Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Gilmore_04-26-16.pdf

by protomyth • 10 years ago

97 168 10 years ago

armed-services.senate.gov

ardit33• 10 years ago

TLDR: The delays are due to software problems and the plane wont be kinda ready until end of 2018.

Software Development is going to be a competitive advantage in warfare as well. From what I have heard, DoD has some really interesting practices on building software (code review each line with physical printouts, etc), which in combination with scope creep might be the cause of this slowness.

a3n• 10 years ago

Those practices might be appropriate for a combat plane.

SFJulie• 10 years ago

So basically F35 is a plane embedded in a software. Why not have embedded computers in a decent plane? lol.

puppetmaster3• 10 years ago

"Software Development is going to be a competitive advantage"

Let me fix that: if done well.

wyldfire• 10 years ago

Fagan-style code review is likely a net productivity gain over no-reviews-at-all. Sure, scope creep is a killer, but I'd imagine it's a herculean task to create software for a new fighter. The expectation would likely be that software could control and/or monitor many features that would not have been software-controlled in previous generations. Safety requirements for flight (active life support) and armaments would be a huge burden.

coredog644• 10 years ago

IIRC, the F-22 has the equivalent of a Harris Night Hawk computer onboard. That was a big deal 20 years ago, but computationally outclassed by a $100 smartphone today.

My memory, faulty as it may be, seems to recall a two page ad in AW&ST touting the Night Hawk "supercomputer" that would be in each F-22.

tomjen3• 10 years ago

Honestly why do we still spec these with pilots? Why not make a generation of hyper-advanced missiles? It has got to be cheaper and easier (you don't need to visualize anything, because it is a computer) and you wouldn't even need active lifesupport.

coldcode• 10 years ago

I think a lot of the issue is not the software on the plane but the software that manages maintenance, logistics and support; without that working the plane is sitting on the tarmac not doing anything.

nxzero• 10 years ago

Just to be clear, "physical printouts" means their printing the code to paper? If so, why, and if not, what do you mean, and why is it done this way?

ivl• 10 years ago

I really think it's a shame that they moved to the F-35, instead of just continuing to produce F-22s. Stupid export ban. Then again, the extra payload may have been worth it.

vonmoltke3• 10 years ago

The unit production cost (the cost of building an aircraft, not including amortized R&D) for the F-22A is about 50% higher than for the F-35A. You could certainly argue that two F-22As is better than three F-35As, but that is an issue that needs to be considered.

Furthermore, the F-22A was already running into parts obsolescence issues when I was working on it (2002 - 2006). Those would have continued to get worse had production expanded or continued. The F-35A was (supposedly) designed to better handle those issues.

Gravityloss2• 10 years ago

The solution should be relatively straightforward. Purpose built different airframes, with relatively conservative technology. Share components where it makes sense. Manufacture lots of airframes and spares. Update components later.

The next US fighter / attack program is going to be like that. It aims a lot lower and should be more predictable. I've lost track if it's called F-X or F/A-XX or what now, and what are the split parts etc...

http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160426-f35.html

engi_nerd12• 10 years ago

The unit production cost (the cost of building an aircraft, not including amortized R&D) for the F-22A is about 50% higher than for the F-35A.

Allow me to point out the very practical reality that the figure you're quoting was the cost to build an F-22. We haven't built one since the last F-22 rolled out of Marietta in 2012, and all the tooling has been put away (and some of it has been lost). It would certainly be possible to resume F-22 production, but the cost of the first few new aircraft would be even higher than what you're quoting because we would have to teach ourselves how to build it again, and set up all the equipment and logistics necessary to do it. That won't come cheaply.

mrpippy• 10 years ago

If parts were going obsolete while it was still being produced, how is maintenance going to work for the next half century? I assume these were electronics?

ansible• 10 years ago

Eh, the F-22 is for land-based air superiority, and not much else. I don't think it is really want we want to use for CAS and other missions, nevermind doing things like land on a carrier.

I think we should have cancelled both the F-22 and F-35 programs, demand that the Air Force just fly F/A-18F Super Hornets (they would totally hate this), and put all that money into UCAVs instead.

Edit: grammar.

PantaloonFlames• 10 years ago

Yep, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are the planes we need, it turns out.

Unwinding the F-35, with all the international commitments and arms deals, is gonna be very messy. Yet necessary.

adventured2• 10 years ago

The money is on them re-starting F-22 production.

"The bill would also require a study of the budgetary implications of restarting Lockheed Martin’s F-22 fighter jet line."

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/28/house-pa...

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/20/D-j-Vu-F-22-Why-Air...

sickbeard4• 10 years ago

funny because just 3-4 years ago everyone was saying how expensive the f-22 was and couldn't even win in a dogfight. Now we want more?

http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-wont-win-a-dogfight-thru...

5 years later will there be comments saying how awesome the f-35 is and that <gasp> we should build more?

protomyth• 10 years ago

I also keep seeing news about the Navy and Marines asking for more F-18's since they have ran through more hours on the airframe since the F-35 is late.

Pxtl• 10 years ago

I remember when they were killing the F-22 project that basically the argument was that the F-35 would be taking over the lion's share of the work and the F-35 wouldn't have the same issues as the F-22.

Oops.

johngalt3• 10 years ago

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else.

Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for lower total cost and be operational on a shorter timeframe.

The F-35 reminds me of this short story by A. C. Clarke

http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html

And this scene from pentagon wars:

https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA

dexterdog• 10 years ago

Plus if it's three different ones when the world changes and you need 85% carrier drones, 10% stealth bombers and 5% close air support you can build accordingly. Not to mention the fact that one of those can be available when it's done instead of not getting anything until they are all done.

incongruity• 10 years ago

Seriously – this is project management and design 101 stuff here. The points you make highlight the HUGE cost savings that could be accomplished by breaking it up into 3 different aircraft, at different price points, tailored to the different roles.

Spooky23• 10 years ago

Sounds like a great idea.

It's not like an adversary could shoot down satellites, jam controller transmissions or hack a drones control plane.

We'd be better off buying aircraft from the French.

hga6• 10 years ago

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project

Or an example of how we don't learn from history, for the same exact thing happened with the '60s TFX, except the F-35 substitutes S/VTOL for air superiority. 5 models of it were planned, two for the Navy, all but what ended up as the F-111 were canceled, and we resumed building focused planes like the F-14 through F-16, and the A-10 I think. Read the relevant section in Possony, Pournelle, and Kane's classic The Strategy of Technology https://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html for lots more details.

ADDED: And I've now recalled that there was stiff criticism of the F-111 as it starting flying and was fielded in the hot war of Vietnam. By and large the bugs were worked out, and e.g. surviving pilots were convinced that they should not turn off the terrain following radar and auto pilot system so they wouldn't follow their predecessors in immediately flying it into a hill. Which didn't happen with the following similar in that way B-1, come to think of it.

That I remember mostly from contemporaneous reports, the frequently poor prosecution of the Vietnam war was a big issue in the heartland.

enraged_camel2• 10 years ago

>Or an example of how we don't learn from history

Of course we learn from history. The thing you have to understand is that everything is working as intended. F-35, and programs like it, are a way to use public money to create private sector jobs. They aren't meant to be efficient or even effective means to develop and manufacture military hardware.

You can see a direct analogy of this in the space sector, where SpaceX came along and severely disrupted the incumbents by doing things efficiently.

tomohawk• 10 years ago

My dad was a fighter pilot in the USAF at the time the F-111 was supposed to come out. It was late, so he ended up flying the F-100.

McNamara was the genius pushing the F-111. Also the genius behind the Ford Edsel. When he came to visit the base one time, one of the NCOs who was near retirement had an Edsel painted in the camo pattern specified for the F-111. It was parked within clear view so that McNamara could see it when he disembarked from his plane. He was pretty steamed.

That's about what airmen thought of the F-111 and McNamara at the time.

LoSboccacc• 10 years ago

It is a respunding success according to the amount of porking it generated. Is the f-22 exported?

Edit: to clarify: they're not exporting the good one which could change an actual war.

jasonwatkinspdx2• 10 years ago

No exports of the F-22. It's apparently got some technology they're not willing to transfer, even to allies.

jasonwatkinspdx2• 10 years ago

RAND published a writeup of joint acquisition programs recently: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/...

Spoiler: they're a bad idea.

neurotech15• 10 years ago

RAND didn't mention the commonality between the F/A-18A and the F-117A aircraft.

McDonnell-Douglas significantly upgraded the YF-17 mission systems and cockpit avionics for the F/A-18A/B and it was more advanced than the F-16A version at the time.

The F-117A basically used the same mission avionics and engines as the F/A-18 which was a few years ahead in development.

Having inter-service commonality in major systems and components sometimes a better option than a joint aircraft program. The USAF is upgrading the F-15C (& some export customers) with AN/APG-82 radar, which is basically a larger AESA "antenna" on a AN/APG-79 radar from a Super Hornet.

Someone12342• 10 years ago

It is also worth considering that the reason given for merging three aircrafts into one was to save money. I know the F-35 has a lot of defenders, but even they have to admit it is unlikely that the F-35 will ever be seen as a cost saving measure.

coredog644• 10 years ago

I'd defend that statement even though I'm not an F-35 fan. For cost savings, think of what it would have cost to field two different designs (F-35 as F-16 replacement and F-XX as Harrier replacement). VTOL has added cost to F-35, but it's unlikely that it has been so much that you could fund an entirely different airframe as well.

Then you get into the situation where the second aircraft is delayed by one FY because nobody wants to put two of these programs into one budget. Then there's pressure to diverge on engines, avionics, etc. which winds up adding to the cost of the second program.

gaius4• 10 years ago

You could start a brand new Harrier programme right now, same basic design but new build airframes, avionics and engines using modern materials, and you would still beat the F35 not only into-service, but in a stand-up fight if it ever came to that.

icegreentea• 10 years ago

Harrier design concept is limited by the massive frontal cross section that Pegasus type engines imposes on the craft - this limits aero efficiency, and especially the ability to go supersonic.

Harrier design is also completely not low observable. An F-35 could splash any harrier derivative from afar, and could probably beat out an Harrier in anything but the lowest altitude, lowest speed confrontations.

F-35 is full of problems, but there's no sense in bringing up ridiculous arguments. Harriers might be able to perform some CAS roles better than a F-35, but it would get completely demolished in any 'stand-up fight'.

Any attempt to turn something based on a Harrier airframe into something as LO and as fast as the F-35 runs most of the same design risks and problems as the F-35.

branchan• 10 years ago

....I assume your design would be just as fast as a F-35 and also just as stealthy?

prodmerc• 10 years ago

Unsurprisingly, it's already divided into three different aircraft - F-35A, F-35B, F-35C. They were supposed to be 70% common, but that's simply not achievable so the differences are quite a bit larger.

GVIrish3• 10 years ago

By some estimates the parts commonality is now about 25%.

sharpy• 10 years ago

I always felt that F-35B at least should have been its own design. As for A & C, there have been successful examples of naval aircraft being used by air forces too - such as F-4, and F/A-18. But trying to have a design that is also STOVL capable?

mozumder• 10 years ago

Isn't the F-35's high price due to it already being 3 very different attack aircraft?

1. CAS with STOVL capability (Marine)

2. Light attack fighter (Air Force)

3. Carrier attack plane with bigger wings (Navy)

Creating 3 separate programs isn't going to change that. And, if not that, then the software they want is going raise the prices of the 3 different aircraft anyways. The Marines are probably going to want to develop the expensive Augmented Reality helmet anyways, for example.

If you create 3 separate programs, where will you save money?

engi_nerd12• 10 years ago

They don't have the kind of assembly commonality that the program aimed for initially, but I think it's a stretch to call the three variants "very different" aircraft. There's a pretty high amount of systems similarity. And pilots don't have to go through completely separate training programs for the three variants, just separate qualifications for things like STOVL or CV operations. If you can aviate in an F-35A, you can aviate in the other two variants.

Not sure why you single out the USMC for developing the helmet mounted display, because the HMD is common to all variants and is already a working system.

venomsnake• 10 years ago

Because in real world costs tend to grow exponentially with complexity.

johngalt3• 10 years ago

Max, Amy, and Ned are driving old cars and want new ones. Rather than buying three cars, they decide to go in together and buy one car to share.

Max wants to replace his offroading jeep, Amy wants to replace her fast sports car, and Ned drives an amphicar because he lives on an island.

So Max Amy and Ned go to GM and say "Design us a floating, offroading, sports car please we are trying to save money."

By the end of the day GM has to convince them to take three variants of the same car, but the cost, time and design tradeoffs needed to reach that point were never worth it. When you could have designed three (possibly four) vehicles separately that each excel in their focus area.

Saying that 'well all three would need gauges and windshields anyway' isn't a compelling reason to combine them.

neurotech15• 10 years ago

Dr Michael Gilmore, who wrote that report, apparently had not actually seen the aircraft up close until less than a year ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9re9tJckTlk

The pilot in this video, LtCol Christine Mau is a F-15E combat veteran is now flying the F-35. The video description incorrectly states the director of the JSF is "General Michael Gilmore". LTG Chris Bogdan is the JSF Executive Officer and has seen the F-35 up close and flown chased flights from an F-16.

For the OT&E Office at the Pentagon, they do not actually fly the jet, or operate the jet, or even touch the jet.

There are a handful of DoD "civilian" pilots who evaluate the aircraft for the Office of Secretary of Defense. None of the DoD pilots have made public statements regarding the F-35 airframe having any major issues.

thearn4• 10 years ago

That scene from Pentagon Wars should be mandatory viewing for every student in systems engineering and project management.

stcredzero4• 10 years ago

A. C. Clarke _Superiority_

This fits the Tiger Tank vs. T-33 in WWII. The T-33 had very good firepower and armor. The Tiger was superior in both those regards. However, the T-33 could be more easily produced, dealt better with Russia's muddy seasons and winters, and was far cheaper to maintain.

sneal• 10 years ago

I think you meant the T34, the second most produced tank in history.

smitherfield• 10 years ago

Carrier based attack drone

Drones were science fiction back in the early 90's when the F-35 program was started. Even today they can't even come close to outperforming a skilled human pilot in a combat scenario. (Although perhaps if it were Google working on the hardware and software it'd be doable).

wavefunction• 10 years ago

What if that skilled human pilot was flying a "drone"/unmanned craft rather than sitting in the cockpit? I imagine there are benefits to being "in-person" but the unmanned craft could theoretically endure far more extreme maneuvers that would leave a human pilot unconscious or dead.

dragonwriter2• 10 years ago

Drones were science fiction back in the early 90's when the F-35 program was started.

AFAICT, the first armed drones deployed by the US military were ASW drone helicopters in the 1960s. Ground attack jet drones were successfully tested in the 1970s, and some preliminary and positive testing on air-to-air combat drones also happened in the 1970s. Drones certainly weren't science-fiction in the early 1990s, even if the military hadn't gotten around to actually fielding armed drones (despite the tests) beyond those old Navy ASW drones.

toomuchtodo• 10 years ago

Even today they can't even come close to outperforming a skilled human pilot in a combat scenario.

The Navy's X-47B "Salty Dog" got pretty damn close (before the program was cancelled). It can take off, on-air refuel, and land back on a carrier with no human input.

http://dronecenter.bard.edu/chronicle-of-the-salty-dogs-x-47...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twdCdlo3BtA

CamperBob2• 10 years ago

True. At this point they might as well build a Space Shuttle with guns.

bane• 10 years ago

It's the worst case of both scope creep and putting your eggs in one basket.

tmaly• 10 years ago

Just making some small improvements in this process would save the country a ton of money. I cannot believe the cost of the F-35 program has exceeded 1 trillion.

nabla9• 10 years ago

F-35 looks like it's the most ambitious software project ever attempted.

- Lots of system integration for the final product from multiple suppliers (usually nightmare).

- Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) is critical for the maintainability and it's millions of lines of code. Failure rate of large projects like this is typically 40-60% and ALIS looks like it's more advanced than most bean counting systems ever delivered.

- Underlying hardware is slowly changing underneath because the system is late.

- It has frigging augmented reality system with helmets that integrates everything together.

- It's safety critical code.

no less than 27 power cycles were required to get all systems functioning between initial startup and takeoff. These power cycles varied in degree – from “cold iron” resets, where the aircraft had to be shut down and then restarted, to component or battery power recycling.

Holy shit!

wrong_variable• 10 years ago

This is what so many non-software people trying to make decisions on software fail to realize - every constraint added increases the complexity of software by an order of magnitude.

awinter-py• 10 years ago

well, a binary order of magnitude maybe

sbov• 10 years ago

I run into this at work all the time.

Me: FYI, in scenario xyz, I updated the documentation to do abc. It seems like the best balance of complication and doing the right thing, especially considering it will almost never come up.

Boss: why does it even matter what it does? It will come up maybe once per year. Oh, and it should do <this other really specific and complicated thing> instead, so do that.

Me: sigh....

beamatronic• 10 years ago

Maybe you can explain it to them this way - if they know what a function is. If you have a function that does something, foo, and it takes one boolean parameter, that's two test cases. If you add a second boolean parameter, now you have at least four total test cases. And so on.

Shivetya• 10 years ago

one last hurrah at attempting to keeping human pilots relevant

brohee• 10 years ago

> no less than 27 power cycles were required to get all systems functioning between initial startup and takeoff. These power cycles varied in degree – from “cold iron” resets, where the aircraft had to be shut down and then restarted, to component or battery power recycling.
Holy shit!

Even more extraordinary that they found someone willing to takeoff after that...

engi_nerd12• 10 years ago

Those are 27 power cycles spread across all the different flights described in that section of the document, not 27 power cycles for one single flight.

erichurkman• 10 years ago

Have you tried turning it off and back on again?

happyslobro• 10 years ago

Ctrl+Alt+Delete

"Abort, retry or fail?"

dsfuoi• 10 years ago

Choose carefully, one of those deploys the ejection seat.

mrweasel3• 10 years ago

The combination of re-hosted immature software and new processors resulted in avionics stability problems that were significantly worse than Block 2B

So, the upgrade actually made thing worse. I'm sure I'm colored by many of the negative articles about the F-35, but other than "we already spend a lot of money on this thing" and "there's no plan b", why aren't the F-35 scrapped?

For the US, it would maybe make sense to get the F-35 operational, but why would any other country, including my own, not pick a different plane?

threeseven37• 10 years ago

Probably the same reason people get the newest model of iPhones whenever they come out.

ecnal• 10 years ago

Because, for all their software and development delays, they significantly outperform 4.5th gen offerings and (the A, at least, which is the majority of what people are buying) don't cost nearly as much (~85-95 million for an F-35A flyaway vs. 110-120+ million for a Eurofighter or Rafale).

mrweasel3• 10 years ago

According to Wikipedia the $90 million is without an engine, which is just weird.

For smaller air forces, which won't have enough plane fight of the Russians anyway, there's little reason for buying a plane like the F-35. Some of the competitors are actually planes like the F-18 Super Hornet or the SAAB Gripen, priced at around $60 million. Sure they are aren't as modern, but for the needs of many small countries they're actually fine.

gaius4• 10 years ago

Wasn't the F35 spanked by an obsolete F16 recently? Which means modern MiGs are going to eat it for breakfast.

Aelinsaar4• 10 years ago

For the love of god, it's time to admit that the F-22 wasn't too expensive, and crawl back to it.

sickbeard4• 10 years ago

F-22 is an apex predator, F-35 is a multirole fighter/bomber. two different planes. I think you mean going back to building specific planes for specific thing rather than jack off all trades plane

Aelinsaar4• 10 years ago

The F-35 is a 1.5 Trillion black hole; a stark lesson on the sunk cost fallacy. The F-22 exists, and works. We already have bombers, and frankly it seems less useful to put humans rather than robots in harm's way for a bombing run.

ChrisBland• 10 years ago

When viewing the F-35 through the lens of a defense project, it looks silly. You must also realize that this is also an indirect federal jobs program. When the F-35 would replace other aircraft and their roles, the bases, parts suppliers, and ...sub contractors those people had to be kept employed. No member of congress wanted to say don't add that or build that if it would hurt their district. So much backroom dealing goes on with projects like these its embarrassing.

sickbeard4• 10 years ago

Army: We need 3 different planes

Government: Why not build one plane that can do 3 things? it will be cheaper.

... it turns out it isn't.

jgeada• 10 years ago

LMFTFY:

Government/Army: We need 3 different planes for these 3 different requirements

Private corporations @ public trough: you could "save" money by building a single plane meeting all those requirements, and we'd also bring extra jobs to your geographical area. Oh, and plus there is this extra "lobbying" money you can have you if support this project.

Politician: Sounds like a good idea...

russell2• 10 years ago

Hah! The army is the only service not getting one, unless there is a helicopter variant in there somewhere.

cowardlydragon• 10 years ago

I'd rather we drop a half-trillion in alternative energy projects. That's a much better jobs investment, and arguably vastly increases our national security than a shitty money pit jet that the Chinese get to make a 99% competitive jet at 1/10th the cost.

transfire• 10 years ago

Ode to what could have been... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BZGgvhqs5g

Impl0x• 10 years ago

This might be off topic, but there are a few comments on here (mostly) joking about why we even should bother designing planes like the F-35 to be operated locally by humans. I'm curious, does anyone have any info on the state of drone fighter planes, either remotely piloted or completely autonomous? Does such a project even merit consideration when we could innovate missile systems instead?

thinkcontext• 10 years ago

Drones are not a good replacement for the traditional fighter aircraft. Remote piloting has too much latency for dogfights and software is no where near smart enough to trust full autonomy in order to, say, shoot down another plane.

That said, would you consider a cruise missile a drone? One can imagine other types of weapons getting smarter. Additionally, its clear the roles that drones tackle will expand at the expense of manned aircraft.

Pinckney• 10 years ago

What about a semi-autonomous fighter, with a pilot to provide low latency input on what to shoot, and the plane deciding how to fly and make that shot independently? You could even have the pilot prone for higher G tolerance, like they tried in some of the old Gloster Meteors, since their input is no longer necessary for all of its operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor_F8_"Prone_Pilot...

stillsut• 10 years ago

Here are some new rules of warfare that the F35 is designed for:

"Blackhawk Down" If you lose even one aircraft crew as we did in Somalia, you may be forced to retreat from the entire war. So it makes sense to spend 10x to go from 99.9% -> 99.99% safety.

"Battle of the Civs, Proxy war edition": Fighter planes are less relevant to hugely asymmetric warfare the U.S. is engaged in, and expects to engage in the near future. These fights consists of the most advanced military technology against insurgents with machine guns and RPG's. Clearly drones are better in this area, and Missiles of all classes bring more destruction and accuracy to the traditional fighter role of deterring the threats of advanced weapon systems against your ships/bases.

However in the smaller proxy wars of e.g. Syria, Ukraine a traditional fighter jet still makes sense, and in fact could be a crucial deciding factor. So what the F35 program is doing is building a machine that can give a strong advantage in a regional war. And by controlling the access to the machine, the U.S. gets a say in the conflict without entering it.

"Terrorist hideout or hospital?" - collateral damage has always been a part of aerial combat but bad PR seems to do be especially discouraging to today's democracies. So weapon systems have to be even smarter and more precise.

"Software is eating the world" - As others have mentioned this is at least an order of magnitude increase in software functionality over the F22. And yes, an autonomous vehicle will probably be the main aircraft in the fleet in 20-30 years. So the F35 is this kind of avant-guarde experiment in how to structure contracts, maintain and deploy weapons which are primarily based on software.

nealrs• 10 years ago

we found, designed a plan to, and (nearly) recovered an entire nuclear submarine from the ocean floor -in secret- using a giant grappling hook in under than 8 years and for $3.8 billion ($800 million in '74) dollars.

but we can't design a marginally improved fighter jet for less than a trillion or under 20 years?

ref: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Project_Azorian

JimboOmega• 10 years ago

We also built the golden gate bridge in 4.5 years for an inflation adjusted $1.3B, the new Eastern span of the bay bridge took what, $6.4B and 11 years?

That's just seems to be the nature of all public projects - the cost rises way faster than inflation.

Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

Related Stories