If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Let's be honest here - if you spend one trillion dollars on a new jet fighter fleet, you're going to find a way to use it. A lot   (bloomberg.com) divider line 232
    More: Obvious, Lockheed Martin, F-35, attack aircraft, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, operating costs, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman  
•       •       •

19242 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 May 2011 at 9:48 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-05-26 07:50:49 AM
Subby actually believes that?
 
2011-05-26 07:55:17 AM
"During a Senate hearing this month, Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) called the $1 trillion figure "jaw-dropping," particularly when compared with the costs of operating other aircraft."

I'm in full agreement.

What the hell are they going to do with them?
 
2011-05-26 08:01:59 AM

vygramul: Subby actually believes that?


A spokesman from Lockheed Martin commented on the price tag and how people react to hearing 'a trillion'.The number might be exaggerated because they don't know what fuel will cost in 40 years, but it's entirely possible it could end up being a conservative estimate.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2011-05-26 08:31:50 AM
the F-35 would likely cost about 33% more per flight hour to operate than two of the aircraft it will replace, the F-16 and F-18.

That's the problem. The F-35 is supposed to be the cheap half of the new jet force. Scrap the contract and tell them to come back with less of a hangar queen.
 
2011-05-26 09:18:10 AM

vygramul: Subby actually believes that?


This guy did:

www.c250.columbia.edu

"IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."


_______


Not sure about the trillion dollar figure, but I agree with the sentiment that those jets will be used a lot.

/Ike's quote was 50 years ago. prophetic, wasn't it?
 
2011-05-26 09:50:58 AM
Bears bolding:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
 
2011-05-26 09:52:32 AM
How about make a plane that doesn't require 100 service hours between flights or 1 million dollars to replace a piece of plastic.
 
2011-05-26 09:52:46 AM
Well the afterburner consumes baby seal blood at a prodigious rate... It takes alot of bribery to keep the eco-nuts away from "harvesting" areas.
 
2011-05-26 09:54:09 AM
So, let me get this right:

2,443 aircraft x 8,000 flight hours over 30 years = 19,544,000 flight hours. Let's round up to 20 million flight hours.

$1 Trillion over 30 years / 20 Million flight hours over 30 years =
$50,000 per flight hour in maintainence and operation.

Wow. Just - Wow.
 
2011-05-26 09:55:13 AM
So this is like a social program for Lockheed Martin?
 
2011-05-26 09:56:09 AM
BunkyBrewman

Not sure about the trillion dollar figure, but I agree with the sentiment that those jets will be used a lot.

www.factbook.org

They look nice.
 
2011-05-26 09:57:54 AM
Will this plane see as much action as the F-22 has?
 
2011-05-26 09:58:07 AM
I'm hearing a whole lot of anti-American rhetoric in here.

You've all been reported to the moderators, the FBI, and the local police.
 
2011-05-26 09:59:30 AM

BunkyBrewman: vygramul: Subby actually believes that?

This guy did:



"IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."


_______


Not sure about the trillion dollar figure, but I agree with the sentiment that those jets will be used a lot.

/Ike's quote was 50 years ago. prophetic, wasn't it?


Nice quote and all, but there's nothing in it that supports the assertion that arms, once bought, will necessarily be used.
 
2011-05-26 10:00:21 AM
How about instead of these, we build some pointy buildings to bury our pharaohs?
 
2011-05-26 10:02:09 AM
"A weapon unused is a useless weapon!"
 
2011-05-26 10:02:26 AM
fleet of more than 2,400 airplanes through 2065,

are they serious? the US won't even be around by that time
 
2011-05-26 10:03:20 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-05-26 10:03:35 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: How about instead of these, we build some pointy buildings to bury our pharaohs?


Workng on it.

oxblue.com
 
2011-05-26 10:03:48 AM
Always fighting the last war. Big steel is becoming less and less useful, small drones are the future.
 
2011-05-26 10:04:13 AM
We will pay for it using oil revenues, not taxes on the middle class.
 
2011-05-26 10:05:03 AM
Obama canceled his new Helicopter, maybe he'll cancel this too?
 
2011-05-26 10:06:35 AM
So what's the real world solution then? Keep flying a fleet of F-16s that barely maintains an acceptable mission capability rate(85%)?
 
2011-05-26 10:07:01 AM

Alphax: What the hell are they going to do with them?


Perhaps Secretary Gates' speech two days ago at the American Enterprise Institute (neocon central) could shed some light...

On his "must buy" list:

We must build a new tanker. The ones we have are twice as old as many of the pilots flying them;
We must field a next generation strike fighter - the F-35 - and at a cost that permits large enough numbers to replace the current fighter inventory and maintain a healthy margin of superiority over the Russians and Chinese;
We must build more ships - in recent years, the size of the Navy fleet has sunk to the lowest number since before World War II, and will get smaller as more Reagan-era vessels reach the end of their service life;
We must recapitalize the ground forces - the Army and Marines - whose combat vehicles and helicopters are worn down after a decade of war; and
At some point we must replace our ballistic missile submarines - a program that illustrates the modernization dilemmas we face.


Which I don't disagree with, but the way we're going about this is awful.

The worst part is that since the F-35 was always supposed to be an export product, if the U.S. decides it can't buy enough to keep up production, it will try to force sales of these things to all of its preferred customers. That saps money from needed domestic spending, leads to arms buildups, and keeps Lockheed rolling in the cash.
 
2011-05-26 10:07:21 AM
This just in: Maintaining high-technology is expensive. Those engines are expensive to maintain, the carbon-fiber structure is expensive to maintain, jet-A is ungodly expensive, and trained personnel want their fair wage.


/$1 trillion is still a lot of money
 
2011-05-26 10:08:10 AM
The f35 is an awesome aircraft. Brings down those MEC fools quite easily.
 
2011-05-26 10:09:27 AM
8,000 hours of flying time for each of the 2,443 airplanes over a 30-year period.

In other words, these things will spend less than 11 months in the air over their lifespan.
 
2011-05-26 10:10:21 AM
Wow. Someone thinks a manned aircraft would last a fraction of a second in a combat scenario in 2065?
 
2011-05-26 10:11:33 AM

Alphax: "During a Senate hearing this month, Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) called the $1 trillion figure "jaw-dropping," particularly when compared with the costs of operating other aircraft."

I'm in full agreement.

What the hell are they going to do with them?


Blow stuff up so we can contract to rebuild with foreign aid money.
 
2011-05-26 10:11:59 AM
2065?? LOL unless we somehow stangante in military advancements it will be obsolete by 2065! only 3rd world countries of that time will be operating F35s...
actually on 2nd thoughts hmm maybe the US WILL be operating F35s then!
 
2011-05-26 10:12:36 AM
Somebody mentioned in the Oxcart declassification thread something to the effect of there's currently no really cool or awe-inspiring aircraft technology... I think this is pretty damn cool.
www.flightglobal.com
 
2011-05-26 10:13:21 AM

blackhalo: 2,443 aircraft x 8,000 flight hours over 30 years = 19,544,000 flight hours. Let's round up to 20 million flight hours.


Do we even need 2400+ F-35s? We already have 160+ operational F-22s, and their combat capability alone is far above the air forces of almost every other country.

And according to Wikipedia^, the Chinese Air Force has 2500 aircraft total, including bombers. Most of their fighters are still MiG-21 derivatives. Why do we need as many fighters that are light-years ahead of their technology?

And for that matter, why do we always have to have new models? The F-16 has a near-perfect combat record -- it's been in service for over 30 years for several countries and you can count the numbers lost in combat using just your fingers. They cost about $20 million apiece, and they're more or less a known factor in terms of operations and maintenance. What exactly is wrong with churning out newer F-16's?

/I know, it's because of defense contractors and their friends in congress. I'm just saying, though...
 
2011-05-26 10:15:12 AM

jprue24: So what's the real world solution then? Keep flying a fleet of F-16s that barely maintains an acceptable mission capability rate(85%)?


Why don't we just build more F-16s?

Caveat: I have no clue what you're talking about.
 
2011-05-26 10:15:49 AM

ZAZ: the F-35 would likely cost about 33% more per flight hour to operate than two of the aircraft it will replace, the F-16 and F-18.

That's the problem. The F-35 is supposed to be the cheap half of the new jet force. Scrap the contract and tell them to come back with less of a hangar queen.


Oh yeah great idea... Lets just flush all the money we have invested into a program that is near completion and start from scratch. The only thing stupider than over-budget and late defense contracts is canceling them when they are well underway and are achieving their goal milestones, but just not as fast as you would like...
 
2011-05-26 10:21:12 AM

Maul555: ZAZ: the F-35 would likely cost about 33% more per flight hour to operate than two of the aircraft it will replace, the F-16 and F-18.

That's the problem. The F-35 is supposed to be the cheap half of the new jet force. Scrap the contract and tell them to come back with less of a hangar queen.

Oh yeah great idea... Lets just flush all the money we have invested into a program that is near completion and start from scratch. The only thing stupider than over-budget and late defense contracts is canceling them when they are well underway and are achieving their goal milestones, but just not as fast as you would like...


Ever hear the expression "Don't throw good money after bad?" There is a time to cut your losses, and considering the last plane isn't even supposed to be delivered for another 30 years that time might just be now.
 
2011-05-26 10:23:24 AM
"We believe we can beat that by a fairly substantial amount," Tom Burbage, executive vice president of Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed said in an interview. He declined to specify a figure.

I love this quote, because there's so many possible layers. Hell, you could beat it by $10 billion and still have only reduced the overall cost by 1%.
 
2011-05-26 10:25:05 AM

Maul555: ZAZ: the F-35 would likely cost about 33% more per flight hour to operate than two of the aircraft it will replace, the F-16 and F-18.

That's the problem. The F-35 is supposed to be the cheap half of the new jet force. Scrap the contract and tell them to come back with less of a hangar queen.

Oh yeah great idea... Lets just flush all the money we have invested into a program that is near completion and start from scratch. The only thing stupider than over-budget and late defense contracts is canceling them when they are well underway and are achieving their goal milestones, but just not as fast as you would like...


If the goal milestone is to cost ~$51,000/hour to operate*, then I guess they're hitting their goal milestone.

*$1,000,000,000,000/(2443 planes x 8,000 operational hours / plane) = $51,166/operational hour
 
2011-05-26 10:25:28 AM

Arkanaut: blackhalo: 2,443 aircraft x 8,000 flight hours over 30 years = 19,544,000 flight hours. Let's round up to 20 million flight hours.

Do we even need 2400+ F-35s? We already have 160+ operational F-22s, and their combat capability alone is far above the air forces of almost every other country.

And according to Wikipedia^, the Chinese Air Force has 2500 aircraft total, including bombers. Most of their fighters are still MiG-21 derivatives. Why do we need as many fighters that are light-years ahead of their technology?

And for that matter, why do we always have to have new models? The F-16 has a near-perfect combat record -- it's been in service for over 30 years for several countries and you can count the numbers lost in combat using just your fingers. They cost about $20 million apiece, and they're more or less a known factor in terms of operations and maintenance. What exactly is wrong with churning out newer F-16's?

/I know, it's because of defense contractors and their friends in congress. I'm just saying, though...


No, its because without constant innovation and progression, we wont have that superiority that gives the f-16 that perfect combat record. Sit on your ass and you will eventually have it handed to you. Staying ahead of the game keeps us from having to play it on someone elses terms, and that my friend, is priceless.
 
2011-05-26 10:27:23 AM
When the hell are we going to roll out the saucer fighters that we backward engineered back in the 60's?
 
2011-05-26 10:29:00 AM
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 
2011-05-26 10:29:24 AM

karnal: When the hell are we going to roll out the saucer fighters that we backward engineered back in the 60's?


You know how much those suckers cost?!?
 
2011-05-26 10:32:05 AM

ttintagel: To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


To a man with an penchant for simile, everything looks like something.
 
2011-05-26 10:32:40 AM

ttintagel: To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


That's nice, but this man(USA) has an entire warehouse filled with every tool made... This guy with the hammer you are talking about sounds really farking poor. He needs to expand his options like we have.
 
2011-05-26 10:33:09 AM
Don't we still have a policy of having a certain percent of our aircrafts airbourne at all times so that if we're bombed we can still have a strike force without airfields? That would require a certain amount of flight hours even without an active military action.
 
2011-05-26 10:34:09 AM

Maul555: No, its because without constant innovation and progression, we wont have that superiority that gives the f-16 that perfect combat record. Sit on your ass and you will eventually have it handed to you. Staying ahead of the game keeps us from having to play it on someone elses terms, and that my friend, is priceless.


Yes, you have to maintain superiority over Al Queda's air force.
 
2011-05-26 10:34:17 AM

Maul555: No, its because without constant innovation and progression, we wont have that superiority that gives the f-16 that perfect combat record. Sit on your ass and you will eventually have it handed to you. Staying ahead of the game keeps us from having to play it on someone elses terms, and that my friend, is priceless.


That sounds good for defense, but fails to account for the larger societal cost of devoting huge amounts of human capital and raw material towards defense research of dubious utility. What if we could spend a trillion dollars on plentiful GM foods or cheap and efficient energy sources? What if we worked towards alleviating the causes of war just as much as we worked towards perfecting the art of war?
 
2011-05-26 10:35:11 AM

vygramul: Subby actually believes that?


He believes it about as much as people believe them when they sway they can bring the costs way down.
 
2011-05-26 10:36:27 AM

Bad_Seed: Maul555: No, its because without constant innovation and progression, we wont have that superiority that gives the f-16 that perfect combat record. Sit on your ass and you will eventually have it handed to you. Staying ahead of the game keeps us from having to play it on someone elses terms, and that my friend, is priceless.

Yes, you have to maintain superiority over Al Queda's air force.


You don't build for the present war. You build for future wars. Al-Qaeda isn't the only enemy we will ever face for the rest of time.
 
2011-05-26 10:36:44 AM

Maul555: ttintagel: To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

That's nice, but this man(USA) has an entire warehouse filled with every tool made... This guy with the hammer you are talking about sounds really farking poor. He needs to expand his options like we have.


Do you believe that an operating cost of ~$51,000 per hour is acceptable, given that the operating cost of the F-16 is somewhere between $10,000 and $15,000 per hour?
 
2011-05-26 10:37:05 AM

BunkyBrewman: /Ike's quote was 50 years ago. prophetic, wasn't it?


i235.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report