Skip to content
 
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  
•       •       •

6870 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2018 at 10:35 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 36 of 186 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


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