Lockheed Martin is a fail company

[Bignate603]

Imagine you're building a house, and after the sticks are up, you decide you want a new bathroom extended off the side. You tell them to build it, and once you get the revised bill, you just scoff and say, "I am not paying that!" Yeah... that's the equivalent of government contracts :\.

That is surprisingly accurate.

 

[Aikouka]

That is surprisingly accurate.

There's one flaw in my own analogy though... the person balking at the bill is pretty much not the same person who demanded the changes. It's usually some government defense organization that wants the change and typically congress that doesn't want to pay. They usually don't want to pay after the public finds out about the large overruns, because it looks bad... well, to everyone except the representatives of the areas that will be hit hard by program cancellation.

It almost sounds like I've been through this before :hmm:.

 

[Bignate603]

There's one flaw in my own analogy though... the person balking at the bill is pretty much not the same person who demanded the changes. It's usually some government defense organization that wants the change and typically congress that doesn't want to pay. They usually don't want to pay after the public finds out about the large overruns, because it looks bad... well, to everyone except the representatives of the areas that will be hit hard by program cancellation.

It almost sounds like I've been through this before :hmm:.

I think a more accurate analogy is if a relative of yours tells your builder to add a big addition to your house after its halfway built, then when you get the bill you balk and walk away from a house after you've paid 90% of the money to get it finished?

My company has two great engines without aircraft for them to go into because the government scope creep expanded the aircraft program so much that they were no longer inside budget.

 

[OlafSicky]

Canadian F-18 will be 30+ years old when it's time to replace them. The f35 is the cheapest and the only option for the Canadians. It's not worth to upgrade the F-18 because they are just too old and the price to fix them will be too high, their airframes are on their last legs so even if you change every last bit on them they won't be as safe and reliable. Eurofighter is just junk and has been developed for decades and is still not done. So what are the other options for Canadians? Buy some European plane and by the time it's “fixed” it will be outdated.
The fact that this whole plane thing is an issue in Canada is a joke the politicians are playing politics and counting on Canadian's ignorance and lack of knowledge of the subject. Op seems to be a prime example of that.

 

[DaTT]

....all this money spent on toys I will never get to play with

 

[Born2bwire]

Yes, it's such a fail company that your government is considering making a multi-billion dollar purchase from them.

 

[Dominato3r]

Anyways, I think with this purchase AIRCOM is set for a while - MARCOM needs some help and looks like they're getting it:

The Canadian Navy has started a 30 year initiative to strengthen the fleet. I don't remember the exact number but it's somewhere near 100 small-medium vessels and 30 large vessels. However after all the political BS is done with it'll probably drop to 10 large and 50 small/medium ships.



Some of the vessels being developed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_John_G._Diefenbaker (Whole idea is pretty much make it bigger than any cutter Russia has)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Support_Ship_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Patrol_Ship_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-148_Cyclone (heli to replace the stone-age SeaKings)


Also looking into some amphibious ships:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Canadian_amphibious_assault_ship

 

[Aikouka]

I think a more accurate analogy is if a relative of yours tells your builder to add a big addition to your house after its halfway built, then when you get the bill you balk and walk away from a house after you've paid 90% of the money to get it finished?

My company has two great engines without aircraft for them to go into because the government scope creep expanded the aircraft program so much that they were no longer inside budget.

I think we need to submit a request for additional funding to accurately depict government funding through analogous means :sneaky:.

The problem I see with your analogy is the reason why I tried to avoid using one person in the first place. The "you" in your example (and part of mine) is Congress. They're essentially the people the allow the check to be written (partly, DoD has to allot the overall budget allowance to the programs). So, it's kind of like if you went to your father, told him of your desire to build a house to such-and-such specifications. He gives you the funds to go off and build the house. Problem is, after awhile, you come back to him and say, "Papa... I need more money. I just had to have the new bathroom!"

Here is where you insert the 4-chan meme picture of the angry father.

 

[tcsenter]

To make things even more interesting, as I opined should be done a few years ago INSTEAD of the F-22, Boeing is producing a new/improved version of the F-15E for export:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-15SE_Silent_Eagle

You can bet this will only be offered as a dummed-down export version, so that it is intentionally inferior to the F-22 and thus make it seem like the F-22 is "necessary" due to an intentional performance/capability gap.

 

[So]

$150 million for an F35? $250 million for an F22? Really? These fighters are not even remotely cost effective. They might have once bean a great company, but somewhere they lost their way. As a Canadian Citizen I'm disgusted that our government is even considering buying these overpriced POS. We'd be better off buying Russian fighters or Eurofighter Typhoons.

The big problem is that the governments buying these airplanes (especially the US) don't understand economies of scale. Theses fighters cost billions to develop and then they build two dozen of them total. If they bought 200 of them, the marginal cost would be much less.

 

[qliveur]

To make things even more interesting, as I opined should be done a few years ago INSTEAD of the F-22, Boeing is producing a new/improved version of the F-15E for export:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F-15SE_Silent_Eagle

You can bet this will only be offered as a dummed-down export version, so that it is intentionally inferior to the F-22 and thus make it seem like the F-22 is "necessary" due to an intentional performance/capability gap.

But the F-22 is not available for export at all...

 

[Blitzvogel]

The big problem is that the governments buying these airplanes (especially the US) don't understand economies of scale. Theses fighters cost billions to develop and then they build two dozen of them total. If they bought 200 of them, the marginal cost would be much less.

That's why the F-22 production line should stay open. 187 Raptors is one hell of a force of jets for anyone to tangle with, but we should have at least 400 if you want to ask me. It's too good an aircraft for air dominance and Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD). Though many in the media consider it a relic of Cold War thought, it's still very in line with the need for an aircraft that can dominate air space, act a very deep FAC and semi-AWACs. When Russia's PAK-FA goes into production, I think Congress will reconsider where the F-35 sits in the fighter plane capability hierarchy. Yes, it's a technological electronic marvel (the F-35), but it has yet to prove itself, is going to hell in a hand basket in cost overruns, still might not be good enough of an actual airplane to meet the needs of everyone involved.

Things were better when each service was getting their own aircraft, because there was so much less bureaucracy. While the F-35's airframe is pretty good for so many needs, ultimately a dedicated aircraft for a particular job or a few jobs is the best scenario because less time and money is wasted trying to get one plane to do so many jobs that ultimately it won't excel when compared to dedicated types, which is what we have here and testing has taken forever just to get the damn thing finally into serial production. The F-22 suffered the same fate of prolonged development only because the cold war ended right after it won the ATF fly off against the Northrop YF-23.

Only reason the F-4 excelled at meeting the needs of everyone was because it was such a good aircraft for the needs layed out by one as well as aspects that made it suitable for operations by the USMC and USAF. It was natural that the plane be employed by the USAF since it was better than anything they had at the time!

The USMC's Harrier is still a good airplane. While the JSF is a good starting point for a replacement, I think a proper design built for V/STOL would've been much better. There were numerous design proposals for supersonic VTOL capable aircraft made by Hawker Siddley (now part of BAE) and McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) and I'm sure the configurations could've been adapted for stealth. Instead of a single F135 powering a VTOL aircraft, why not two F414-EDEs + lift fan? Yes, it would require a combining gear box but the plane would be flyable to an airfield with one engine (though VSTOL would be gone). The engine would have commonality with the already deployed F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornets and familiarity to the F404s in current F/A-18A/B/C/D USMC and Navy inventory.

The air forces new jet could've been the JSF we already know and lo-..."respect-ish" but with better growth for better avionics (the JSF really needs a larger AESA radar capacity) with supercruise capability still there by using F119s, thought the F135 has certainly proved it's worth by being so capable of an engine (though in fact is based on the F119, uses the same engine core with larger bypass to achieve higher mass flow, therefore higher thrust potential). A completely new A-10 replacement building off it's legacy of ruggedness and delivery would be better than replacing it with a plane that is half-ass at the Warthog's particular calling. I'd like to see the F-35 approach a target, lock, fire a Maverick and do a 180 degree turn in the same radius and time as an A-10 (which it can't) or survive a dead on missile hit into the wing. That's one reason why the F-16 never knocked the A-10 from it's job. Either produce a new successor, or just build brand new ones using more modern materials and components. Boeing is building new wings right now to replace the ones on the old yet insanely effective planes. Hell I'd say the USMC should have some A-10s, or the Rutan designed ARES, as they should have no problem operating in the relative limits of current helicopter carriers.

 

[dmcowen674]

Lockheed Martin is a fail company

$150 million for an F35? $250 million for an F22? Really?

These fighters are not even remotely cost effective.

They might have once bean a great company, but somewhere they lost their way.

As a Canadian Citizen I'm disgusted that our government is even considering buying these overpriced POS.

We'd be better off buying Russian fighters or Eurofighter Typhoons.

Making more more money than ever before is FAIL?

 

[tcsenter]

But the F-22 is not available for export at all...

Which ensures the capability gap will be even more artificially inflated.

"Initially, USAF was to begin installing V3 radars in 161 F-15Cs in Fiscal 2008 and similar radars in 224 F-15Es starting in 2010. However, the F-15 "Golden Eagles" designated for long-term retention may not get the upgrade. An Air Force budget already stretched too thin is given as one reason. A second is that service leaders want to offer no competition to the F/A-22, which is slated to have a primary cruise missile defense role during expeditionary operations." -- New AESA radar eyed for F-15 upgrades

AESA Radar Eyed for F-15C Upgrades

By David A. Fulghum

10/17/2004 03:29:13 PM

NORTHERN FIGHTS This is the second report on new technology being introduced with the 3rd Wing's F-15Cs at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. Earlier articles appeared in the Oct. 4 issue, pp. 49-51. In addition to the APG-63(V)2 AESA radar, built to detect small cruise missiles, the wing is introducing the AIM-9X and helmet-mounted cueing system. Such testing occasionally provides surprises, such as the beyond-visual-range capability of the helmet device. Moreover, the revitalization and new dimensions of air-to-air combat are leading to other changes, including the reinstitution of the William Tell air-to-air weapons meet. Mystery already surrounds the advanced radars that are expected to upgrade the U.S. Air Force's air-to-air F-15C and air-to-ground F-15Es as the service wrestles with how many to keep and what capabilities will modernize them. The APG-63(V)2 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, designed to target small cruise missile-size targets, has been flying in 18 F-15Cs for several years, but Raytheon will never make any more of them. A more efficient, easier to service and lighter weight version--the APG-63(V)3--was designed to improve the air-to-air capability of the newest F-15Cs. The Air Force intends to keep and eventually hand over these F-15C "Golden Eagles" to the Air National Guard and Air Force reserve for homeland defense of the continental U.S. It's also planning for installation of an AESA radar in the F-15Es to fine-tune its precision bombing capabilities even for mobile targets hidden in ground clutter. Initially, USAF was to begin installing V3 radars in 161 F-15Cs in Fiscal 2008 and similar radars in 224 F-15Es starting in 2010. However, the F-15 "Golden Eagles" designated for long-term retention may not get the upgrade. An Air Force budget already stretched too thin is given as one reason. A second is that service leaders want to offer no competition to the F/A-22, which is slated to have a primary cruise missile defense role during expeditionary operations. Nevertheless, an active electronically scanned array of some sort is expected to find its way into the F-15E as an upgrade to its air-to-ground capability. "The F-15Cs may not get V3 depending on the number of other aircraft [with AESA-type radar]," says Air Force Secretary James Roche. "We already have the F/A-22, F-35 and F-15Es. The F-15E will be fully modernized, including an AESA radar. With the F-15C, we will hedge the future by taking one of them and going all the way through integrating an AESA on board. However, [Air Combat Command officials] said they don't see moving that priority up at this point." Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper voices similar caution about the F-15C's future. "We intend to make the airplanes that we have more versatile," Jumper says. "The numbers [of radar upgrades] and exactly what [aircraft] get what [systems] are still being discussed with the major commands." Some Air Force officials point to a gap between Jumper's and ACC's plans. The disagreement is roughly that Roche and Jumper want the F/A-22 to replace the F-15Cs and F-15Es as rapidly and completely as possible. Specifically, Jumper wants to replace "long term, the F-117, F-15C and F-15E fleet of 750 aircraft . . . with around 400 F/A-22s." ACC prefers a more conservative approach that would include keeping the 179 F-15Cs in the fleet longer so they can be dedicated to homeland defense, as well as five wings of F-15Es for strike. "We're going to maintain an inventory of 179 F-15Cs at least to the 2020 time frame," says Col. Michael Leggett, chief of the advanced programs division in ACC's requirements directorate. "We've got 18 V2s out there, so we're looking to fit the other 161 of those with the V3 radar. The question is the ability of ACC and the Air Force to pay the bill." "The V3 is important to ACC for its combat capabilities," says Col. Joe Rine, chief of the aircraft division. "[In addition,] we're going to mine the talent of those V2 guys coming out of Elmendorf, and if we get V3, those guys will be valuable commodities in the radar world. "We have a gap in cruise missile defense capability that we're trying to fill in terms of radar power [and range] and faster lock and target times," Leggett says. "But I don't envision it in the same role as the F/A-22. They would fill different gaps. I don't think you will see an overlap of capability or duplication of effort" with the F/A-22 going deep behind enemy lines and the F-15C staying in orbits near the forward line of troops. Some additional modifications are envisioned for the V2 and V3 radar-equipped aircraft. "As the technology of the radar and other sensors gets more advanced, the packages of data that we attempt to transfer will get larger and larger," says Maj. Bill Singletary, ACC's F-15 program element monitor. "There are plans in the data link area to expand the capability to take advantage of the larger amounts of useful data that AESA brings. We need to look at the complementary systems to share that information on the net so everybody can use it to full advantage." ACC did find the money to build and install a single prototype V3 radar for testing capability. "We're moving ahead as far as we can with the money we have," says Rine. "We have to test the V3 for a while to look at what the radar brings, in terms of combat capability, and to add fidelity to our estimates of reliability and savings. Our plans are to [make room in the budget] in 2008 for installation, but we don't know where it will stack up against all the other Air Force priorities." The V3 testing will likely be done at Eglin AFB, Fla. A program to put AESA radar on the F-15E fleet is still not fully matured. "We have program money for both research and development and installation on the F-15E fleet," Singletary says. "That would be a competitive package, so we're not calling it V-anything. But starting in 2009, we have money in the future-years defense plan for those radars. Right now, we're looking roughly at Fiscal 2010 to start seeing the technology on the E-model. The radars we have now use technology developed in the 1970s. It's a mechanically scanned array; when you have moving parts, the failure rates skyrocket." Senior operational commanders say there's no doubt the Air Force is moving toward the policy that single-mission aircraft are a thing of the past--a notion highlighted by the fact that the F-22 is now the F/A-22. "I don't know how [the air-to-ground] capability will be addressed in the F-15C," says Col. Russell J. Handy, operations group commander for the 3rd Wing, based at Elmendorf AFB. "We're in total agreement with the capacity of the AESA radar to do air-to-ground [attack]. We'd love to have it in all our F-15E Strike Eagles [too]. Air-to-ground combat ID is a huge challenge for us. Even in the Strike Eagle we very routinely get into using the 'Mark 1 eyeball' as the ID on the type of vehicle." Perhaps as a bridge to the advanced radar capability, Elmendorf planners are making it more routine for AESA-equipped F-15Cs and non-AESA F-15Es to train together. "We just changed our scheduling to make those opportunities more available," Handy says. "We're jumbling up the schedule so that on any given day, a young flight lead in an F-15C squadron can pick up the phone and coordinate a mission with the Strike Eagles."

 

[Sukhoi]

I saw my name mentioned..

 

[Blitzvogel]

I saw my name mentioned..

I doubt your first name is Pavel.

 

[Colt45]

Hopefully this gets cancelled when (hopefully) harper gets his ass kicked to the curb in a couple weeks.

 

[DaTT]

Hopefully this gets cancelled when (hopefully) harper gets his ass kicked to the curb in a couple weeks.

Bite your tongue.

 

[Scouzer]

Hopefully this gets cancelled when (hopefully) harper gets his ass kicked to the curb in a couple weeks.

So we'll have a Liberal/Bloc coalition. Fan-fucking-tastic.

 

[SunnyD]

What's the RCAF?

:hmm:

Again?

What was it before RCAF? :hmm:

Forget it.

:|

The Royal Canadian Ai........ :hmm:

Oh! I see what you did thar.

 

[Deeko]

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but the recent dramatic increase in cost in Lockheed Martin's aircraft in particular, compared to other fighters of the world, compared to their own original estimates, and compared what what fighter jets cost in the past, leads me to believe they are no longer an efficiently run company. Obviously I don't really know, but no one in this thread knows to the contrary either. It wasn't too long ago that a cutting edge fighter cost < $50 mil. There hasn't been that much inflation.

Maybe they're just making better jets. There's been a lot of inflation lately. Tell me - when did a cutting edge fighter, one that was capable of literally beating everything else in the sky, cost under $50 mil?

Russian jets are more maneuverable and equally fast as American jets at a fraction of the cost. American jets have stealth, but the Su PAK FA will as well. It's also the first aircraft to have pitch, yaw, and roll all controllable via thrust vectoring. At $100 mil US it's not exactly cheap either, but a bargain compared to the F22, which it is designed to compete with.

Yea, compete with the F22...and lose to the F22.

You can buy the cheap jet that gets its ass shot down, or you can buy the premium jet that shoots the enemy down. On one hand, you saved money up front, but got a pilot killed, and then you have to go spend another $100 million on a replacement....soo...why not save the life of your pilot and get the better option now?

 

[freegeeks]

Canadian F-18 will be 30+ years old when it's time to replace them. The f35 is the cheapest and the only option for the Canadians. It's not worth to upgrade the F-18 because they are just too old and the price to fix them will be too high, their airframes are on their last legs so even if you change every last bit on them they won't be as safe and reliable. Eurofighter is just junk and has been developed for decades and is still not done. So what are the other options for Canadians? Buy some European plane and by the time it's “fixed” it will be outdated.
The fact that this whole plane thing is an issue in Canada is a joke the politicians are playing politics and counting on Canadian's ignorance and lack of knowledge of the subject. Op seems to be a prime example of that.

huh, junk you say? The Rafale and Typhoon are very capable, the only thing flying that can beat it is the F-22. The Frenchies went to Luke AFB in 2008 with the Rafale F2 and did mockup fights against block 50/52 F-16. The French had a 4-1 kill ratio. There is no doubt in my mind that the JSF is going to be great but the Rafale and Typhoon are not junk. They are probably the best multi-role fighters flying today with proven combat capabilities.
The latest Rafale has the new AESA radar and all experts agree that it is a kicks ass plane.

 

[BladeVenom]

From a British website: Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought

This means that we UK taxpayers will have shelled out no less than &#163;215m for each of our 107 jets &#8211; that's $350m at today's rates,

The Typhoon will make you think the F-35 is a good buy. We should have sold the F-22 to our close allies.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

eh, you should look into the cost overruns delays and other shenanigans with that as well, it is not comparable anyways.

I am aware of them...

I am also aware of the fact that the Typhoon isn't stealth, and the F-22 is Gen IV stealth (Gen V fighter?)

 

[evident]

fail post is fail