. And given the current austerity measures, I see the employment of tac air increasing in comparison to the deployment of troops on the ground, precisely like in the 1990s with Iraq, the Balkans and Kosovo. And its even more vital for countering our near-peer competitor China and its rapidly improving capabilities. Without local air superiority we're screwed in the Asia Pacific; our ability to operate in the theater will be gone, and we're basically limited to launching cruise missile strikes from subsurface platforms. Air superiority has been the linch pin of the american way of war since the 1945s; giving it up basically throws the entire playbook out the window.

Edited by -Neu-
Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. Without the F-35, Tac-air just declines into irrelevance, built on a fleet of rapidly aging aircraft mostly built in the 1980s. Its the capability that has been the most widely employed over the past twenty years; seeing service in all but one major conflict the US military has been involved in. And given the current austerity measures, I see the employment of tac air increasing in comparison to the deployment of troops on the ground, precisely like in the 1990s with Iraq, the Balkans and Kosovo. And its even more vital for countering our near-peer competitor China and its rapidly improving capabilities. Without local air superiority we're screwed in the Asia Pacific; our ability to operate in the theater will be gone, and we're basically limited to launching cruise missile strikes from subsurface platforms. Air superiority has been the linch pin of the american way of war since the 1945s; giving it up basically throws the entire playbook out the window.

I agree we need airpower, but we also can't afford the F-35 and Lockheed has deliberately set this program up in a way that makes it impossible to kill. So, looking at ways to cut $500 billion on top of the cuts we already knew were coming, and the loss of OCO funds means we'll be looking at an Army of 390K, USMC of 150K, 8-9 carrier groups, 4-5 fighter squadrons eliminated, C-130 fleet reduced, etc. And I'm just stating what has already been made public by our SecDef who has already stated "There will have to be adjustments to strategies". Many people think he and the Pentagon are crying wolf, sad thing is, he's not.

Edited by fulcrum1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Staying out of the broader fight going on, although as someone who a.) hasn't had a raise in 3 years; b.) is taking a 20% pay cut for the remainder of this one and c.)is supposed to execute my project on time/budget with 80% of the workforce the cost people I say I need because we haven't hired anyone in years besides a.) and b.) I'm about ready to eat a bullet because I am so corrupt/evil/detriment to human society according to the masses here.

But...

Fish rot from the head down... lemme tell you something about ethics and major corporations that comes from a Boeing source who was on the telecon feed when Stonecipher gave an ethics seminar. Somebody spoke up and questioned him about why he was taking a hundred or so of his buddies on a Palm Springs golf trip on the company's dime, and the response was... "I took these people golfing every year when I was at Sundstrand, I did it every year at McDonnell Douglas, and I will every year I'm at Boeing. And I can fire everyone in this room and replace all of you within one hour."

Unless he was billing a client for this either direct or ODC and it wasn't an allowable expense absolutely nothing illegal/unethical here. Quite possibly, the people he was taking are the CEO's of first tier suppliers or potential customers and in the non-gov't world a HUGE amount of serious business happens on the golf course as you're tied at the hip for 4 hours and at private courses discussions overheard on the course stay on the course. Bet you didn't think of that, did you?

You should have quit if you didn't like it or got the stockholders fired up about it.

Spongebob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, let's start by canceling the 89th Airlift Wing as the "private airline" to the monkeys in the Crapital and make 'em all fly regular USAF trash-haulers. Grounding Air Force One alone would be a HUGE savings...

They should, our Prime Minister flies a Challenger business jet. Or when the newly painted 15001 Airbus is not in use by the PM, the Queen or the Governor General it is used for standard military transport or cargo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree we need airpower, but we also can't afford the F-35 and Lockheed has deliberately set this program up in a way that makes it impossible to kill. So, looking at ways to cut $500 billion on top of the cuts we already knew were coming, and the loss of OCO funds means we'll be looking at an Army of 390K, USMC of 150K, 8-9 carrier groups, 4-5 fighter squadrons eliminated, C-130 fleet reduced, etc. And I'm just stating what has already been made public by our SecDef who has already stated "There will have to be adjustments to strategies". Many people think he and the Pentagon are crying wolf, sad thing is, he's not.

You are correct. People need to stop wasting time talking about the F-35 being killed. It will not be. Regardless of where you stand on this project, the military has let themselves (either willingly or unwillingly) get backed into a corner and now have absolutely no other viable option to the F-35. It has to continue. The only question will be how many more airframes are going to be eliminated.

With regard to the other cuts, I hate to say it but they are appropriate. The country has been at war for the better part of this century, our economy is still recovering from previous disasters and we now have a completely dysfunctional congress that will intentionally stalemate each other all in the name of political gain. We no longer have the money to pay for all this and we do not have the political consensus to make this a priority.

At the end of it (and we are nowhere close to being at the end of the cuts), we will still be the most heavily armed nation on the planet. China (or Russia or N. Korea or whoever the latest political bogeyman is) will not be sending their hordes down Main St USA anytime soon. We may have to accept that we can no longer fight multiple simultaneous conflicts. Life will still go on, despite the scare tactics by the military, their contractors and certain political factions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The F-35 is not the most critical weapons program, not even in the top 3, its just the most overhyped, most expensive, and largest target in the room.

That Sword cuts both ways, because the F-35 is big and public other programs that should be cut-- Missile defense is my favorite-- LCS probably as well (though I havn't researched it that much if the choice is 30 LCSs or 1 Carrier, I'll take the carrier) not to mention the Global Hawk and Abrams already mentioned go "under the radar" and its death by a thousand paper cuts.

Just out of curiosity Brian, what do you think the top 3 programs are? (not meant to be snarky)

I agree we need airpower, but we also can't afford the F-35

Can we afford the alternatives anymore though? We need thousands of new aircraft for 3 services. If we are going to spend the money I prefer those aircraft be of the more modern variety higher quality variety especially if we are going to have a smaller force.

So, looking at ways to cut $500 billion on top of the cuts we already knew were coming, and the loss of OCO funds means we'll be looking at an Army of 390K, USMC of 150K, 8-9 carrier groups, 4-5 fighter squadrons eliminated, C-130 fleet reduced, etc. And I'm just stating what has already been made public by our SecDef who has already stated "There will have to be adjustments to strategies". Many people think he and the Pentagon are crying wolf, sad thing is, he's not.

I don't think they are bluffing

Link to post
Share on other sites

So one petty crook translates into the whole acquisition process is corrupt? Your personal butt hurt explains your attitude.

FWIW, you aren't the only retired military, 20+ years in acquisition person in the world or on this board. So let's all put our "guns" away, since a mine is bigger than yours contest doesn't work on the Internet. Also FWIW, you did the right thing,and sounds like you got burnt for your troubles. Sorry that happened, but don't toss the rest of us in with your sleaze ball boss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

??

F-22 & F-35 are of no higher quality than current gen aircraft .. They may have some advantages in capability but they are not built any better ... If they are, they haven't proven it yet ...

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

F-22 & F-35 are of no higher quality than current gen aircraft .. They may have some advantages in capability but they are not built any better ... If they are, they haven't proven it yet ...

-Gregg

I'm talking about quality over quantity in combat capability, not construction quality. The F-22 and F-35 having "some advantages in capability" is an understatement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

F-22 & F-35 are of no higher quality than current gen aircraft .. They may have some advantages in capability but they are not built any better ... If they are, they haven't proven it yet ..

-Gregg

Seriously, based on what? Mere speculation? Duo you have any quantitative data, like production standards or MTBF comparisons to even remotely back that up?

And what's with "may"? The F-22 has a clear and quantifiable edge in a number of performance and capability "quality".

I'm ok with pulling it out of your rear end for the source of your assertion, but please give us the courtesy of a "I just made this fact up" or something.

Here's a fun real fact: The Typhoon is a superbly capable knife fighter, but has horrible quality in terms of manufacturing. Wing to fuselage joins off by an inch or so. Abysmal by modern manufacturing standards, let alone aerospace. Typhoons also suffer from poor reliability, which is part of the reason they are so expensive to operate.

Now that's real information, not just gut WAGing.

Edited by MarkW
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a fun real fact: The Typhoon is a superbly capable knife fighter, but has horrible quality in terms of manufacturing. Wing to fuselage joins off by an inch or so. Abysmal by modern manufacturing standards, let alone aerospace. Typhoons also suffer from poor reliability, which is part of the reason they are so expensive to operate.

Now that's real information, not just gut WAGing.

What is your source for these assertions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, based on what? Mere speculation? Duo you have any quantitative data, like production standards or MTBF comparisons to even remotely back that up?

And what's with "may"? The F-22 has a clear and quantifiable edge in a number of performance and capability "quality".

I'm ok with pulling it out of your rear end for the source of your assertion, but please give us the courtesy of a "I just made this fact up" or something.

Here's a fun real fact: The Typhoon is a superbly capable knife fighter, but has horrible quality in terms of manufacturing. Wing to fuselage joins off by an inch or so. Abysmal by modern manufacturing standards, let alone aerospace. Typhoons also suffer from poor reliability, which is part of the reason they are so expensive to operate.

Now that's real information, not just gut WAGing.

F-22 has had corrosion problems and F-35 has has aieframe cracks ...

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, based on what? Mere speculation? Duo you have any quantitative data, like production standards or MTBF comparisons to even remotely back that up?

And what's with "may"? The F-22 has a clear and quantifiable edge in a number of performance and capability "quality".

I'm ok with pulling it out of your rear end for the source of your assertion, but please give us the courtesy of a "I just made this fact up" or something.

I actually think its flat out incorrect.

I don't have some neat stats to back this up but quality of workmanship has almost certainly increased over the past thirty years, which is largely driven by improving technology. Previous 4th generation aircraft were built at the advent of true CAD processes, with significant proportion of parts hand assembled. Now aircraft are completely designed on computers, with increasing number of components being built by automated processes. Designs can be virtually tested to see problem areas before being built. A personal anecdote is between C-130 versions. I was looking over a H model undergoing long term maintenance recently and most of its rivets were done by hand drilling. Looking at the new J models, a good portion of them were done by automated drilling, that are more accurate, even and which ultimately provided a quality hole for the rivets to be placed into. It likely means that there will be less corrosion and long term maintenance issues, 20, 30 years down the line.

That's no to say that overall quality is light years better. The complexity of aircraft has increased dramatically, which means there is more opportunity for issues to emerge. There are often quality issues owing to the supplier relationship between contractors and sub-contractors. However we also now have data driven logistical systems that can identify parts which fail earlier than expected and then design possible solutions. I look at civil aircraft, and just how few design failures we have today compared to the days of the 1970s and 80s, when aircraft were falling out of the skies regularly.

Edit. There is a way to roughly see improvement in quality. USAF Engine Category A rates. Generally those will be less affected by human factors than total Category A rates (assuming that you have a generally constant rate of maintenence error.)

http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130522-027.pdf

What is your source for these assertions?

I don't know if Mark has some specific information but he might be talking about this:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/safety-problems-eurofighter-costs-soar-amid-mismanagment-a-910231.html

Edited by -Neu-
Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, when was the last time that worked (in the aerospace arena, ground combat is a bit different)?

Its a lot harder to pull off in the air then in the ground. Airplanes aren't rifles, and just issuing them to peasants after rudimentary training won't pay off.

However if we take the original assertion and run with it, we can save a bunch of money by purging ourselves of JSOC and its associated personnel and support units. Seeing as quantity is what its about, the massive money invested in these highly trained operators is especially wasteful.

If its all about quantity, Special Operations is about the stupidest thing you can spend money on.

if war comes we can just institute a draft and throw people into a 6 week boot camp and then straight to the front.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if war comes we can just institute a draft and throw people into a 6 week boot camp and then straight to the front.

6 weeks is too long. Grab little Timmy right out of 10th grade, give him a quick class on how to fire an automatic weapon and send him on his way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

F-22 has had corrosion problems and F-35 has has aieframe cracks ...

-Gregg

That was the best you had to assert that the manufacturing quality was so so? And also that performance wasn't anything too great either?

F-22 corrosion, fair enough. Galvanic corrosion when using exotic stealth materials like the Raptor does should have been watched for more closely. Still flies at 60,000 ft and Mach 2.5+. And lessons were learned from F-22 and B-2:

http://www.aviationweek.com/blogs.aspx?plckblogid=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckcontroller=blog&plckscript=blogscript&plckelementid=blogdest&plckblogpage=blogviewpost&plckpostid=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7post:5d5351e5-8a5f-4073-9428-c3129cabdf6a

So, F-35 shot:

The F-35 "airframe cracks", you mean the ones discovered during initial durability testing? The ones caught early enough in durability testing that not only was a fix developed for the existing test aircraft, but a redesign of the airframe was incorporated into the vast bulk of the future fleet that still exists only as hunks of aluminum blocks?

C'mon, man....

As for the Typhoon, I was completely unaware of the Spiegal article...but I do know there have been major manufacturing tolerance issues throughout the program. As for cost, why do you think all the original partners in the consortium are trying to pawn off the money pits to whatever immensely rich Gulf state will go for them? The maintenance cost per flying hour is no secret on the Typhoon. Googling it is left as an exercise for the reader.

Link to post
Share on other sites

F-35 will not be cancelled. It's too far down the pike to be so. Whether it's a dog or whether it's a stellar star or more likely in between these extremes the future combat aircraft demands by not just US services but foreign ones is too serious now. If it's a dog the powers to be will make it workable. If it's a shining star well nothing to worry about then. Costs are a concern and such costs may curtail total number produced over time. But trust you me the USAF, USN, USMC are going to get a fair number of F-35. If costs get too out of control numbers will be cut. Other platforms maybe will be added to take up strength. Maybe more F-18E/F for USN, maybe the USMC will have to adopt F-18/E/F maybe add EA-18G too. Who knows? USAF will muddle through keeping legacy platforms flying or if cost of F-35 get too high and numbers are cut the USAF will have to rethink and maybe invest in the latest variants of F-15E for strength numbers only. Hell maybe they will have to buy more late gen F-16, if F-35 continues to run amok in price and in delivery standards. WHO KNOWS? SURE ENOUGH NONE OF US AT THIS MODELLING FORUM NO MATTER HOW SMART WE EACH MAY FEEL WE ARE KNOW ANYTHING IN RELEVANCE ABOUT F-35 AND ITS FUTURE HERE!

The Brits are going to add F-35 regardless of it's overall abilities. They are building two carriers designed for F-35. Canada will likely still buy F-35, only F-18E/F stands a real chance to change that for the RCAF. Other allies either will feel the need for F-35 or really want it. They may and likely will adjust numbers bought to a lesser amount, but F-35 be it a dog or a star will serve in many western air arms for decades to come. This forum topic for us is all just a chatter box be it entertaining or not.

F-35 better be remotely as good as its salesmen and supporters state though because all too many air arms will depend on it being as capable as the white shoe, wide tie, tacky suit salesmen are selling it as. :hmmm:/>/>/> :D/>/>/>

Edited by Les / Creative Edge Photo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...