(12-07-2016 10:24 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: (12-06-2016 10:04 AM)Niner National Wrote: The Pentagon is a cesspool of waste and political favors.
Yes.
How many bases are open simply because they are in a powerful Congressman's district? How many weapons programs exist not because the military wants then but because they are manufactured in some powerful Congressman's district?
Too much oink in the defense budget.
I think the F-35 has subcontractors in something like 47 states and 400 congressional districts. That is enough to ensure a steady stream of overpriced and underperforming combat aircraft. The pilot cannot see behind him because his view is blocked by the housing for the vertical lift fan (which is only installed on the STOVL version, but the same structure is there for all versions). No problem, he has this handy-dandy helmet with displays that show what is going on behind him. Except that so far the helmet doesn't work. The Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen have helmets that do almost as much as the F-35 pilot helmet. Except they work. And, oh yeah, almost forgot, the pilot can actually see behind him if they don't.
We have the LCS, which supposedly replaces the Knox/Perry ASW frigates. It does 45 knots, which is cute. But it's engines are too noisy for it to do ASW. And it's "big" gun is a 57-mm (2-1/4 inches) that can't be fired accurately when the ship is at speed because the platform is not stable enough. It's also supposed to do mine countermeasures, but so far the MCM module does not work, plus how much sense does it make to put an expensive asset into that role, when sweeps are historically viewed as throwaway vessels? It's supposed to cost $450 million a pop, but so far it's coming in closer to $750 million a pop. For that money, we could have a far more capable Horizon or FREMM or Nansen or Huitfieldt or Type 124, or a little bit more for an F-105 or a Daring. So far none have passed a proper shock test, because the fear is that a standard shock test would essentially destroy all the mission-capable equipment (assuming there is anything that is mission-capable). And so far, every one that has deployed has ended up being towed home. Plus we have gotten rid of all the Knoxes and Perrys, and we are laying up the Ticonderogas, in order to make room in the fleet for the LCSs.
Or the Ford aircraft carriers that cost twice as much as their predecessors ($13 billion versus $6 billion), carry 1/3 fewer aircraft, and so far everything works except the catapults and the arresting gear.
This stuff is hard to make up. Europe--yes, Europe--is getting more bang for the buck out of its military procurement because they are designing and building to budget and we are not.
