Skip to content
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.

(BBC-US)   U.S. Military grounds all F-35s, sends them to their hangars without dinner   ( bbc.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, faulty fuel tubes, World War I, North Carolina, expensive weapons programme, F-35, United Kingdom, Fighter aircraft, World War II  
•       •       •

6842 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2018 at 10:35 AM (12 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-10-11 10:24:49 AM  
Don't forget to get them to undercoat while they're down there checking the fuel lines.

/giggidy
 
2018-10-11 10:27:02 AM  
The F-35 is way too expensive to waste on things like flying.  Too dangerous.
 
2018-10-11 10:31:54 AM  
Built FORD tough.
 
2018-10-11 10:32:39 AM  
Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!
 
2018-10-11 10:32:43 AM  
I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.
 
2018-10-11 10:34:16 AM  

Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.


I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.
 
2018-10-11 10:36:37 AM  
NO WIRE HANGARS!!!
 
2018-10-11 10:40:42 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.


Confused?  You will be after we add the Space Force to that mix.
 
2018-10-11 10:41:01 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Built FORD tough.


Sorry to say, more like a '76 Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare.
 
2018-10-11 10:42:10 AM  
i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 10:42:22 AM  

Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.


I'm wondering how PJ's feel about the rotor wash from V-22 Osprey.
 
2018-10-11 10:42:41 AM  

Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!


i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 10:42:44 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: Don't forget to get them to undercoat while they're down there checking the fuel lines.

/giggidy


mtbnj.comView Full Size


/you're gonna want that truecoat
 
2018-10-11 10:44:50 AM  
Well it looks like we won't be able to invade Canada after all. I was looking forward to hoarding the poutine.
 
2018-10-11 10:45:05 AM  
The F-35 has surely paid for some Lockheed Martin executive to build a lavish summer home. If this is a just universe, the next F-35 to crash will swan dive directly into that summer home.

/I know
//It's not a just universe
///if it was, I wouldn't be farking at work
 
2018-10-11 10:46:02 AM  
"Inspections are to be carried out on faulty fuel tubes."

Well there's your problem right there
 
2018-10-11 10:46:11 AM  
Check for Corrosion while you're down there. F35-biggest misuse of taxpayer funds for military purposes EVER. F22 is where its at.
 
2018-10-11 10:46:26 AM  

Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]


Fake news. No True American would serve in a UN military!
 
2018-10-11 10:46:38 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: Don't forget to get them to undercoat while they're down there checking the fuel lines.

/giggidy


probably all need blinker fluid
 
2018-10-11 10:47:56 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.


Marines exist because people used to actually fight other people on ships - you don't want to have the guys trying to make your ship going put-put to also have to go slashie-slashie.

The Air Force used to be part of the Army.  But the Navy needed planes also to kill other ships.  The Air Force was created because Spureme High Gods of The True Air cannot accept orders from ground- and water-bound peons.  Also, having their own service lets them suck directly from that sweet, sweet Congressional teat.
 
2018-10-11 10:48:45 AM  

phalamir: Also, having their own service lets them suck directly from that sweet, sweet Congressional teat.


Winner winner, chicken dinner.
 
2018-10-11 10:49:13 AM  
We're not mad. We're disappointed.
 
2018-10-11 10:50:29 AM  
People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.
 
2018-10-11 10:52:34 AM  

jaytkay: People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.


It has yet to be confirmed that the mud hut did not collapse on its own. Nor has it been disproven that Hillary Clinton use to run a pizza shop out of that mud hut.
 
2018-10-11 10:53:03 AM  

Gaddiel: The F-35 has surely paid for some Lockheed Martin executive to build a lavish summer home island. If this is a just universe, the next F-35 to crash will swan dive directly into that summer home.

/I know
//It's not a just universe
///if it was, I wouldn't be farking at work


FTFY
 
2018-10-11 10:53:04 AM  

phalamir: Marine


MAss Rides INavy Equip​ment
Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Essential
 
2018-10-11 10:54:42 AM  

jaytkay: People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.


at this point im pretty sure we could have still paid all of those people the same amount of money, given those employees all the same amount of income, all for no work during that time and then not had to have bought the materials....it could have been a no-work/no-show contract that would have saved the country money
 
2018-10-11 10:55:24 AM  

ar393: phalamir: Marine

My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment
Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Essential


Intelligence Negated Entirely
 
2018-10-11 10:55:33 AM  
Stubborn, greedy old men and their toys.
Fark 'em.
 
2018-10-11 10:55:58 AM  

Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]


lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.
 
2018-10-11 10:56:31 AM  

ar393: jaytkay: People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.

at this point im pretty sure we could have still paid all of those people the same amount of money, given those employees all the same amount of income, all for no work during that time and then not had to have bought the materials....it could have been a no-work/no-show contract that would have saved the country money


A pilot program for universal income? That sounds dangerously socialist.
 
2018-10-11 10:56:36 AM  

ar393: jaytkay: People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.

at this point im pretty sure we could have still paid all of those people the same amount of money, given those employees all the same amount of income, all for no work during that time and then not had to have bought the materials....it could have been a no-work/no-show contract that would have saved the country money


Shiat, we could have also paid the guy in the mud hut to tear it down himself
 
2018-10-11 10:56:58 AM  

jaytkay: People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.


So much misinformation in this post. The fact of the matter is that the only combat missions flown by an F35 have been by the Israelis, which means they have flattened mud huts in Syria.

The whole of Fark awaits your apology.
 
2018-10-11 10:58:53 AM  

phalamir: ar393: jaytkay: People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.

at this point im pretty sure we could have still paid all of those people the same amount of money, given those employees all the same amount of income, all for no work during that time and then not had to have bought the materials....it could have been a no-work/no-show contract that would have saved the country money

Shiat, we could have also paid the guy in the mud hut to tear it down himself


That's called foreign aid money.
 
2018-10-11 10:59:13 AM  
So, we're once again recognizing that the F35 is a massively expensive boondoggle that *still* can't make it out of the hangar?
 
2018-10-11 11:00:56 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.


it means we dont have to anser no dam foriner questins so shut up
 
2018-10-11 11:03:17 AM  
The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.
 
2018-10-11 11:04:02 AM  

CarnySaur: NO WIRE HANGARS!!!


Until Roe vs. Wade is repealed.
 
2018-10-11 11:06:07 AM  

Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.


Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers
 
2018-10-11 11:06:39 AM  
The thing that I don't get is let's say we got into a full blown shooting war somewhere and started to lose F-35's.  What's the plan? How the heck are we going to pay to crank out another 100 or 1000 of them?
 
2018-10-11 11:07:41 AM  

Gaddiel: The F-35 has surely paid for some Lockheed Martin executive to build a lavish summer home. If this is a just universe, the next F-35 to crash will swan dive directly into that summer home.

/I know
//It's not a just universe
///if it was, I wouldn't be farking at work


That's what you do at work?

/changes their Fark color to "WooHoo" hot pink
/  ;-)
 
2018-10-11 11:08:35 AM  
We need Dr. Barnhouse more than ever.
 
2018-10-11 11:09:19 AM  

Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]


We'ed  be lucky to to get these.
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 11:12:48 AM  

adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.


I also like how a space craft needs wings and what look like air intakes. LOL indeed!
 
2018-10-11 11:14:36 AM  

Sharksfan: The thing that I don't get is let's say we got into a full blown shooting war somewhere and started to lose F-35's.  What's the plan? How the heck are we going to pay to crank out another 100 or 1000 of them?


Another way to think of it is like the Protoss spending tons of gas on Void Rays and sending them against Marines.
 
2018-10-11 11:15:35 AM  

NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers


There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.
 
2018-10-11 11:17:14 AM  

Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.


I remember, at the time, General Mattis mentioning the same thing when it game to ground troops in Afghanistan. When he became commander of US and Alied forces, he mentioned how it was time to stop with the desire to make ever more sophisticated electronic equipment designed to replace troops and instead put more boots on the ground.

The best way for todays brass to advance is to sponsor successful programs. That includes building of ships, and developing better weapons. This is why you see brass going to cap. hill and requesting more money. To no do so means they will lose power.
 
2018-10-11 11:18:11 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: The F-35 is way too expensive to waste on things like flying.  Too dangerous.


Park them next to the littoral combat ships.  Inside.  Plywood and MDF tends to rot when wet.
I heard a rumor both programs were slightly over budget.
 
2018-10-11 11:18:37 AM  
How do they know it crashed if it's invisible?
 
2018-10-11 11:19:44 AM  

Explodo: You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.


What surprises me is that people still refer to it as defense spending, its been 7 decades since any of it was used for defense. Everything since then has been offense spending.
 
2018-10-11 11:20:04 AM  

Explodo: You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.


No, I don't think I would be.  How about we move those defense jobs to physics research jobs and build some particle accelerators?  They're money pits too, but at least we can learn something about the universe instead of learning how to blow up brown people.
 
2018-10-11 11:20:15 AM  

Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.


If their only purpose is to service the government and can do nothing else, then hire them as government employees - it isn't like they face enough competition for capitalistic forces to reduce costs, so get rid of an extra layer of redundant bureaucracy and give the workers better job security.
 
2018-10-11 11:23:14 AM  

Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.


You'd probably get a better effect spending that R&D money in the private sector than the Military.  The whole "we get beneficial stuff when we spend money figuring out how to kill people" is a logical fallacy.
 
2018-10-11 11:23:47 AM  

jaytkay: People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.


One crashed on top of a mud hut in Afghanistan?
 
2018-10-11 11:24:00 AM  

phalamir: Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.

Marines exist because people used to actually fight other people on ships - you don't want to have the guys trying to make your ship going put-put to also have to go slashie-slashie.

The Air Force used to be part of the Army.  But the Navy needed planes also to kill other ships.  The Air Force was created because Spureme High Gods of The True Air cannot accept orders from ground- and water-bound peons.  Also, having their own service lets them suck directly from that sweet, sweet Congressional teat.


Plus the Marines have to go get muddy and fight for days at a time. The Navy has no time for that. Not when there are Thai hookers to bang and coffee to drink. So let the Marines go pound ground. The only time a Sailor is gonna get muddy is when he is wrestling a Thai hooker in a bar.
 
2018-10-11 11:24:32 AM  

Sharksfan: The thing that I don't get is let's say we got into a full blown shooting war somewhere and started to lose F-35's.  What's the plan? How the heck are we going to pay to crank out another 100 or 1000 of them?


You sound like the guys who, during the 70's and 80's, complained about the cost of the F-15 and F-16 and a variety of other, hyper expensive weaponry.

Then '91 rolled around and we went into a for reals shooting war against the 4th largest army in the world and the most combat tested Air Force at the time. And all that money we sank into state of the art planes and gear allowed us to absolutely cornhole that enemy with barely any losses.

Thats why you spend a shiat ton of money on new tech. because attrition warfare sucks and its better to expend money and ordnance than lives. Just look at how the US army fared in WW2 before we got aboard THAT clue train.
 
2018-10-11 11:24:52 AM  
Fiscal Pearl Harbor...I've said it before.
 
2018-10-11 11:25:53 AM  

adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.


The space cannons fire thrust. Since its already being used by the engine right there, they just share the thrust.
 
2018-10-11 11:27:54 AM  

Evil Mackerel: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

We'ed  be lucky to to get these.
[img.fark.net image 850x306]


The Hammerhead was awesome and so were the Wild Cards.
 
2018-10-11 11:29:22 AM  

phalamir: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

If their only purpose is to service the government and can do nothing else, then hire them as government employees - it isn't like they face enough competition for capitalistic forces to reduce costs, so get rid of an extra layer of redundant bureaucracy and give the workers better job security.


The people with expertise would leave those govt jobs in a big hurry and start their own companies to do the work.  Not all research pans out.  As it is now, companies that research dead ends can be left to die without consequence.  If they were government employees, they'd have to be kept on for...how long?  It's also a lot easier for private enterprise to get rid of employees who don't produce.

Think of it as:  The govt has outsourced their defense research so that they don't have to deal with the maintenance of it.
 
2018-10-11 11:30:18 AM  

MythDragon: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

The space cannons fire thrust. Since its already being used by the engine right there, they just share the thrust.


The cannon fires behind the thing?
 
2018-10-11 11:30:59 AM  

Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.


That's circular reasoning: Look at all the people employed in Blah sector when the government spends money in the Blah sector.  Therefore the government should continue spending money in the Blah sector so those jobs won't be lost!
 
2018-10-11 11:31:41 AM  

Gravitationally Challenged: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

I also like how a space craft needs wings and what look like air intakes. LOL indeed!


scontent-atl3-1.cdninstagram.comView Full Size
Well, footpads and thrusters...
 
2018-10-11 11:35:30 AM  
The more bumptious blather I hear from Fark's military gearheads, the more I am convinced that this thing is a f**king turkey.
 
2018-10-11 11:37:30 AM  

Explodo: That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.


What good is having a R&D lead or even a Defense at all if your President is just going to hand over control to your enemy anyway?
 
2018-10-11 11:38:46 AM  

PickleBarrel: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

That's circular reasoning: Look at all the people employed in Blah sector when the government spends money in the Blah sector.  Therefore the government should continue spending money in the Blah sector so those jobs won't be lost!


The last time the govt dumped a lot of money into non-defense was....the CCC?  Look at all the communal good that was done with that!  You know what modern republicans would scream about that?  They'd complain it was socialism and attempt to get it eliminated ASAP.
 
2018-10-11 11:40:31 AM  

PickleBarrel: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

That's circular reasoning: Look at all the people employed in Blah sector when the government spends money in the Blah sector.  Therefore the government should continue spending money in the Blah sector so those jobs won't be lost!


Except in war/defense there is a very real advantage in having the best weapons, but there's no advantage until actual war breaks out other than possibly deterrence.
 
2018-10-11 11:42:42 AM  

Explodo: phalamir: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

If their only purpose is to service the government and can do nothing else, then hire them as government employees - it isn't like they face enough competition for capitalistic forces to reduce costs, so get rid of an extra layer of redundant bureaucracy and give the workers better job security.

The people with expertise would leave tho ...


But you just said these companies have no ability to exist without the government buying from them.  If the government is doing all the work in-house, the guys leaving have no market.  You pay decent wages to the researchers, let them piddle around, accept the failures as a part of the process, and live your life - this is literally what every public research university does as a matter of course.  Outsourcing R&D just means the taxpayer has to pay for the extra overhead of the company bureaucracy - the company is going to price in the failed projects for its expenses to keep itself afloat, so taxpayers get no savings ("the Islamonator costs $23B a pop - $5B for the actual patented ArabFlayer technology, $8B for the unsuccessful QuranBurn, Meccassplode, and MelaninSeeker technologies, and $10B for CEO Maxwell Wilburton Tutweiler III's pocket").  We could get the Islamonator, plus any nice side tech from QuranBurn, Meccassplode, and MelaninSeeker research, and then not have to pay MWT3 - we could even give some of that $10B to ***shudder*** the actual researchers and workers who make the stuff.
 
2018-10-11 11:43:57 AM  
The A-10s though, you can't ground them.  They will just sneak out, hunt down their own grub, and hand out with a rowdy crowd behind your back.  That is why the Air Force is trying to kick them out of the family.
 
2018-10-11 11:46:16 AM  

Explodo: PickleBarrel: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

That's circular reasoning: Look at all the people employed in Blah sector when the government spends money in the Blah sector.  Therefore the government should continue spending money in the Blah sector so those jobs won't be lost!

The last time the govt dumped a lot of money into non-defense was....the CCC?  Look at all the communa ...


Or look at it like this:  We could spend all that money on having the healthiest, most well-educated, happiest citizenry in the world.  It could be a real swords-into-plowshares utopia.  That wouldn't stop another country with more advanced weapons and angry, bitter citizens from coming over and killing us until we submit to their angry/bitter way of life.  It's sad but true.

I would greatly prefer the happy/healthy/educated scenario.
 
2018-10-11 11:47:37 AM  

Explodo: PickleBarrel: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

That's circular reasoning: Look at all the people employed in Blah sector when the government spends money in the Blah sector.  Therefore the government should continue spending money in the Blah sector so those jobs won't be lost!

The last time the govt dumped a lot of money into non-defense was....the CCC?  Look at all the communa ...


Did you really just cite a failure as reason to stop spending money on R&D in a field?   Like...F-35?

Did you JUST forget about that whole Primary, and Secondary shiat that was posted above?

I hear constant circular reasoning from these warmongers and just about any argument for spending for R&D on Military can also be applied to the private sector.
 
2018-10-11 11:49:57 AM  

Explodo: Explodo: PickleBarrel: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

That's circular reasoning: Look at all the people employed in Blah sector when the government spends money in the Blah sector.  Therefore the government should continue spending money in the Blah sector so those jobs won't be lost!

The last time the govt dumped a lot of money into non-defense was....the CCC?  Look at all th ...


Did you just say: We are a warmongering country, therefore we need to spend money to warmonger to protect ourselves.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy ya'll, you can't argue with that!
 
2018-10-11 11:54:48 AM  

Explodo: We could spend all that money on having the healthiest, most well-educated, happiest citizenry in the world.


Educated healthy happy citizens dont vote GOP tho. The GOP needs angry ignoramuses to buy into their BS.

The conspiracy theorist in me tends to think that the only reason we have such a huge military budget in the first place is to keep us from having a huge education budget. Its a LOT easier to manipulate people that are uneducated & desperate.
 
2018-10-11 11:55:46 AM  

Explodo: There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.


In fact, when you spend money for R&D in the private sector, there is the advantage that you have a secondary market for the primary thing you created. BONUS!

You just argued for the inefficiency of spending for military R&D.
 
2018-10-11 11:56:23 AM  

phalamir: But you just said these companies have no ability to exist without the government buying from them.  If the government is doing all the work in-house, the guys leaving have no market.  You pay decent wages to the researchers, let them piddle around, accept the failures as a part of the process, and live your life - this is literally what every public research university does as a matter of course.  Outsourcing R&D just means the taxpayer has to pay for the extra overhead of the company bureaucracy - the company is going to price in the failed projects for its expenses to keep itself afloat, so taxpayers get no savings ("the Islamonator costs $23B a pop - $5B for the actual patented ArabFlayer technology, $8B for the unsuccessful QuranBurn, Meccassplode, and MelaninSeeker technologies, and $10B for CEO Maxwell Wilburton Tutweiler III's pocket").  We could get the Islamonator, plus any nice side tech from QuranBurn, Meccassplode, and MelaninSeeker research, and then not have to pay MWT3 - we could even give some of that $10B to ***shudder*** the actual researchers and workers who make the stuff.


Kudos for the laughs via your creative names!  In reality-land, that just doesn't work though.  Can you describe a situation where that would work given political realities?  Can you describe a situation where republicans wouldn't be crying about all those "lazy govt workers"?  Can you describe a situation where non-producers are gotten rid of easily?  It's a lot harder to fire a public-sector worker than a private-sector one.  By moving some of the load to universities, the govt isn't doing it directly.  They've outsourced it to someone else.  Universities research the abstract problems that arise whilst trying to overcome things like "at this speed this material turns to shiat...we need a material that can handle conditions A, B, C whilst maintaining properties X, Y, Z."  Those problems arise because while trying to build the primary product an engineering problem was found that needed to be overcome.  If someone left and made a product that was 2x better than what the govt was making can you describe a situation where it would be politically possible for the govt to not buy it?
 
2018-10-11 11:57:20 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.


Get this:  our Army has a Navy and an Air Force, too!

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 11:59:32 AM  
When do we get to return those POSs and get our money back?  Better yet, scrap the F35 program move on to the next model.
 
2018-10-11 12:01:31 PM  

Man with the Red Eyes: Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.

Get this:  our Army has a Navy and an Air Force, too!

[img.fark.net image 412x516]


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 12:03:05 PM  

Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.


I know at least four people who are going to die young because we don't have a national health care system.

But yea man. Planes.
 
2018-10-11 12:04:13 PM  

PickleBarrel: Did you really just cite a failure as reason to stop spending money on R&D in a field?   Like...F-35?

Did you JUST forget about that whole Primary, and Secondary shiat that was posted above?

I hear constant circular reasoning from these warmongers and just about any argument for spending for R&D on Military can also be applied to the private sector.


The F35 is a research project.  Research is hard.  In large projects many unforeseen problems arise, sometimes even after they're "released."  It doesn't help that the govt tends to not be extremely concrete in what they want.  Did you know that the military shifts people around every two years?  That means that the guy pushing for a project that takes 3 years to complete will be gone before it's finished...and the new guy might either not share his vision for what is needed or might not even want to spend his budget on it anymore.  Mid-project requirements change!  Everybody loves that!
 
2018-10-11 12:07:02 PM  

MythDragon: phalamir: Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.

Marines exist because people used to actually fight other people on ships - you don't want to have the guys trying to make your ship going put-put to also have to go slashie-slashie.

The Air Force used to be part of the Army.  But the Navy needed planes also to kill other ships.  The Air Force was created because Spureme High Gods of The True Air cannot accept orders from ground- and water-bound peons.  Also, having their own service lets them suck directly from that sweet, sweet Congressional teat.

Plus the Marines have to go get muddy and fight for days at a time. The Navy has no time for that. Not when there are Thai hookers to bang and coffee to drink. So let the Marines go pound ground. The only time a Sailor is gonna get muddy is when he is wrestling a Thai hooker in a bar.


When sailors die in combat, it's a combination of being burned to death while being crushed by twisting metal.

Though sometimes they just get crushed by an incoming wall of water.
 
2018-10-11 12:08:48 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 12:09:30 PM  

Explodo: PickleBarrel: Did you really just cite a failure as reason to stop spending money on R&D in a field?   Like...F-35?

Did you JUST forget about that whole Primary, and Secondary shiat that was posted above?

I hear constant circular reasoning from these warmongers and just about any argument for spending for R&D on Military can also be applied to the private sector.

The F35 is a research project.  Research is hard.  In large projects many unforeseen problems arise, sometimes even after they're "released."  It doesn't help that the govt tends to not be extremely concrete in what they want.  Did you know that the military shifts people around every two years?  That means that the guy pushing for a project that takes 3 years to complete will be gone before it's finished...and the new guy might either not share his vision for what is needed or might not even want to spend his budget on it anymore.  Mid-project requirements change!  Everybody loves that!


Dude, you just cited a failure in another field as an point for you argument, now you are arguing against that point by saying "research is hard!" .

You are arguing in bad faith when you literally disregard/ hand wave your own points and use circular reasoning.
 
2018-10-11 12:10:12 PM  

Gravitationally Challenged: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

I also like how a space craft needs wings and what look like air intakes. LOL indeed!


They also do atmospheric flight, which as you know, kinda requires wings, and you'll want air intakes so you're not using up your oxidizer.
 
2018-10-11 12:13:16 PM  

PlaidJaguar: [img.fark.net image 720x446]


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 12:13:46 PM  

winedrinkingman: The A-10s though, you can't ground them.  They will just sneak out, hunt down their own grub, and hand out with a rowdy crowd behind your back.  That is why the Air Force is trying to kick them out of the family.


Then why can't the Army adopt them?? We love the A-10, and will always cherish and respect them. They'll get their own hangers too!
 
2018-10-11 12:13:51 PM  

Sharksfan: The thing that I don't get is let's say we got into a full blown shooting war somewhere and started to lose F-35's.  What's the plan? How the heck are we going to pay to crank out another 100 or 1000 of them?


I guess we could start using all the other, older, battle-tested planes we have that actually work.
 
2018-10-11 12:14:34 PM  
We
don't
need
Jets
any
more.
#secretspaceprogram
 
2018-10-11 12:15:05 PM  

Shaggy_C: jaytkay: People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.

So much misinformation in this post. The fact of the matter is that the only combat missions flown by an F35 have been by the Israelis, which means they have flattened mud huts in Syria.

The whole of Fark awaits your apology.


Marine Corps F-35 flies first combat mission in Afghanistan (September 27).
 
2018-10-11 12:15:23 PM  

PickleBarrel: Did you just say: We are a warmongering country, therefore we need to spend money to warmonger to protect ourselves.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy ya'll, you can't argue with that!


I am not advocating that we keep things the way they are.  I think the system is unbalanced right now and that our govt gives inadequate care to our citizens.  At the same time, I think our defense spending is very important because there's a lot of research done that is driven by defense spending.

I mentioned the other extreme where we spend all the money on improving the lives of our citizens and a possible outcome of such a scenario.

We absolutely need more healthcare/infrastructure/education spending.  Selfish people don't like that, which is why we don't have it.
 
2018-10-11 12:16:47 PM  

PickleBarrel: Explodo: PickleBarrel: Did you really just cite a failure as reason to stop spending money on R&D in a field?   Like...F-35?

Did you JUST forget about that whole Primary, and Secondary shiat that was posted above?

I hear constant circular reasoning from these warmongers and just about any argument for spending for R&D on Military can also be applied to the private sector.

The F35 is a research project.  Research is hard.  In large projects many unforeseen problems arise, sometimes even after they're "released."  It doesn't help that the govt tends to not be extremely concrete in what they want.  Did you know that the military shifts people around every two years?  That means that the guy pushing for a project that takes 3 years to complete will be gone before it's finished...and the new guy might either not share his vision for what is needed or might not even want to spend his budget on it anymore.  Mid-project requirements change!  Everybody loves that!

Dude, you just cited a failure in another field as an point for you argument, now you are arguing against that point by saying "research is hard!" .

You are arguing in bad faith when you literally disregard/ hand wave your own points and use circular reasoning.


I guess I'm missing the issue you have.  Can you clarify?
 
2018-10-11 12:16:55 PM  

ar393: phalamir: Marine

My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment


You missed out the hyphen :

My Ass-Rides In Navy Equipment
 
2018-10-11 12:18:01 PM  

Kegovitch: Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.

Confused?  You will be after we add the Space Force to that mix.


If executed properly, a dedicated space branch isn't so stupid an idea. It's the natural evolution as technologies move from the incipient stage that kinda-sorta fits under the auspices of an existing administration to being a primary asset in its own right.

The Air Force was established once air power became a game-changer.  It was no longer realistic for the Army to run planes as a division, air needed its own administration with a primary mission of air superiority, offensive strike capability, and cargo capacity. Also importantly, it needed leadership that was rank-equivalent to the leadership of the Army to vie for funding and advocate for the branch - not someone subordinate in an organization with a primary mission of putting soldiers on the ground, rifles in their hands, advancing armored units and such.

Like air power outgrew the Army mission, space's military usefulness may have outgrown the Air Force mission. An organization with a primary responsibility for overseeing spaceborne assets might be preferable to space being subordinate to the F-35 or the B-52 replacement program.
 
2018-10-11 12:18:40 PM  

phalamir: Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.

Marines exist because people used to actually fight other people on ships - you don't want to have the guys trying to make your ship going put-put to also have to go slashie-slashie.

The Air Force used to be part of the Army.  But the Navy needed planes also to kill other ships.  The Air Force was created because Spureme High Gods of The True Air cannot accept orders from ground- and water-bound peons.  Also, having their own service lets them suck directly from that sweet, sweet Congressional teat.


You sure it's the teat they're sucking from? I heard things about sailors...
 
2018-10-11 12:20:01 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.


SHHH!!! Think of the Military Industrial complex and the retired Generals! They too need to keep making money after their illustrious careers!

Seriously, this is Pentagon Wars all over again. The F-35 was supposed to be filler Data Link fighters meant to augment the F-22 with some stealth. It wasn't supposed to be this all in one fighter. this idea to have a reduced force capable of doing it all for special missions is dumb. People don't seem to forget that our enemies Russia and China still have big conventional forces. the idea we would never fight militaries like that ever again was a dumb short sighted mistake.

I hate it when Eisenhower was right.
 
2018-10-11 12:22:13 PM  
My nephew is an RAF pilot, has been doing some JSF / F-35B training. He seems unaware of, or unconcerned by, the aeroplane's problems; I am not quite sure what to make of this.
 
2018-10-11 12:22:16 PM  

Gravitationally Challenged: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

I also like how a space craft needs wings and what look like air intakes. LOL indeed!


Planet-side operations.
 
2018-10-11 12:23:36 PM  

Kit Fister: So, we're once again recognizing that the F35 is a massively expensive boondoggle that *still* can't make it out of the hangar?


Wasn't their a Fark military guy who said in the last military equipment thread that were were all wrong about the F-35 being a piece of crap?
 
2018-10-11 12:23:55 PM  

basicstock: NewportBarGuy: Built FORD tough.

Sorry to say, more like a '76 Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare.


Or a German car at the 99,999 mile mark.
 
2018-10-11 12:24:09 PM  
Dude. AGAIN?!?
 
2018-10-11 12:25:07 PM  
bing.comView Full Size

Maybe give them cool paint job while you're at it.
 
2018-10-11 12:25:38 PM  
I for one am glad we're spending a trillion dollars on the F-35 rather than giving people health care coverage, improving our infrastructure, or some other stupid waste of money. Jets are SO COOL!
/ Highway to the DANGER ZONE! Wooooooooo!
 
2018-10-11 12:27:23 PM  

jso2897: The more bumptious blather I hear from Fark's military gearheads, the more I am convinced that this thing is a f**king turkey.


Just ask Les Nessman how well turkeys fly.
 
2018-10-11 12:28:24 PM  
Always so much bullshiat from the liberal media.  True please know that the F-35 is invisible just as Trump said.
 
2018-10-11 12:29:05 PM  

patrick767: I for one am glad we're spending a trillion dollars on the F-35 rather than giving people health care coverage, improving our infrastructure, or some other stupid waste of money. Jets are SO COOL!
/ Highway to the DANGER ZONE! Wooooooooo!


*slaps roof of F-35*
You can kill so many copilots with this baby.
 
2018-10-11 12:29:07 PM  

TheotherMIguy: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

Fake news. No True American would serve in a UN military!


I certainly wouldn't. Seige of Jadotville told me everything I need to know about the UN as a fighting Force.
 
2018-10-11 12:29:15 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
Its all ball bearings these days
 
2018-10-11 12:34:50 PM  
It promises to be the centrepiece of US air power for decades to come.

Looks pretty, takes up space, and is ultimately a waste of money.  Centerpiece indeed.  Should've gotten the side piece or made peace.  We'll be making payments for the next century.
 
2018-10-11 12:36:22 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.


Goes way, way further back than that.  The F-111 was the first real attempt to do that, and it wasn't pushed by the military - the USAF and USN hated that airplane with the white hot intensity of ten thousand suns.  The DOD, led by Robert MacNamara, shoved it down the military's throats to get the USN an interceptor and the USAF a light bomber - and the results were mixed.  The USN version never did get operational due to it being way, way overweight and probably too large to efficiently/safely handle and spot on all but the largest carriers in service at the time.  The USAF version had miserable engines in the first couple marks and failures in the horizontal stabs that killed six crew and three airframes, but over more than twenty years it did eventually become a tough, capable, and reliable aircraft.

The point here though is that the corporate knowledge of just how problematic the -111 was had just about completely disappeared when SecDef Les Aspin decided to play MacNamara and require the services to share a single airframe for three different missions (land based, carrier based, and S/VTOL).  The military didn't want that and said so loudly and publicly, while pointing out that it was unlikely to happen with any reasonably acceptable amount of funding. (The original plan was for a single design to take the land/sea mission; reasonably doable, but a second completely separate design for the S/VTOL mission)  Aspin told them that he knew better, and a few hundred billion dollars and twenty-five years later, here we are.

And the Tigershark was never as good as its legend has made it out to be.  It was a very good F-5, but:
*The production versions were going to require a new, larger wing, which would have bumped up costs and IOC's considerably.
*There was no room in the aircraft for an existing radar AND the guns.  (There was a new radar that would have barely fit under development, but it was having problems.  There was a radar in the prototypes, but the 'guns' were fake barrels and ballast.)
*Northrop had come up with the brilliant idea of having just about all maintenance done by Northrop  personnel - not the owning air force.  Which was going to cost even more money.  (Which was one of the reasons DoD passed on it - Northrop absolutely refused to consider anything else even if they sold them to the USAF)
 
2018-10-11 12:36:32 PM  

kudayta: How about we move those defense jobs to physics research jobs and build some particle accelerators?



Or providing all Americans with world-class K-12 education and health care.
 
2018-10-11 12:36:33 PM  

punkwrestler: Kit Fister: So, we're once again recognizing that the F35 is a massively expensive boondoggle that *still* can't make it out of the hangar?

Wasn't their a Fark military guy who said in the last military equipment thread that were were all wrong about the F-35 being a piece of crap?


yeah, explaining all about how we were wrong that we should just keep the F22 and the A10
 
2018-10-11 12:37:31 PM  

MythDragon: Plus the Marines have to go get muddy and fight for days at a time. The Navy has no time for that. Not when there are Thai hookers to bang and coffee to drink. So let the Marines go pound ground. The only time a Sailor is gonna get muddy is when he is wrestling a Thai hooker in a bar.


Exactly.  Someone has to charge that machine gun nest, and it sure as fark ain't gonna be me.
 
2018-10-11 12:37:45 PM  

phalamir: ar393: phalamir: Marine

My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment
Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Essential

Intelligence Negated Entirely


What if I told you that the Marines require higher ASVAB test scores for electronics and mechanical MOS than the navy?
 
2018-10-11 12:39:20 PM  

punkwrestler: Kit Fister: So, we're once again recognizing that the F35 is a massively expensive boondoggle that *still* can't make it out of the hangar?

Wasn't their a Fark military guy who said in the last military equipment thread that were were all wrong about the F-35 being a piece of crap?


Yeah.  He was bragging on the 100,000 hours of flight time it  had racked up.   For a plane that first flew 18 years ago.
 
2018-10-11 12:40:06 PM  

backhand.slap.of.reason: Always so much bullshiat from the liberal media.  True please know that the F-35 is invisible just as Trump said.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 12:43:51 PM  

MythDragon: Gravitationally Challenged: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

I also like how a space craft needs wings and what look like air intakes. LOL indeed!

They also do atmospheric flight, which as you know, kinda requires wings, and you'll want air intakes so you're not using up your oxidizer.


That presumes they will go into the atmosphere. Better get some heat shielding or some serious reverse thrusters on that thing. Otherwise it's going to be a really cool streak in the sky.
 
2018-10-11 12:44:15 PM  

Public Call Box: Gravitationally Challenged: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

I also like how a space craft needs wings and what look like air intakes. LOL indeed!

[scontent-atl3-1.cdninstagram.com image 735x735]Well, footpads and thrusters...


Well, if I recall, the strap-on armor pack for the VF-1 Valkyrie (big engine thing with the space cannon) called a FAST pack doesn't have munitions other than missiles, the big space cannon is actually a particle cannon, the air intakes are for the air breathing component of the thermonuclear powered turbine which closes up once reaching rarified air (also the armor packs are not designed for in-atmospheric use and are jettisoned before reentry.

And I know way too much about a childrensc cartoon show from the 80s featuring a giant robot utilizing an assault landing ship as a boxing gloves
 
2018-10-11 12:45:13 PM  
None of this is true
 
2018-10-11 12:49:03 PM  

NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers


cah.utexas.eduView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 12:50:24 PM  

Flab: You sure it's the teat they're sucking from? I heard things about sailors...


You must have heard how they separate the men from the boys in the navy
 
2018-10-11 12:52:24 PM  

Hospitaller: phalamir: ar393: phalamir: Marine

My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment
Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Not Essential

Intelligence Negated Entirely

What if I told you that the Marines require higher ASVAB test scores for electronics and mechanical MOS than the navy?


I guess that makes sense why the US Navy has a hard time identifying civilian airliners from war planes and shoots them down...even when not in a war with that country.
 
2018-10-11 12:54:08 PM  
The F35 is a necessary fake airplane to offset the threat of this fake threat:
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 12:56:49 PM  

Gravitationally Challenged: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

I also like how a space craft needs wings and what look like air intakes. LOL indeed!


well you clearly haven't played Kerbal Space Program with cheaty modded parts. It's a regular plane, AND a spaceship, and a car, and a boat. Definitely vertical takeoff.
 
2018-10-11 01:11:55 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: The F35 is a necessary fake airplane to offset the threat of this fake threat:
[img.fark.net image 850x566]


S:AAB did it first:

i.pinimg.comView Full Size


There was an obscure article when the show came out that had pictures someone captured of the above ground prop for the show and claimed it was a new super-secret military jet fighter.
 
2018-10-11 01:14:33 PM  

PlaidJaguar: [img.fark.net image 720x446]


agrees.
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 01:19:11 PM  

Explodo: Explodo: PickleBarrel: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

That's circular reasoning: Look at all the people employed in Blah sector when the government spends money in the Blah sector.  Therefore the government should continue spending money in the Blah sector so those jobs won't be lost!

The last time the govt dumped a lot of money into non-defense was....the CCC?  Look at all the communa ...

Or look at it like this:  We could spend all that money on having the healthiest, most well-educated, happiest citizenry in the world.  It could be a real swords-into-plowshares utopia.  That wouldn't stop another country with more advanced weapons and angry, bitter citizens from coming over and killing us until we submit to their angry/bitter way of life.  It's sad but true.

I would greatly prefer the happy/healthy/educated scenario.


Nukes. We have nukes.
 
2018-10-11 01:22:13 PM  

Gravitationally Challenged: MythDragon: Gravitationally Challenged: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

I also like how a space craft needs wings and what look like air intakes. LOL indeed!

They also do atmospheric flight, which as you know, kinda requires wings, and you'll want air intakes so you're not using up your oxidizer.

That presumes they will go into the atmosphere. Better get some heat shielding or some serious reverse thrusters on that thing. Otherwise it's going to be a really cool streak in the sky.


Can't we just retrofit the Yamato like they did in Star Blazers?
 
2018-10-11 01:22:20 PM  
Ah, the F-35.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 01:26:45 PM  

Gravitationally Challenged: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

I also like how a space craft needs wings and what look like air intakes. LOL indeed!


Wait until you hear the pew pew pew.
 
2018-10-11 01:29:07 PM  
Dinner for planes...
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 01:30:33 PM  

Gaddiel: The F-35 has surely paid for some Lockheed Martin executive to build a lavish summer home. If this is a just universe, the next F-35 to crash will swan dive directly into that summer home.

/I know
//It's not a just universe
///if it was, I wouldn't be farking at work


Where the hell do you work? Are you a pronstar?
 
2018-10-11 01:32:33 PM  

phalamir: Marines exist because people used to actually fight other people on ships - you don't want to have the guys trying to make your ship going put-put to also have to go slashie-slashie.


Marines exist because the captain needed armed loyalist who slept between a possibly pressed and unhappy crew and his own quarters. 

Marines did do boarding options but so did every gun crew once boarding began. Fights were brutal, close quarters, and sailors fought for the prize. There is a massive incentive to fight when you can make a fortune with your share. 

Ike tried to get rid of the USMC because the US Army did more amphibious landings and took more islands in the Pacific but the marines have one hell of a PR branch and the Navy wanted to maintain control over the troops embarked.

/USAAF took more casualties than the entire USMC
//USMM got farking screwed by Ike out of VA benefits even though they had the highest casualty ratio out of ANY US armed service in WW 2
 
2018-10-11 01:32:41 PM  

Explodo: The F35 is a research project.


Yeah - research into how many dollars broke hillbillies are willing to shovel into the pockets of the military industrial complex because some lying dotard told them to.
 
2018-10-11 01:35:22 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Shaggy_C: jaytkay: People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.

So much misinformation in this post. The fact of the matter is that the only combat missions flown by an F35 have been by the Israelis, which means they have flattened mud huts in Syria.

The whole of Fark awaits your apology.

Marine Corps F-35 flies first combat mission in Afghanistan (September 27).


Yeah, but the next day https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/​news/​your-marine-corps/2018/09/28/an-f-35b-​has-crashed-near-marine-corps-air-stat​ion-beaufort/

So while he was wrong, it is sort of a  wash. 

I'll happily go take a sledgehammer to a mud hut for a small fraction of the cost. 

Hell I'll even subcontract it out to someone by offering them a Toyota Hilux and they'll happily mow down everyone in the area with it.
 
2018-10-11 01:40:24 PM  

punkwrestler: Gravitationally Challenged: MythDragon: Gravitationally Challenged: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

I also like how a space craft needs wings and what look like air intakes. LOL indeed!

They also do atmospheric flight, which as you know, kinda requires wings, and you'll want air intakes so you're not using up your oxidizer.

That presumes they will go into the atmosphere. Better get some heat shielding or some serious reverse thrusters on that thing. Otherwise it's going to be a really cool streak in the sky.

Can't we just retrofit the Yamato like they did in Star Blazers?


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I had a hard time choking that down as a teenager!
 
2018-10-11 01:48:00 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Shaggy_C: jaytkay: People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.

So much misinformation in this post. The fact of the matter is that the only combat missions flown by an F35 have been by the Israelis, which means they have flattened mud huts in Syria.

The whole of Fark awaits your apology.

Marine Corps F-35 flies first combat mission in Afghanistan (September 27).


Thus the whole of Fark will await his apology, which he'll make an excuse not to give.
 
2018-10-11 01:51:35 PM  

Explodo: phalamir: But you just said these companies have no ability to exist without the government buying from them.  If the government is doing all the work in-house, the guys leaving have no market.  You pay decent wages to the researchers, let them piddle around, accept the failures as a part of the process, and live your life - this is literally what every public research university does as a matter of course.  Outsourcing R&D just means the taxpayer has to pay for the extra overhead of the company bureaucracy - the company is going to price in the failed projects for its expenses to keep itself afloat, so taxpayers get no savings ("the Islamonator costs $23B a pop - $5B for the actual patented ArabFlayer technology, $8B for the unsuccessful QuranBurn, Meccassplode, and MelaninSeeker technologies, and $10B for CEO Maxwell Wilburton Tutweiler III's pocket").  We could get the Islamonator, plus any nice side tech from QuranBurn, Meccassplode, and MelaninSeeker research, and then not have to pay MWT3 - we could even give some of that $10B to ***shudder*** the actual researchers and workers who make the stuff.

Kudos for the laughs via your creative names!


Said by a guy with the name with the name Explodo who is advocating for the War Department, oh yeah, it's now the Defense Department.
 
2018-10-11 01:52:56 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.


I remember back in the '80s someone lamented that if current trends continued eventually the USAF would consist of a single aircraft costing a trillion dollar$.
 
2018-10-11 02:10:29 PM  
Only one pic of an A-10 in this thread?!?

Shame!  SHAME!
 
2018-10-11 02:11:24 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
img.fark.netView Full Size

/oblig
 
2018-10-11 02:28:19 PM  

phalamir: Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.

Marines exist because people used to actually fight other people on ships - you don't want to have the guys trying to make your ship going put-put to also have to go slashie-slashie.

The Air Force used to be part of the Army.  But the Navy needed planes also to kill other ships.  The Air Force was created because Spureme High Gods of The True Air cannot accept orders from ground- and water-bound peons.  Also, having their own service lets them suck directly from that sweet, sweet Congressional teat.


wasn't it the Air Force that convinced Eisenhower that the USA needed more nukes to counter all the nuke building that Russia was 'supposedly doing' (they weren't at the time), because you know, fight fire with fire right?  To which JFK called them out or something.

Because Russia saw all that nuclear arsenal and decided to start building their own, starting the cold war.  I mean it's really hard for the USA to seriously criticize the Russians for trying to meddle in their elections.  I mean the USA has basically enslaved South American nations with dictators for their own selfish business desires, which is why Cuba became an enemy.  

And let them have freedom?  It's either submit or nothing.  Being the good guys and all, which worked great when Russia started sending nukes there.

The answer is almost always money.
 
2018-10-11 02:48:39 PM  
Too bad they can't ground their EA-18s. Sick of that shiat.
 
2018-10-11 02:54:54 PM  

chewd: Explodo: We could spend all that money on having the healthiest, most well-educated, happiest citizenry in the world.

Educated healthy happy citizens dont vote GOP tho. The GOP needs angry ignoramuses to buy into their BS.

The conspiracy theorist in me tends to think that the only reason we have such a huge military budget in the first place is to keep us from having a huge education budget. Its a LOT easier to manipulate people that are uneducated & desperate.


Difficulty: GI Bill.

It paid for my college education. Hell, I even earned some credits while I was serving by taking night courses paid for by the Navy.
 
2018-10-11 02:56:16 PM  

Subtle_Canary: Sharksfan: The thing that I don't get is let's say we got into a full blown shooting war somewhere and started to lose F-35's.  What's the plan? How the heck are we going to pay to crank out another 100 or 1000 of them?

You sound like the guys who, during the 70's and 80's, complained about the cost of the F-15 and F-16 and a variety of other, hyper expensive weaponry.

Then '91 rolled around and we went into a for reals shooting war against the 4th largest army in the world and the most combat tested Air Force at the time. And all that money we sank into state of the art planes and gear allowed us to absolutely cornhole that enemy with barely any losses.

Thats why you spend a shiat ton of money on new tech. because attrition warfare sucks and its better to expend money and ordnance than lives. Just look at how the US army fared in WW2 before we got aboard THAT clue train.


Lockheed publically states that they expect the F-35 program to cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion over its life span.  So what we should be doing is eliminating inheritance over $150,000 and enact a progressive total income tax bracket system that doesn't discriminate between types of income.  Then we could fund expensive projects like these, and start to pay down the national debt, or at least balance the budget.
What I hear from our leaders at the federal level is that we need to cut taxes at the top 0.1% because reasons, spend more on the military, and enact austerity on the bottom 95% of Americans (cuts to SS, Medicaid, Medicare, federal workers benefits, education, etc).  Also, there is ample evidence of serious incompetence or corruption of the government leaders as the cause of the massive cost increases in the F-35 program.  There also may be exaggerations of the versatility and performance of the F-35, and issues with the data leak which enabled foreign countries to acquire and build their own aircraft.  But I digress...
 
2018-10-11 03:03:02 PM  

chewd: Explodo: We could spend all that money on having the healthiest, most well-educated, happiest citizenry in the world.

Educated healthy happy citizens dont vote GOP tho. The GOP needs angry ignoramuses to buy into their BS.

The conspiracy theorist in me tends to think that the only reason we have such a huge military budget in the first place is to keep us from having a huge education budget. Its a LOT easier to manipulate people that are uneducated & desperate.


The military generally has a higher level of education than the populace as a whole.   You have to be a college graduate to be an officer, and generally you have to have a high school diploma to enlist.   The military actively encourages it's members to pursue education while serving.  The Air Force even runs a community college.

The reason we have a huge military is because after WWII, we did not draw down the military like we had after every other war because of the scary Commies.   Our military might has historically been based on our ability to convert massive industrial capabilities to wartime efforts.    We don't have that any more.
 
2018-10-11 03:10:43 PM  

chewd: The conspiracy theorist in me tends to think that the only reason we have such a huge military budget in the first place is to keep us from having a huge education budget. Its a LOT easier to manipulate people that are uneducated & desperate



Gleeman: Difficulty: GI Bill.

It paid for my college education. Hell, I even earned some credits while I was serving by taking night courses paid for by the Navy.


Difficulty: We could spend the same money on education without tying it to military spending.
 
2018-10-11 03:11:38 PM  

Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.


Then nationalize those companies that are defense only. If their jobs wouldn't exist without a government program to pay them, then they can be civil servants.
 
2018-10-11 03:13:22 PM  

FarkKnuckleDos: jaytkay: People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.

One crashed on top of a mud hut in Afghanistan?


No. The pilot's ejection sear did.
 
2018-10-11 03:13:39 PM  

Rent Party: The military generally has a higher level of education than the populace as a whole.   You have to be a college graduate to be an officer, and generally you have to have a high school diploma to enlist.


Derp

Most military people are not officers and most Americans are high school graduates.
 
2018-10-11 03:15:08 PM  

smd31: Only one pic of an A-10 in this thread?!?

Shame!  SHAME!


thechive.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 03:15:15 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.


Simple answer: logisitcs

Some Examples:
Maintenance -
The maintenance that works on the F-35s that the Navy uses can (theoretically) be re-tasked to work on the F-35s that the Air Force uses, and then shift to work on the F-35s that the Marines use.

Training -
1 training program can now cover the majority of pilots in all services, with specialties for carrier landing and/or S/VTOL.

Cheaper (in theory) to provide planes and parts for 1 aircraft (with some extras for B & C variants) than for 5 different aircraft.

Out of curiousity, I'd be curious to see a cost comparison between the F-35 and all of the planes it is supposed to replace.
 
2018-10-11 03:19:45 PM  

the voice of raisin: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

Simple answer: logisitcs

Some Examples:
Maintenance -
The maintenance that works on the F-35s that the Navy uses can (theoretically) be re-tasked to work on the F-35s that the Air Force uses, and then shift to work on the F-35s that the Marines use.

Training -
1 training program can now cover the majority of pilots in all services, with specialties for carrier landing and/or S/VTOL.

Cheaper (in theory) to provide planes and parts for 1 aircraft (with some extras for B & C variants) than for 5 different aircraft.

Out of curiousity, I'd be curious to see a cost comparison between the F-35 and all of the planes it is supposed to replace.


We've found out time and again that the old saying "jack of all trades, master of none" is 100% true and applicable.

You design equipment to handle specific circumstances and excel at it, and you train men and women to specialize in that kind of work.  Otherwise, you have gear and trained people that can kinda sorta do it all but will get their asses kicked as they catch up to where a specialist would've been.
 
2018-10-11 03:21:14 PM  

Explodo: PickleBarrel: Did you really just cite a failure as reason to stop spending money on R&D in a field?   Like...F-35?

Did you JUST forget about that whole Primary, and Secondary shiat that was posted above?

I hear constant circular reasoning from these warmongers and just about any argument for spending for R&D on Military can also be applied to the private sector.

The F35 is a research project.  Research is hard.  In large projects many unforeseen problems arise, sometimes even after they're "released."  It doesn't help that the govt tends to not be extremely concrete in what they want.  Did you know that the military shifts people around every two years?  That means that the guy pushing for a project that takes 3 years to complete will be gone before it's finished...and the new guy might either not share his vision for what is needed or might not even want to spend his budget on it anymore.  Mid-project requirements change!  Everybody loves that!


You don't take a "research project" to full production. You learn from it and then build your final product.

At least that's the way you do it when you are spending the company's money and not taking welfare from the government.
 
2018-10-11 03:22:38 PM  

DanInKansas: MythDragon: phalamir: Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.

Marines exist because people used to actually fight other people on ships - you don't want to have the guys trying to make your ship going put-put to also have to go slashie-slashie.

The Air Force used to be part of the Army.  But the Navy needed planes also to kill other ships.  The Air Force was created because Spureme High Gods of The True Air cannot accept orders from ground- and water-bound peons.  Also, having their own service lets them suck directly from that sweet, sweet Congressional teat.

Plus the Marines have to go get muddy and fight for days at a time. The Navy has no time for that. Not when there are Thai hookers to bang and coffee to drink. So let the Marines go pound ground. The only time a Sailor is gonna get muddy is when he is wrestling a Thai hooker in a bar.

When sailors die in combat, it's a combination of being burned to death while being crushed by twisting metal.

Though sometimes they just get crushed by an incoming wall of water.


Or diabetes from all of the donuts. Uniforms come in the following sizes: small, medium, large, extra-large, and Master Chief.
 
2018-10-11 03:24:24 PM  

Explodo: PickleBarrel: Did you really just cite a failure as reason to stop spending money on R&D in a field?   Like...F-35?

Did you JUST forget about that whole Primary, and Secondary shiat that was posted above?

I hear constant circular reasoning from these warmongers and just about any argument for spending for R&D on Military can also be applied to the private sector.

The F35 is a research project.  Research is hard.  In large projects many unforeseen problems arise, sometimes even after they're "released."  It doesn't help that the govt tends to not be extremely concrete in what they want.  Did you know that the military shifts people around every two years?  That means that the guy pushing for a project that takes 3 years to complete will be gone before it's finished...and the new guy might either not share his vision for what is needed or might not even want to spend his budget on it anymore.  Mid-project requirements change!  Everybody loves that!


Dude, shut the hell up. It's a giant piece of shiat, built for a war that is either not going to happen OR be the end of civilization. And it doesn't even work well. I Q/A hardware and software for a $25 Billion/year corporation and these farkers would have been sent packing a decade ago in the real world.
 
2018-10-11 03:34:35 PM  

FlippityFlap: Explodo: PickleBarrel: Did you really just cite a failure as reason to stop spending money on R&D in a field?   Like...F-35?

Did you JUST forget about that whole Primary, and Secondary shiat that was posted above?

I hear constant circular reasoning from these warmongers and just about any argument for spending for R&D on Military can also be applied to the private sector.

The F35 is a research project.  Research is hard.  In large projects many unforeseen problems arise, sometimes even after they're "released."  It doesn't help that the govt tends to not be extremely concrete in what they want.  Did you know that the military shifts people around every two years?  That means that the guy pushing for a project that takes 3 years to complete will be gone before it's finished...and the new guy might either not share his vision for what is needed or might not even want to spend his budget on it anymore.  Mid-project requirements change!  Everybody loves that!

Dude, shut the hell up. It's a giant piece of shiat, built for a war that is either not going to happen OR be the end of civilization. And it doesn't even work well. I Q/A hardware and software for a $25 Billion/year corporation and these farkers would have been sent packing a decade ago in the real world.


Look, a small but not insignificant portion of the budget is to ensure that there are people like Explodo out there to promote and defend the honor of the F-35. Don't give him a hard time, in this economy, you gotta take whatever jobs you can.
 
2018-10-11 03:40:44 PM  

Kit Fister: smd31: Only one pic of an A-10 in this thread?!?

Shame!  SHAME!

[thechive.files.wordpress.com image 600x383]

[i.imgur.com image 850x540]


Thank you kind sir/madame!
 
2018-10-11 03:50:41 PM  

jaytkay: Rent Party: The military generally has a higher level of education than the populace as a whole.   You have to be a college graduate to be an officer, and generally you have to have a high school diploma to enlist.

Derp

Most military people are not officers and most Americans are high school graduates.


I'm sorry if facts offend you.  Perhaps you should get some money back on your education.

i.huffpost.comView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 04:30:40 PM  
'The more bumptious blather I hear from Fark's military gearheads, the more I am convinced that this thing is a f**king turkey.'

yeah I'm sure Silverstaff will be along at any moment to do some mandatory military fellatio....
 
2018-10-11 04:34:04 PM  

chewd: Explodo: You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

What surprises me is that people still refer to it as defense spending, its been 7 decades since any of it was used for defense. Everything since then has been offense spending.


Why do you hate our Freedoms?
 
2018-10-11 04:50:54 PM  

the voice of raisin: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

Simple answer: logisitcs

Some Examples:
Maintenance -
The maintenance that works on the F-35s that the Navy uses can (theoretically) be re-tasked to work on the F-35s that the Air Force uses, and then shift to work on the F-35s that the Marines use.

Training -
1 training program can now cover the majority of pilots in all services, with specialties for carrier landing and/or S/VTOL.

Cheaper (in theory) to provide planes and parts for 1 aircraft (with some extras for B & C variants) than for 5 different aircraft.

Out of curiousity, I'd be curious to see a cost comparison between the F-35 and all of the planes it is supposed to replace.


In 2013, a study by the RAND Corporation found that it would have been cheaper if the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy had simply designed and developed separate and more specialized aircraft to meet their specific operational requirements.
 
2018-10-11 04:53:37 PM  

chewd: Explodo: You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

What surprises me is that people still refer to it as defense spending, its been 7 decades since any of it was used for defense. Everything since then has been offense spending.


the problem with your logic is that following World War II, the US signed a number of treaties and agreements to provide military protection and support to a number of countries, especially those threatened by the USSR and her allies, and now those who face hostile Chinese actions.

What the US does now by and large is the same kind of "defense" as a robust and frequent police patrol does insofar as maintaining a presence, being visible, and ideally interceding with small threats and problems before they become actual wars, such as stationing ships in the Gulf and off the Horn of Africa to deter pirates.

GOP bush wars not withstanding, maintaining a presence and an active effort to quell hostile actions really does make things more peaceful in the same way as broken window policing policies stops crimes before they escalate.

The US has not been in the business of protecting only itself since the end of the last world war, and that's kind of. A good thing.
 
2018-10-11 04:54:50 PM  

mathamagical: the voice of raisin: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

Simple answer: logisitcs

Some Examples:
Maintenance -
The maintenance that works on the F-35s that the Navy uses can (theoretically) be re-tasked to work on the F-35s that the Air Force uses, and then shift to work on the F-35s that the Marines use.

Training -
1 training program can now cover the majority of pilots in all services, with specialties for carrier landing and/or S/VTOL.

Cheaper (in theory) to provide planes and parts for 1 aircraft (with some extras for B & C variants) than for 5 different aircraft.

Out of curiousity, I'd be curious to see a cost comparison between the F-35 and all of the planes it is supposed to replace.

In 2013, a study by the RAND Corporation found that it would have been cheaper if the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy had simply designed and developed separate and more specialized aircraft to meet their specific operational requirements.


especially since the Marines already have the A10 nearly perfect.
 
2018-10-11 04:56:24 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


/Do not think of the theme song
//gotcha
 
2018-10-11 05:40:48 PM  

Northern: So what we should be doing is eliminating inheritance over $150,000


This would be hilarious if it wasn't so asinine.  That is such an incredibly low number that I doubt you could even be serious.  Both of my parents are currently alive, but if they died between my brother and myself we'd probably split somewhere around a million dollars.  Nearly a third of that is in property.  They are not rich, they just worked for 40 years and retired.
 
2018-10-11 05:45:43 PM  

Kit Fister: especially since the Marines already have the A10 nearly perfect.


LOLwat?
 
2018-10-11 05:53:08 PM  

chewd: Explodo: You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

What surprises me is that people still refer to it as defense spending, its been 7 decades since any of it was used for defense. Everything since then has been offense spending.


Well, to quote Abraham Lincoln:

"Sometimes the best defense is a good offense"
 
2018-10-11 06:12:48 PM  
vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 06:37:32 PM  
I thought Boeing grounded them as part of the delivery.
 
2018-10-11 07:18:06 PM  

phalamir: Marines exist because people used to actually fight other people on ships - you don't want to have the guys trying to make your ship going put-put to also have to go slashie-slashie.


Marines were also there to keep mutinies down and help enforce order/beatings.
 
2018-10-11 07:19:11 PM  

stuffy: [bing.com image 475x288]
Maybe give them cool paint job while you're at it.


It's probably because I worked on then so much but plane ole grey still does it for me.
 
2018-10-11 08:11:57 PM  

Rent Party: jaytkay: Rent Party: The military generally has a higher level of education than the populace as a whole.   You have to be a college graduate to be an officer, and generally you have to have a high school diploma to enlist.

Derp

Most military people are not officers and most Americans are high school graduates.

I'm sorry if facts offend you.  Perhaps you should get some money back on your education.


The idea that people in the military are unthinking simpletons is the kind of prejudice that mediocrities cling on to in the hopes of feeling superior to someone.

News flash: you can disagree with American capitalism and imperialism without also feeling like you have to be smarter or better educated than the people implementing these structures.

Second news flash: Trump voters also tend to be well-educated, and not the impoverished hicks I routinely see as the stereotype.

Third news flash: Well-read, well educated people can be racist af.
 
2018-10-11 08:32:49 PM  
I'm an F-35 defender in the sense that I call BS on it not being a capable airplane nor that it was a bad idea to have a joint effort. Software development is about 50% of the procurement cost of such a project and even though parts commonality isn't that great by simple counting, software similarity is important both to save initial costs and to avoid the costs of developing compatibility between different projects (see how much work will have to go into making F-22/JSF interoperable).

A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one." The multirole fighter has been proven to be superior to dedicated task-specific platforms since about 1970. That's just a fact. This opinion that it would be so great that we make 20 designs for 20 mission profiles is demonstrably false.

An important factor in this particular issue is concurrent development which is basically the pain of developing as you go. There are costly mistakes that a design first-build second approach would not have. If that is worth it to have your 2001 design fly sometime before 2031 I don't know but I see the trade off.

I'm not an F-35 defender in the sense that we need to spend this much or invest in defense in this particular way. Apart from more subtle changes in investment, I'm of the firm belief that it is better that more Americans die in a war of their initiation. Over-over-over match military capability is so good that it's bad. Having 100:0 kill ratios is contrary to the saying "it is good that war is so horrible lest we grow too fond of it." Well, it isn't horrible enough and we have grown too fond of it.
 
2018-10-11 08:41:01 PM  

Kit Fister: the voice of raisin: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

Simple answer: logisitcs

Some Examples:
Maintenance -
The maintenance that works on the F-35s that the Navy uses can (theoretically) be re-tasked to work on the F-35s that the Air Force uses, and then shift to work on the F-35s that the Marines use.

Training -
1 training program can now cover the majority of pilots in all services, with specialties for carrier landing and/or S/VTOL.

Cheaper (in theory) to provide planes and parts for 1 aircraft (with some extras for B & C variants) than for 5 different aircraft.

Out of curiousity, I'd be curious to see a cost comparison between the F-35 and all of the planes it is supposed to replace.

We've found out time and again that the old saying "jack of all trades, master of none" is 100% true and applicable.

You design equipment to handle specific circumstances and excel at it, and you train men and women to specialize in that kind of work.  Otherwise, you have gear and trained people that can kinda sorta do it all but will get their asses kicked as they catch up to where a specialist would've been.


img.fark.netView Full Size

/Jack of many trades
 
2018-10-12 02:19:38 AM  

Frederf: I'm an F-35 defender in the sense that I call BS on it not being a capable airplane nor that it was a bad idea to have a joint effort.


It is a capable airplane...when it can fly...which isn't nearly often enough.  It wasn't a bad idea, but it was extremely poor execution.  In theory it should have saved money and been great.  Just like how many car manufacturers will use the same parts across multiple cars.  However for the cost overuns, the delays, and the lack of reliability it is nearly impossible to believe that developing three distinct aircraft would not only have been cheaper, the planes themselves would have been better.

8 years after the first flight the plane was 7 YEARS behind schedule and 163 billion dollars over budget.  This is a plane to replace planes that (by unit cost) are 4 times cheaper and god knows how many times over more reliable.
 
2018-10-12 03:58:43 AM  
Wait, when did they ever leave the ground in the first place?
 
2018-10-12 08:52:30 AM  

Frederf: I'm an F-35 defender in the sense that I call BS on it not being a capable airplane nor that it was a bad idea to have a joint effort. Software development is about 50% of the procurement cost of such a project and even though parts commonality isn't that great by simple counting, software similarity is important both to save initial costs and to avoid the costs of developing compatibility between different projects (see how much work will have to go into making F-22/JSF interoperable).

A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one." The multirole fighter has been proven to be superior to dedicated task-specific platforms since about 1970. That's just a fact. This opinion that it would be so great that we make 20 designs for 20 mission profiles is demonstrably false.

An important factor in this particular issue is concurrent development which is basically the pain of developing as you go. There are costly mistakes that a design first-build second approach would not have. If that is worth it to have your 2001 design fly sometime before 2031 I don't know but I see the trade off.

I'm not an F-35 defender in the sense that we need to spend this much or invest in defense in this particular way. Apart from more subtle changes in investment, I'm of the firm belief that it is better that more Americans die in a war of their initiation. Over-over-over match military capability is so good that it's bad. Having 100:0 kill ratios is contrary to the saying "it is good that war is so horrible lest we grow too fond of it." Well, it isn't horrible enough and we have grown too fond of it.


My problem with all of this is that they're trying to shoe-horn the design into roles that are so incredibly different with such incredibly different requirements that it makes no sense. It's like expecting someone to be  Surgeon, Veterinarian, and Machinist.

You want a multi-role jet that spans services to handle fighter jobs, bombing jobs, intel flights, and so on? Great! I'm all for that. We have a number of airframes which can be adapted to the role, and having a modular aircraft like that is great.

But, what's that? You want a jet that's going to have to handle high-speed air to air attack, long-range bombing runs and other Fighter/Bomber jobs to also now have to handle long-term on-station CAS where it has to fly at relatively low speed, stay on station for long periods, and carry a shiatload of ammo and ordnance specifically capable of taking out large numbers of ground targets including heavy armor, and be able to withstand ground fire?  Totally different mission scope and requirements package.

And, considering that we have candidates for modern airframes that handle the multi-mission Joint Services roles with modifications that will cost significantly less than the F35, along with airframes which are already proven, capable, paid for, and exceedingly well suited to specific niche tasks, there's literally zero reason to turn around and dump a trillion bucks into a new platform that has proven to fail at comparative tests in every case except those specifically designed around the F35 to make it look good.

Sorry, man, but the F-35 is a dud, no matter how you try to spin it. And it's a trillion-dollar waste of money that has robbed resources from both civil AND military programs that we actually *need* to address.

I mean, far be it for me to suggest that instead of having a shiny new aircraft that barely does its job, we have universal healthcare to ensure that we have citizens who are healthy and capable of serving in the military; making sure that the VA has all the funding it needs to actually take care of our veterans, upgrade aging equipment and invest in resources to make sure that if we DO get into a war with China or Russia we're able to do more than just throw fancy new jets at them.  Maybe even invest in social programs, education, and job training programs to ensure that our economy is strong and we have the capabilities of meeting the demands an actual, real war would impose.

But, I mean, I guess I can see how we might need a new multi-role fighter jet to challenge both Russia and China's latest invisible fantasy aircraft and show them who's boss in dog fights while our troops are bombed to hell while waiting for their F-35s assigned for CAS have to run back to the rear to refuel and reload their weapons *yet again*, since that's so much more efficient and better than having fighters doing the fighter thing and CAS-specialized aircraft like the A-10 busting tanks and protecting the troops.
 
2018-10-12 08:54:20 AM  

mjbok: Frederf: I'm an F-35 defender in the sense that I call BS on it not being a capable airplane nor that it was a bad idea to have a joint effort.

It is a capable airplane...when it can fly...which isn't nearly often enough.  It wasn't a bad idea, but it was extremely poor execution.  In theory it should have saved money and been great.  Just like how many car manufacturers will use the same parts across multiple cars.  However for the cost overuns, the delays, and the lack of reliability it is nearly impossible to believe that developing three distinct aircraft would not only have been cheaper, the planes themselves would have been better.

8 years after the first flight the plane was 7 YEARS behind schedule and 163 billion dollars over budget.  This is a plane to replace planes that (by unit cost) are 4 times cheaper and god knows how many times over more reliable.


It's not like we couldn't have selected an airframe that already fills most of the major roles for fighter jets and invested in developing the technology to adapt it for the same multi-service roles while keeping around the niche craft that fill in the roles that are outside the purview of what we expect a fighter to do...That's just crazy talk.
 
2018-10-12 09:30:40 AM  

Kit Fister: Frederf: I'm an F-35 defender in the sense that I call BS on it not being a capable airplane nor that it was a bad idea to have a joint effort. Software development is about 50% of the procurement cost of such a project and even though parts commonality isn't that great by simple counting, software similarity is important both to save initial costs and to avoid the costs of developing compatibility between different projects (see how much work will have to go into making F-22/JSF interoperable).

A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one." The multirole fighter has been proven to be superior to dedicated task-specific platforms since about 1970. That's just a fact. This opinion that it would be so great that we make 20 designs for 20 mission profiles is demonstrably false.

An important factor in this particular issue is concurrent development which is basically the pain of developing as you go. There are costly mistakes that a design first-build second approach would not have. If that is worth it to have your 2001 design fly sometime before 2031 I don't know but I see the trade off.

I'm not an F-35 defender in the sense that we need to spend this much or invest in defense in this particular way. Apart from more subtle changes in investment, I'm of the firm belief that it is better that more Americans die in a war of their initiation. Over-over-over match military capability is so good that it's bad. Having 100:0 kill ratios is contrary to the saying "it is good that war is so horrible lest we grow too fond of it." Well, it isn't horrible enough and we have grown too fond of it.

My problem with all of this is that they're trying to shoe-horn the design into roles that are so incredibly different with such incredibly different requirements that it makes no sense. It's like expecting someone to be  Surgeon, Veterinarian, and Machinist.

You want a multi-role jet that spans services to handle fighter jobs, bombing jobs, inte ...


lolwut? So youre saying its easier for a base to host and support multiple aircraft configured for hyper specific roles, in this case, hosting both F-15C's and A-10's, to perform a CAS mission package, rather than have a base hosting a single airframe where specific aircraft can be armed for CAP protection and the others CAS work? Because thats how it would work. Instead of having F16's flying top cover, and a package of A-10's carrying PGM to hit ground targets, you'd have F35's configured for A2A flying top cover for F35's configured for strike. The beauty being an airframe lost has minimal impact since any other airframe on the roster can be reconfigured later for any other task. Other than the alternative where an F16 is down for maintenance and now your CAP fleet is seriously hindered.

With close air support now being done with guided munitions, the most important things for a CAS bird now is
-speed of arrival
-sensor suite
-survivability.

The F-35 exceeds the A-10 in all 3 of those because its less likely to get engaged by enemy weapon systems, and the lethality of modern air defenses means that regardless of the planes ability to SURVIVE a hit, getting hit aborts the CAS mission immediately. So the trick is to see which plane is less likely to get hit anyway. or do you think A-10's with a missing wing and fuselage full of 23mm flak holes continue flying around deliving ordnance?
 
2018-10-12 09:45:56 AM  

Subtle_Canary: lolwut? So youre saying its easier for a base to host and support multiple aircraft configured for hyper specific roles, in this case, hosting both F-15C's and A-10's, to perform a CAS mission package, rather than have a base hosting a single airframe where specific aircraft can be armed for CAP protection and the others CAS work? Because thats how it would work. Instead of having F16's flying top cover, and a package of A-10's carrying PGM to hit ground targets, you'd have F35's configured for A2A flying top cover for F35's configured for strike. The beauty being an airframe lost has minimal impact since any other airframe on the roster can be reconfigured later for any other task. Other than the alternative where an F16 is down for maintenance and now your CAP fleet is seriously hindered.

With close air support now being done with guided munitions, the most important things for a CAS bird now is
-speed of arrival
-sensor suite
-survivability.

The F-35 exceeds the A-10 in all 3 of those because its less likely to get engaged by enemy weapon systems, and the lethality of modern air defenses means that regardless of the planes ability to SURVIVE a hit, getting hit aborts the CAS mission immediately. So the trick is to see which plane is less likely to get hit anyway. or do you think A-10's with a missing wing and fuselage full of 23mm flak holes continue flying around deliving ordnance?


So, you're telling me that you can't train ground support crews to know how to support two different aircraft?

As far as damage, seriously?  The A-10 is notoriously capable of flying with significant damage.

Flew home and landed safely:
images01.military.comView Full Size
Flew home and landed safely:
qph.fs.quoracdn.netView Full Size
Flew home and landed safely:
i.pinimg.comView Full Size
Also, you...really don't know much about how CAS missions work and what the A-10s do during them, do you?
 
2018-10-12 01:12:02 PM  

mjbok: it is nearly impossible to believe that developing three distinct aircraft would not only have been cheaper, the planes themselves would have been better.


Just because you personally have a hard time believing it doesn't mean anything. Show me an example of a set of distinct designs of 5th gen. airplanes that is cheaper than a multi-role platform. There aren't even many  airplanes that do a singular role that perform better than the JSF does at that role.

mjbok: 8 years after the first flight the plane was 7 YEARS behind schedule and 163 billion dollars over budget. This is a plane to replace planes that (by unit cost) are 4 times cheaper and god knows how many times over more reliable.


I will say that the pre-Bogden development was milking the taxpayer shamelessly. Seven years compared to what schedule? Who made a better plane faster? These aren't Toyota Corollas. These are cutting edge military tech to which there is no superior example of speed of delivery. Lockheed might be 7 years behind but Sukhoi is 30 years behind. Probably 2-3x the cost (F-15E v F-35A) and you don't have to ask God how more reliable. It's maybe 80-90% the sortie readiness rate of the previous designs. That's not a huge deal.

Kit Fister: Sorry, man, but the F-35 is a dud, no matter how you try to spin it.


Put your bong down, hippy, man. You're conflating if it was a good use of money and if it does its job well. It might be a solid gold toaster but it makes toast well.

Kit Fister: It's not like we couldn't have selected an airframe that already fills most of the major roles for fighter jets


The major roles are not getting shot down by S-400s so, no, we couldn't have selected an existing airframe. There is no off the shelf gen. 5 airframes to pick from.

And for every picture of an A-10 with battle damage there's a record of a shot down A-10 and a million pointy nose jets that didn't get a bloody nose in the first place. A-10s survivability record is actually quite poor. The USAF coddles the A-10 in mission profile and it gets into trouble anyway. Yes, it makes a good coffee table book to see one landed with holes in it but that isn't the intellectual analysis.
 
2018-10-12 01:33:07 PM  

Frederf: There aren't even many airplanes that do a singular role that perform better than the JSF does at that role.


Being able to fly is something most airplanes do better consistently.
 
2018-10-12 01:40:29 PM  

Frederf: Put your bong down, hippy, man. You're conflating if it was a good use of money and if it does its job well. It might be a solid gold toaster but it makes toast well.


F-35? Good at what it does?

i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size


And you tell *me* to put down the bong?

Frederf: The major roles are not getting shot down by S-400s so, no, we couldn't have selected an existing airframe. There is no off the shelf gen. 5 airframes to pick from.


And so far, this hasn't been a problem.  I did a search, and so far as I can see, other than a lot of hype from the Russians, the S-400 hasn't shot down a damn aircraft yet. And analysis suggests that the F-22 isn't seriously threatened by it.   So, once again, solving a non-existent problem with a new tool that has thus far abysmally failed its testing.

Frederf: And for every picture of an A-10 with battle damage there's a record of a shot down A-10 and a million pointy nose jets that didn't get a bloody nose in the first place. A-10s survivability record is actually quite poor. The USAF coddles the A-10 in mission profile and it gets into trouble anyway. Yes, it makes a good coffee table book to see one landed with holes in it but that isn't the intellectual analysis.


Really? Again, going back to searching related material, I can't find a lot of evidence to support that it has a poor survivability record, nor do I see the USAF coddling it, or anything to suggest that mission profiles it flies have caused it to get into trouble.

All that being said: admit it. You have a hardon for the F-35 and you want the shiny new plane, and are happy to overlook all of its abysmal failures and shortcomings. You're welcome to it, you don't need to lie and make up anything to want that.  Just be farking honest.
 
2018-10-12 03:43:00 PM  
Yeah, that's totally it. The United States Armed Forces and several militaries around the world are all idiots and you're a genius.
 
2018-10-12 04:09:27 PM  

Frederf: Yeah, that's totally it. The United States Armed Forces and several militaries around the world are all idiots and you're a genius.


Or maybe there has yet to be any solid evidence I can find that counters the numerous reports of the F35's repeated failures and shortcomings? It doesn't take a genius to look at the available data and draw a conclusion, and i'm more inclined to believe actual reports from the military and news outlets than I am a random farker who hasn't given anything other than snide remarks and derision to prove his point.
 
2018-10-12 09:46:45 PM  

Frederf: Yeah, that's totally it. The United States Armed Forces and several militaries around the world are all idiots and you're a genius.


I see you ran into those pesky facts that shiat all over your idiotic ranting and now you're throwing a tantrum.

/poor baby
 
Displayed 186 of 186 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is 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