Cigar
01-02-2014, 08:46 AM
http://www.flyingpigcafela.com/images/flying-pig-logo.png
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to be the future of manned fighter aircraft for the US military, which—drones notwithstanding—still relies on a complement of decades-old designs. As the plane nears its projected delivery date of 2016, it's become the most costly weapons project in US history, and it still can't pass its performance tests.
Part of this is due to the fact that the F-35 is designed to allow for three variants, one each for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines, which means compromises are inherent to its design. The Pentagon initially argued that such a Swiss Army knife solution would cut costs, but according to a new report from the Rand Corp., such an approach is proving to be far more costly—and less effective—than if the military simply designed and built three different planes.
The procurement process for the Lockheed Martin F-35 has already become a well-known disaster. As Bloomberg notes, "the Pentagon projects a price tag of $391.2 billion to build a fleet of 2,443 F-35s, a 68 percent increase from the projection in 2001, measured in current dollars. The number of aircraft the Pentagon plans to buy is 409 fewer than called for originally."
Even then, the question has been whether or not the three-planes-in-one strategy will save on the total life-cycle cost—including R&D, manufacture, and operating and support costs—versus building three separate designs that better fit each branch's needs. The report estimates that while costs will initially be less, nine years after milestone B, higher operating and support costs will contribute to the F-35 program costing some $250 billion more than an alternative. Oh, and the plane's design is still a compromise.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-all-in-one-f-35-fighter-jet-costs-more-than-three-separate-planes
The Website was fixed in 3 months :laugh:
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to be the future of manned fighter aircraft for the US military, which—drones notwithstanding—still relies on a complement of decades-old designs. As the plane nears its projected delivery date of 2016, it's become the most costly weapons project in US history, and it still can't pass its performance tests.
Part of this is due to the fact that the F-35 is designed to allow for three variants, one each for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines, which means compromises are inherent to its design. The Pentagon initially argued that such a Swiss Army knife solution would cut costs, but according to a new report from the Rand Corp., such an approach is proving to be far more costly—and less effective—than if the military simply designed and built three different planes.
The procurement process for the Lockheed Martin F-35 has already become a well-known disaster. As Bloomberg notes, "the Pentagon projects a price tag of $391.2 billion to build a fleet of 2,443 F-35s, a 68 percent increase from the projection in 2001, measured in current dollars. The number of aircraft the Pentagon plans to buy is 409 fewer than called for originally."
Even then, the question has been whether or not the three-planes-in-one strategy will save on the total life-cycle cost—including R&D, manufacture, and operating and support costs—versus building three separate designs that better fit each branch's needs. The report estimates that while costs will initially be less, nine years after milestone B, higher operating and support costs will contribute to the F-35 program costing some $250 billion more than an alternative. Oh, and the plane's design is still a compromise.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-all-in-one-f-35-fighter-jet-costs-more-than-three-separate-planes
The Website was fixed in 3 months :laugh: