"Flying Piano" Costs Pentagon $1.5 Trillion

Mike Shedlock

The Pentagon is about to waste $1.5 trillion, 38% of entire defense budget for a "virtual flying piano". That may sound preposterous, and it is. Unfortunately, it is also true.

Foreign Policy Magazine discusses the sad saga of The Jet That Ate the Pentagon.

Mike Shedlock

Mike Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for Sitka Pacific Capital Management.

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate

34 Comments So Far

Archie1954 Wrote: May 03, 2012 10:56 PM

So who is responsible for this debacle? Is it the military by constantly changing the specs or is it the manufacturer which is totally incompentent?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Blair31 Wrote: May 01, 2012 8:58 PM

Agreed.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Anonymous6702 Wrote: May 01, 2012 12:09 AM

At this point they have no choice but to build the F-35 and keep trying until it's perfected. The older airplanes are too old and would be blown out of the sky by China and Russia's latest planes. We don't have enough F22s and they are Air Force only. The Navy can't fly them on carriers if they wanted to. A real conservative does not write stories complaining about the F-22, that is for Dems, progressives and statists. And there are plenty who have written the same stuff as this author who calls himself a conservative. TH has been infiltrated by too many from the enemy camp and they are clever too. It's very subtle, as I pointed out in the immigration column about Illegals supposedly going home to Mexico. What rubbish!!

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Anonymous6702 Wrote: May 01, 2012 12:11 AM

Phoney conservatives one and all like the Bushes, McCain and Lugar, just to name a few. The enemy is in the GOP and that's why I'm not a repub any more, I'm a real conservative instead.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

None1257 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 2:15 PM

Who is going to start a war with the United States, as long as the United States, has the nuclear capability it does have?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jonathan55 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 4:08 PM

1. Taliban
2. Iraq
3. Iran
4. North Korea

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jay Wye Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 7:32 PM

China. They are ADDING dozens of new nuclear missiles every year.
they have designed ballistic weapons specifically to attack US carriers.
Some of their Generals have mentioned nuking LA.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

None1257 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 2:13 PM

Who is going to start a war with the United States, as long as the United States, has the nuclear capability it does have?

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

BananaSplit38 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 3:51 PM

As I recall, Russia has a few nukes.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jay Wye Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 7:29 PM

That ASSumes that those nukes would actually be used.
Once it's no longer believable as a threat,then they are useless.
I have doubts about some of our leaders,that they would NOT be able to order a nuclear retaliation. Some of them would be willing to "absorb" a nuclear strike against a US city.
Then there's Comrade Obama who wants to REDUCE our nuclear inventory to 300-400 warheads,while killing ballistic missile defense,setting us up for a first strike.Unilaterally,not getting ANY matching cuts from Russia and China. Comrade Hussein signed New START that cuts our nuclear weaponry,but allows Russia to build UP to the limits,and doesn't affect China at all.

Plus,MAD -only- works with RATIONAL players. Iran and N.Korea are not rational.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

Jay Wye Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 7:29 PM

Iran's first use of a nuclear bomb may not be over Israel,but the US,an EMP attack.An EMP attack on the US would set us back to 19th century living conditions we are NOT prepared for,and many millions would die from starvation and disease in the first year. It could mean the end of the US. Iran has been testing SCUD launches from containerships,with HIGH altitude detonations characteristic of an EMP attack,and not usable for attacks with conventional warheads . This type of attack is not needed for Israel,Iran's IRBMs already can reach Israel. But with the US crippled or destroyed,Iran is free to do as they please,without any other Western nation able or willing to interfere with them.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jay Wye Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 7:30 PM

Also note that Iran is building a missile base in Venezuela,putting the US in range of Iran's IRBMs.
Lastly,MAD deterrence only works with RATIONAL players,and Iran's mullahs are not rational.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Mike2065 Wrote: May 01, 2012 2:19 PM

Obama plans to cut our inventory to 300 which means China would have more than we do!

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Milt37 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 1:23 PM

Can't say I didn't see this one coming. I've been in aerospace engineering for 34 yrs., and a student of military aircraft from way before then. When I first heard of the plans for the F-35 I called B$ and predicted eventual failure.

You cannot take one design and make it everything to all services. It becomes the proverbial horse designed by a committie, that turns into a camel. This was tried back by that Kennedy wunderkind McNamara with the TFX that went on to become the F-111. He was convinced that the Air Force and Navy could use a common design that would handle air-superiority, fleet defense, bombing, supersonic flight, with good low-speed capabilities for carrier landings.

Needless to say it was a very expensive flop.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Milt37 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 1:36 PM

I didn't take the Navy long to prove how unsuitable the design was for their missions. It was too big and bulky for good carrier use. It also had a design flaw that caused at least one of its two engines to flame-out during a typical carrier approach.

The Air Force wasn't exactly in love with it either. It definitely couldn't meet the needs of an air-superiority fighter (agile dog-fighter). As a medium bomber it was okay, but not great.

To add insult to injury, the pompous McNamara sent a squadron of USAF F-111's to Viet Nam long before the design was ready for operations and some of them immediately got shot down behind enemy lines. With all our latest technology the Russians had a field day!

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Milt37 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 1:43 PM

It took a lot of years and taxpayer dollars before the Navy got what needed with the F-14 and the Air Force got they wanted with the F-15.

It seems our politicians and Pentagon leaders can't seem to learn from history. For them there are few if any consequences. But for Americans, the cost in taxpayer dollars and serious breaches in our national security are scary and unecessary.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

BIGSKYER Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 2:50 PM

They don't care, it's not there money, and anyone who think they'll change such behavior is sadly mistaken.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Brian1078 Wrote: May 01, 2012 10:39 PM

The most cost effective to develop plane in the US inventory has been the F 16. It was originally designed using mostly off the shelf parts, and without a development contract. It worked far better than anyone expected

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

kenneth416 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 12:39 PM

The F-35 could join the 20 or so B-2's sitting idle at Wightman AFB in Missouri. I believe that the B-2 has actually dropped a payload only once since it came into service. As for me, I prefer the old fashioned B-52 with many tons of old fashioned iron bombs.
While we are at it, why do we need 179 new re-fueling tankers from Boeing? It took the Pentagon several years to finally rig the procurement system to make it look as if Boeing offered the best deal.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jay Wye Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 7:22 PM

the B-52 is not survivable in today's SAM and air defense environment. We need new refueling tankers because the old ones are wearing out.
Our F-15's are also wearing out.

FYI,did you know the Navy's Blue Angels fly F-18s that are too worn out for carrier landings? they strip out the non-flight-essential avionics not needed for the air show. I saw that on the PBS show The Aviators.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Mike2065 Wrote: May 01, 2012 2:21 PM

The B-2 has been used on several occasions not just 1.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

lhooten Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 11:01 AM

Too bad govt doesn't understand that sometimes a bad idea is Just A Bad Idea. As many times as mankind has tried to create the 'perfect' ANYTHING by cobbling together every possible advantage, you ALWAYS end up with a useless piece of junk. Park the F-35 alongside the XB-70 and have done with it.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

lhooten Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 11:01 AM

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

SPO Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 9:51 AM

I can agree with much of what you say Mike, but any analysis of this program is not complete without including the systemic issues of Gov't project procurement regulations/rules that add an enormous amount to the cost of this program (or any gov't project for that matter). I say this as someone who has participated on the procurement and execution side of this project. Simply, the vast enormity of incremental costs due to regulations should appall every taxpayer.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

E1776 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 9:39 AM

I worked for a subcontractor on material sent to Northrup Grumman who built part of the wing and fuselage that was sent to Lockheed Martin/Ft. Worth. The plane definitely has widespread support among the defense contractors because so many have a hand in the manufacturing. My plant is in VA but owned by a Luxembourg company. There are so many innovations and costly components that the plane is nearly impossible to build. I quit the company in 2006 because of the the shoddy quality and rush to build and test.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jay Wye Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 10:13 AM

that is the typical political tactic; spread out the manufacturing across all the companies,then it becomes "too big to fail".
What they -should- be doing is setting performance and unit cost requirements,flight testing whatever prototype aircraft the manufacturers come up with,and selecting the best of the entries for full-scale manufacturing.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Fred150 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 9:29 AM

The comment on Luke AFB is out of place in this article. IF there is to be an F-35, the training should be at Luke. Luke is in Arizona and McCain is from Arizona - and he's right. Luke is a national treasure for training fighter pilots - souce of training for the three fighters I flew in the USAF - F-100, F-4, F-15. A discussion of the merits (cost/benefit) of the F-35 is another issue. Did you know that the F-15E is much more complex than the F-15C and D and has a higher reliability - It was designed to be 20% more reliable during 1982-86 development - more capable (dual role), lower logistics demand (cargo airplanes filled with support) for deploying a squadron, higher reliability (breaks less - higher MTBF/MTBMA) and more maintainable.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Brian1078 Wrote: May 01, 2012 10:41 PM

It's the F-16 training school now. They have lots of open space to fly over and are only a few minutes flight from the Goldwater bombing range.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Isgau8 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 9:24 AM

So what does Mike suggest we do? Fly our legacy aircraft for another 30-40 years? When I parked an A-10 for the last time in 2007, the tail had a number on it, AF78, indicating that the airplane was built in 1978. All the aircraft in our fleet had either had their entire wing structure replaced or major life extension work done on them. Is the A-10 still a very capable airplane? Absolutely, but airframes wear out and many of our legacy fighters are have long been operating well beyond their original planned lifespan. We cannot expect our present fighter force to offer 5th generation capability at the same time we are hoping the cracks in the airframes don't get so bad that we limit their manuevering capabilities.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

kenneth416 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 12:46 PM

Isgau8, if you flew the A-10, you know that the AF detested it. It was/is ugly, slow, and not sexy. What is was/is damn EFFECTIVE. I don't know whether you know the history of this plane or not, but the AF requested potential contractors to provide the best airplae they could produce for $3.5M per copy, and Fairchild won the competition. Probably the best acquisition the AF ever made, excepting perhaps the B-52, which is still damn CAPABLE today after more than 50 years.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Isgau8 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 2:22 PM

I agree with all of that. The AF has been plagued(IMO)by a go fast pointy nose culture for some time. Furthermore, as the A-10 was a single role airplane, it did not get alot of support for that. The problem is the age of the airplane. You can only throw high g-loads at a structure for so long before bad things start happening. The A-10, F-15, F-18 and F-16 have been getting punished by daily training for 20-35 years depending on the particular airframe. The F35 is late and expensive, yes, but it will likely bring a prety good hammer to the fight overall. I would love to have had the electro-optical digital aperature (DAS) system the F-35 has so I could also see through the floor of my A-10.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 6:06 AM

Wasn't the F-35 originally intended to replace the F-16? I understood 1 of the F-16's virtues was low cost for a fighter aircraft of its class & intended missions.
We've already got the F-15 & its successor the F-22.
Sounds to me like this Schmoo is intended to be costly to produce & operate, as an ongoing make-work program.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jay Wye Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 10:09 AM

As I recall,F-35 was to be a cheaper version of the F-22 with carrier capability and short takeoff,vertical landing(STOVL) for the Marine missions. so the Pols decided we could make do with about 100 F-22s,and canceled that program,BEFORE the F-35 was finalized in design and tested.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

restoreliberty Wrote: Apr 30, 2012 12:47 AM

No way will Slumbama kill union jobs.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

New comments on this article - click to refresh

TownhallFinance.com makes available to the viewer a variety of independent sources that offer trading and investment advice and related services and products. TownhallFinance.com does not itself offer, verify, sponsor, or promote, directly or indirectly, any investment or trading advice, or information or any product or service offered by these independent sources. Every investor or trader should consider all advice and all offerings of products and services on their own merits and for suitability to the individual's personal needs and circumstances. Before using this site, please read our complete Terms of Service by clicking here. Make TownhallFinance.com your premier source for stock market and financial market information. Individual investors enjoy our worldwide investor seminars and trading seminars. Our investment advisor seminars keep financial advisors up to data with CEUs, and this site provides investors, traders, and advisors with the latest stock market analysis tips, information and research tools. Be sure to be a part of our options day trading tips and picks from professional day traders and various trading, investing and advisor Webcasts and financial podcasts.

Allahpundit	Quotes of the day
Jazz Shaw	Has the Syrian civil war fallen victim to media fatigue?
Ed Morrissey	Oddly, the IRS didn’t seem interested in large 501s
Jazz Shaw	Google Glass. Creepy privacy invasion or the new normal?
Ed Morrissey	Video: Gas prices hit $4.39 a gallon in the Twin Cities
Jazz Shaw	“Mass demonstration” at Ft. Meade supporting Manning

"Flying Piano" Costs Pentagon $1.5 Trillion

Mike Shedlock

Most Recent Articles

Sign-Up to receive Updates from TH

Video