It amazes me given the ridiculous tight defense budgets we have, how much we waste because of stupid procurement decisions.  

Very true. A recent article in an IEEE magazine (a professional society for Electrical Engineers) had some interesting analysis of the problem and its sources: h**p://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov08/6931

 

Interesting quote: "In 2007, the GAO estimated that current programs in development were experiencing an average delay of 21 months, with a few programs nearly a decade behind schedule."

They cite a number of problems which are endemic to the system:

  - Decisions made for political reasons instead of technical reasons

  - Reliance on unproved technologies

  - Enormous complexity

  - Absurdly low cost estimates which allow too many programs to be funded

  - Too much oversight (in the form of complex and paper-work intensive criteria to be met)

  - Too little oversight (in the form of not enough skilled engineers and procurement people)

  - Procurement timelines which are overtaken by geopolitical events

 

The article also links to a previous IEEE article from 1994 which cites similar problems.

Are you trying to suggest that we should have bought MORE B-2's and MORE F-14's as opposed to buying the B-1 and F/A-18 E/F/G?  I'd like to see you in procurement land...NOT.  The B-1 has done an outstanding job in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It is No. 2 in cost per bomb delivered, the B-52 being No. 1...the B-2 is a very pricey bomb truck that is only useful, in a LO-way, in a very few and specific set of circumstances (over North Korea or the PRC).  And the F/A-18 E/F is a much better Fighter, and a decent interceptor (with AMRAAM), and a much better attack aircraft than the F-14 was....the F-14 was an Interceptor that could, in a pinch, dogfight...

 

Bottom-Line: if I understood you correctly, we'd have made very wrong procurement choices in your world, more B-2's and more F-14's, when in fact, we made the CORRECT procurement choices in the B-1 and the F/A-18 E/F...

No, you did not understand me correctly. Back in the time of Carter, North American Repulbic offered additional 100 B-1s for $10 billion. Carter declaring the B-1 bomber as "too expensive" instead went with the B-2. So, after $44 billion we got 21 additional bombers.

The F-14 was the Navy's top tier fighter, but was getting too old. But because the F-14 was "too expensive", the Navy instead of buying an improved version of the F-14 with improved engines and electronics, and keeping the two tier system of high/low cost fighters instead replaced all its fighter with a second-tier fighter, the F-18. But then the cost for the new F-18 went through the roof. Thus, the Navy wound up with an inferior second-teir fighter (slower and shorter range) that cost more per plane than the F-14 did.   

They tried to make one airplane do everything for everyone and they're surprised it's expensive?

Personally, I'm in the camp to stick with more Block II SH and even seek a joint-developer for a block III (if significant capability can be justified for an acceptable, firm R&D quote), and postpone going with F-35C procurement (until final F-35 block tech can be applied to F-35C, perhaps around 2020).  So in this case I'm good with USN's current position having SH block II on hand and access to more if need be.  Ironic then, that you and I would perhaps both support SH now, instead of immediate F-35C?

 

Otherwise I totally concur with your general theme, including the post-analysis vis-a-vis B-1 vs B-2.

 

One critical, seldom emphasized argument could be made however, in favor of furthering F-22 line: a la FB-22 adaptation as competitive alternative, to an entirely new medium B-3 bomber concept slated for the 2018 stop-gap program.

 

An FB-22 could be done at perhaps a $10 billion discount alone, to a B-3 medium platform.  The FB-22 could be based at tactical bases and strike targets with much faster response time.  It could further act as long-range interceptor and in other specialized capabilities such as in: LO tactical EA jammer role.  The long-range strike capability too, could in many cases allow it to operate in a tanker-independent scenario allowing it to be even far superior than F-35A, thus enabling a truly unprecedented, over-lapping capability for far less logistical and development costs.

 

What are your thoughts?

Would much rather see a heavy Bomber that works one the first day of the war that doesn't coust as much as  half an Aircraft Carrier!Medium bomber? Why???? I agree with Gates! The FB-22-I like the idea alot.

 

Here is a site I like: