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.
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:40 am
by Malcolm
The F-35’s ability to compete against other fighter aircraft in a close-in dogfight
Those happen approximately 0 times.
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: Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:43 am
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:
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: Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:46 am
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
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 1435672061
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:56 am
by Vince
GORDON wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
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: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:34 am
by Malcolm
I'd rather plow the cash into unmanned assault aircraft or supersize drones.
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:45 pm
by GORDON
Pentagon: "We're kind of surprised this thing even flies."
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.
Edited By Malcolm on 1435716185
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:53 am
by TPRJones
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: Wed Jul 01, 2015 10:06 am
by Vince
How many decades was the Osprey program going before the marines were forced to start taking them?
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 10:49 am
by Malcolm
Vince wrote:How many decades was the Osprey program going before the marines were forced to start taking them?
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: Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:15 am
by Alhazad
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: Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:19 am
by Malcolm
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.
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 1438006925
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:34 am
by Troy
Two of these buzzed a marsh I was fishing a few weeks ago near Savannah. A very expensive air show.