|
Forum: General Stuff Topic: The F35 started by: GORDON Posted by GORDON 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. < http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-3....4712248 > 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. Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2015,06:40
QUOTE The F-35’s ability to compete against other fighter aircraft in a close-in dogfight Those happen approximately 0 times. QUOTE At one point, the pilot’s helmet was so big he couldn’t even turn his head inside the cockpit. That's just lazy. Buy a tape measure. It's only like $50K. Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2015,06:43
(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. Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2015,06:46
(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. 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. Posted by Vince 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. Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2015,07:34
I'd rather plow the cash into unmanned assault aircraft or supersize drones.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2015,18:45
Pentagon: "We're kind of surprised this thing even flies."< http://www.businessinsider.com/here-ar....-2015-3 > Bonus: $1 trillion spent... or something. Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2015,18:48
"It's a lemon." Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2015,19:02
QUOTE 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. It's a $1.5T snow job. They couldn't think of anything cheaper. Posted by TPRJones 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.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 01 2015,07:06
How many decades was the Osprey program going before the marines were forced to start taking them?
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 01 2015,07:49
(Vince @ Jul. 01 2015,09:06) QUOTE How many decades was the Osprey program going before the marines were forced to start taking them? Almost two. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 27 2015,06:30
< The F-35 program could cripple U.S. defense for decades to come. >QUOTE 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.
Posted by Alhazad on Jul. 27 2015,07:15
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?
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 27 2015,07:19
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. Posted by Troy on Jul. 27 2015,07:34
Two of these buzzed a marsh I was fishing a few weeks ago near Savannah. A very expensive air show. It was still really cool. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 31 2015,11:13
< Ready to go >.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 21 2015,10:07
< Sucks so hard >, even the Canadians say it's not up to their standards.
|