8 ms·

Pentagon: Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster

48 points by yahelc 15y ago

MattRogish 15y ago
I'm really looking forward to the "Mythical Man-Month"-type book that comes out of this disaster. But since it's the government and likely "Top Secret", we'll learn absolutely nothing from this. $1T and no "lessons learned". Our (USA) tax dollars at work, folks.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  "Top Secret" projects do share information with other "Top Secret" projects and over time many things do get declassified. IMO, the real problem is drones are simply more useful and a lot less expensive but chances are they can take a fair amount of R&D related to this project, and apply it to drones. Also, total defense spending has crossed the 1 trillion / year number a while ago so cost wise this is not that unreasonable over the next 40 years. (Including things like nuclear weapons research at the DoE, GAO oversite, pensions, survivor benefits, and healthcare etc.)
- nateberkopec 15y ago
  The US Air Force design program is laughably bad - it would be more so if it wasn't our tax dollars being pissed away. The same thing happened in the past to the B-1 and B-2 bomber projects, which cost $200m and $700m per unit respectively. Massive scope creep leads to huge unit cost inflation, followed by a reduction in number of units ordered to keep total cost below the Congressional mandate for the project. The low number of total units ordered leads to an increase in maintenance cost per unit, which eventually leads to shortening the plane's lifespan (too expensive to maintain, each airframe receives double the hours it was intended to endure). Compare the F22 (at 150m) to the F16 (at 10m). Aside from the stealth capability, this jet is not 10x better than the F16.
  - _djo_ 15y ago
    While I agree with your overall point, the cost of a new F-16 these days is more like 40-60 million USD, not 10 million. The cheapest 'good' 4th-generation fighter is the Saab Gripen, which was designed in a single country to intentionally-limited specs, but even those cost 30 million USD a pop for the standard C & D models and even more for the NG units under development. To some extent modern fighter aircraft are inherently expensive as a result of all the technology that has to be crammed inside them. They're multi-role networked flying systems these days. In essence that's part of what has derailed the F-35. Technological advances have allowed for the extensive use of software to create capabilities that just could not have existed before now, such as the ability to see 'through' the plane, an extremely high level of sensor fusion and integrated systems, etc. But massive software projects are inherently risky and can fail massively if not managed very carefully. They've been doing things with software in the F-35 that have never been done before in this context, which only increased the risk. Also do not underestimate the costs of redesigns following the theft of F-35 design information by China from both Lockheed-Martin and Pentagon computers. I doubt that's the sole cause of the cost overruns, but it definitely hasn't helped.
codesuela 15y ago
Looks like the F-35 is the SAP of fighter jets
rubyrescue 15y ago
what is the primary language for fighter jet software?
- conover 15y ago
  Usually ADA
- chas 15y ago
  I think they are doing the JSF in C++. Here are the coding standards. http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/JSF-AV-rules.pdf http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/JSF-AV-rules.pdf
  - angersock 15y ago
    Those standards are a pretty good read for anyone wanting to write good code in that language.
    - garethsprice 15y ago
      Or indeed, anyone who wants to write good code any language. I don't work with C++ but it's a clear and well structured guide to OO development in general.
- narag 15y ago
  It seems to be Java: “Software providing essential JSF capability has grown in size and complexity, and is taking longer to complete than expected,” Just kidding. Don't stone me.
  - Androsynth 15y ago
    It's all relative. As hackers, you can't even imagine what its like to code for the govt (I used to work for navair). Even the most corporate java programmer would find the govt program ugly and overly-complex.
    - 15y ago
ck2 15y ago
We could have been landing on mars for what that cost to develop. Meanwhile the enemy is low budget suicidal terrorists that this or the TSA can't stop.
- javert 15y ago
  Actually, the way to fight terrorism is to destroy states that condone it and/or look the other way, as well as any major terrorist infrastructure therein (e.g. schools, training camps, stockpiles). And the right way to do that, is by painting a bright "thou shalt not cross" line in the sand, and then enforcing it (if necessary) with overwhelming airborne superiority. As opposed to a massive ground invasion and occupation, which has clearly been shown to be self-sacrificial and counterproductive. ----- To respond in one place to the most common responses I'm getting: It's fairly obvious in day-to-day life that and military history that (1) you don't appease or tolerate bullies; (2) you don't try to "reason" with the enemy. What I'm saying is a straightforward application of this, and what you're all saying is a straightforward denial of it.
  - moxiemk1 15y ago
    What? The way to fight terrorism is to provide an environment where people not want to be terrorists. Terrorism requires no state sponsored infrastructure. Bombing places to hell doesn't stop the spread of hopelessness, of desperation, of taking comfort in extremism. Note: Using the "anti-establishment guerrilla fighters" definition of terrorism, not "causing terror". That's a whole other bag of bagels.
    - javert 15y ago
      The way to fight terrorism is to provide an environment where people not want to be terrorists. That's a strategy of altruism and failure.
      - ldargin 15y ago
        The Arab Spring has probably done more to fight terrorism than any war.
jsvaughan 15y ago
Obviously lines of code is a poor metric, but wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_lines_of_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_lines_of_code) would suggest it is not as complicated as: Linux kernel 2.6.35 13.5 million lines of code Windows Server 2003 50 MLOC Mac OS X 10.4 86 MLOC Debian 5.0 324 MLOC <EDIT> And alternatively: "if you bought a premium-class automobile recently, it probably contains close to 100 million lines of software code": http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/advanced-cars/this-car-runs-on-code http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/advanced-cars/this-car-r...
- JoachimSchipper 15y ago
  Yes, but this code is low-level, life-threatening on crash, hard real-time, etc.
- batista 15y ago
  Not really. Those counts include totally unrelated components (like drivers) which you can optionally turn off, and just forget about. Whereas the total count for the jet code is (I presume) of highly relevant code all around. It's not like it has 100 video drivers code included, and support for 2000 network cards, or several filesystems.
RockyMcNuts 15y ago
Hope it doesn't cut off the oxygen to the pilot when it detects a leak, or possibly at random times, like the F-22 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/22-raptors-suffer-apparent-oxygen-problems/story?id=15357696#.T2tN-GJSTDk http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/22-raptors-suffer-apparent-oxy... "Though they acknowledged the oxygen failure, Air Force investigators said the crash was Haney's fault for being too distracted by not being able to breathe and failing to either reduce altitude and take off his oxygen mask or to activate the emergency backup oxygen system."
- swasheck 15y ago
  Really? Who faults someone else for being distracted by an inability to breathe? I know that they're trained for high-stress situations but when it's the fault of the equipment in the first place, own up to it.
  - ajross 15y ago
    It's not a finding of legal fault. It's a statement about whether or not things need to change in the aircraft design. The oxygen system (presumably, obviously I didn't design it) isn't inherently redundant. If it fails (because Stuff Always Breaks) there are existing procedures the pilots are presumably trained on. The article lists two: an emergency backup (probably a second tank in the cockpit?) and the old standby of "dive to lower altitudes so you don't need oxygen, dummy". The finding was that these options would have been sufficient if they were used, so the design of the aircraft isn't deficient. Obviously the software bug should still be fixed, and probably pilot training needs to be updated.
dhughes 15y ago
Here is Canada our government is insisting they are going to buy some F-35 jets. People have complained other than its complexity the single engine is bad if you are over the Arctic and the engine fails, most modern Canadian jets have dual engines.
- javert 15y ago
  People have complained other than its complexity the single engine is bad if you are over the Arctic and the engine fails, most modern Canadian jets have dual engines. I wonder if the F-35 has a particularly reliable engine.
  - dhughes 15y ago
    I'm not sure but if it's a vertical take-off and land (VTOL) it must be pretty durable. Found this gem on Wikipedia under Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canada had previous experience with a high-accident rate with the single-engine Lockheed CF-104 Starfighter with many accidents related to engine failures. Defence Minister Peter MacKay, when asked what would happen if the F-35’s single engine fails in the Far North, stated "It won’t"
spoiledtechie 15y ago
I hate when companies under bid projects and then the public wonders why its so much over budget. Government contractors do this all the time. They underbid, and then 1 year later, ask the government for more cash because they are soo far in and know the government will do it. Government contract work is sooo lucrative too. Most of that initial investment into Lockhead probably just went to pay salaries of the higher ups and did no actual work. Sorry for Ranting.
josefresco 15y ago
While the per-unit cost of an F-35 is quite high now (they've only built 60+) the comparative cost to the F-22 which was seen as expensive and too exotic will be lower in the long term. While budget overruns are painful, the idea behind standardizing our fighter jets between the forces, thereby reducing costs is a wise move. I always thought of the F-22 as a hand-built race car, while these F-35 are Porsche's that can be mass produced, are just as "fast" and will be more reliable due to the standardization. Also deploying cheap drones are only possible when you dominate the skies with these expensive, complex, man-powered jets.
- javert 15y ago
  Also deploying cheap drones are only possible when you dominate the skies with these expensive, complex, man-powered jets. Well, drones don't have to be cheap, and could hypothetically be just as capable as fighters in most respects (and much more capable in some respects).
- onemoreact 15y ago
  The thing about drones is you can build them cheaply enough that it cost the enemy more to shoot them down than it costs to build more of them. Instead the military has decided to simply make fighter planes that don't need pilots but that's a separate issue.
  - ahelwer 15y ago
    Source? I'm not sure you could get a drone up and running for smaller than a multiple of the price of a surface-to-air missile.
    - onemoreact 15y ago
      Edit: I don't work with such things, but posting the first version of this felt unwise so I cut a few things. Stinger's cost ~38k and are not guaranteed to work so multiply that by the probability of failure. You can buy drone control system can cost below 1,500$ ex: http://www.micropilot.com/products-mp1028g.htm http://www.micropilot.com/products-mp1028g.htm, granted there are good reasons to buy / build something far more expensive but we are looking at low cost baseline. After that it's a question of range and payload for 10,000$ you can get an RC jet that can do 200 mph and carry a camcorder for surveillance. Call it 15k for a fairly respectable surveillance aircraft. As to being able to fight back just add a spike. PS: Now figure out what you can do with say 10 billion$ aka 600,000 of these things. Worse yet that's just an opening, they are cheap enough that you have plenty of budget for other things.
cft11 15y ago
the new women-based "service economy" is bearing its fruits.
read_wharf 15y ago
Kill it. We don't have the money. All those alternatives that other countries are looking at are alternatives for us (US) as well.
- holograham 15y ago
  some basic math...1 trillion over 40 years is about 25 billion a year....US budget in 2012 was 3.796 trillion FOR THE YEAR....so that is 0.6% of the budget. I think we can all agree that it is certainly militarily advantageous to have air superiority keeping in mind that it is mainly for the wars we dont fight and will never fight rather than our current conflicts. Also these articles fail to mention the planes that will be retired over the next 40 years that the JSF will replace. Lots of costs savings that arent included. Military superiority is supported by practical every political base including libertarians. Large, complex aircraft cost a ton to produce. Is there waste? Sure but some of the waste is due to our own democratic political system. Easy to cast all blame on greedy govt contractors.
  - read_wharf 15y ago
    We could replace those planes with cheaper alternatives. The total program cost may be a small part of the budget, but our economy would do better if we spent that money on things we can use, not things that sit in a hangar and suck up money.
dexcs 15y ago
FYI: The eurofighter has about 1.2 million LoC (but they use other languages too) and is written in the same programming language (Ada). They have about 500 coders working on it. Impressive..
learc83 15y ago
I was following the (at the time) YF-22 and the proposed JSF when I was a kid. I'm now 28. These things take so long to build and there are so many hands in the pot that they can't help, but be ridiculously complex. Talk about changing requirements during development. Imagine working on a software project that took 20 years to develop. Add that to the fact that any large military project has to be spread out over as many congressional districts to keep as many congressman happy as possible.
edge17 15y ago
Brink? How is this not a budgetary disaster already? What 'technology' costed a trillion dollars to develop? Certainly not going to the moon.
hluska 15y ago
I have never quite understood why so many powers (the United States, Canada, Japan, etc) have lined up to try and buy F-35s. Every plausible enemy our countries could square off against have extremely old technology (or no technology to speak of). In fact, I would be prepared to argue that slightly updated F-15s are superior to anything that any plausible enemy could attack us with. Am I wrong? If so, help me understand why!!
- arjn 15y ago
  I concur. IMO all the US needs to do is upgrade/update its F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fleet to stay ahead of potential enemies for several years.
redsymbol 15y ago
The reference to one trillion dollars in the headline is accurate, but lacks context that makes it a bit sensationalist. The article elaborates the cost as "an estimated $1 trillion to develop, purchase and support through 2050". Or about $25 billion a year. Whether that's pricey or a bargain depends on how many aircraft are purchased and supported; TFA states that the "Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are counting on buying as many as 2,500 F-35s", which would be $10 million per craft per year for the next four decades. This is not to say the thing isn't an overpriced, failing project. If the GAO's analysis and predictions cited in the article are correct, it sounds pretty bad. In particular, it's hard to imagine that four decades from now, the US armed forces would want to still be using early 21st-century aircraft.
- olalonde 15y ago
  You are omitting the time value of money which can make a huge difference in such a large time frame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money
izend 15y ago
Could the F35 choice of C++ be the problem or heavy use of OOP? It appears they have struggling with the complexity of their software implementation. It might just be their requirements but I wonder if it is similar to Ericsson's massive failure with their AXE-N project. No one knows exactly why that software project became too complex but it has been speculated that: "One particular problem area identified is the system's software , especially for using extreme attention to object orientation (which at the time was the golden hammer ) in both computer programs as databases , [8] which can be difficult to combine with parallel programming, and that they chose to develop and make use of largely new, completely untested methods." Ericsson attempted to heavily use OOP for the AXE-N, might that be the cause of the failure? The failure spawned the Erlang (functional language, with strict evaluation, single assignment) project which went on to be a massive success in their next product. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsv.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAXE-N&act=url http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js...
bradleyjg 15y ago
What realistic scanario has the following characteristic: We are fighting against an enemy for which fourth generation fight planes are inadequate and said enemy does not have nuclear armed ICBMs? Meanwhile the Air Force is bent on taking out of service the one type of aircraft that is most useful to actual, likely war-fighting - the CAS planes. The AC-130 was originally designed in the 60s and troops still cheer when it arrives over the battlefield. The boys that run the fighter jet mafia consider such "bus driving" planes beneath them, so we instead of upgrading the A, C and perhaps B lines we have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars buying the kind of F line toys they prefer to play with.
hsmyers 15y ago
While certainly not cheap, the B2 was brought in under time and under budget. I also think we got our monies worth out of it in the several wars it has been used in. Source; the project manager. Disclaimer: he's my brother---we are both a little biased :)

48 points by yahelc 15y ago

I'm really looking forward to the "Mythical Man-Month"-type book that comes out of this disaster. But since it's the government and likely "Top Secret", we'll learn absolutely nothing from this. $1T and no "lessons learned". Our (USA) tax dollars at work, folks.

onemoreact 15y ago
"Top Secret" projects do share information with other "Top Secret" projects and over time many things do get declassified. IMO, the real problem is drones are simply more useful and a lot less expensive but chances are they can take a fair amount of R&D related to this project, and apply it to drones. Also, total defense spending has crossed the 1 trillion / year number a while ago so cost wise this is not that unreasonable over the next 40 years. (Including things like nuclear weapons research at the DoE, GAO oversite, pensions, survivor benefits, and healthcare etc.)
nateberkopec 15y ago
The US Air Force design program is laughably bad - it would be more so if it wasn't our tax dollars being pissed away. The same thing happened in the past to the B-1 and B-2 bomber projects, which cost $200m and $700m per unit respectively. Massive scope creep leads to huge unit cost inflation, followed by a reduction in number of units ordered to keep total cost below the Congressional mandate for the project. The low number of total units ordered leads to an increase in maintenance cost per unit, which eventually leads to shortening the plane's lifespan (too expensive to maintain, each airframe receives double the hours it was intended to endure). Compare the F22 (at 150m) to the F16 (at 10m). Aside from the stealth capability, this jet is not 10x better than the F16.
- _djo_ 15y ago
  While I agree with your overall point, the cost of a new F-16 these days is more like 40-60 million USD, not 10 million. The cheapest 'good' 4th-generation fighter is the Saab Gripen, which was designed in a single country to intentionally-limited specs, but even those cost 30 million USD a pop for the standard C & D models and even more for the NG units under development. To some extent modern fighter aircraft are inherently expensive as a result of all the technology that has to be crammed inside them. They're multi-role networked flying systems these days. In essence that's part of what has derailed the F-35. Technological advances have allowed for the extensive use of software to create capabilities that just could not have existed before now, such as the ability to see 'through' the plane, an extremely high level of sensor fusion and integrated systems, etc. But massive software projects are inherently risky and can fail massively if not managed very carefully. They've been doing things with software in the F-35 that have never been done before in this context, which only increased the risk. Also do not underestimate the costs of redesigns following the theft of F-35 design information by China from both Lockheed-Martin and Pentagon computers. I doubt that's the sole cause of the cost overruns, but it definitely hasn't helped.

codesuela 15y ago

Looks like the F-35 is the SAP of fighter jets

rubyrescue 15y ago

what is the primary language for fighter jet software?

conover 15y ago
Usually ADA
chas 15y ago
I think they are doing the JSF in C++. Here are the coding standards. http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/JSF-AV-rules.pdf http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/JSF-AV-rules.pdf
- angersock 15y ago
  Those standards are a pretty good read for anyone wanting to write good code in that language.
  - garethsprice 15y ago
    Or indeed, anyone who wants to write good code any language. I don't work with C++ but it's a clear and well structured guide to OO development in general.
narag 15y ago
It seems to be Java: “Software providing essential JSF capability has grown in size and complexity, and is taking longer to complete than expected,” Just kidding. Don't stone me.
- Androsynth 15y ago
  It's all relative. As hackers, you can't even imagine what its like to code for the govt (I used to work for navair). Even the most corporate java programmer would find the govt program ugly and overly-complex.
  - 15y ago

ck2 15y ago

We could have been landing on mars for what that cost to develop. Meanwhile the enemy is low budget suicidal terrorists that this or the TSA can't stop.

javert 15y ago
Actually, the way to fight terrorism is to destroy states that condone it and/or look the other way, as well as any major terrorist infrastructure therein (e.g. schools, training camps, stockpiles). And the right way to do that, is by painting a bright "thou shalt not cross" line in the sand, and then enforcing it (if necessary) with overwhelming airborne superiority. As opposed to a massive ground invasion and occupation, which has clearly been shown to be self-sacrificial and counterproductive. ----- To respond in one place to the most common responses I'm getting: It's fairly obvious in day-to-day life that and military history that (1) you don't appease or tolerate bullies; (2) you don't try to "reason" with the enemy. What I'm saying is a straightforward application of this, and what you're all saying is a straightforward denial of it.
- moxiemk1 15y ago
  What? The way to fight terrorism is to provide an environment where people not want to be terrorists. Terrorism requires no state sponsored infrastructure. Bombing places to hell doesn't stop the spread of hopelessness, of desperation, of taking comfort in extremism. Note: Using the "anti-establishment guerrilla fighters" definition of terrorism, not "causing terror". That's a whole other bag of bagels.
  - javert 15y ago
    The way to fight terrorism is to provide an environment where people not want to be terrorists. That's a strategy of altruism and failure.
    - ldargin 15y ago
      The Arab Spring has probably done more to fight terrorism than any war.

jsvaughan 15y ago

Obviously lines of code is a poor metric, but wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_lines_of_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_lines_of_code) would suggest it is not as complicated as: Linux kernel 2.6.35 13.5 million lines of code Windows Server 2003 50 MLOC Mac OS X 10.4 86 MLOC Debian 5.0 324 MLOC <EDIT> And alternatively: "if you bought a premium-class automobile recently, it probably contains close to 100 million lines of software code": http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/advanced-cars/this-car-runs-on-code http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/advanced-cars/this-car-r...

JoachimSchipper 15y ago
Yes, but this code is low-level, life-threatening on crash, hard real-time, etc.
batista 15y ago
Not really. Those counts include totally unrelated components (like drivers) which you can optionally turn off, and just forget about. Whereas the total count for the jet code is (I presume) of highly relevant code all around. It's not like it has 100 video drivers code included, and support for 2000 network cards, or several filesystems.

RockyMcNuts 15y ago

Hope it doesn't cut off the oxygen to the pilot when it detects a leak, or possibly at random times, like the F-22 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/22-raptors-suffer-apparent-oxygen-problems/story?id=15357696#.T2tN-GJSTDk http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/22-raptors-suffer-apparent-oxy... "Though they acknowledged the oxygen failure, Air Force investigators said the crash was Haney's fault for being too distracted by not being able to breathe and failing to either reduce altitude and take off his oxygen mask or to activate the emergency backup oxygen system."

swasheck 15y ago
Really? Who faults someone else for being distracted by an inability to breathe? I know that they're trained for high-stress situations but when it's the fault of the equipment in the first place, own up to it.
- ajross 15y ago
  It's not a finding of legal fault. It's a statement about whether or not things need to change in the aircraft design. The oxygen system (presumably, obviously I didn't design it) isn't inherently redundant. If it fails (because Stuff Always Breaks) there are existing procedures the pilots are presumably trained on. The article lists two: an emergency backup (probably a second tank in the cockpit?) and the old standby of "dive to lower altitudes so you don't need oxygen, dummy". The finding was that these options would have been sufficient if they were used, so the design of the aircraft isn't deficient. Obviously the software bug should still be fixed, and probably pilot training needs to be updated.

dhughes 15y ago

Here is Canada our government is insisting they are going to buy some F-35 jets. People have complained other than its complexity the single engine is bad if you are over the Arctic and the engine fails, most modern Canadian jets have dual engines.

javert 15y ago
People have complained other than its complexity the single engine is bad if you are over the Arctic and the engine fails, most modern Canadian jets have dual engines. I wonder if the F-35 has a particularly reliable engine.
- dhughes 15y ago
  I'm not sure but if it's a vertical take-off and land (VTOL) it must be pretty durable. Found this gem on Wikipedia under Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canada had previous experience with a high-accident rate with the single-engine Lockheed CF-104 Starfighter with many accidents related to engine failures. Defence Minister Peter MacKay, when asked what would happen if the F-35’s single engine fails in the Far North, stated "It won’t"

spoiledtechie 15y ago

I hate when companies under bid projects and then the public wonders why its so much over budget. Government contractors do this all the time. They underbid, and then 1 year later, ask the government for more cash because they are soo far in and know the government will do it. Government contract work is sooo lucrative too. Most of that initial investment into Lockhead probably just went to pay salaries of the higher ups and did no actual work. Sorry for Ranting.

josefresco 15y ago

While the per-unit cost of an F-35 is quite high now (they've only built 60+) the comparative cost to the F-22 which was seen as expensive and too exotic will be lower in the long term. While budget overruns are painful, the idea behind standardizing our fighter jets between the forces, thereby reducing costs is a wise move. I always thought of the F-22 as a hand-built race car, while these F-35 are Porsche's that can be mass produced, are just as "fast" and will be more reliable due to the standardization. Also deploying cheap drones are only possible when you dominate the skies with these expensive, complex, man-powered jets.

javert 15y ago
Also deploying cheap drones are only possible when you dominate the skies with these expensive, complex, man-powered jets. Well, drones don't have to be cheap, and could hypothetically be just as capable as fighters in most respects (and much more capable in some respects).
onemoreact 15y ago
The thing about drones is you can build them cheaply enough that it cost the enemy more to shoot them down than it costs to build more of them. Instead the military has decided to simply make fighter planes that don't need pilots but that's a separate issue.
- ahelwer 15y ago
  Source? I'm not sure you could get a drone up and running for smaller than a multiple of the price of a surface-to-air missile.
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    Edit: I don't work with such things, but posting the first version of this felt unwise so I cut a few things. Stinger's cost ~38k and are not guaranteed to work so multiply that by the probability of failure. You can buy drone control system can cost below 1,500$ ex: http://www.micropilot.com/products-mp1028g.htm http://www.micropilot.com/products-mp1028g.htm, granted there are good reasons to buy / build something far more expensive but we are looking at low cost baseline. After that it's a question of range and payload for 10,000$ you can get an RC jet that can do 200 mph and carry a camcorder for surveillance. Call it 15k for a fairly respectable surveillance aircraft. As to being able to fight back just add a spike. PS: Now figure out what you can do with say 10 billion$ aka 600,000 of these things. Worse yet that's just an opening, they are cheap enough that you have plenty of budget for other things.

cft11 15y ago

the new women-based "service economy" is bearing its fruits.

read_wharf 15y ago

Kill it. We don't have the money. All those alternatives that other countries are looking at are alternatives for us (US) as well.

holograham 15y ago
some basic math...1 trillion over 40 years is about 25 billion a year....US budget in 2012 was 3.796 trillion FOR THE YEAR....so that is 0.6% of the budget. I think we can all agree that it is certainly militarily advantageous to have air superiority keeping in mind that it is mainly for the wars we dont fight and will never fight rather than our current conflicts. Also these articles fail to mention the planes that will be retired over the next 40 years that the JSF will replace. Lots of costs savings that arent included. Military superiority is supported by practical every political base including libertarians. Large, complex aircraft cost a ton to produce. Is there waste? Sure but some of the waste is due to our own democratic political system. Easy to cast all blame on greedy govt contractors.
- read_wharf 15y ago
  We could replace those planes with cheaper alternatives. The total program cost may be a small part of the budget, but our economy would do better if we spent that money on things we can use, not things that sit in a hangar and suck up money.

dexcs 15y ago

FYI: The eurofighter has about 1.2 million LoC (but they use other languages too) and is written in the same programming language (Ada). They have about 500 coders working on it. Impressive..

learc83 15y ago

I was following the (at the time) YF-22 and the proposed JSF when I was a kid. I'm now 28. These things take so long to build and there are so many hands in the pot that they can't help, but be ridiculously complex. Talk about changing requirements during development. Imagine working on a software project that took 20 years to develop. Add that to the fact that any large military project has to be spread out over as many congressional districts to keep as many congressman happy as possible.

edge17 15y ago

Brink? How is this not a budgetary disaster already? What 'technology' costed a trillion dollars to develop? Certainly not going to the moon.

hluska 15y ago

I have never quite understood why so many powers (the United States, Canada, Japan, etc) have lined up to try and buy F-35s. Every plausible enemy our countries could square off against have extremely old technology (or no technology to speak of). In fact, I would be prepared to argue that slightly updated F-15s are superior to anything that any plausible enemy could attack us with. Am I wrong? If so, help me understand why!!

arjn 15y ago
I concur. IMO all the US needs to do is upgrade/update its F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fleet to stay ahead of potential enemies for several years.

redsymbol 15y ago

The reference to one trillion dollars in the headline is accurate, but lacks context that makes it a bit sensationalist. The article elaborates the cost as "an estimated $1 trillion to develop, purchase and support through 2050". Or about $25 billion a year. Whether that's pricey or a bargain depends on how many aircraft are purchased and supported; TFA states that the "Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are counting on buying as many as 2,500 F-35s", which would be $10 million per craft per year for the next four decades. This is not to say the thing isn't an overpriced, failing project. If the GAO's analysis and predictions cited in the article are correct, it sounds pretty bad. In particular, it's hard to imagine that four decades from now, the US armed forces would want to still be using early 21st-century aircraft.

olalonde 15y ago
You are omitting the time value of money which can make a huge difference in such a large time frame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money

izend 15y ago

Could the F35 choice of C++ be the problem or heavy use of OOP? It appears they have struggling with the complexity of their software implementation. It might just be their requirements but I wonder if it is similar to Ericsson's massive failure with their AXE-N project. No one knows exactly why that software project became too complex but it has been speculated that: "One particular problem area identified is the system's software , especially for using extreme attention to object orientation (which at the time was the golden hammer ) in both computer programs as databases , [8] which can be difficult to combine with parallel programming, and that they chose to develop and make use of largely new, completely untested methods." Ericsson attempted to heavily use OOP for the AXE-N, might that be the cause of the failure? The failure spawned the Erlang (functional language, with strict evaluation, single assignment) project which went on to be a massive success in their next product. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsv.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAXE-N&act=url http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js...

bradleyjg 15y ago

What realistic scanario has the following characteristic: We are fighting against an enemy for which fourth generation fight planes are inadequate and said enemy does not have nuclear armed ICBMs? Meanwhile the Air Force is bent on taking out of service the one type of aircraft that is most useful to actual, likely war-fighting - the CAS planes. The AC-130 was originally designed in the 60s and troops still cheer when it arrives over the battlefield. The boys that run the fighter jet mafia consider such "bus driving" planes beneath them, so we instead of upgrading the A, C and perhaps B lines we have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars buying the kind of F line toys they prefer to play with.

hsmyers 15y ago

While certainly not cheap, the B2 was brought in under time and under budget. I also think we got our monies worth out of it in the several wars it has been used in. Source; the project manager. Disclaimer: he's my brother---we are both a little biased :)