Live data from Hacker News

Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

washingtonpost.com

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#31

Did I seriously just read a cry for "disrupting the combat aircraft market"? How about disrupting the tobacco business? Disrupting human traffic? Exaggerations aside, not everything is about making (or saving) money. I sure as hell don't want military weapons to become the latest startup trend.

I have no love for the military. I turned down a guaranteed job offer that pays twice what I'm currently making simply because I don't want to work on things that kill people.

That said, I can also see the other side of this. According to Wikipedia, the US government spent $66 billion dollars on the F22. I'm naive, so I think that we could save $66 billion on that by just not having an F22, but congress disagrees with me and I'm not sure that I'll ever win that fight. However, imagine that start-ups could do the job 10% more efficiently. That's six billion dollars that you just saved.

Now, imagine an entire government agency, like the Peace Corp, but purely dedicated to fighting human trafficking. You could fund that agency for fifteen years on that six billion dollars. If the startup is 20% cheaper, then you could have a second agency of similar size that is dedicated to helping people stop smoking. If the startup managed to be a full 30% cheaper, you can throw in thirty thousand four-year, full-ride college scholarships.

Again, I'd love to have all of that $66 billion spent on other projects, but even funnelling part of that into a different area could markedly improve the world. I'd never work for a start-up that worked on air combat, but I'd be thrilled to free up some of the air combat budget.

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#32
post #2

Northrop Grumman seriously paid for a Super Bowl ad? Oh sure, next time I'm out shopping for a long range stealth bomber maybe I'll subconsciously remember the ad and choose a Northrop Grumman one. I've been a long time Boeing-Lockheed customer but the powerful imagery from that ad left quite the impression on me. I get that defense officials and congressmen watch the Super Bowl, but there must be more cost effective…

I had to laugh when Lockheed bragged that their expertise with the F35 qualified them for this new contract. Apparently failure of a program does not occur as long as funding is secured.

A lot of money could be saved by folding one or two branches together or removing duplicate functions. As in, if it flies its Air Force, if it floats its Navy, otherwise its Army.

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#33

So what happens if we find ourselves in a war of attrition again? Most/all of the potential opponents in such a war are nuclear powers so it's theoretically not a possibility but history is littered with theoretical impossibilities made real. It seems like we have all of these incredibly dominant and expensive weapons but only a relatively tiny supply, no timely and cost-effective way to replace losses, and not many…

You already are in a war of attrition and have been since October 2001. The attrition is of men and lightweight materiel rather than the fancy weapon systems.

The war in Ukraine in particular will be fought with deniable proxy forces on both sides.

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#35
I think the key question for space and aviation enthusiasts is whether or not the Pentagon is building a hypersonic suborbital manned bomber.

If they are -- and it's a big "if" -- then that means the technology for civilian use is just a couple/few decades away. I haven't seen the numbers, but in my mind the market for suborbital commercial flights, say, New York to Sydney in an hour or two, is already there. It's a place on the road to reducing cost-to-orbit where the money's already there. Somebody just has to go get it. Plus DoD will end up solving most of the problems by being the first mover.

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#36
post #2

Northrop Grumman seriously paid for a Super Bowl ad? Oh sure, next time I'm out shopping for a long range stealth bomber maybe I'll subconsciously remember the ad and choose a Northrop Grumman one. I've been a long time Boeing-Lockheed customer but the powerful imagery from that ad left quite the impression on me. I get that defense officials and congressmen watch the Super Bowl, but there must be more cost effective…

Not unusual.

I live near Washington, DC, and have worked in the area several times.

Companies that solicit work from the government regularly run TV and radio ads. I'll be listening to the traffic report on WTOP only to be interrupted by a commercial telling me how great Lockheed-Martin is and how many jobs it provides.

The amount of money flowing through DC has made it into a surreal place. Not unusual to walk by a homeless person warming themselves on a steam grate on the way to work -- and then come across a demonstration against some policy or another. Demonstrators are purchase d a la carte online: we need somebody for six hours today willing to carry a picket sign outside treasury. If you're upset about something you purchase some demonstrators, brief them on what to say, then arrange media coverage.

DC was its own little bizarre cloistered world 60 years ago when Eisenhower talked about the military-industrial complex. It's only gone several levels past that in the ensuing decades.

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#37

Aw, c'mon, nobody has mentioned Aurora yet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28aircraft%29

"Aw, c'mon, nobody has mentioned Aurora yet?"

What on earth does that?

"nobody has mentioned Aurora yet?" you've obviously checked nobody mentioned it, so why not just give us the link and say how it's relevant.

"Aw, c'mon" what the hell is that? Who talks like that? What does "aw" mean? You're disappointed nobody has mentioned something is relevant? Why does that upset you? Why shorten "c'mon" from "come on" like that?

Why post this nonsense? Just give us the link and why it's relevant.

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#39
post #2

Northrop Grumman seriously paid for a Super Bowl ad? Oh sure, next time I'm out shopping for a long range stealth bomber maybe I'll subconsciously remember the ad and choose a Northrop Grumman one. I've been a long time Boeing-Lockheed customer but the powerful imagery from that ad left quite the impression on me. I get that defense officials and congressmen watch the Super Bowl, but there must be more cost effective…

It's not about buying air time. It's about buying influence with the TV network.

Re: Pentagon’s $55B mystery plane is secret, but debate on cost is appearing

#40

Did I seriously just read a cry for "disrupting the combat aircraft market"? How about disrupting the tobacco business? Disrupting human traffic? Exaggerations aside, not everything is about making (or saving) money. I sure as hell don't want military weapons to become the latest startup trend.

I have no love for the military. I turned down a guaranteed job offer that pays twice what I'm currently making simply because I don't want to work on things that kill people. That said, I can also see the other side of this. According to Wikipedia, the US government spent $66 billion dollars on the F22. I'm naive, so I think that we could save $66 billion on that by just not having an F22, but congress disagrees wit…

The F-22 at least more or less accomplished what the program set out to do. It's hilarious to compare it to its "replacement", the F-35, a plane that attempts to shoehorn three mutually conflicting roles into one airframe to reduce costs, except it's going to cost something like a trillion dollars. The best (worst) one is the jumpjet version, designed to operate from temporary airfields and catapult-less aircraft carriers, except it melts anything it tries to land on [1], the fuel trucks that service it need to be painted white to keep the fuel cool enough so the plane doesn't fall out of the sky [2], and it can't even carry the bombs it was designed to carry [3]. At least, it's not alone in that problem though, the F-35A can't shoot its (pointless) gun [4].

[1] http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-f-35b-vertical-landi...

[2] http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/5555...

[3] http://www.defenseworld.net/news/12313/F_35B__Incapable__Of_...

[4] http://rt.com/usa/219255-f35-fighter-jet-glitch/

Post reply on HN