If we're going to be outraged about a government tech investment that did not work out as planned...

[LuckyTheDog]

... this is a far better choice than, say, the Obamacare website:

Will It Fly?

The Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive weapons system ever developed. It is plagued by design flaws and cost overruns. It flies only in good weather. The computers that run it lack the software they need for combat. No one can say for certain when the plane will work as advertised. Until recently, the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, was operating with a free hand—paid handsomely for its own mistakes. Looking back, even the general now in charge of the program can’t believe how we got to this point. In sum: all systems go!

Full story here: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/09/joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-martin

[MindPilot]

1. This is a function of living in a scientifically illiterate society.

People expect absolute perfection from something that has never been done before.

Funny thing I just heard a few of my co-workers bashing ACA and how it is so horrible, yadda, yadda. And this is coming from engineers working on DoD projects who will more than likely be in a meeting today explaining why their design didn't work flawlessly the first time out.

The real problem with ACA is the Black man in the White House. It is that simple.

[legcramp]

2. Is it possible to be outraged by both?

Or are you going for selective outrage?

Just wondering.

[LuckyTheDog]

3. It is a matter of context

In the scheme of things, the F35 is a far bigger scandal than any slow website could ever be.

[cui bono]

5. Yes it it.

But to be "outraged" by the ACA website and holding hearings on it is overreacting.

[johnd83]

4. I know I am in the minority with this opinion but we kinda need these stealth fighters

The newer anti-air SAM systems available from Russia are cheap and can easily take out our current generation aircraft. One of the reasons there was so much hesitation about Syria was they had these new air systems. In that case I am very glad that we didn't attack Syria, but the scary thing is that there wasn't really much we could have done anyway.

It is frustrating that this project has gone so far over-budget but the main reason is that the F-22 and F-35 use completely new technology. The next few generations will all be much cheaper because it will be based on the work done for the F-22 and F-35. The other thing to consider is that most of the money being spent winds up as salaries for good jobs for engineers and technicians. While defense spending is not the most efficient Keynesian method around it is all we currently have due to the GOP...

[jeff47]

7. The main reason for the high cost is it's 3 aircraft.

The F-35A, B and C are significantly different aircraft. The hope was designing them off a similar airframe would cost much less than designing 3 separate planes.

It looks like it will result in costing a little less than 3 separate planes instead of a lot less.

[johnd83]

8. Good point

although I think they do share a lot of the same modular systems.

[jeff47]

9. Yeah, but those are the "easy" parts.

It's not very complicated to engineer a fuel tank. Carrier arresting gear that won't cut the plane in half after 10,000 landings is tricker. VTOL is very difficult.

[Jim Lane]

6. Wouldn't Star Wars (the "Strategic Defense Initiative") be another good example? (n/t)