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.

(Bloomberg)   The F-35 has been cleared to fly; no word on landing   (bloomberg.com) divider line 75
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

3066 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2014 at 10:32 AM (7 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-15 10:12:09 AM
f35baddeal.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-07-15 10:24:36 AM
Oh, they can land OK

/one way or another
 
2014-07-15 10:33:51 AM
It's not a rocket -- it will land.
 
2014-07-15 10:34:15 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh, they can land OK

/one way or another


But can you walk away from it?
 
2014-07-15 10:34:34 AM
As was always said when I was in the Air Force...

"I'd rather be down here wishing I was up there than being up there wishing I was down here....."
 
2014-07-15 10:35:54 AM
DON'T SCRAP THE A10s!
 
2014-07-15 10:38:05 AM
If they can make that brick "fly", whar is my flying bacon?
 
2014-07-15 10:38:31 AM
"OK boys, now remember, before you put your mask on take a really really DEEP breath."
 
2014-07-15 10:38:45 AM
Well, that plane's certainly worth 500Billion dollars.
 
2014-07-15 10:39:10 AM

Arkanaut: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh, they can land OK

/one way or another

But can you walk away from it?


Was that in the requirements specification?
 
2014-07-15 10:39:29 AM

snocone: whar is my flying bacon?


If they can make a pneumatic chicken-gun, there's no reason it couldn't be scaled up to pig-sized:

www.cairdpublications.com
 
2014-07-15 10:39:55 AM
I hope it makes it to Farnborough. It will be good for the program and the continued success of the fighter. Like with any major and complex programs these things are inevitable. Even the venerable F-16s and F-15s had a lot of teething problems and let's not even mention the F-14s and the F-111s yet they are all well loved by the public.
I think people like to hate on the F-35 because of false information and it has become politicized.
 
2014-07-15 10:40:19 AM
img.fark.net

Priorities.
 
2014-07-15 10:42:03 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: [f35baddeal.files.wordpress.com image 330x825]


lol
 
2014-07-15 10:43:19 AM
So we spent all this money for an air show?
 
2014-07-15 10:45:32 AM

bdub77: "OK boys, now remember, before you put your mask on take a really really DEEP breath."


Nah, the F22 was the one choking pilots out...
 
2014-07-15 10:45:46 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: [f35baddeal.files.wordpress.com image 330x825]


I won't defend the cost of the program, but it's not as if the money disappeared. Sure, we could provide a $50k/yr job for 4 years for every unemployed person, but we'd have a hundred thousand defense contractors laid off at the same time so I don't know what the net benefit would really be.

*Numbers pulled out of my ass, but the logic seems sounds to me.
 
2014-07-15 10:50:33 AM

dukeblue219: but we'd have a hundred thousand defense contractors laid off at the same time so I don't know what the net benefit would really be.



We'd have hundreds of thousands of educated, hardworking Americans pulling up their bootstraps instead of suckling on the government teat. Conservatives should love this.
 
jvl
2014-07-15 10:51:46 AM
I wish we could cancel this stupid airplane, but we promised it to all our allies and the Brits have designed their new Aircraft carrier around it.
 
2014-07-15 10:53:58 AM

jvl: I wish we could cancel this stupid airplane, but we promised it to all our allies and the Brits have designed their new Aircraft carrier around it.


Well let them continue to pay for it, then. The thing's already been designed and production started -- at this point our allies should be more than capable of just buying them for list price as they roll off the assembly line.
 
2014-07-15 10:56:07 AM
Supersonic drones will make it obsolete for everything but show of force.
 
2014-07-15 10:59:39 AM

SuperNinjaToad: I hope it makes it to Farnborough. It will be good for the program and the continued success of the fighter. Like with any major and complex programs these things are inevitable. Even the venerable F-16s and F-15s had a lot of teething problems and let's not even mention the F-14s and the F-111s yet they are all well loved by the public.
I think people like to hate on the F-35 because of false information and it has become politicized.


Maybe, maybe not; but the F-14 / 15 / 16 have all served in combat with sterling records. The F-35 is not going to silence any critics until can prove itself, and the way things are going, it's not going to see combat for maybe another decade.
 
2014-07-15 10:59:53 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: [f35baddeal.files.wordpress.com image 330x825]


Fleet cost is just a bit over the direct cost of the Iraq war and occupation.

Who needs infrastructure? Roads are for pussies!
 
2014-07-15 11:01:29 AM
Does the STOVL variant still have a 150lb maximum weight limit for the pilot and their equipment?
 
2014-07-15 11:02:01 AM

dukeblue219: but it's not as if the money disappeared.


Lockheed Martin: willing to outsource F-35 production to Japan
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/us-lockheedmartin-japan-id US TRE7520L520110603

The U.S. military's fifth generation fighter jet, the F-35, has more than 100 international suppliers, with Italy alone the home to 19 third- and fourth-tier suppliers.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/January/Pages/Ou ts ourcingUSDefenseNationalSecurityImplications.aspx
 
2014-07-15 11:05:04 AM
Stupid humans!
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-07-15 11:15:53 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: dukeblue219: but it's not as if the money disappeared.

Lockheed Martin: willing to outsource F-35 production to Japan
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/us-lockheedmartin-japan-id US TRE7520L520110603

The U.S. military's fifth generation fighter jet, the F-35, has more than 100 international suppliers, with Italy alone the home to 19 third- and fourth-tier suppliers.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/January/Pages/Ou ts ourcingUSDefenseNationalSecurityImplications.aspx


Fair enough, but there's also a ton of them being bought and paid for by overseas allies. I'd like to see a table that breaks down the trade balance of the program overall.
 
2014-07-15 11:17:21 AM

dukeblue219: jvl: I wish we could cancel this stupid airplane, but we promised it to all our allies and the Brits have designed their new Aircraft carrier around it.

Well let them continue to pay for it, then. The thing's already been designed and production started -- at this point our allies should be more than capable of just buying them for list price as they roll off the assembly line.


Except that the US won't fix a price and the client states - I mean your allies - are to embarrassed to admit that the contract cost now appears to be ten times the initial cost. I have no idea why Canada is contemplating these aircraft. Single engine combat aircraft over water and the arctic? Really?
 
2014-07-15 11:18:00 AM
"Lockheed Martin is exaggerating the number of jobs involved in the F-35 program,"
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140122/DEFREG02/301220015/New-R ep ort-Questions-F-35-Job-Creation-Claims

 It's a moneypit for politicians to raise from Lockheed. This image is just the tip of the iceberg (thanks Citizens United!)

img.fark.net
 
2014-07-15 11:22:01 AM

KyngNothing: bdub77: "OK boys, now remember, before you put your mask on take a really really DEEP breath."

Nah, the F22 was the one choking pilots out...


Even the planes are smart enough to know we don' neeed no steeenking pilot.
 
2014-07-15 11:23:02 AM

for good or for awesome: So we spent all this money for an air show?


A BOOTSTRAPPING good Airshow.
 
2014-07-15 11:29:09 AM
I have earned a very solid salary as an engineer on that program, and worked my ass off on it. I spend my money in the US. I will use the money to send my kids to college. I have used the money to pay off our house.

I guess it really is Gov't funded small business subsidies, education handouts, and housing assistance.

Certainly the program has its issues, but stealing money from Americans is not necessarily one of them.

So I'm getting a kick...
 
2014-07-15 11:33:35 AM

waterrockets: I have earned a very solid salary as an engineer on that program, and worked my ass off on it. I spend my money in the US. I will use the money to send my kids to college. I have used the money to pay off our house.

I guess it really is Gov't funded small business subsidies, education handouts, and housing assistance.

Certainly the program has its issues, but stealing money from Americans is not necessarily one of them.

So I'm getting a kick...


Thass nice.
Your chump change is why school kids get no free lunch.
Enjoy.
 
2014-07-15 11:38:00 AM

waterrockets: I have earned a very solid salary as an engineer on that program, and worked my ass off on it.


Considering how many problems the plane has despite a massively higher cost, I don't think I would confess to that.
 
2014-07-15 11:55:23 AM

dukeblue219: Because People in power are Stupid: [f35baddeal.files.wordpress.com image 330x825]

I won't defend the cost of the program, but it's not as if the money disappeared. Sure, we could provide a $50k/yr job for 4 years for every unemployed person, but we'd have a hundred thousand defense contractors laid off at the same time so I don't know what the net benefit would really be.

*Numbers pulled out of my ass, but the logic seems sounds to me.


Yeah, because highly-skilled and educated engineers couldn't find other jobs....

Wait... Do you mean STEM degree holders fear being dumped into the job market hollowed-out by the offshoring of our manufacturing capacity, thus being forced to compete for lower-wage service jobs that the corporations left behind for the hoi polloi to fight over?

Gosh, maybe some people should have thought the whole "free trade" and Libertarian fiscal policy all the way through...and voted for people who didn't subscribe to voodoo economics.
 
2014-07-15 12:07:18 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: [f35baddeal.files.wordpress.com image 330x825]



So the same accusations made against every piece of military hardware ever. "bronze spear massively over priced flint spear still works"-Ugg Ugg of the Ugg times "all metal monoplanes are too dangerous and expensive we will always have biplanes"- Some moron in the 1930's.

And on it goes forever it doesn't matter what it is people hate change and have overly romantic notions off the last generation of military hardware.

Also the idea that money spent on military equipment is some unique from other money and is permanently lost to the economy is very strange.
Not saying the f-35 is a good or bad plane but posting up a load a figures  and argument to emotion is usually the sign of someone who has done no analysis of the subject or have allowed other to do it for them.

But to answer the points raised.

1. Flawed. Almost no military hardware has worked perfectly from the start some off the best hardware ever made especially highly technical stuff had abysmal starts.

2.useless. No plane is useless also this is a classic example of fighting the last war i.e. Iraq Afghanistan. It completely ignores that the next war maybe completely different and might require air to air combat etc.

3. Out of control cost overruns. So just like almost every other pice of military hardware in history. you have to take risks to succeed not everything will succeed but if you don't try which is what that picture suggest they should have done then you will always fail.

4. foolish. Whether or not it succeeds its not as foolish as the "reasoning" of that picture and quote is meaningless opinion of a journalist who is just looking to generate outrage.
 
2014-07-15 12:10:27 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: "Lockheed Martin is exaggerating the number of jobs involved in the F-35 program,"
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140122/DEFREG02/301220015/New-R ep ort-Questions-F-35-Job-Creation-Claims

 It's a moneypit for politicians to raise from Lockheed. This image is just the tip of the iceberg (thanks Citizens United!)

[img.fark.net image 666x608]


According to this (PDF), Lockheed-Martin got $4.1 million for their F-35 contract.

So for a total of $2,177,978 in campaign contributions, just the F-35 contract delivered nearly a 100% return on investment.

/not intended to be a factual financial statement
 
2014-07-15 12:18:06 PM

waterrockets: I have earned a very solid salary as an engineer on that program, and worked my ass off on it. I spend my money in the US. I will use the money to send my kids to college. I have used the money to pay off our house.

I guess it really is Gov't funded small business subsidies, education handouts, and housing assistance.

Certainly the program has its issues, but stealing money from Americans is not necessarily one of them.

So I'm getting a kick...


People (on either side of the issue) who focus on the jobs are missing the point.   We spend the money here, we (mostly) get jobs here.

It's the hardware that we're left with after the money's gone, that's the point.    What we got was a couple of hundred crashtastic (so far) airplanes.  What we coulda got was... new bridges across the nation, modernized pavement and traffic signal systems, and high-speed rail up and down both coastal megalopolises.  For example.

THAT is the shame, when the money's gone.   All we got is a box of expensive hammers, that our leaders will now find problems that look like nails to hit.
 
2014-07-15 12:20:00 PM

goatan: So the same accusations made against every piece of military hardware ever.


What's different about this "hardware"?

1) The current technological direction that places robots in planes which are piloted remotely http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/04/drones-are-the-futur e -of-war-so-why-is-the-pentago.aspx
2) The price of this plane versus already developed planes: that is the Hornet.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-3 5 -at-half-the-price-1.1320636
3) The lies the bloat and the graft this project.  http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/2012/03/boise-group-claims-usaf-f- 3 5.html
 
2014-07-15 12:29:53 PM

waterrockets: have earned a very solid salary as an engineer on that program, and worked my ass off on it. I spend my money in the US. I will use the money to send my kids to college. I have used the money to pay off our house.

I guess it really is Gov't funded small business subsidies, education handouts, and housing assistance.

Certainly the program has its issues, but stealing money from Americans is not necessarily one of them.

So I'm getting a kick...


So, Keynsian economics works when it's defense industries that get government funding, but it doesn't work when it's roads, bridges, schools and sanitation.
 
2014-07-15 12:33:21 PM

maddogdelta: Keynsian economics works


It doesn't work when the money going back into the system is actually outsourced. Then our tax dollars work to shore up foreign economies.
 
2014-07-15 12:44:10 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: maddogdelta: Keynsian economics works


It doesn't work when the money going back into the system is actually outsourced. Then our tax dollars work to shore up foreign economies.


Damned straight!

I saw 5 Russian  police officers, 3 Kenyan teachers, and 2 Bratislavian construction workers today. They were all commuting from their home countries so they could spend their paychecks there, instead of here in the good old U S of A!
 
2014-07-15 12:49:17 PM

maddogdelta: so they could spend their paychecks there,


Your derp is well noted.

The U.S. military's fifth generation fighter jet, the F-35, has more than 100 international suppliers, with Italy alone the home to 19 third- and fourth-tier suppliers.
 
2014-07-15 12:58:26 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: goatan: So the same accusations made against every piece of military hardware ever.

What's different about this "hardware"? Nothing and was originally subject to almost the exact same criticisms of course now that has been proved usefull in low threat environments the critics have moved on.

1) The current technological direction that places robots in planes which are piloted remotely http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/04/drones-are-the-futur e -of-war-so-why-is-the-pentago.aspx


People predicted the same sort of thing it the 60's i.e. unmanned missiles would replace planes. They still haven't been able to do that. Drones are great for low threat environments and suit the current war really well but don't have the performance for high or even medium threat environments. And if they did they would be just as expensive probably more so because of the extra electronics required for remote operation. Add into that the electronic war that would go on with one side trying to hijack the other sides drones and the cost in preventing that. I.e. a drone with the same capabilities as a jet would be about the same in cost.
Look at the start of the Afghanistan and especially the Iraq war drones were used a lot less than jets as they were more vulnerable now it's just fighting insurgents they are much more useful.  It's a bit like arguing than you only need to to use a fork to eat your food with. great for potatoes useless for soup and try cutting a steak with it.

2) The price of this plane versus already developed planes: that is the Hornet.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-3 5 -at-half-the-price-1.1320636


Always the trickiest decision new hardware or develop old. However in that article Boeing spokesman admits they are actually guessing as to operation cost of the F-35 because as he says no one know that figure yet so you can't compare i.e Boeing are making it up.
 It is also the exact same argument used for the M4 Sherman over  the Pershing. the argument was they are cheaper and you can have 3 times as many for the price. Trouble was you lost 4 times as many. That was a complacent and incompetent decision. A lot of Americans died needlessly because of that decision.
History is full of decisions to stick with and develop the old and it has usually been a mistake. You should always try to stretch yourself and have the old well developed model as a contingency not your primary plan.
Do you really think Boeing are being anymore truthful than Lockheed-martin? It is after all, all about the $$$$$$.


3) The lies the bloat and the graft this project.  http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/2012/03/boise-group-claims-usaf-f- 3 5.html

Same thing said about every project ever. One person says one thing another says something contrary both hope to be right to establish a reputation. Neither actually knows if they are right until the end and we are not there yet.
 
2014-07-15 01:04:35 PM
Taking off is the hardest thing to do in an aircraft, by their nature planes always land.  It is just a matter of grace and style.
 
2014-07-15 01:18:12 PM

goatan: Drones are great for low threat environments and suit the current war really well but don't have the performance for high or even medium threat environments.


Am I supposed to take your word for it?

imgs.xkcd.com


I could argue some points but the glaring issue is that you are expecting anyone reading to just accept your word as-is and not everyone has the the uncritical love for your own opinions as you clearly do.
 
2014-07-15 01:25:34 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh, they can land OK

/one way or another


Flight 101:
Take offs are always optional
Landings are always mandatory
 
2014-07-15 01:26:46 PM
Flight

Arkanaut: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh, they can land OK

/one way or another

But can you walk away from it?


Flight 102:

A good landing is one you can walk away from.
A great landing is one that, after you are done, they can use the plane again.
 
2014-07-15 01:32:11 PM
"Come on", they said.
"Get in the plane", they said.
"Perfectly safe, safer than walking across the street," they said.
"Buckle up, just out of caution", they said.
"Out the left side you can see some of the most remote and inhospitable terrain on the planet", they said.
"Brace!", they said.
 
2014-07-15 01:36:38 PM
Sad fact:

There will never again be a plane that could provide CAS like this:
img3.wikia.nocookie.net

Loved by ground pounders, feared by enemy tankers, and loathed by high ranking officals who want 'flashy' planes. The greatest instrument of war since the M-1 Garand main battle rifle.

And we will never again have something as awesome as this. ;_;
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report