Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Street gang

This is one of the more amazing examples of dredging up government/industry revolving doorism to support the F-35 cause.

Take this commentary over at Defence News by Gordon England.

Again we hear concern about the government's fault (or is it lack of religious faith?) in not pressing hard enough with the buys on F-35 mistake-jets.

This is more of the same of the recent script by those that have a large stake in seeing the F-35 succeed at any cost. Politicians. Marketeers. And so on.

According to England; hey, the F-16 had trouble too. The F-16 program used concurrency and this will work for the F-35.

Not a valid comparison. The original General Dynamics program was managed mostly by people that knew what they were doing. It took a handful of years to get F-16s into real flying squadrons.

Lockheed Martin was under the illusion that they were General Dynamics just because they bought them.

Faith-based program management has not been a success.


The reason we don't have an F-35 in a real front-line flying squadron is due to technical and management incompetence by LM and friends.

England does not care about America having a credible air power deterrent. He cares about making sure the spigot of billions keeps going to Fort Worth.

For people like England: "Mi barrio".


5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mr. England is a menace. He won't be satisfied until the entire procurement budget is dedicated to the F-35. In order to do what he suggests, that is what it would take. Even at those production rates he wants, the cost of the jet will still be twice as much as when the program was sold. Think of how much money needs to be obligated for this madness, and what else needs to be sacrificed to get it. It might just happen, and it will bring us to our knees.

Anonymous said...

Mr. England, If the F-35 had delivered on its promised performance & capabilities early-on, the delays we're seeing now would not have occurred and we would now be ramping up production.

Anonymous said...

England is hanging out at the trough with the rest of the rent seekers.

Anonymous said...

regarding F16 & general dynamics reference ... Boyd F15, F16, and F18
http://web.archive.org/web/20010412225142/http://www.defense-and-society.org/FCS_Folder/comments/c199.htm
from above:

He used it to re-design the F-15, changing it from an 80,000-pound, swing-wing, sluggish behemoth, to a 40,000-pound fixed-wing, high-performance, maneuvering fighter. His crowning glory was his use of the theory to evolve the lightweight fighters that eventually became the YF-16 and YF-17 prototypes -- and then to insist that the winner be chosen in the competitive market of a free-play flyoff.

The YF-16, which won, is still the most maneuverable fighter ever designed. The production successors, the not-so-lightweight F-16 (Air Force) and the F/A-18 (the Navy-Marine Corps aircraft that evolved from the YF-17), together with the F-15, dominate the skies today. Naturally, Boyd believed they could have been much better war machines if the bureaucrats had not corrupted their thoroughbred design with so many bells and whistles. Nevertheless, more than any other single person, the Mad Major is responsible for our nation's unsurpassed air superiority, which began in the mid-1970s and continues to this day

... snip ...

Anonymous said...

'The YF-16, which won, is still the most maneuverable fighter ever designed'

Yea right...