Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
Posted on: Jun. 30 2015,06:37
I've been reading "leaks" about this aircraft for a couple years now, on other forums. Typical development cycle: late, over budget, and not living up to expectations. Peeps in the industry have anonymously been telling stories about it for years, here and there.
So, we might as well have a thread about it.
Here's a story about how it can't even beat the plane is is supposed to replace, but at only 10 times the cost.
I've always supported federal military spending, as it is one of the few things the Constitution actually allows the government to spend money on, but I don't support this.
The F-35’s ability to compete against other fighter aircraft in a close-in dogfight
Those happen approximately 0 times. .
If it never happens, then we don't need fighter aircraft at all.
You still need something with better speed and range than an attack chopper that can shoot missiles and rockets and drop bombs. The straight up bombers are getting phased out. I don't think they're getting any new B2s. They're riding out the ones they've got for another four decades, though.
Edited by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2015,06:47
-------------- Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Vince I make sweet, sweet love to my legally licenced copy of Microsoft Vista.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 5016
Joined: May 2004
Posted on: Jun. 30 2015,06:56
(GORDON @ Jun. 30 2015,08:43)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Jun. 30 2015,09:40)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The F-35’s ability to compete against other fighter aircraft in a close-in dogfight
Those happen approximately 0 times. .
If it never happens, then we don't need fighter aircraft at all.
They still have the potential to happen. It's just been a few years (as far as we know). When you have two semi-evenly matched planes with good ECM against the other fighter, there will be a dog fight.
Most recently, there have been concerns over its computer systems' vulnerability, and Chinese hackers have possibly stolen classified data related to the project.
There you have it. Â It's a $1.5T snow job. They couldn't think of anything cheaper.
Edited by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2015,19:03
-------------- Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
TPRJones I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
Posted on: Jul. 01 2015,06:53
If we're stuck with building the things it sounds like the best use for them would be to give them to our enemies, thus crippling their air capabilities.
You could argue it [the F-35] was already one of the biggest white elephants in history a long time ago,” stated former U.K. defense chief Nick Harvey in a May interview. Harvey then doubled down, saying there is “not a cat in hell’s chance” the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) would be combat-ready by 2018. While it is noteworthy that a person of Harvey’s stature would level such harsh criticisms, his statement merely reflects the conclusions of reports by the U.S. Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Congressional Research Service, and various independent air-power analysts: The F-35 program is a mess; it is unaffordable and will not be able to fulfill its mission.
I'm not sure which third-world country we expect to use next-gen fast air superiority fighters against. Wouldn't a trillion and a half dollars be better spent on recruitment incentives, vehicle armor, and infantry training for the kind of urban policing/occupation bullshit we usually end up bogged down in?
I'm sure the fact that Lockheed-Martin makes the F-35 and has donated north of $20M to various political campaigns over the years is pure coincidence.
QUOTE
Military contracts are lucrative, and Lockheed Martin -- the country's top defense contractor -- has landed a passel of them. But big-ticket deals like the Joint Strike Fighter don't come cheap, and Lockheed has spent over $19 million in political races since 1989. Meanwhile, its yearly lobbying expenditure ranges between $7 million and $15 million. Thus far in 2010, it has spread $6.7 million around the halls of Congress.
That report's from 1989-2010. Tack another five years on, which means approximately a 25% increase if they keep bribing people at a constant rate.
Edited by Malcolm on Jul. 27 2015,07:22
-------------- Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
