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.

(Project on Government Oversight)   The F-35 Program: Or, the "No Man's Sky" approach to delivering a functional aircraft   (pogo.org) divider line
    More: Murica, Software testing, F-35 Lightning II, entire F-35 program, Fighter aircraft, Pentagon's annual operational testing report, Lockheed Martin, troubled F-35, DOT&E  
•       •       •

1439 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Mar 2019 at 1:11 AM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2019-03-20 06:06:39 PM  
This is largely an artifact of trying to deliver a tremendously multi-role aircraft, which unfortunately will never perform as well at any particular task as an aircraft designed to do only one thing. Specialization decreases flexibility but it does get the job done much better in the end than trying to have a single design balance a dozen plates on one finger.

I think the whole concept was doomed from the start.
 
2019-03-20 06:25:36 PM  
Sold in 2001 as a cheap multi-role fighter at a promised $38 million per plane, the troubled F-35, now at an average $158.4 million per copy, continues to dramatically underperform in crucial areas including availability and reliability, cyber-vulnerability testing, and life-expectancy testing

The F-35 has been produced under a cost plus contract, and as such, was designed to generate lots and lots of costs.  In pursuit of that goal, the F-35 program has far outperformed any military contract in the history of the human race.  It is SPECTACULARLY successful.
 
2019-03-20 06:40:46 PM  
Cost Plus Contracts - GWB's easy way to enrich his buddies. Ah the 00's.
 
2019-03-20 07:27:01 PM  

khatores: This is largely an artifact of trying to deliver a tremendously multi-role aircraft, which unfortunately will never perform as well at any particular task as an aircraft designed to do only one thing. Specialization decreases flexibility but it does get the job done much better in the end than trying to have a single design balance a dozen plates on one finger.

I think the whole concept was doomed from the start.


Obviously we didn't know this but we'll totally learn from our mistakes.

/this time
 
2019-03-20 07:31:55 PM  

Irving Maimway: Cost Plus Contracts - GWB's easy way to enrich his buddies. Ah the 00's.


Govt contractors won't work any other way. Especially defense contractors. If they went over cost without any extra money they'd deliver 135 wings and call it someone else's problem
 
2019-03-20 07:55:30 PM  

Irving Maimway: Cost Plus Contracts - GWB's easy way to enrich his buddies. Ah the 00's.


00's?

New stealth bomber is cost plus.
 
2019-03-20 07:59:52 PM  

Gubbo: Govt contractors won't work any other way


If there's no other way to get work, then that's the work they'll get.

Boeing just opened a new F-15 plant in the Carolinas for -SA and -Q variants (Saudi and Qatar, won't that be fun).  Meanwhile the US Air Force realizes it will need working multi-role jets in the future and is naturally working on...  wait for it...  a new F-15.
 
2019-03-20 08:53:02 PM  
No Man's Sky actually launched and stayed on budget.  Star Citizen is a much better comparison
 
2019-03-20 09:31:01 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


/screenshot from larger info-graphic https://www.businessinsider.com/this-​m​ap-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8
//Congress would still fund it if it caused dick cancer in men over 35
 
2019-03-20 09:34:35 PM  

whither_apophis: [img.fark.net image 708x646]

/screenshot from larger info-graphic https://www.businessinsider.com/this-m​ap-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8
//Congress would still fund it if it caused dick cancer in men over 35


It strikes me as a radical idea, but if you didn't spend all that money on a plane that can't fly in the rain, wouldn't you have had money that could be spent on things that would directly benefit the people in those states?
 
2019-03-20 09:50:17 PM  

whither_apophis: [img.fark.net image 708x646]

/screenshot from larger info-graphic https://www.businessinsider.com/this-m​ap-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8
//Congress would still fund it if it caused dick cancer in men over 35


Just remember, it's not socialism when the military does it.
 
2019-03-20 10:51:49 PM  

khatores: This is largely an artifact of trying to deliver a tremendously multi-role aircraft, which unfortunately will never perform as well at any particular task as an aircraft designed to do only one thing. Specialization decreases flexibility but it does get the job done much better in the end than trying to have a single design balance a dozen plates on one finger.

I think the whole concept was doomed from the start.


This.  "Jack of all trades, master of none" is a saying for a reason.
 
2019-03-21 12:29:33 AM  

khatores: This is largely an artifact of trying to deliver a tremendously multi-role aircraft, which unfortunately will never perform as well at any particular task as an aircraft designed to do only one thing. Specialization decreases flexibility but it does get the job done much better in the end than trying to have a single design balance a dozen plates on one finger.

I think the whole concept was doomed from the start.


They desperately hoped for a reprise of the flying brick they could all love.

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2019-03-21 12:40:21 AM  
I liked No Man's Sky. There. I've said it.
 
2019-03-21 01:13:08 AM  

Flappyhead: No Man's Sky actually launched and stayed on budget.  Star Citizen is a much better comparison


Fair point (even if it sucks).

Gordon Bennett: I liked No Man's Sky. There. I've said it.


Mutant.
 
2019-03-21 01:15:10 AM  
How many have been lost due to invisibility?
 
2019-03-21 01:20:27 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Sold in 2001 as a cheap multi-role fighter at a promised $38 million per plane, the troubled F-35, now at an average $158.4 million per copy, continues to dramatically underperform in crucial areas including availability and reliability, cyber-vulnerability testing, and life-expectancy testing

The F-35 has been produced under a cost plus contract, and as such, was designed to generate lots and lots of costs.  In pursuit of that goal, the F-35 program has far outperformed any military contract in the history of the human race.  It is SPECTACULARLY successful.


you know you can't spew all of that bullshiat with out at least showing some sources for your work.
 
2019-03-21 01:21:41 AM  

khatores: This is largely an artifact of trying to deliver a tremendously multi-role aircraft, which unfortunately will never perform as well at any particular task as an aircraft designed to do only one thing. Specialization decreases flexibility but it does get the job done much better in the end than trying to have a single design balance a dozen plates on one finger.

I think the whole concept was doomed from the start.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-21 01:24:15 AM  
Say what you want about No Man's Sky, I played the fark out of it for about 36 hours of my life before the spell was broken.  I got to see the a black hole transit a star, and then I piloted my spacecraft right down that hole and emerged to more of the same.  So I quit.  I came back after a few updates and while the game was better, my progress was reset--I'd been playing on Shield and lost my saves when GeForce Now migrated to Steam--and while the game was richer, it was still just a dressed up Inventory Manager Pro.
 
2019-03-21 01:24:16 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Gubbo: Govt contractors won't work any other way

If there's no other way to get work, then that's the work they'll get.

Boeing just opened a new F-15 plant in the Carolinas for -SA and -Q variants (Saudi and Qatar, won't that be fun).  Meanwhile the US Air Force realizes it will need working multi-role jets in the future and is naturally working on...  wait for it...  a new F-15.


The Air force doesn't even want the F-15 but Trump's appointment is from Boeing and well he forced it down their throat and made the order.
https://taskandpurpose.com/f-15x-pent​a​gon-purchase-order

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/yo​u​r-military/2019/03/13/shanahan-faces-i​g-complaint-over-boeing-ties/
 
2019-03-21 01:29:29 AM  

TheGhostofFarkPast: you know you can't spew all of that bullshiat with out at least showing some sources for your work.


The F-35 is the most expensive weapons program in Earth's history. It was sold as a low-cost fighter.

Two facts, not debatable.
 
2019-03-21 01:30:07 AM  

whither_apophis: [img.fark.net image 708x646]

/screenshot from larger info-graphic https://www.businessinsider.com/this-m​ap-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8
//Congress would still fund it if it caused dick cancer in men over 35


Giving everyone in those 46 states 1.5 million dollars would have been a much more worthwhile use of that money than how it's been used at present, so I'm not sure that infographic is as useful for your position as you think it is.
 
2019-03-21 01:36:34 AM  
My dad worked on the F-35 project many years ago and even back then he said it was a joke and a waste of money. It's be great for his stock holdings, not so good for the country.
 
2019-03-21 01:41:36 AM  
At this point, not going to read the article. Notify me when it actually works.
 
2019-03-21 01:46:20 AM  

Murkanen: whither_apophis: [img.fark.net image 708x646]

/screenshot from larger info-graphic https://www.businessinsider.com/this-m​ap-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8
//Congress would still fund it if it caused dick cancer in men over 35

Giving everyone in those 46 states 1.5 million dollars would have been a much more worthwhile use of that money than how it's been used at present, so I'm not sure that infographic is as useful for your position as you think it is.


Or, giving them the money to upgrade our roads and bridges. Or, what if we let states and cities use the money to upgrade their high speed internet access themselves.
 
2019-03-21 01:46:29 AM  
"We tried to build an invisible jet that could carry a ton of everything, go faster and farther than anything else, and do all kinds of incredibly fancy surveillance in absolutely any possible situation.  Now it can't do anything."
 
2019-03-21 01:50:15 AM  

johnphantom: At this point, not going to read the article. Notify me when it actually works.


Israel is bombing targets in Syria with it, in areas where Russia's vaunted S400 middle defense operates and it is hitting the targets with no losses.

The pilots love it because it kills everything out there.  It now goes 20-1 kill ratio.

The costs in the program are plummeting.  "According to the latest Pentagon acquisition report, the cost per hour of operating the F-35 averages $30,000 compared to $25,500 per hour for the older F-16."  It keeps going down as time goes on.
 
2019-03-21 01:51:09 AM  
I remember years ago someone commenting on the ever increasing cost of military aircraft said something like "..if current trends continue eventually the air force will consist of a single trillion dollar aircraft..."  Even in his worse case scenario I bet who ever it was still assumed the thing would actually work / fly!
 
2019-03-21 01:53:15 AM  

jaytkay: TheGhostofFarkPast: you know you can't spew all of that bullshiat with out at least showing some sources for your work.

The F-35 is the most expensive weapons program in Earth's history. It was sold as a low-cost fighter.

Two facts, not debatable.


yeah that's great but you can't make these two whopper of a claim with out backing it up

"The F-35 has been produced under a cost plus contract, and as such, was designed to generate lots and lots of costs.  In pursuit of that goal, the F-35 program has far outperformed any military contract in the history of the human race.  It is SPECTACULARLY successful. "

Two giant claims, where's the proof because this article basically says it hasn't been successful.
 
2019-03-21 02:03:48 AM  
Few days ago this picture of an F-35 was taken after an emergency landing at Wendover, NV.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-21 02:04:43 AM  

TheGhostofFarkPast: jaytkay: TheGhostofFarkPast: you know you can't spew all of that bullshiat with out at least showing some sources for your work.

The F-35 is the most expensive weapons program in Earth's history. It was sold as a low-cost fighter.

Two facts, not debatable.

yeah that's great but you can't make these two whopper of a claim with out backing it up

"The F-35 has been produced under a cost plus contract, and as such, was designed to generate lots and lots of costs.  In pursuit of that goal, the F-35 program has far outperformed any military contract in the history of the human race.  It is SPECTACULARLY successful. "

Two giant claims, where's the proof because this article basically says it hasn't been successful.


I see the PR people for Boeing have arrived.
 
2019-03-21 02:20:11 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-21 02:23:34 AM  

Gordon Bennett: I liked No Man's Sky. There. I've said it.


The problem with NMS wasn't that it was a bad game per se, it was that the lead developer lied through his teeth about available content and features at launch......on Network TV.

/neeeeeeeerd!
 
2019-03-21 02:25:50 AM  

Gubbo: whither_apophis: [img.fark.net image 708x646]

/screenshot from larger info-graphic https://www.businessinsider.com/this-m​ap-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8
//Congress would still fund it if it caused dick cancer in men over 35

It strikes me as a radical idea, but if you didn't spend all that money on a plane that can't fly in the rain, wouldn't you have had money that could be spent on things that would directly benefit the people in those states?


And have to pay all those engineers to learn a skill other than weapon design. What kinda pacifist socialist are you?
 
2019-03-21 03:01:07 AM  
or we could have paid off the student debt of every single American, gee I wonder what the economic benefit of that would have been
 
2019-03-21 03:01:41 AM  
It's the Sherman tank all over again. Let's hope we don't learn by horrendous losses in battle. We likely will learn that way though. We haven't yet learned from history.

/ And the M113 and the Osprey and and and ...
 
2019-03-21 03:03:38 AM  
Oh and Subby unlike the F-35 "No Man's Sky" has improved so much since release it's almost a different game.

/ Space Force wishes they had my freighter!
 
2019-03-21 03:38:24 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: khatores: This is largely an artifact of trying to deliver a tremendously multi-role aircraft, which unfortunately will never perform as well at any particular task as an aircraft designed to do only one thing. Specialization decreases flexibility but it does get the job done much better in the end than trying to have a single design balance a dozen plates on one finger.

I think the whole concept was doomed from the start.

This.  "Jack of all trades, master of none" is a saying for a reason.


Well, the actual saying is "A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one. "
 
2019-03-21 03:49:21 AM  

CrazyCurt: It's the Sherman tank all over again. Let's hope we don't learn by horrendous losses in battle. We likely will learn that way though. We haven't yet learned from history.

/ And the M113 and the Osprey and and and ...


The Sherman tank was comparatively dirt cheap, and easy to mass produce. This was a major reason why the US continued using it, despite there having been noticeably better tanks being fielded by the Germans. The Sherman tank was the DOD pinching pennies to the detriment of tank crews, not the brass letting their imaginations run away with them when a list of requirements are drawn up, and failing to take any measures to control costs.
 
2019-03-21 03:57:15 AM  

khatores: This is largely an artifact of trying to deliver a tremendously multi-role aircraft, which unfortunately will never perform as well at any particular task as an aircraft designed to do only one thing. Specialization decreases flexibility but it does get the job done much better in the end than trying to have a single design balance a dozen plates on one finger.

I think the whole concept was doomed from the start.


As an aerospace systems engineer, I am certain that they knew this from the start.  'They' being everyone involved up to but not necessarily including the armchair warriors on Capital Hill.

Working as intended: Pure pork.  No question.
 
2019-03-21 04:06:12 AM  

TheGhostofFarkPast: jaytkay: TheGhostofFarkPast: you know you can't spew all of that bullshiat with out at least showing some sources for your work.

The F-35 is the most expensive weapons program in Earth's history. It was sold as a low-cost fighter.

Two facts, not debatable.

yeah that's great but you can't make these two whopper of a claim with out backing it up

"The F-35 has been produced under a cost plus contract, and as such, was designed to generate lots and lots of costs.  In pursuit of that goal, the F-35 program has far outperformed any military contract in the history of the human race.  It is SPECTACULARLY successful. "

Two giant claims, where's the proof because this article basically says it hasn't been successful.


You may have missed his point: he didn't claim it was a successful product, he claimed it was a successful financial black hole of waste.

So you agree with him. It's a worthless waste of money and time.
 
2019-03-21 04:17:25 AM  

talan123: johnphantom: At this point, not going to read the article. Notify me when it actually works.

Israel is bombing targets in Syria with it, in areas where Russia's vaunted S400 middle defense operates and it is hitting the targets with no losses.

The pilots love it because it kills everything out there.  It now goes 20-1 kill ratio.

The costs in the program are plummeting.  "According to the latest Pentagon acquisition report, the cost per hour of operating the F-35 averages $30,000 compared to $25,500 per hour for the older F-16."  It keeps going down as time goes on.


Not exactly

Israel announced they'd used the plane in combat "on two fronts". They showed photos of it being used over Beirut (lol there's a tough mission for an Israeli fighter jet).

They said they didn't usr them in their big strike in Syria May 9th of last year, so it sounds like they flew one over some corner of Syrian airspace and called it "a combat mission".

Considering we agreed to spend billions doing some of the work on the construction of the planes in Israel, that's a nice little piece of PR they generated for us. Easy for someone like you to dress up.
 
2019-03-21 04:59:53 AM  

Pats_Cloth_Coat: talan123: johnphantom: At this point, not going to read the article. Notify me when it actually works.

Israel is bombing targets in Syria with it, in areas where Russia's vaunted S400 middle defense operates and it is hitting the targets with no losses.

The pilots love it because it kills everything out there.  It now goes 20-1 kill ratio.

The costs in the program are plummeting.  "According to the latest Pentagon acquisition report, the cost per hour of operating the F-35 averages $30,000 compared to $25,500 per hour for the older F-16."  It keeps going down as time goes on.

Not exactly

Israel announced they'd used the plane in combat "on two fronts". They showed photos of it being used over Beirut (lol there's a tough mission for an Israeli fighter jet).

They said they didn't usr them in their big strike in Syria May 9th of last year, so it sounds like they flew one over some corner of Syrian airspace and called it "a combat mission".

Considering we agreed to spend billions doing some of the work on the construction of the planes in Israel, that's a nice little piece of PR they generated for us. Easy for someone like you to dress up.


Hmm - Beirut... sounds like a good mission to use - oh I dunno - a close air support plane?  Maybe one heavily armored against ground fire, with precision targeting anti-infantry/armor capability that has some staying power?  Does the U.S. make such a plane?  Naw, the desk jockeys have assured me those are outdated and useless and should be grounded.  Oh well!
 
2019-03-21 05:10:20 AM  

whither_apophis: [img.fark.net image 708x646]

/screenshot from larger info-graphic https://www.businessinsider.com/this-m​ap-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8
//Congress would still fund it if it caused dick cancer in men over 35


and just think of all the school funding that could have provided and teachers salaries.
 
2019-03-21 05:30:53 AM  

CrazyCurt: It's the Sherman tank all over again. Let's hope we don't learn by horrendous losses in battle. We likely will learn that way though. We haven't yet learned from history.

/ And the M113 and the Osprey and and and ...


Look, I am about as anti-F-35 as anybody, but don't you dare malign the Sherman. I bet you got most of your information from watching movies.

The Sherman was quite possibly the best tank of World War 2. It was reliable, easy to repair, easy to upgrade, and most importantly could be produced and shipped in mass quantities.

The German tanks that actually could run for more than a day without having to be sent back to a maintenance facility for a rebuild were no match for it.

In fact, if you want to look for weapons systems from WW2 analogous to the F-35, you'd do better to compare it to the Panther, the Tigers, and the ME-262. Great on paper, but not so much in real life.
 
2019-03-21 05:39:21 AM  

TheGhostofFarkPast: "The F-35 has been produced under a cost plus contract, and as such, was designed to generate lots and lots of costs. In pursuit of that goal, the F-35 program has far outperformed any military contract in the history of the human race.  It is SPECTACULARLY successful. "

Two giant claims, where's the proof because this article basically says it hasn't been successful.


Note the bolded parts ther.

He's not saying it's been a successful plane, he's saying it's been a successful program at generating money for the contractors. He's absolutely right. Current estimates of lifetime program costs are over $1 trillion.

They are raking in the money.
 
2019-03-21 05:48:24 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-21 05:55:47 AM  

CheatCommando: The German tanks that actually could run for more than a day without having to be sent back to a maintenance facility for a rebuild were no match for it.


Yep. The M4 wasn't perfect, but it worked, and when it didn't, it was easy to fix. Biggest problem was ammo stowage causing them to burn out. It wasn't the gas engine, the M4A2s were diesel and they burned at the same rate. New ammo stowage in the floor in water surrounded bins fixed that.

Change a transmission? In a Sherman, two hours. In a Panther? Start by removing the turret.
 
2019-03-21 06:04:16 AM  
I really enjoy NMS. Glad I didn't endure the early releases.
 
2019-03-21 06:07:54 AM  

I hereby demand that I be given a Fark account: CheatCommando: The German tanks that actually could run for more than a day without having to be sent back to a maintenance facility for a rebuild were no match for it.

Yep. The M4 wasn't perfect, but it worked, and when it didn't, it was easy to fix. Biggest problem was ammo stowage causing them to burn out. It wasn't the gas engine, the M4A2s were diesel and they burned at the same rate. New ammo stowage in the floor in water surrounded bins fixed that.

Change a transmission? In a Sherman, two hours. In a Panther? Start by removing the turret.


https://archives.library.illinois.edu​/​blog/poor-defense-sherman-tanks-ww2/
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
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