Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Monday June 02 2014, @11:36AM   Printer-friendly
from the buddy-can-you-spare-me-a-dime? dept.

The US military's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft is proving to be a pain in the neck in more ways than one. Not only did the Pentagon spend almost $400 billion to buy 2,400 aircraft - about twice as much as it cost to put a man on the moon - the F-35 program is 7 years behind schedule and $163 billion over budget. This at a time when cuts in the defense budget are forcing the Pentagon to shrink the size of the military. CBS 60 Minutes took a closer look at the troubled fighter plane a few months back, but their rebroadcast on Sunday evening seems like as good a reason as any to revisit one of the biggest ongoing budget debacles in U.S. military memory. David Martin gets an inside look at what makes the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter the most expensive weapons system in history.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by gman003 on Monday June 02 2014, @01:37PM

    by gman003 (4155) on Monday June 02 2014, @01:37PM (#50202)

    In 1960's dollars, the Apollo Program cost about $20 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $100 billion.

    As for how old-school NASA managed to send people to the Moon on a relative shoestring budget, while the DoD can't even make a fighter plane with a king's ransom, there's a bunch of reasons. First, they're basically trying to make a plane that can do everything - air superiority, ground-attack, anti-ship, fly from any field or carrier. There's a reason the different branches have historically had different aircraft - they're doing different jobs. The idea of "one plane fits all" is a decent idea, but it doesn't work well in practice. Then there's the politics. The different branches fight over stupid things, because it's not like we've had any wars lately for them to let out that aggression. Congresscritters make sure there's jobs being "created" in their districts. Contractors keep finding ways to make a bigger profit off it.

    And in all honesty, the planes we had were perfectly fine. It's not like the F-35 is a revolutionary improvement (although the History Channel seems to disagree...), and it's not like any of our enemies are building anything comparable.

    Meanwhile, old-school NASA got a mission, got a budget, and then basically had free reign. The budget wasn't big enough to get all the leeches you see in the F-35 program - everybody had to actually do their job in order for it to succeed, and NASA kept tight reins on their contractors. It's a pretty good example of how a project *should* be run. They made some mistakes, sure, particularly early on, but by the end they had their shit in order.

    Current NASA is a bit of a different story though.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday June 02 2014, @02:27PM

    by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 02 2014, @02:27PM (#50220)

    The different branches fight over stupid things, because it's not like we've had any wars lately for them to let out that aggression.

    Whaddaya mean, we haven't had any wars lately? We were at war in Iraq quite recently, are still at war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, had a little dust-up in Libya to oust Muammar Quadaffi, and have ongoing covert actions in Yemen, Pakistan, and Syria. And probably a few places I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.

    I know it's not the kind of wars that the military jocks are gearing up for, to ensure that we protect West Germany from Soviet aggression, but make no mistake, we're at war right now. It's a testament to our propaganda machine^H^Hmainstream media that you completely forgot about the half-dozen or so foreign countries where the US government is killing people on a regular basis.

    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 02 2014, @02:41PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday June 02 2014, @02:41PM (#50230)

      And none of those are fights where we would ever need a superadvanced stealth fighter. Because the world knows (well, other than Russia maybe) that it's just stupid to try to go up against the U.S. in any kind of conventional war. There's a reason it's all asymmetric.

      Well, that and we like beating up on people who can't fight back, I suppose.

      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday June 02 2014, @03:53PM

      by sjames (2882) on Monday June 02 2014, @03:53PM (#50266) Journal

      None of those are declared and all were entirely optional. So basically we're just killing people for sport.

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday June 03 2014, @09:08PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday June 03 2014, @09:08PM (#50791) Journal

      When did Congress sign a declaration of war against *any* of these nations?

      Those aren't wars; they're terrorism.