Originally posted by Toby
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
What is up with the F-35? Part II
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Toby View PostIn most other if not all industries.The customer doesn't pay for the mistakes or even incompetence of the contractor/supplier. Cost overruns on an unimaginable scale seems to be the norm for some reason in the defence industry. I get that the F35 program is ground breaking technology. But its not healthy to hide behind that and constantly expect the Government or governments to keep picking up the tab. Politicians and the procurement programs they are charged with have proven to be inept at best for some time! So yeh maybe it does need a business man to upset the cozy little deals Defence companies have taken for granted. After some of the problems the F35 has had, its hardly surprising Canada questioned the purchase of it.
This allows favorable queue and partaking in the actual building of the platform so it contributes to a nation's economy (even a little).
I also know a platform faces many difficult technological hurdles before the end product reaches the user. The F-16 wasn't nicknamed the "Lawn Dart" without reasons. It just goes to reason that a platform of this scale will have many teething problems. And anybody even remotely involved with procurement of platforms should know this.
Trudeau's government decided to pull out for political reasons and the "technical" issues were just an excuse for them to achieve their goal.
Now the end product is basically here so I see no reason for them to receive any sort of favorable queues or considerable contracts (are some parts still going to be built in Canada? I don't know).
At least not to the length they were before.
Ergo, my statement.Last edited by YellowFever; 18 Dec 16,, 20:06.
Comment
-
Originally posted by YellowFever View PostCorrect me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge a procurement of a platform has never been done this way before where a nation can get involved early before an actual platform is built much less operational.
This allows favorable queue and partaking in the actual building of the platform so it contributes to a nation's economy (even a little).
I also know a platform faces many difficult technological hurdles before the end product reaches the user. The F-16 wasn't nicknamed the "Lawn Dart" without reasons. It just goes to reason that a platform of this scale will have many teething problems. And anybody even remotely involved with procurement of platforms should know this.
Trudeau's government decided to pull out for political reasons and the "technical" issues were just an excuse for them to achieve their goal.
Now the end product is basically here so I see no reason for them to receive any sort of favorable queues or considerable contracts (are some parts still going to be built in Canada? I don't know).
At least not to the length they were before.
Ergo, my statement
Comment
-
Originally posted by jlvfr View PostAdd to that the fact that there was never any real discussion or competition for the choice of new fighter...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Toby View PostWell its in your interests to. They guard your (if you are from the US) Northern flank and that is something you don't gamble with.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toby View PostIn most other if not all industries.The customer doesn't pay for the mistakes or even incompetence of the contractor/supplier. Cost overruns on an unimaginable scale seems to be the norm for some reason in the defence industry. I get that the F35 program is ground breaking technology. But its not healthy to hide behind that and constantly expect the Government or governments to keep picking up the tab. Politicians and the procurement programs they are charged with have proven to be inept at best for some time! So yeh maybe it does need a business man to upset the cozy little deals Defence companies have taken for granted. After some of the problems the F35 has had, its hardly surprising Canada questioned the purchase of it.
In this case it was a healthy dollop of both.
The Canadian government's folly isn't questioning the costs. It's charging headlong into the program when problems were rife then charging headlong out of it just as problems are pretty much fixed.
Comment
-
A sizable chunk of the delay/cost over run problems can also be placed at the feet of the government that kept changing the requirements.
I don't know if the problems that plagued this airplane goes anymore beyond what other programs had to go through but surely the advent of Internet and everybody and their sister constantly critizing every little setback and blasting it all over the net had also contributed a great deal to the general negative feelings towards the program.Last edited by YellowFever; 19 Dec 16,, 07:19.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by anotar View PostI mean, this is the President Elect of the USA, I'm pretty certain he has someone hired on staff to keep an eye on these PR activities and yet everyone (press included) acts like he's an 11 year old who has just been given his first smartphone for Christmas.
Originally posted by anotar View PostAnyway, back to the F35... Maxwell has C130's there and no fighter squadrons, Boise has F15's, Selfridge has A10's and Truax has F16's fr what that information is worth. Unfortunately the F35 reminds me of that hot girl in High School who could kick your ass in racquetball and discuss philosophy any day of the week then goes off to a college with a 24 hour buffet and free cable and when you next see her 4 years later you feel guilty about not wanting to associate with her any more as her bloated butt just wants to talk about soap operas yet you were quite fond of her at one time.
Oh yeah, you also find out she's maxed out all of her credit cards.“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
Heh...I know exactly what you mean. I don't think the F-35 will be that girl though.
Comment
-
Originally posted by anotar View PostMan I so hope you are right! I much preferred the old way where there'd first have to be a decent airplane and only then would they start loading it with improvements until it became unwieldy.
I will also say this about the aircraft...it is very easy to maintain.It has been designed from the start to be easy to maintain. That is key because it keeps them in the fight. Sustainability has been pounded into the heads of those of us in the acquisition community. If it is not sustainable it doesn't go to the force. And what also helps is they, smartly, got acquisition logisticians on the project early to point out possible sustainability issues in the design so it could be modified early enough to help keep costs in line.
The old adage you get what you pay for has never been truer than in this case.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
-
Originally posted by anotar View PostMan I so hope you are right! I much preferred the old way where there'd first have to be a decent airplane and only then would they start loading it with improvements until it became unwieldy.
The F-35 is designed for 8000 hours rather than the typical 6000 to avoid the need for extensive (and expensive) Service Life Extension Programs. It's designed with excess power generation in anticipation of DEWs, better radars, and newer computers that will exist 30 years from now. It is built to be easy to upgrade as it matures.
Of course none of those features are particularly useful today, and they all add to the procurement costs up front. Yet they will save a TON of money later down the line, and allow for better upgrades than other fighters because it has ample headroom to grow.Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 19 Dec 16,, 17:52.
Comment
Comment