F-35...getting more bad press lately.

SG_Player1974

SG_Player1974

New Member
Seriously though.... A lot of people like to pick on the F-35, P-8, etc. for the money being spent but... you never hear anyone complaining about NMCI which I believe is still the largest and most expensive contract there is. We all know what a POS that is. :coffee:
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
SG_Player1974 said:
Seriously though.... A lot of people like to pick on the F-35, P-8, etc. for the money being spent but... you never hear anyone complaining about NMCI which I believe is still the largest and most expensive contract there is. We all know what a POS that is. :coffee:
Click to expand...

I didn't hear anyone complaining about NMCI I didn't even know what it was , so I looked it up.
Unlike Clean and Midnight, when i want to know something I don't ask others to look for it for me.

I found this http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=NMCI

Seems though they are not too well liked. LMAO
 
D

DynaDink

New Member
glhs837 said:
So, Dyna, your exposure is what? P-8s done what, two operational deployments so far, with the third underway? You do understand how incremental acquisition works, right? And you do know the P-3 wasn't Gods gift to ASW right out the box, right? 50 years ago, it was a new bird trying match the capabilities its predecessor had. The P-2 guys thought it was an overpriced converted airliner......... :) Face it takes time to field systems these days. Takes time for new platforms to mature. At one time, the Tomcat guys and Prowler guys thought the F-18 was the biggest POS ever purchased. It's the nature of things.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you are CS or Boeing trying to validate a turd.
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Pete said:
Is the overall price tag of F-35 equal to the cost of the USAF, USN and USMC all developing their own aircraft?
Click to expand...

Are the capabilities that all of the services getting worth the massive cost?..or would smaller service-specific programs have been the better way to go? For example..what will the Navy be getting for its carrier aircraft from the F-35 that exceeds the F-18s capabilities enough to justify their part of a 1.5 trillion dollar acquisition program?
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Hijinx said:
I didn't hear anyone complaining about NMCI I didn't even know what it was , so I looked it up.
Unlike Clean and Midnight, when i want to know something I don't ask others to look for it for me.

I found this http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=NMCI

Seems though they are not too well liked. LMAO
Click to expand...

I wouldn't need to look up NMCI, but nobody asks you to 'look it up' for them anyway. We ask you to support your wild assed assertions.
 
D

DynaDink

New Member
NTNG said:
C-130: In service since 1956, still being tested. C-2: In service since 1965. Still being tested. E-2: In service since 1964. Still being tested. So, aircraft being tested 20 years after in service to the fleet is not unusual. Yes, it is built on a 737 airframe. The P-3 was developed from the L-188 Electra Airliner.
The P-8 entered service in 2013, and yes, will continue to be tested. There are known deficiencies in it's mission completion ability however tactics can be revised based on the aircrafts abilities and lessons learned...
Click to expand...

You miss the point. How can tactics be revised to put weapons on a target when the platform is not fully weapons capable? Oh, I know, load up the UAV with weapons and direct it from the platform.
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Gilligan said:
Are the capabilities that all of the services getting worth the massive cost?..or would smaller service-specific programs have been the better way to go? For example..what will the Navy be getting for its carrier aircraft from the F-35 that exceeds the F-18s capabilities enough to justify their part of a 1.5 trillion dollar acquisition program?
Click to expand...

I would like to see the Air Force send the Warthog over to the Marines if they don't want it.
Like to see the Government build some new ones.
 
glhs837

glhs837

Power with Control
DynaDink said:
Sounds to me like you are CS or Boeing trying to validate a turd.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you are accepting secondhand information as fact. And viewing the P-3 through rose colored glasses. I spent 20 years wrenching on that bird myself and over 4,000 hours flying on it. I've also spent, however, the last 18 years working on a wide variety of platforms and systems, which I think has given me a bit of insight into how things work, how new platforms and systems get fielded. I would never claim the P-8 doesn't have issues. Not a plane flying that doesn't have issues. But if you spent your whole career on one platform, I submit your viewpoint might be a bit biased.
 
Pete

Pete

Repete
Gilligan said:
Are the capabilities that all of the services getting worth the massive cost?..or would smaller service-specific programs have been the better way to go? For example..what will the Navy be getting for its carrier aircraft from the F-35 that exceeds the F-18s capabilities enough to justify their part of a 1.5 trillion dollar acquisition program?
Click to expand...

Could they get a better aircraft for $500B? Hard to say. Proponents lie, opponents lie. The proof will be in the performance. Just like the F/A-18 that sucked huge, had to be tanked within seconds of being launched, that could not carry half the ordnance the F-14 could, that could bomb fair, or dog fight fair but could do neither well. The concept of a variants sharing the bulk of their parts and logistics tail is a good one. We will have to see.

If you go back in time and look at the "new aircraft" each service have spent on that never worked well or were obsolete before they were fielded it is hard to say F-35 is unique. A-4, A-5, F-8 the entire Century series and the list goes on of aircraft that we purchased for a few years of use only to end up adapting them to something else until we could park them. Form 1948 to 1965 there were 68 aircraft designed and built as fighters and 52 bombers. Of course one could argue that was a time when innovation was going at warp speed but the same is true today which is why we do incremental or spiral acquisition.

That said if the DoD Acquisition process wasn't so completely stupid we could very well get all the F-35's faster, better and more capable for half the cost. It is not the vendors fault most of the time but they don't do anything with the taxpayers in mind either.
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Pete said:
Could they get a better aircraft for $500B? Hard to say. Proponents lie, opponents lie. The proof will be in the performance. Just like the F/A-18 that sucked huge, had to be tanked within seconds of being launched, that could not carry half the ordnance the F-14 could, that could bomb fair, or dog fight fair but could do neither well. The concept of a variants sharing the bulk of their parts and logistics tail is a good one. We will have to see.

If you go back in time and look at the "new aircraft" each service have spent on that never worked well or were obsolete before they were fielded it is hard to say F-35 is unique. A-4, A-5, F-8 the entire Century series and the list goes on of aircraft that we purchased for a few years of use only to end up adapting them to something else until we could park them. Form 1948 to 1965 there were 68 aircraft designed and built as fighters and 52 bombers. Of course one could argue that was a time when innovation was going at warp speed but the same is true today which is why we do incremental or spiral acquisition.

That said if the DoD Acquisition process wasn't so completely stupid we could very well get all the F-35's faster, better and more capable for half the cost. It is not the vendors fault most of the time but they don't do anything with the taxpayers in mind either.
Click to expand...

All well stated. I've spent my career mostly focused on naval combatants but started out in aircraft ordnance. But I've always been fascinated by the history of all things military and read everything I can get my hands on that relates to land, sea and air. Everything I'm seeing come out lately about the F-35 performance v. cost just gives me great pause...
 
G

GW8345

Not White House Approved
Pete said:
Could they get a better aircraft for $500B? Hard to say. Proponents lie, opponents lie. The proof will be in the performance. Just like the F/A-18 that sucked huge, had to be tanked within seconds of being launched, that could not carry half the ordnance the F-14 could, that could bomb fair, or dog fight fair but could do neither well. The concept of a variants sharing the bulk of their parts and logistics tail is a good one. We will have to see.

If you go back in time and look at the "new aircraft" each service have spent on that never worked well or were obsolete before they were fielded it is hard to say F-35 is unique. A-4, A-5, F-8 the entire Century series and the list goes on of aircraft that we purchased for a few years of use only to end up adapting them to something else until we could park them. Form 1948 to 1965 there were 68 aircraft designed and built as fighters and 52 bombers. Of course one could argue that was a time when innovation was going at warp speed but the same is true today which is why we do incremental or spiral acquisition.

That said if the DoD Acquisition process wasn't so completely stupid we could very well get all the F-35's faster, better and more capable for half the cost. It is not the vendors fault most of the time but they don't do anything with the taxpayers in mind either.
Click to expand...

Not to split hairs but, the A-4 was in service with the USN/USMC for over 35 years and still is in service with FMS, the A-5 was in service (as the A/RA-5) for 20 years, the F-8 was in service for 30 years and everyone of the Century Series aircraft were in service for over 20 years.

I'd like to see that list of "68" aircraft that were designed and build between 1948 and 1965, are the all American, same for the "52" bombers.

Now, if you want to talk about aircraft that ended up lasting a few years, look at the AM-1 Mauler, F6U Pirate, and F7U Cutlass. Hell, even the F3D Skynight, first generation Naval fighter was in service for over 15 years, it was still flying in Vietnam and it was a straight wing jet.

I agree with your statement about DoD acquisition process, it's a nightmare and will only get worse, it is the true reason why costs are skyrocketing and programs are being delayed.

As for NMCI - Non Mission Capable Internet.
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
GW8345 said:
I agree with your statement about DoD acquisition process, it's a nightmare and will only get worse, it is the true reason why costs are skyrocketing and programs are being delayed.
Click to expand...

About 4 or 5 years ago, my company had to politely inform some of our previous team members (Booz-Allen, for example), who we subbed to for years before, that we had to decline to be on any new contracts and would no longer submit resumes and matrices. I honestly do not understand how any company that accepts cost-plus-fee contracts from DoD stays in business.
 
S

somdwatch

Well-Known Member
glhs837 said:
Sounds to me like you are accepting secondhand information as fact. And viewing the P-3 through rose colored glasses. I spent 20 years wrenching on that bird myself and over 4,000 hours flying on it. I've also spent, however, the last 18 years working on a wide variety of platforms and systems, which I think has given me a bit of insight into how things work, how new platforms and systems get fielded. I would never claim the P-8 doesn't have issues. Not a plane flying that doesn't have issues. But if you spent your whole career on one platform, I submit your viewpoint might be a bit biased.
Click to expand...

Tube Slug! Sorry couldn't help myself. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top