5 ms·

The F-35 is one of those programs that completely boggles the mind. It's government abomination at its worst. Let's put a few numbers in perspective: SpaceX ope

The F-35 is one of those programs that completely boggles the mind. It's government abomination at its worst. Let's put a few numbers in perspective: SpaceX operated for 10 years with approx. $1 billion USD total. It designed space craft that flew to space. The budget for F-35 is exceeding $400 billion and it's not even close to completion. This is 400x more! And when I say "budget", if you live in the US currently, "budget" means "comes from your pocket". I don't have a better word for this than flat-out INSANITY.

atonse 10y ago
Eh it's a lot more complicated than just "gov bad private good" The goals of the F35 were to be the fighter for all the branches of the military. The problem is that they all have very different requirements. Marry that with a tech-fixes-everything attitude and you have a Frankenstein of an aircraft with so much "technology" that it gets in the way of the human pilot's instincts. And lastly, the project has been strategically split up by contractors in a way that it creates jobs in so many congressional districts, so congress members are loathe to shut down a program that brings jobs in their district. All this is done by PRIVATE sector contractors.
- Aeolun 10y ago
  You'd expect someone at the top to say something like 'You know, that sounds like a spectacularly terrible idea' though.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  It doesn't matter that much that they're "PRIVATE sector contractors". Defense contractors do not operate like normal private-sector companies. In normal companies, they try to keep costs limited, so that they can maximize profit. They can normally only charge so much money to customers, so the less they have to pay in costs, the more they keep as profit. In defense companies these days, they usually do what are called "cost plus" contracts. That means the government pays them whatever it costs to do the job, plus a profit margin. So, the incentive is to bloat the project beyond all belief, because that increases the costs. Then the profit is multiplied, since the profit margin is fixed. Splitting the project up among a ridiculous number of contractors to cover as many congressional districts as possible doesn't help the situation. Basically, the F-35 is a huge make-work program for the US.
- raspasov 10y ago
  Yea, of course private sector will rationally benefit when government is running around like a chicken without a head throwing money around. I don't want to get into the reasons why the incentives are setup like they are - that's a very broad discussion. I agree (without being a fighter jet expert) that F-35 seems like a terrible idea of near-infinite complexity that no amount of money will make right.
  - dafash 10y ago
    Near infinite complexity has no meaning as a descriptor of complexity. Infinity isn't something you can describe approaching without convergence.
    - raspasov 10y ago
      It was a figure of speech :) Here's a great paper about the topic of complexity http://shaffner.us/cs/papers/tarpit.pdf http://shaffner.us/cs/papers/tarpit.pdf if you feel like digging deeper.
peterwwillis 10y ago
You expected a bureaucracy to work logically? A lot of the blame comes down to voters. They refuse to pay teachers a pension and demand they be paid based on performance, but they approve a higher defense budget because spending more on guns is never a bad idea.
nikofeyn 10y ago
i think the comparison to spaceX isn't valid really. the technology contained within a fighter jet far outweighs that of a rocket. rocket science isn't exactly that anymore, but these newer fighter jets are pushing physics in pretty serious ways. just take a look at any f-22 demonstration. my jaw drops at the things it does, and that's just its flight capability. and the f-22 is even outdated at this point. rockets basically implement capability known for many decades. that being said, of course these programs are insane, including their budgets. for example, the f-22 has a total program cost of "only" $67 billion.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Space doesn't shoot back, though. That is: Defeating intelligent adversaries is considerably more difficult than defeating gravity.

atonse 10y ago

Eh it's a lot more complicated than just "gov bad private good" The goals of the F35 were to be the fighter for all the branches of the military. The problem is that they all have very different requirements. Marry that with a tech-fixes-everything attitude and you have a Frankenstein of an aircraft with so much "technology" that it gets in the way of the human pilot's instincts. And lastly, the project has been strategically split up by contractors in a way that it creates jobs in so many congressional districts, so congress members are loathe to shut down a program that brings jobs in their district. All this is done by PRIVATE sector contractors.

Aeolun 10y ago
You'd expect someone at the top to say something like 'You know, that sounds like a spectacularly terrible idea' though.
Arizhel 10y ago
It doesn't matter that much that they're "PRIVATE sector contractors". Defense contractors do not operate like normal private-sector companies. In normal companies, they try to keep costs limited, so that they can maximize profit. They can normally only charge so much money to customers, so the less they have to pay in costs, the more they keep as profit. In defense companies these days, they usually do what are called "cost plus" contracts. That means the government pays them whatever it costs to do the job, plus a profit margin. So, the incentive is to bloat the project beyond all belief, because that increases the costs. Then the profit is multiplied, since the profit margin is fixed. Splitting the project up among a ridiculous number of contractors to cover as many congressional districts as possible doesn't help the situation. Basically, the F-35 is a huge make-work program for the US.
raspasov 10y ago
Yea, of course private sector will rationally benefit when government is running around like a chicken without a head throwing money around. I don't want to get into the reasons why the incentives are setup like they are - that's a very broad discussion. I agree (without being a fighter jet expert) that F-35 seems like a terrible idea of near-infinite complexity that no amount of money will make right.
- dafash 10y ago
  Near infinite complexity has no meaning as a descriptor of complexity. Infinity isn't something you can describe approaching without convergence.
  - raspasov 10y ago
    It was a figure of speech :) Here's a great paper about the topic of complexity http://shaffner.us/cs/papers/tarpit.pdf http://shaffner.us/cs/papers/tarpit.pdf if you feel like digging deeper.

peterwwillis 10y ago

You expected a bureaucracy to work logically? A lot of the blame comes down to voters. They refuse to pay teachers a pension and demand they be paid based on performance, but they approve a higher defense budget because spending more on guns is never a bad idea.

nikofeyn 10y ago

i think the comparison to spaceX isn't valid really. the technology contained within a fighter jet far outweighs that of a rocket. rocket science isn't exactly that anymore, but these newer fighter jets are pushing physics in pretty serious ways. just take a look at any f-22 demonstration. my jaw drops at the things it does, and that's just its flight capability. and the f-22 is even outdated at this point. rockets basically implement capability known for many decades. that being said, of course these programs are insane, including their budgets. for example, the f-22 has a total program cost of "only" $67 billion.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

Space doesn't shoot back, though. That is: Defeating intelligent adversaries is considerably more difficult than defeating gravity.