Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Reuters)   If you thought the Air Force's worst boondoggle in recent memory, the F-35, couldn't get any more boondogglery, well we've got some bad news for you   ( reuters.com) divider line
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

12565 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2014 at 1:07 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-07-04 10:43:54 AM  
$398.6 billion 

$398.6 billion
 
2014-07-04 12:08:51 PM  

ginandbacon: $398.6 billion
$398.6 billion


Your concern is duly noted. But honestly, a 1/3 of a Trillion dollars would only mater if we had a crumbling infrastructure, a struggling education system, an understaffed judicial system, or people going to bed hungry.
 
2014-07-04 01:08:42 PM  
cdn.gifbay.com
 
2014-07-04 01:11:15 PM  

ginandbacon: $398.6 billion 

$398.6 billion


No money for single payer which would do more for national security vs these fighters
 
2014-07-04 01:11:46 PM  
It's only money.
 
2014-07-04 01:12:46 PM  
Seriously, fark Lockheed. All of the military industrial complex companies have overruns and problems, but only Lockheed seems to get MORE contracts and more money when they fark up catastrophically. California is giving them a fat tax break, and the bill only stalled when some legislators from Northrop country raised a stink.
 
2014-07-04 01:12:53 PM  
They made it look pretty useless in that one Die Hard movie where they sent an F35 after bruce willis in a truck and it couldnt even kill him.
 
2014-07-04 01:13:37 PM  
No coincidence that the board of directors of Lockheed Martin are all retired Air Force generals. Okay, not all. Most. (No, I didn't look it up, why do you ask?)
 
2014-07-04 01:14:07 PM  
This incident alone is not something to worry much about. New platforms often need adjustment when they've already been fielded, because of one issue or another, and really... a 90 minute inspection per plane isn't terrible.

That said, when viewed as a whole, the amount of time it's taken - combined with the massive amount of money we've spent on budget overruns - makes this project a farking disaster.

The Osprey was a disaster of similar proportion, and ended up giving us a FANTASTIC airframe at the end... this project had farking better deliver the same results.
 
2014-07-04 01:14:26 PM  
How many drones can be purchased for the cost of one of these planes ?

In this day and age what possible reason is there to have a human in the cockpit ?

With no human the drones can fly faster and pull g forces that would cause a human pilot to blackout. No loss of top pilots. No potential POWs etc etc
 
2014-07-04 01:14:49 PM  

ginandbacon: $398.6 billion 

$398.6 billion


For 97 planes, apparently. So $4 billion a plane... so far.
 
2014-07-04 01:15:17 PM  
Why do we need this plane anyway?
 
2014-07-04 01:16:06 PM  

Trocadero: Seriously, fark Lockheed. All of the military industrial complex companies have overruns and problems, but only Lockheed seems to get MORE contracts and more money when they fark up catastrophically. California is giving them a fat tax break, and the bill only stalled when some legislators from Northrop country raised a stink.


But it's genius! Contract out to businesses in nearly every congressional district countrywide, no one can vote against it.
 
2014-07-04 01:16:37 PM  

Target Builder: ginandbacon: $398.6 billion 

$398.6 billion

For 97 planes, apparently. So $4 billion a plane... so far.


Why, that's more than twice as much as the B-2 "Spirit."

/Totally gay name for a bomber.
//Stratofortress for the win.
 
2014-07-04 01:17:04 PM  

Notabunny: ginandbacon: $398.6 billion
$398.6 billion

Your concern is duly noted. But honestly, a 1/3 of a Trillion dollars would only mater if we had a crumbling infrastructure, a struggling education system, an understaffed judicial system, or people going to bed hungry.


Or, God forbid, an underfunded VA.
 
2014-07-04 01:17:18 PM  

Muta: Why do we need this plane anyway?


You use it to kill people with
 
2014-07-04 01:17:20 PM  

ginandbacon: $398.6 billion 

$398.6 billion


It is the engine. Not the entire aircraft.
 
2014-07-04 01:17:31 PM  

Muta: Why do we need this plane anyway?


Because China and Russia!

Plus the industrial military complex needs a meal ticket for the next 20+ years.
 
2014-07-04 01:18:35 PM  

Muta: Why do we need this plane anyway?


Over it's life cycle it is supposed to save cash .
 
2014-07-04 01:18:48 PM  

kindms: How many drones can be purchased for the cost of one of these planes ?

In this day and age what possible reason is there to have a human in the cockpit ?

With no human the drones can fly faster and pull g forces that would cause a human pilot to blackout. No loss of top pilots. No potential POWs etc etc


B/c former pilots make up a lot of higher brass in the Navy and Air Force, and then they go on to work for the aerospace companies. Congress is getting impatient, though. The Navy sent out a future-cast for their carriers that would only use drones for surveillance/reconnaissance, and Congress sent it  back saying "no, we want the bombers and fighters to be un-manned, possibly autonomous." It's like, what fun is it to declare war and not get to push the big red buttons yourselves?
 
2014-07-04 01:18:54 PM  
And of course we'll sell the F-35 to our "friends" so we will have to build an even better (i.e. moar $$) plane to counter them.

/Piloted planes are so last year
 
2014-07-04 01:19:56 PM  
There's nothing wrong with the F-35, just the engine. No big deal.
 
2014-07-04 01:21:08 PM  

Tobin_Lam: There's nothing wrong with the F-35, just the engine. No big deal.


And the avionics, software, superstructure, skin, and um, cost.
 
2014-07-04 01:21:44 PM  
This weapons system is almost completely driven by the politicians need for money in their pockets err I mean districts.


Or am I thinking of a different weapons system?
Something about a component being built in each of the 50 states.
 
2014-07-04 01:22:58 PM  

farkbot42: Tobin_Lam: There's nothing wrong with the F-35, just the engine. No big deal.

And the avionics, software, superstructure, skin, and um, cost.


Don't forget the ventilation system for the pilots.
 
2014-07-04 01:23:01 PM  
There's nothing wrong with the F-35, just the engine. No big deal.

Um .. it's not a supermarket ride, the goal is for it fly somewhere...
 
2014-07-04 01:23:55 PM  
Send a droid.
 
2014-07-04 01:24:41 PM  
They're going to send my town's squadron of Warthogs into early retirement for this POS. So now I'll probably have to worry if an F-35 will crash in my backyard if it rains.
 
2014-07-04 01:24:50 PM  
Joint strike fighter, named after what the designers were smoking.
 
2014-07-04 01:25:54 PM  
Remember when Southwest had to ground its 737s? That isn't exactly a new plane. Why is it news just because it is a new plane?
 
2014-07-04 01:26:30 PM  

caeroe: They're going to send my town's squadron of Warthogs into early retirement for this POS. So now I'll probably have to worry if an F-35 will crash in my backyard if it rains.


The killing of the A-10 is criminal.
 
2014-07-04 01:27:04 PM  
This plane is like (fine China plate-ware) It looks good, costs a lot and never gets used.
 
2014-07-04 01:27:07 PM  
Just read the article... don't see what the big deal is. So the fleet is grounded for engine inspections. That's actually not unusual at all for such a new airframe. At least it isn't randomly suffocating pilots for no apparent reason like the F22.
 
2014-07-04 01:27:26 PM  

farkbot42: And of course we'll sell the F-35 to our "friends" so we will have to build an even better (i.e. moar $$) plane to counter them.

/Piloted planes are so last year


Canada will be purchasing 65 of them for about $16 billion, or about a $250 million each.

Whenever I hear that, I think "new gee whiz fighter plane or new hospital? tough farking choice"
 
2014-07-04 01:27:42 PM  

Trocadero: farkbot42: Tobin_Lam: There's nothing wrong with the F-35, just the engine. No big deal.

And the avionics, software, superstructure, skin, and um, cost.

Don't forget the ventilation system for the pilots.


I think that was the F-22 (another horrible boondoggle for Lockheed Martin). But meh, wouldn't doubt it.
 
2014-07-04 01:28:52 PM  
Why can't we just go back to the f-14 tomcat?

Highwaaay to the daaaanger zooone!
 
2014-07-04 01:30:12 PM  
It's the engine, not the airplane. The engine isn't produced by Lockheed and it doesn't sound like it's all that intensive of an inspection.

But hey, we should hold off buying new fighter aircraft until we really need them, I'm sure they can develop and manufacture them in a week or so, right?
 
2014-07-04 01:30:39 PM  

kindms: How many drones can be purchased for the cost of one of these planes ?

In this day and age what possible reason is there to have a human in the cockpit ?

With no human the drones can fly faster and pull g forces that would cause a human pilot to blackout. No loss of top pilots. No potential POWs etc etc


Drones are useless without air superiority you know. They are extremely easy to shoot down in general. Though in 10-20 years that probably will be increasingly no longer the case. Also a pilot can just do things and see things and notice things and think about things in ways that drones can't do on the spot. There will always be pilots needed, just less and less overall. Probably in the future one pilot in a jet will go in with a fleet of drones around him/her to use as an part of the pilots weapons platform.
 
2014-07-04 01:31:29 PM  
Is the ignition made by GM?
 
2014-07-04 01:32:42 PM  

Muta: Why do we need this plane anyway?


To fight the Communists Soviets umm Cubans, uh the evil Chinese. Yeah that is it.
Despite the fact that our current adversaries are on horseback we throw money at technology.
 
2014-07-04 01:33:09 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-07-04 01:33:10 PM  

maniacbastard: Muta: Why do we need this plane anyway?

Over it's life cycle it is supposed to save cash .


How much cash would we save if we didn't buy it/
 
2014-07-04 01:36:55 PM  
This is what happens when you design something by committee and you try to make it be all things to all people. You'd think they would have learned from the TFX debacle McNamara inflicted upon the military in the 1960s. It eventually turned out a decent enough aircraft (the FB-111), but in the end we still needed other planes, hence the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18. The one plane in history that actually did turn out to be all things to all people, the F-4, was fortunate happenstance.

This plane should have been developed as a high-volume complement to the F-22 and nothing else. We could have saved a quarter-trillion dollars and had a second Navy-specific plane to go along with it. Now it's too late.
 
2014-07-04 01:37:19 PM  

farkbot42: Trocadero: farkbot42: Tobin_Lam: There's nothing wrong with the F-35, just the engine. No big deal.

And the avionics, software, superstructure, skin, and um, cost.

Don't forget the ventilation system for the pilots.

I think that was the F-22 (another horrible boondoggle for Lockheed Martin). But meh, wouldn't doubt it.


Why does Lockheed keep getting contracts for fighters?
 
2014-07-04 01:38:32 PM  

mjohnson71: caeroe: They're going to send my town's squadron of Warthogs into early retirement for this POS. So now I'll probably have to worry if an F-35 will crash in my backyard if it rains.

The killing of the A-10 is criminal.


Agreed. It's my favorite plane, and from what I understand, it's greatly feared. On the other hand, I know it's highly resistant to small-arms fire, but I wonder if it's extremely vulnerable to even the most basic guided surface-to-air systems. The A-10 can't hover behind terrain like a helicpoter, either.
 
2014-07-04 01:39:12 PM  
Or helicopter, even.
 
2014-07-04 01:40:03 PM  

ginandbacon: $398.6 billion 

$398.6 billion


a few billion here, a few billion there. After a while it begins to add up.
it's not like they aren't fully funding social security too.
 
2014-07-04 01:40:37 PM  
And they're out of coffee.
 
2014-07-04 01:41:40 PM  
The one that transforms into a Segway when it lands, right?
 
2014-07-04 01:42:42 PM  

change1211: It's the engine, not the airplane. The engine isn't produced by Lockheed and it doesn't sound like it's all that intensive of an inspection.

But hey, we should hold off buying new fighter aircraft until we really need them, I'm sure they can develop and manufacture them in a week or so, right?


When will we need new fighter aircraft? We're allies with the EU and Israel, Russia's economy tanked when they invaded farking Crimea, so they're in no position to survive a war with the US, going to war with the United States would absolutely skullfark China's economy, and I highly doubt that North Korea has any aircraft that could threaten even the pre-F-22 fighters like the F-16 and F/A-18. Nobody has both the technology and the motive to challenge the US' air superiority, even before this overpriced piece of crap was rolled out.

Air superiority just isn't a big deal when your enemies are terrorists, insurgents and other guerilla-type fighters.  But they look cool, and get pork to Congressional districts, so we're stuck with them.
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report