All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Trump sets up Lockheed-Boeing fight

27 comments:

  1. A generation of young folk who will come of age under a Trump Administration are going to get a free education in the art of the deal.

    That's got to be better than what they would've learnt under Kickback Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also this from The Donald: "Someone incorrectly stated that the phrase "DRAIN THE SWAMP" was no longer being used by me. Actually, we will always be trying to DTS."

    How it must gravel the court eunuchs of the MSM to have their carefully crafted sabotage instantly blown to kingdom come by Daisycutter Donald's Twitter feed.

    If the Relevance Deprivation Syndrome of the usual suspects gets any greater, their blood pressure is gonna spray out their ears.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Daisycutter Donald.....I like it and it's a good description

      Delete
  3. I'm all for competition, but they're already fitting up the 35 with lasers. I cannot wait for that first cockpit vid showing ISIS getting their faces melted off...

    Full disclosure: My wife worked at LMT for five years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe DT has other plans?

      "Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
      The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes."

      Delete
    2. Yeah, but imagine the Air Force thinking about flying a Navy aircraft.

      Delete
    3. NamGrunt: F4 Phantom. The AF versions still had tailhooks.

      Delete
    4. Two Other Examples:

      A-7 Corsair served in numerous ANG units.

      A-1 Spad (Skyraider to some of you) extensive use, multiple versions in 'nam.

      Delete
  4. I once had a colleague from India tell me that his dad had gone back home for an operation that I could have done. I was a little miffed and asked why. He asked me how much it would have cost. Back then about ten grand (over double that now, at least), two grand out of pocket with the Medicare plan he had. He said his dad took the two grand he would have paid out of pocket and bought round trip tickets home, visited family, and paid $240 for his surgery. He said that the most interesting part was that after his exam and getting scheduled for the procedure he was given a list and told to go down the street to buy all of the disposables that were to be used in his surgery, including his iv fluids, irrigation, disposable airway,iv tubing catheter, etc. All the stores were competing with each other to sell these things. You know that iv catheter you hear costs ten cents but the hospital charges you $350 for? He paid ten cents for it. If he'd had the procedure done here that iv catheter would have cost him more than the entire procedure done in India. This was part of the learning experience that convinced me that medicine is a hyperregulated hyperregulated monopolistic cartel and that the only way to make our economy competitive is to abolish occupational licensing. Certain occupations cannot be allowed to rip everyone else off by restricting access to services artificially by means of government.
    All that aside, I understand perfectly what Trump is up to. The military industrial complex is in the habit of taking advantage of an artificially shrunken market in arms that has been facilitated by increasing costs of entry and absurd regulatory burdens along with regulatory capture and a revolving door of industry/regulators/lobbyists. This has to change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When the Indian guy accidentally bumps the side of the incision, does a bell ring?

      Delete
    2. Marbles rattle around. Ever see Ensign Pulver?

      Delete
  5. Just as long as he not seriously considering dropping the F-35 for the F/A18. Both good planes, but F-35 is going to go against comparable planes from China and Russia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The way The Donald squeezes a buck, he'll get both for the price of one, with free steak knives for all hands thrown in.

      Delete
  6. Heck, it's been said that the new very fancy F35 can't compete with the F22, which is one hot beastie!

    ReplyDelete
  7. As I see it, the F-35 is what it is because various elements in the AF wanted some of this and some of that and a healthy dollop of half a dozen other things so it could do whatever they thought needed to be done. Which it likely can, but not nearly as well as a single-purpose aircraft, and a whole lot more expensive.

    I am reminded of an old science fiction story, related by a general awaiting execution for treason for losing the war by not being able to produce the ultimate weapon...because the requirements levied on him kept changing and requiring perfection, and that simply couldn't be done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A big factor was appeasing the Marine Corps with a VTOL variant. This made the F-35 much less agile.

      Delete
    2. A quip from my former USAF days: Eventually fighter aircraft would become so expensive that the Pentagon could only afford one, and the USAF and USN would take turns flying it.

      Delete
    3. The quip is Augustine's Law 16.

      The Marines have wanted STOVL since '59 when the Harrier first flew in England. When they finally got Harriers in the '80s, they found out that they owned all the cost of maintaining and orphan (in the US) engine and everything else in the Harrier that was unique to it alone. The Marines wanted a supersonic STOVL fighter. So the Navy and Air Force get airplanes shaped to hold a lift fan in the fwd fuselage, whether they want it or not. The DoD chose...poorly.

      Delete
    4. One of the factors that affects supersonic performance is fineness ratio...cross sectional area versus length. Higher fineness ration means better supersonic performance. Hence, fast airplanes are long and skinny. The F-35 is short and fat because the STOVL version was required to fit on the elevator of the UK's Invincible class carrier...which retired before the F-35 flew. The US will pay a big fraction of a $Trillion for some 3,000 short fat fighters because 150 of them needed to meet a foreign requirement that went away before the first plane flew. And no, nobody could make this stuff up.

      Delete
    5. The story is called "Superiority", and it's by Arthur C. Clarke in his pre-child molestation days. It's available online as a PDF and I profoundly recommend it as a read for anyone who wants to hang around until the F35 is finally ready for prime time.

      Delete
  8. Off topic, but here's Benjamin Netanyahu's 88-second Christmas Address to Christians:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbM1av-Q6e8

    ReplyDelete
  9. My goodness gracious, he is calling out defense contractors. That should leave a nice trail into the various procurement offices of the Pentagon and all of the little groups that slap their requirements on a project just so those groups can stay relevant and funded.

    -Mikey NTH

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is a nice shot across the bow of our defense contractors. I like it. It feels odd to have a President who cares about the taxpayer for a change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Mikey NTH has it right. It's also a shot across the bow of all those fiefdoms in the Pentagon who insist on having things THEIR way or it's NO way.

      Delete
  11. I remember speaking with someone who worked at Lockheed Martin on the F22 project. He said that Congress kept on cutting the number of aircraft to acquire as a means of cost cutting. But since the price of each included all the development costs, the cost skyrocketed with each "cut." I don't remember the real numbers, but it was kinda like: Originally 1000 planes for 50 per plane, or 50,000. Congress cuts to 500 planes, but the price goes up to 100 per plane. Still 50,000. But the Congresscritters could brag about "cutting costs" by reducing the number acquired. But that was a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Trump knows you get the best bang for your buck from competition, so long as the specs are written tightly and intelligently.

    ReplyDelete