If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Bad: Pentagon grounds the entire F-35 fleet. Fark: This is apparently a monthly occurrence now   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 121
    More: Scary, F-35B  
•       •       •

5816 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2013 at 9:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-23 02:39:37 AM  
Are they doing anything with them?  Aside from appearing in The Avengers.
 
2013-02-23 03:54:18 AM  

Alphax: Are they doing anything with them?  Aside from appearing in The Avengers.


According to TFA, selling them to the Brits.  Which is likely the only reason the BBC cares.

Of course, it's the STOVL version, which is like the Brits' beloved Harrier, only faster, stealthier, and more likely to have a fuel line randomly come loose... huh, I wasn't aware that Jaguar was a subcontractor.
 
2013-02-23 04:19:23 AM  
they sold a bunch of those flying bags of crap to us in Canada as well. the conservatives still won't admit they made a mistake buying them. even though they are killing the pilots.

/they should convert them to drones.
 
2013-02-23 04:23:07 AM  

sithon: they sold a bunch of those flying bags of crap to us in Canada as well. the conservatives still won't admit they made a mistake buying them. even though they are killing the pilots.

/they should convert them to drones.


Or get the pilots without the planes.. if you can get Tony Stark to share his tech..
 
2013-02-23 06:39:12 AM  

sithon: they sold a bunch of those flying bags of crap to us in Canada as well. the conservatives still won't admit they made a mistake buying them. even though they are killing the pilots.

/they should convert them to drones.


I am 99.9% sure nobody has been killed, but it is possible I missed something
 
2013-02-23 07:02:11 AM  
The F-35 is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons programme. with a cost of nearly $400bn

Remind me again why we have to keep cutting the social safety nets?
 
2013-02-23 07:06:01 AM  

Therion: The F-35 is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons programme. with a cost of nearly $400bn

Remind me again why we have to keep cutting the social safety nets?


Social Darwinist.
 
2013-02-23 07:42:28 AM  
It's all the time waiting on tech support hotlines to talk to Indians about why the Chinese computer parts don't work.
 
2013-02-23 08:37:53 AM  
How about we just buy a bunch more F/A-18s? They work pretty damn well, from what I hear. Cancel the project, allow them to take time, and their own money developing a stealthy plane thingy that actually works, and then we buy it?

Deal?
 
2013-02-23 08:58:33 AM  
More Warthogs.  CAS baby!
 
2013-02-23 09:09:00 AM  

Fear_and_Loathing: More Warthogs.  CAS baby!


I would fully endorse that expenditure. Though, I would ask that they be attached to Army Aviation. The Air Force just don't understand time-on-station. To have someone that can stick around for a bit longer and be ready to make repeated runs on a target or targets. They prefer their jets and that goes totally against what the A-10 can do.

Hell, I think the entire Air Force should be merged back into the Army, but I know I'll never see that happen.
 
2013-02-23 09:31:48 AM  

Fear_and_Loathing: More Warthogs.  CAS baby!


They are good tank killers, ok at CAS, but for that helicopters are king.
 
2013-02-23 09:33:27 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Fear_and_Loathing: More Warthogs.  CAS baby!

I would fully endorse that expenditure. Though, I would ask that they be attached to Army Aviation. The Air Force just don't understand time-on-station. To have someone that can stick around for a bit longer and be ready to make repeated runs on a target or targets. They prefer their jets and that goes totally against what the A-10 can do.

Hell, I think the entire Air Force should be merged back into the Army, but I know I'll never see that happen.


A-10s ARE awesome on the battlefield, relatively cheap and have a great record for bringing pilots back after ungodly damage, but a good ole F-15 is my favorite of all fighter/bombers. Yes the design is old, but they are still around because for once the government got something right in the beginning.
 
2013-02-23 09:40:06 AM  

liam76: Fear_and_Loathing: More Warthogs.  CAS baby!

They are good tank killers, ok at CAS, but for that helicopters are king.


heh... A buddy of mine was in a TN NG Cav unit. He got deployed to Iraq and was attached up in the North. Well, it turns out that a drone went down over the border in Iran. This was early on... 2005-2006ish. So, they had to go over the border and get it back. Fun mission, right? Apparently, some of the Iranian Army showed up and told them they could not take it. Off in the distance, a squadron of Apache Gunships pops over the horizon. Yeah, Achmed... We'll be taking this. OK? Apparently, just the sight of those birds neutralized the situation and everyone went on to have a nice day.

I'll agree. I absolutely love the Apache. Though... we can't talk about the apache without this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4CQfaBGWSo

"Oh ye of little faith..."

"Ohhh shiat."
 
2013-02-23 09:47:36 AM  

NewportBarGuy: liam76: Fear_and_Loathing: More Warthogs.  CAS baby!

They are good tank killers, ok at CAS, but for that helicopters are king.

heh... A buddy of mine was in a TN NG Cav unit. He got deployed to Iraq and was attached up in the North. Well, it turns out that a drone went down over the border in Iran. This was early on... 2005-2006ish. So, they had to go over the border and get it back. Fun mission, right? Apparently, some of the Iranian Army showed up and told them they could not take it. Off in the distance, a squadron of Apache Gunships pops over the horizon. Yeah, Achmed... We'll be taking this. OK? Apparently, just the sight of those birds neutralized the situation and everyone went on to have a nice day.

I'll agree. I absolutely love the Apache. Though... we can't talk about the apache without this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4CQfaBGWSo

"Oh ye of little faith..."

"Ohhh shiat."


That story seems pretty unlikely.
 
2013-02-23 09:47:53 AM  
I bet Iran doesn't have these problems.
 
2013-02-23 09:49:07 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: NewportBarGuy: Fear_and_Loathing: More Warthogs.  CAS baby!

I would fully endorse that expenditure. Though, I would ask that they be attached to Army Aviation. The Air Force just don't understand time-on-station. To have someone that can stick around for a bit longer and be ready to make repeated runs on a target or targets. They prefer their jets and that goes totally against what the A-10 can do.

Hell, I think the entire Air Force should be merged back into the Army, but I know I'll never see that happen.

A-10s ARE awesome on the battlefield, relatively cheap and have a great record for bringing pilots back after ungodly damage, but a good ole F-15 is my favorite of all fighter/bombers. Yes the design is old, but they are still around because for once the government got something right in the beginning.


The fact that you can buy six F-15E's for the price of one F-35 should tell you that something is seriously wrong with our defense budget.
.
 
2013-02-23 09:49:15 AM  
It's kinda funny that this one ineffective, wasteful, useless weapons program is more than most nations spend on their entire armed forces.  And the GOP thinks that PBS is a drain on the US gov't.
 
2013-02-23 09:50:34 AM  

Therion: The F-35 is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons programme. with a cost of nearly $400bn

Remind me again why we have to keep cutting the social safety nets?


You answered your own question. You really think that the F35 program cost $400bn? I'm really curious (even though NOBODY would ever own up to it) how much of that 400 was "consultancy" fees, interest on loans, sub-sub-subcontractor salaries, and bonuses for their bosses, how much went to building private-access roads and byways to the secret facilities where the parts manufacture and engineering were done, how much ended up being spent on work that was completely useless, redundant, and nothing of value was gained from the expenditure on?

sithon: /they should convert them to drones.


Or, you know, build 100 (1000?) drones for the cost of ONE of these planes, never risk losing a pilot, and gaining much greater "mission capability".

But then we wouldn't "have to" spend 400 billion on an obsolete-before-it-was-begun weapons program.
 
2013-02-23 09:51:11 AM  

NewportBarGuy: liam76: Fear_and_Loathing: More Warthogs.  CAS baby!

They are good tank killers, ok at CAS, but for that helicopters are king.

heh... A buddy of mine was in a TN NG Cav unit. He got deployed to Iraq and was attached up in the North. Well, it turns out that a drone went down over the border in Iran. This was early on... 2005-2006ish. So, they had to go over the border and get it back. Fun mission, right? Apparently, some of the Iranian Army showed up and told them they could not take it. Off in the distance, a squadron of Apache Gunships pops over the horizon. Yeah, Achmed... We'll be taking this. OK? Apparently, just the sight of those birds neutralized the situation and everyone went on to have a nice day.

I'll agree. I absolutely love the Apache. Though... we can't talk about the apache without this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4CQfaBGWSo

"Oh ye of little faith..."

"Ohhh shiat."


That video always cracks me up.

But among helicopters I am still going to have to say the Cobra and Huey are better suited for CAS.
 
2013-02-23 09:51:36 AM  
Yep pretty stupid you have this plane trying to replace half a dozen various airplanes and can't really do the job of any of them well, yet costs a whole lot more and isn't even airworthy half of the time.

Can't believe this is what our country has become.  Its pretty sad.
 
2013-02-23 09:51:46 AM  
Keep them that way.
 
2013-02-23 09:52:22 AM  
So we're ordering another hundred, right?
 
2013-02-23 09:53:25 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Fear_and_Loathing: More Warthogs.  CAS baby!

I would fully endorse that expenditure. Though, I would ask that they be attached to Army Aviation. The Air Force just don't understand time-on-station. To have someone that can stick around for a bit longer and be ready to make repeated runs on a target or targets. They prefer their jets and that goes totally against what the A-10 can do.

Hell, I think the entire Air Force should be merged back into the Army, but I know I'll never see that happen.


I'd agree with that.

The USAF has always hated the A-10.  They like supersonic, sleek, high-tech sexy jets.  Fly high and fly fast.  The A-10 is ugly, slow and low-tech. . .and the best damn close air support platform ever built.  It's like a flying tank, both in firepower and durability.  The thing is "death from above" incarnate.

The US Army Aviation community would be all over itself if it got the A-10.  The USAF would be glad to be rid of it, but they'd be resentful that the Army got any more fixed-wing assets than the handful it has now.

Why aren't we cancelling the F-35 as a massive waste of taxpayer money?  Oh yeah, politics.

We should just be updating/upgrading the F-15, F-16 and F-18 designs.  Boeing actually developed a stealth variant of the F-15, the Silent Eagle, as a competitor, but the politics of the F-35 make it nearly unkillable (it's ridiculously inefficient construction is spread out over almost every single state in the union, so pretty much every Congressman gets to say it brings jobs to his state).

Eliminate the F-35, fix the bugs in the life support of the F-22, invest in the F-15 Silent Eagle, and keep upgrading and replacing the F-16 and F-18's in service.

Save lots on defense budget, without having to slash troop pay, naval power (so we can actually send ships to the Gulf if we need to ), or our ability to fight small, regional wars against podunk little countries with the very best in 1970's era Soviet surplus hardware, like our recent wars have been, while maintaining some credible threat against China and Russia and their new stealth designs (they ripped off of us).
 
2013-02-23 09:55:33 AM  
Bleeding edge technology will have bleeding edge problems, it is the price of progress, always has been, always will be...

Overall, it's actually a problem that is getting better not worse..

Limited flight envelope aircraft like Apaches and A10s can only do what they do because we are able to establish immediate, unquestioned air dominance in their theater of operation. Put a A10 up against a 45 year old Mig21 (to say nothing of more modern Russian fighters) and you get a dead A10.

The real issue is whether or not we really need this aircraft at this moment in time to be able to establish that kind of dominance. It's hard to justify it at this pint.
 
2013-02-23 10:00:43 AM  

kim jong-un: That story seems pretty unlikely.


Just telling it second-hand. I went through basic with the guy, so I'll take him at his word. Trust me, even as he was telling it to me alarm bells were going off... But, it's not totally unlikely.
 
2013-02-23 10:01:31 AM  

NewportBarGuy: How about we just buy a bunch more F/A-18s? They work pretty damn well, from what I hear. Cancel the project, allow them to take time, and their own money developing a stealthy plane thingy that actually works, and then we buy it?

Deal?


It can take 20 to 30 years to develop a new fighter. F-18's aren't made anymore. Restarting manufacturing of F-18's would be expensive and do us little good against the Chinese and Russians.


It sucks that we have put all our eggs in this one basket but that is where we stand. Not only us, but a good amount of our allies too. So everyone hope that they can make this damn thing work.
 
2013-02-23 10:04:20 AM  

dforkus: Bleeding edge technology will have bleeding edge problems, it is the price of progress, always has been, always will be...

Overall, it's actually a problem that is getting better not worse..

Limited flight envelope aircraft like Apaches and A10s can only do what they do because we are able to establish immediate, unquestioned air dominance in their theater of operation. Put a A10 up against a 45 year old Mig21 (to say nothing of more modern Russian fighters) and you get a dead A10.

The real issue is whether or not we really need this aircraft at this moment in time to be able to establish that kind of dominance. It's hard to justify it at this pint.


The F-35 is only stealthy from the front, and only if it doesn't have any external attachments, i.e. no extra fuel or weapons.  Without external fuel or weapons you have four missiles and a limited range, and oh yeah, don't let your enemy get behind you because their radar will light you up like a Christmas tree.  The VTOL option reduces fuel and payload even more.

This is bleeding edge technology?
 
2013-02-23 10:04:55 AM  

grinding_journalist: You answered your own question. You really think that the F35 program cost $400bn? I'm really curious (even though NOBODY would ever own up to it) how much of that 400 was "consultancy" fees, interest on loans, sub-sub-subcontractor salaries, and bonuses for their bosses, how much went to building private-access roads and byways to the secret facilities where the parts manufacture and engineering were done, how much ended up being spent on work that was completely useless, redundant, and nothing of value was gained from the expenditure on?


Why do you hate America!?
 
2013-02-23 10:07:29 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: This is bleeding edge technology


trying to get it all on one platform is.
 
2013-02-23 10:07:48 AM  

bbfreak: It can take 20 to 30 years to develop a new fighter. F-18's aren't made anymore. Restarting manufacturing of F-18's would be expensive and do us little good against the Chinese and Russians.


If the US ends up in widespread conventional warfare vs the Chinese and Russians, lack of a multi-role fighter that has no specific role it excells at isn't going to be the biggest problem.
 
2013-02-23 10:09:22 AM  

sithon: they sold a bunch of those flying bags of crap to us in Canada as well. the conservatives still won't admit they made a mistake buying them. even though they are killing the pilots.

/they should convert them to drones.


Actually no one has been killed (or even delivered to or flown by Canadian forces) and Herper has done the right thing for once and cancelled the order in light of the KPMG audit.
 
2013-02-23 10:09:38 AM  

NewportBarGuy: How about we just buy a bunch more F/A-18s? They work pretty damn well, from what I hear. Cancel the project, allow them to take time, and their own money developing a stealthy plane thingy that actually works, and then we buy it?

Deal?


They actually tried marketing an upgraded F-15 Silent Eagle which gave an F-15C some of the stealthy lines of an F-22. Kind of looks like an F-15 and an F-22 had a weird looking kid. Proven airframe (plus you have a proven ground attack platform in the F-15E Strike Eagle variant), lower radar signature, evolutionary upgrades, and a damn life support system that doesn't strangle the pilots to death.

As far as I know, the F-35 isn't even fully operational. AF.MIL just had a recent story where the first F-35 squadron just did their first "four and four" exercise, where they launch four jets, do a simulated mission, land, re-arm and re-fuel, then re-launch all four for another sortie.

I guess it was a big deal in the fighter mafia.
 
2013-02-23 10:11:49 AM  

bbfreak: NewportBarGuy: How about we just buy a bunch more F/A-18s? They work pretty damn well, from what I hear. Cancel the project, allow them to take time, and their own money developing a stealthy plane thingy that actually works, and then we buy it?

Deal?

It can take 20 to 30 years to develop a new fighter. F-18's aren't made anymore. Restarting manufacturing of F-18's would be expensive and do us little good against the Chinese and Russians.


It sucks that we have put all our eggs in this one basket but that is where we stand. Not only us, but a good amount of our allies too. So everyone hope that they can make this damn thing work.


The Japanese have bought exactly two of them.  Total production estimates have gone from 5000 down to 3500.  And most European countries are eying the Eurofighter as an alternative.  So our allies are not married to this turkey.  We are.
 
2013-02-23 10:12:10 AM  

Therion: The F-35 is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons programme. with a cost of nearly $400bn

Remind me again why we have to keep cutting the social safety nets?


We clearly didn't spend enough on this program. If it had been properly funded, we wouldn't be having all these problems. Duh.
 
2013-02-23 10:12:57 AM  
can't spend shiat for clean energy, but here's 400 billion for weapons that don't work.  amuruka!
 
2013-02-23 10:13:08 AM  
We're like the Spartans now. We wait for the full moon to march.
 
2013-02-23 10:13:38 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-23 10:13:42 AM  
Both the F-22 and F-35 are disappointing with the F-35 coming in at almost worthless. If government was run like a business, they'd cut their loses now, cancel the thing, and invest in newer F-15 and F-18s.
 
2013-02-23 10:13:45 AM  

sithon: they sold a bunch of those flying bags of crap to us in Canada as well. the conservatives still won't admit they made a mistake buying them. even though they are killing the pilots.

/they should convert them to drones.


You know, because Canada would have done so much better on its own.  No snark, that's just the reality.  The point of the JSF was to split the cost of developing a 5th generation fighter which could serve all the roles of the participant nations.  The only other 5th gen fighter in production is the F-22, and that's designed only to be a land-based fighter (it was never designed for STOVL or CATOBAR operations).  The F-35 and F-22 are the only 5th gen fighters in production, period.  The Russians and the Chinese are close to having production 5th gen fighters, but everyone else is looking at about 2020 or beyond.

Sadly, the F-35 is the only way Canada would ever have access to this kind of fighter.  Maybe the program hasn't been handled very well (I don't keep up with it), but otherwise you would be stuck with FA-18s (which entered service in 1982).  The FA-18 is a respectable fighter, but against stealth aircraft, it's going to last about as long as a flying house.

The F-35 will likely be the last manned NATO fighter, most people knew that before it ever got off the drawing board.  That's not the point.  The point was to give NATO nations a true 5th gen fighter with CATOBAR and STOVL capabilities before the rest of the world, and keep a technological advantage over our rivals.  The drones will be coming in the next round, don't worry.
 
2013-02-23 10:14:03 AM  

liam76: Marcus Aurelius: This is bleeding edge technology

trying to get it all on one platform is.


A jack of all trades is a master of none.
 
2013-02-23 10:14:07 AM  

95629: Yep pretty stupid you have this plane trying to replace half a dozen various airplanes and can't really do the job of any of them well, yet costs a whole lot more and isn't even airworthy half of the time.

Can't believe this is what our country has become.  Its pretty sad.


Yup, we definitely should  not spend any money on military R&D.  We should just stick to what we already have.  Then in 30 years we'll still have our 'ol reliable muskets while everyone else has lasers and battle mechs.
 
2013-02-23 10:14:51 AM  

Sgt Otter: Proven airframe (plus you have a proven ground attack platform in the F-15E Strike Eagle variant), lower radar signature, evolutionary upgrades, and a damn life support system that doesn't strangle the pilots to death.


That would be nice, but they we can't plan to fight a war against space aliens or something. The cost of developing a new generation fighter is just ridiculously prohibitive when we can just upgrade proven airframes.

These $200-400 mil per plane initial price tags are just ridiculous.

Maybe that's why the Zoomies are working on a fleet of Dirigibles.
 
2013-02-23 10:15:31 AM  
The plane is magnificent. Unfortunately, the government forgot the cardinal rule of acquisition: you can have a really good plane at a decent cost or you can have a hugely expensive plane that tries to be too many things for too many people and fails at virtually all of them. This has been tried before.

There's a reason the Harrier looks the way it does, it's a function of necessity. The F-35, by trying to incorporate all of the S/VTOL stuff, has totally compromised its design such that it may never be reliable. Oh, but it'll be cheaper if they make a all-in-one plane! Yeah, about that... Yet another expensive lesson that has to be relearned.
 
2013-02-23 10:16:06 AM  

dforkus: Bleeding edge technology will have bleeding edge problems, it is the price of progress, always has been, always will be...

Overall, it's actually a problem that is getting better not worse..

Limited flight envelope aircraft like Apaches and A10s can only do what they do because we are able to establish immediate, unquestioned air dominance in their theater of operation. Put a A10 up against a 45 year old Mig21 (to say nothing of more modern Russian fighters) and you get a dead A10.

The real issue is whether or not we really need this aircraft at this moment in time to be able to establish that kind of dominance. It's hard to justify it at this pint.


You have a point, but in the environments we have air superiority.
 
2013-02-23 10:20:28 AM  

bbfreak: ... F-18's aren't made anymore. Restarting manufacturing of F-18's would be expensive and do us little good against the Chinese and Russians.



F-18E, F, and G's are in production for at least the next 2 years I think plus Australia is buying some too.  From a Navy stand point that aicraft is VERY integral to any potential conflict...China, Russia, or whomever.
 
2013-02-23 10:20:36 AM  

Nofun: The FA-18 is a respectable fighter, but against stealth aircraft, it's going to last about as long as a flying house.


An F-22, maybe.  But get behind an F-35, and the stealth is gone.  It's only stealthy from the front, and even then only if it's got nothing externally mounted.
 
2013-02-23 10:22:32 AM  

Kimpak: Yup, we definitely should not spend any money on military R&D


Actually the problem is we don't spend much on various forms of R&D day after day, so when we need certain stuff we lack the knowledgebase to properly make it. If you haven't racked up tens of thousands of hours of time trying out various material properties, aerodynamic properties etc then when you get a contract for a new plane, you're gonna have a bad time. There's no excuse for the F-22 being such a piece of shiat. There's no defense for how over budget it ended up. And both problems have the same root causes, one of which is a lack of continuous R&D expenditures by the companies involved in it. Another is not letting engineers be in charge and letting them decide how many people they need and so on. As for the F-35, well plenty of people spoke up way back when and pointed out trying to get 3 planes from one airframe was a poorly thought out idea at best and a completely disaster waiting to happen at worst. See, the three F-35 variants don't actually share an entire airframe, because they can't. The B model needs a slightly altered airframe to accommodate the engine that allows it to take off and land vertically. The C model needs substantially beefed up landing gear, an arrest hook and attachment points and some other stuff for carrier operations. Oh and bigger wings.
 
2013-02-23 10:22:44 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: liam76: Marcus Aurelius: This is bleeding edge technology

trying to get it all on one platform is.

A jack of all trades is a master of none.


I agree that the acquisition strategy of making every country and service happy with the same jet was a bad idea, just pointing out that putting all those capabilities on the same platform does make it "bleeding edge".
 
2013-02-23 10:23:21 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: liam76: Marcus Aurelius: This is bleeding edge technology

trying to get it all on one platform is.

A jack of all trades is a master of none.



though it's hard to imagine with the F35's pricetag, I guess one counter could be that to produce separate aircraft for each "trade" would be even more cost prohibitive.....that would also mean a lot more pilots, maintainers, logistics, etc.
 
Displayed 50 of 121 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report