Engineers are no longer involved in a project of this kind. The projects are run SOLELY for the profit of the company who is building it.
All decisions made are intended to increase profits, and to extend building times (to allow further chance for profits without having to go to the expense of rebidding.) Any actual items created as part of the profit are purely side effects. With the hope that followon maintenance goes to them, as well. There really are no checks and balances left in military procurement (or most government spending), in my opinion. Even those who's job it is to handle oversight are counting the days until they can return to private sector, and go to work for these same companies on the other side of the desk. On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems that one of the reasons the Pentagon Tuition budget was cut, was > to pay for the allegedly overpriced and underperforming F35 program. > These figures apparently top the F22 program. > > As a combat jet buff, these projects excite me. I remember hours spent on > the computer flying combat jet sims, especially Total Air War and others > which simulated the F22. > But the cost of these projects are truly incredible. > > The F16, F18 and aircraft produced in the 60s and 70s seem to have a far > better development and cost-benefit than what we're doing now. > > Here's the track record on the Eurofighter: "By 1997 the estimated cost was > £17 billion; by 2003, £20 billion, and the in-service date (2003; defined > as the date of delivery of the first aircraft to the RAF) was 54 months > late. After 2003 the Ministry of Defence have refused to release updated > cost estimates on the grounds of 'commercial sensitivity',[48] however in > 2011 the National Audit Office estimated the UK's "total programme cost > [would] eventually hit £37 billion". > > This aircraft development went from 1988 to delivery of the first planes in > 2003. > Have engineers forgotten how to build? :) > > The F16 development went from 1960 to 1973. The contracts to produce and > develop them were about 39.8 million dollars. > That is $304,327,027.72 in today's dollars. > > Here's the costs for the F35 program, so far along with estimated expenses. > > > http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/numbers-americas-most-expensive-fighter-ever-infographic > > > On 19 March 2013 14:32, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > A fistful of awesome > > > > ( > > > > > http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-spend-38-million-decrease-human-elephant-conflict > > ) > > > > > > The Department of the Interiors Fish and Wildlife Service has awarded > $3.8 > > million in 2011 and 2012 for a African Elephant Conservation grant > that, > > in part, aims to decrease human-elephant conflict. > > > > The grant award for 2013 is estimated at $1.5 million to continue efforts > > to protect African elephants and their habitat, according to > > federalgrantswire.com. > > > > > > > > I know, it's only 1.5 million this year. Just a drop in the bucket > right? > > > > I also saw where the Minister of Truth Carney would not answer a question > > posed about President Obama forgoing his lavish vacations and golf > outings > > for the rest of the year in order to save money. Of course, no answer > > means "He's not going to stop those." > > > > > > Seems like we have an Imperial Presidency. Nice article from last week. > > > > > > American Way: why it's become clear that Obama's White House is open to > the > > rich and closed to the poor ( > > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9934645/American-Way-why-its-become-clear-that-Obamas-White-House-is-open-to-the-rich-and-closed-to-the-poor.html > > ): > > > > Once, only nobles were granted an audience with the King. > > > > > > In America, we've prided ourselves on abandoning those privileges of > class > > some 237 years ago, following that little uprising in the 13 colonies. > > > > > > And we again congratulated ourselves at 12:01 pm Eastern Time on January > > 20, 2009, just moments after Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th > > president of the United States and as he committed to making his > > administration the most transparent and open in history. > > > > > > But more than four years later it is time to ask questions. The most > > transparent administration ever? The most transparently political, yes. > The > > most open government? If you have the money to buy access, yes. > > > > > > Since last weekend, Mr and Mrs Regular Citizen have been denied the > access > > people used to be granted to tour the White House, purportedly because of > > the clampdown on federal spending since the "sequester" that imposed cuts > > across the board. > > > > > > And their cancellation is an austerity measure that saves a pittance, > while > > more frivolous taxpayer funding for items like the White House dog walker > > continues. > > > > > > Meanwhile, noble Americans can buy time with the president for a > suggested > > donation of $500,000 to his new campaign group, Organising for Action. > > > > > > Yes, the announcement offering access to the president for cold, hard > cash > > was made openly and with total transparency. But it was also made without > > shame. > > > > > > > > President Obama, the people are hungry. > > > > Let them eat cake. > > > > > > J > > > > - > > > > Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad > reputation. > > - Henry Kissinger > > > > Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, > > go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quin > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:361980 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
