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.

(Yahoo)   The good news: The F-35 program is showing increases in efficiency and there are new foreign buyers showing interest. The bad news: The software the plane needs to operate may not be ready by 2017, when full-scale production should be underway   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 190
    More: Interesting, F-35, Lockheed Martin, United Technologies Corp., U.S. Defense Department, Pratt & Whitney, hacking attacks, EADS, BAE Systems  
•       •       •

4416 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 9:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-25 08:37:17 AM  
Does it come with a frogurt?
 
2013-04-25 08:39:15 AM  
This is a common problem with high-tech projects.  Nothing unique.
 
2013-04-25 08:40:59 AM  
I see no solution but to end all entitlement programs and immediately transfer all the money to the F-35 program. We're already almost $400 billion in, so it's clear that the program is too big to fail and we must be prepared to ensure its success no matter what the cost. Furthemore, if decreased orders are the reason that its production may be slowing, we should enact programs to increase interest and incentivize buyers. For example, we might offer the wealthiest 1% of Americans a new tax credit that they could use to offset their recent tax increase -- one of the largest tax increases in modern history, I might add -- where if they agree to buy 1 or 2 F35s for their own, personal use, they can claim the amount spent as a special "Air Patriot" deduction. And before any gun-grabbing liberals start flailing their hands and crying about whether citizens have the "right" to own an F35 or two, let me just say that the constitution is a living document, people. It evolves with time. If the Founders had been fighting a British army with RADAR-guided missiles, they would have almost certainly considered an F35 squadron to be part of any "well regulated militia." Let's not pretend that we're still fighting with muskets, mkay?
 
2013-04-25 08:43:32 AM  
Why do we need a new jet fighter?

With existing tech, we can just make a kind of phalanx of guided missiles. Maybe one misses. For the price of an F-35, we can just launch 100.
 
2013-04-25 08:46:12 AM  
It's not that the software won't be completed until 2017, it's that it just won't be ready to run until 2017.  They're using Java.
 
2013-04-25 08:57:24 AM  
Four hundred billion dollars for a plane that doesn't even really work

Or about five sequesters worth.
 
2013-04-25 09:07:54 AM  

doglover: Why do we need a new jet fighter?

With existing tech, we can just make a kind of phalanx of guided missiles. Maybe one misses. For the price of an F-35, we can just launch 100.


That has been the argument since about 1945, but it still hasn't caught on, for good reason.
 
2013-04-25 09:13:05 AM  

Pocket Ninja: I see no solution but to end all entitlement programs and immediately transfer all the money to the F-35 program. We're already almost $400 billion in, so it's clear that the program is too big to fail and we must be prepared to ensure its success no matter what the cost. Furthemore, if decreased orders are the reason that its production may be slowing, we should enact programs to increase interest and incentivize buyers. For example, we might offer the wealthiest 1% of Americans a new tax credit that they could use to offset their recent tax increase -- one of the largest tax increases in modern history, I might add -- where if they agree to buy 1 or 2 F35s for their own, personal use, they can claim the amount spent as a special "Air Patriot" deduction. And before any gun-grabbing liberals start flailing their hands and crying about whether citizens have the "right" to own an F35 or two, let me just say that the constitution is a living document, people. It evolves with time. If the Founders had been fighting a British army with RADAR-guided missiles, they would have almost certainly considered an F35 squadron to be part of any "well regulated militia." Let's not pretend that we're still fighting with muskets, mkay?


I like this, but let me expand on this. I disagree on the point of transferring ALL money to the F35 program. Should they get some of it? Sure. Instead, I think we need to put more money in our domestic drone program so Americans can truly fear understandthe awesome power of fully operated remote controlled airplanes that can unleash Hellfire missiles on the urbangeneral public. You know, in case the  poor and senior citizenswelfare victims decide to riot after their entitlement programs are removed.

Also, defund the Dept of Education and the FDA and replace it with a program that uses slave labor former welfare recipients and their children to manufacture bootstraps as part of a new Happiness and Strappiness program designed to bring the textile and shoe industry back to this country.
 
2013-04-25 09:46:28 AM  
Defund Planned Parenthood and re-educate the former staff from Baby Killingtm to coding. With all that money and manpower, they could knock that software out in a month.
 
2013-04-25 09:48:24 AM  
Part of me thinks that having a standardized cross-service fighter is a little too similar to the standardization of equipment that was attempted under the McNamara DoD.

But then again, the M-16 eventually worked, and we're still using variants of it to this day.  So maybe in time the F-35 will have been worth it.
 
2013-04-25 09:57:20 AM  
But at least the money we're spending on that plane isn't going to any welfare queens!
 
2013-04-25 09:59:17 AM  

Pocket Ninja: And before any gun-grabbing liberals start flailing their hands and crying about whether citizens have the "right" to own an F35 or two, let me just say that the constitution is a living document, people. It evolves with time. If the Founders had been fighting a British army with RADAR-guided missiles, they would have almost certainly considered an F35 squadron to be part of any "well regulated militia." Let's not pretend that we're still fighting with muskets, mkay?

i.imgur.com


The game has changed a bit since 1791.
 
2013-04-25 09:59:39 AM  

Pocket Ninja: I see no solution but to end all entitlement programs and immediately transfer all the money to the F-35 program. We're already almost $400 billion in, so it's clear that the program is too big to fail and we must be prepared to ensure its success no matter what the cost. Furthemore, if decreased orders are the reason that its production may be slowing, we should enact programs to increase interest and incentivize buyers. For example, we might offer the wealthiest 1% of Americans a new tax credit that they could use to offset their recent tax increase -- one of the largest tax increases in modern history, I might add -- where if they agree to buy 1 or 2 F35s for their own, personal use, they can claim the amount spent as a special "Air Patriot" deduction. And before any gun-grabbing liberals start flailing their hands and crying about whether citizens have the "right" to own an F35 or two, let me just say that the constitution is a living document, people. It evolves with time. If the Founders had been fighting a British army with RADAR-guided missiles, they would have almost certainly considered an F35 squadron to be part of any "well regulated militia." Let's not pretend that we're still fighting with muskets, mkay?


WHO ARE YOU. And why are you giving this talent away for free? I appreciate it, don't get me wrong...
 
2013-04-25 10:03:30 AM  
I have mixed feelings. The geek in me loves the tech, but manned fighters are sooo 20th century. That being said, the R&D that went into this isn't a waste. R&D never is.
 
2013-04-25 10:03:40 AM  

doglover: Why do we need a new jet fighter?

With existing tech, we can just make a kind of phalanx of guided missiles. Maybe one misses. For the price of an F-35, we can just launch 100.



We don't. But there are a lot of Congress-critters with aerospace contractors in their districts that need money.
 
2013-04-25 10:03:45 AM  
nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com

Canadian national spokesman for Lockheed Martin
 
2013-04-25 10:04:00 AM  
Software doesn't need to be ready for production, all chips are reprogrammable.
 
2013-04-25 10:04:01 AM  

theurge14: Pocket Ninja: And before any gun-grabbing liberals start flailing their hands and crying about whether citizens have the "right" to own an F35 or two, let me just say that the constitution is a living document, people. It evolves with time. If the Founders had been fighting a British army with RADAR-guided missiles, they would have almost certainly considered an F35 squadron to be part of any "well regulated militia." Let's not pretend that we're still fighting with muskets, mkay?

[i.imgur.com image 470x260]

The game has changed a bit since 1791.


planetmut.com

"I suppose I could give up one of them and still be feared ..."
 
2013-04-25 10:05:05 AM  
Boyd was right.
 
2013-04-25 10:07:24 AM  
Can't we just go back to the golden days when gentlemen in fabulous mustaches graced the skies in multiple-wing wicker baskets and threw bricks at one another?
 
2013-04-25 10:07:40 AM  

Aarontology: Four hundred billion dollars for a plane that doesn't even really work

Or about five sequesters worth.


That is like 9 Solyndras.
 
2013-04-25 10:09:00 AM  
F-15SE eh??

Ohhhhhh... she sexxy, F-15 with internal weapon bays 8 )

Excellent *tents fingers*

www.aviationnews.eu
 
2013-04-25 10:09:24 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Part of me thinks that having a standardized cross-service fighter is a little too similar to the standardization of equipment that was attempted under the McNamara DoD.

But then again, the M-16 eventually worked, and we're still using variants of it to this day.  So maybe in time the F-35 will have been worth it.


The M-16 took dozens of years for it to work properly. It also caused thousands of lives because it didn't work properly for the longest time.
We can't have that type of a problem with a 5th Gen jet fighter. The risk is just too great!
 
2013-04-25 10:09:42 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: It's not that the software won't be completed until 2017, it's that it just won't be ready to run until 2017.  They're using Java.


So they'll still be downloading updates and be asked if they want to install the Ask Toolbar?

/Or was it McAfee scanner?
 
2013-04-25 10:10:15 AM  

Wrath of Heaven: F-15SE eh??

Ohhhhhh... she sexxy, F-15 with internal weapon bays 8 )

Excellent *tents fingers*

[www.aviationnews.eu image 789x478]



add vectored thrust and we'll talk
 
2013-04-25 10:11:04 AM  
The problems with the F-35 make me wonder if China is running an espionage campaign to sabotage the dam thing.
 
2013-04-25 10:12:04 AM  
Oh No!  However are we going to protect ourselves?!
 
2013-04-25 10:13:24 AM  
Why not just do what Microsoft does and beta test the software on their consumers? We could save the government billions in research.
 
2013-04-25 10:13:25 AM  

SuperNinjaToad: UNC_Samurai: Part of me thinks that having a standardized cross-service fighter is a little too similar to the standardization of equipment that was attempted under the McNamara DoD.

But then again, the M-16 eventually worked, and we're still using variants of it to this day.  So maybe in time the F-35 will have been worth it.

The M-16 took dozens of years for it to work properly. It also caused thousands of lives because it didn't work properly for the longest time.
We can't have that type of a problem with a 5th Gen jet fighter. The risk is just too great!


The M-16 always worked fine (ok, maybe a few small additions, like a forward assist helped), it was just some stupid army guys who saw 'outer space parts' and believed that it never had to be cleaned. Once they issued cleaning kits (pretty quickly, because, ya know, it's not cheap to train a grunt and then have him die) they worked fine.
 
2013-04-25 10:13:42 AM  

Pocket Ninja: I see no solution but to end all entitlement programs and immediately transfer all the money to the F-35 program. We're already almost $400 billion in, so it's clear that the program is too big to fail and we must be prepared to ensure its success no matter what the cost. Furthemore, if decreased orders are the reason that its production may be slowing, we should enact programs to increase interest and incentivize buyers. For example, we might offer the wealthiest 1% of Americans a new tax credit that they could use to offset their recent tax increase -- one of the largest tax increases in modern history, I might add -- where if they agree to buy 1 or 2 F35s for their own, personal use, they can claim the amount spent as a special "Air Patriot" deduction. And before any gun-grabbing liberals start flailing their hands and crying about whether citizens have the "right" to own an F35 or two, let me just say that the constitution is a living document, people. It evolves with time. If the Founders had been fighting a British army with RADAR-guided missiles, they would have almost certainly considered an F35 squadron to be part of any "well regulated militia." Let's not pretend that we're still fighting with muskets, mkay?


I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2013-04-25 10:13:55 AM  

bongmiester: Wrath of Heaven: F-15SE eh??

Ohhhhhh... she sexxy, F-15 with internal weapon bays 8 )

Excellent *tents fingers*

[www.aviationnews.eu image 789x478]


add vectored thrust and we'll talk



She's got a host of other goodies to tempt you with...
i729.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-25 10:14:27 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: The problems with the F-35 make me wonder if China is running an espionage campaign to sabotage the dam thing.


China is running Congress?
 
2013-04-25 10:14:34 AM  
Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract

The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.
 
2013-04-25 10:14:45 AM  
The F-35 is just like the Nazis Tiger tanks - awesome but too complex and expensive.
 
2013-04-25 10:15:22 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Part of me thinks that having a standardized cross-service fighter is a little too similar to the standardization of equipment that was attempted under the McNamara DoD.

But then again, the M-16 eventually worked, and we're still using variants of it to this day.  So maybe in time the F-35 will have been worth it.


Actually McNamara's DoD did attempt to introduce a cross-service fighter. It ended up being the F-4. And the first few blocks didn't even include a machine gun, because why would you need a machine gun if you have these fancy new missiles? And why would an air-superiority fighter have to be maneuverable if it can fly at Mach 2?

Though at least they weren't trying to make the F-4 be a bomber too. Unlike with this turkey...
 
2013-04-25 10:16:11 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract

The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.


and is about as stealthy as a flying barn
 
2013-04-25 10:17:34 AM  
No problem -- if the plane breaks down mid-flight, just tell them to reboot.

It's the solution to every problem, I'm told.  We're told to accept this as though it's normal.
 
2013-04-25 10:18:09 AM  

doglover: Why do we need a new jet fighter?

With existing tech, we can just make a kind of phalanx of guided missiles. Maybe one misses. For the price of an F-35, we can just launch 100.


Because then the Air Force wouldn't have a reason to exist. They wouldn't like that.
 
2013-04-25 10:18:56 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: The problems with the F-35 make me wonder if China is running an espionage campaign to sabotage the dam thing.


The problems have been related to too many people in congress trying to get a piece of the pie for their home state/district and legislating/back-room dealing a ton of inefficiency into the program.

Plus, our 'corporate citizens' seem to have lost their moral compasses since the F-14/F-15/F-16 were developed in the 60s/70s.  They're more concerned about profits and how much money they can soak the government for than building the absolute best plane that they can.
 
2013-04-25 10:19:10 AM  
Unless they transform into robotic form and can function in space, I'm not impressed.
 
2013-04-25 10:19:47 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Slaves2Darkness: The problems with the F-35 make me wonder if China is running an espionage campaign to sabotage the dam thing.

China is running Congress?


That would explain a lot.
 
2013-04-25 10:21:22 AM  

SuperNinjaToad: UNC_Samurai: Part of me thinks that having a standardized cross-service fighter is a little too similar to the standardization of equipment that was attempted under the McNamara DoD.

But then again, the M-16 eventually worked, and we're still using variants of it to this day.  So maybe in time the F-35 will have been worth it.

The M-16 took dozens of years for it to work properly. It also

caused thousands of lives because it didn't work properly for the longest time.
We can't have that type of a problem with a 5th Gen jet fighter. The risk is just too great!


*****EAM*****
STATUS: URGENT
SENDER: CINC-CENTCOM
RE: M-16 STANDARD INFANTRY

***MESSAGE FOLLOWS****

It has come to the attention of CINC/CENTCOM that the M-16 has been confused by many enlisted men as a marital or reproductive aid.  Many of these men are now expectant fathers because of their misunderstanding and misuse of the M-16, and many female personnel have found themselves operationally exhausted following said misuse.  All line officers are advised to re-instruct enlisted personnel on the proper use of the M-16, and strongly advise against its misuse.  A re-training manual (479 pages plus 2 sets of safety addenda, entitled "The M-16: Not Built for Love") will be forthcoming.

****END EAM****
 
2013-04-25 10:21:29 AM  
Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. Half the price fo the F-35, and we already know they work.
 
2013-04-25 10:22:12 AM  
www.geeknewscentral.com

Hi! looks like you are trying to shoot down an SU-27. Would you like help? Yes No
 
2013-04-25 10:23:19 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Marcus Aurelius: Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract

The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.

and is about as stealthy as a flying barn


"Do not ask me to approach the battle meekly, to creep through the shadows, or to quietly slip on my foes in the dark. Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me."
 
2013-04-25 10:24:25 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract

The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.


This.
 
2013-04-25 10:25:55 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Slaves2Darkness: The problems with the F-35 make me wonder if China is running an espionage campaign to sabotage the dam thing.

China is running Congress?


Duh, they have bought the last three presidents.
 
2013-04-25 10:26:03 AM  

another cultural observer: SuperNinjaToad: UNC_Samurai: Part of me thinks that having a standardized cross-service fighter is a little too similar to the standardization of equipment that was attempted under the McNamara DoD.

But then again, the M-16 eventually worked, and we're still using variants of it to this day.  So maybe in time the F-35 will have been worth it.

The M-16 took dozens of years for it to work properly. It also caused thousands of lives because it didn't work properly for the longest time.
We can't have that type of a problem with a 5th Gen jet fighter. The risk is just too great!

*****EAM*****
STATUS: URGENT
SENDER: CINC-CENTCOM
RE: M-16 STANDARD INFANTRY

***MESSAGE FOLLOWS****

It has come to the attention of CINC/CENTCOM that the M-16 has been confused by many enlisted men as a marital or reproductive aid.  Many of these men are now expectant fathers because of their misunderstanding and misuse of the M-16, and many female personnel have found themselves operationally exhausted following said misuse.  All line officers are advised to re-instruct enlisted personnel on the proper use of the M-16, and strongly advise against its misuse.  A re-training manual (479 pages plus 2 sets of safety addenda, entitled "The M-16: Not Built for Love") will be forthcoming.

****END EAM****


assets0.ordienetworks.com
 
2013-04-25 10:26:47 AM  
The United States is counting on foreign sales...

Why are we selling weapons of war to other countries again? Has that ever NOT come back to bite us in the ass at some point?
=Smidge=
 
2013-04-25 10:28:12 AM  

Nurglitch: Voiceofreason01: Marcus Aurelius: Boeing Co's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon, built by EADS, Finmeccanica SpA and BAE Systems Plc, are also competing for the contract

The F-15 Silent Eagle should be the plane we're buying instead of the F-35.  It has better payload, better range, better performance, a much lower unit cost, and is built on an airframe that has never been downed in air-to-air combat.

and is about as stealthy as a flying barn

"Do not ask me to approach the battle meekly, to creep through the shadows, or to quietly slip on my foes in the dark. Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me."


I believe the term you are looking for is "flying tennis court".
 
Displayed 50 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report