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.

(Asia Times)   The F-35, procured as a supersonic fighter, will be greatly restricted from flying that fast because they hardly ever need to, it's really just a nicety, and it burns the tail off   (asiatimes.com) divider line
    More: Fail, F-35 Lightning II, F-35 fighter jet, United States Navy, Fighter aircraft, Supersonic, Aircraft, Aerial warfare, Lockheed Martin  
•       •       •

1858 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 May 2020 at 10:45 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


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

 
2020-05-18 9:09:51 AM  
We can't scrap this program! We've already spent 1.5 Trillion Dollars! We'd look like idiots!
 
2020-05-18 9:44:03 AM  
It's an opportunity to spend more money.  That's how cost plus contracts work.
 
2020-05-18 10:37:28 AM  
Funny that I was watching Pentagon Wars last night... for the 100th time I think

Can't get the video embed thing to work... But it's free if you have Amazon Prime.

https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA
 
2020-05-18 10:48:19 AM  

Sid Vicious' Corpse: We can't scrap this program! We've already spent 1.5 Trillion Dollars! We'd look like idiots!


Well, a trillion here, and a trillion there, and one day you may start spending real money.
 
2020-05-18 10:54:03 AM  
Remember this whenever you ask about single payer and some deeply concerned budget hawk asks "How are you going to pay for that!?"

See also, Littoral Combat Ship.
 
2020-05-18 10:55:25 AM  

Sid Vicious' Corpse: We can't scrap this program! We've already spent 1.5 Trillion Dollars! We'd look like idiots!


Well, there's that and the possibility that starting over with the same Gov't/Industry partners won't get anything better.
 
2020-05-18 10:56:04 AM  
That's a pretty mediocre article.

Yes, the F-15 and F-16 are designed to be capable of Mach 2+. Which they can't do with much of any external stores mounted and by the way, they'll run out of fuel REALLY fast if they do try. The Super Hornet isn't a Mach 2 fighter either.

And pilots just don't fly supersonic much at all. It burns a lot of fuel, is restricted over most places, and just usually isn't a thing.

Not saying the F-35 program hasn't had a lot of problems, but compared to some of the issues it's had this one just doesn't seem to be a thing.
 
2020-05-18 10:56:54 AM  
Rapmaster2000:

See also, Littoral Combat Ship.

I can't wait to buy one for $500 on the US-SURPLUS.GOV auction site!!

Throw a 25HP Evinrude on the back and I've got me a fishing boat!
 
2020-05-18 10:57:28 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Remember this whenever you ask about single payer and some deeply concerned budget hawk asks "How are you going to pay for that!?"

See also, Littoral Combat Ship.


They should rename it "Figgorative Combat Ship".
 
2020-05-18 11:03:53 AM  
Jets only fly that fast when serving as an interceptor (or in a nuclear strike mission). Far more efficient to save fuel and stick to cruising speeds. The core roles of ground support and air superiority don't require speed often.
 
2020-05-18 11:08:00 AM  
Where do you get funding for something like this?
You don't actually think they spent $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?
 
2020-05-18 11:09:10 AM  
See what happens when you stop designing airplanes with these?

purdue.eduView Full Size


Probably also why it's been nearly 9 years since the US has had the ability to launch a human into space.
 
2020-05-18 11:09:34 AM  

steve_wmn: Well, there's that and the possibility that starting over with the same Gov't/Industry partners won't get anything better.


Dunno. The Boeing X-32 is starting to look like maybe the version we should have purchased for the A and C models of what we want to do.
 
2020-05-18 11:17:34 AM  

dittybopper: See what happens when you stop designing airplanes with these?

[purdue.edu image 360x211]

Probably also why it's been nearly 9 years since the US has had the ability to launch a human into space.


9 more days. weather permitting.
 
2020-05-18 11:18:13 AM  

dittybopper: See what happens when you stop designing airplanes with these?

[purdue.edu image 360x211]

Probably also why it's been nearly 9 years since the US has had the ability to launch a human into space.


Slide rules are what made the F-106 and its area-ruled fuselage - one of the fastest and, in my opinion, graceful interceptors ever made.  It hurts that none were preserved as airworthy.

I do not understand why we keep trying to make "swiss army knife" combat aircraft that may do everything, but only do it poorly - and they don't simplify anything or save any money.  In the case of the F-35, it seems like it can't really do anything, except look cool to some people, and make some people money.
 
2020-05-18 11:23:47 AM  
"Here I thought the F-14 was a piece of shiat." My dad, retired Naval aviator.
 
2020-05-18 11:25:05 AM  

StarshipAngel: dittybopper: See what happens when you stop designing airplanes with these?

[purdue.edu image 360x211]

Probably also why it's been nearly 9 years since the US has had the ability to launch a human into space.

Slide rules are what made the F-106 and its area-ruled fuselage - one of the fastest and, in my opinion, graceful interceptors ever made.  It hurts that none were preserved as airworthy.

I do not understand why we keep trying to make "swiss army knife" combat aircraft that may do everything, but only do it poorly - and they don't simplify anything or save any money.  In the case of the F-35, it seems like it can't really do anything, except look cool to some people, and make some people money.


In theory it is much cheaper. Also, the number of companies that can design and produce military aircraft is dwindling. Have you noticed how we have kept the F15/F18/A1/F16 around for a long time? We still have mission-specific aircraft - they are just old airframes with modern avionics and payloads.
 
2020-05-18 11:31:38 AM  

akula: That's a pretty mediocre article.

Yes, the F-15 and F-16 are designed to be capable of Mach 2+. Which they can't do with much of any external stores mounted and by the way, they'll run out of fuel REALLY fast if they do try. The Super Hornet isn't a Mach 2 fighter either.

And pilots just don't fly supersonic much at all. It burns a lot of fuel, is restricted over most places, and just usually isn't a thing.

Not saying the F-35 program hasn't had a lot of problems, but compared to some of the issues it's had this one just doesn't seem to be a thing.


It is supposed to cruise at supersonic speeds.  A huge problem with F-15/F-16 flight at supersonic speed is that it has to be on afterburned, which is something like 10% as efficient as non-afterburner power.  So a F-35 should be able to go there and back again (and only refuel behind friendly lines).

/firstest with the mostest hasn't changed
//but it doesn't mean you can't strap ramjet-powered missiles to a F-16 and fire a loooong way from your target
///no, not the hypersonic BS Russia is peddling, just supersonic.
 
2020-05-18 11:37:51 AM  

madgonad: StarshipAngel: dittybopper: See what happens when you stop designing airplanes with these?

[purdue.edu image 360x211]

Probably also why it's been nearly 9 years since the US has had the ability to launch a human into space.

Slide rules are what made the F-106 and its area-ruled fuselage - one of the fastest and, in my opinion, graceful interceptors ever made.  It hurts that none were preserved as airworthy.

I do not understand why we keep trying to make "swiss army knife" combat aircraft that may do everything, but only do it poorly - and they don't simplify anything or save any money.  In the case of the F-35, it seems like it can't really do anything, except look cool to some people, and make some people money.

In theory it is much cheaper. Also, the number of companies that can design and produce military aircraft is dwindling. Have you noticed how we have kept the F15/F18/A1/F16 around for a long time? We still have mission-specific aircraft - they are just old airframes with modern avionics and payloads.


That's the point - on paper and on the press releases it claims that is saves money, but it seems like it doesn't - the aircraft cost way way more, the maintenance is a nightmare, and each of those mission-specific, older, airframes that you mentioned seem to be be able to beat it at their specialty - when lives are on the line, an generic "good enough" aircraft is not really "good enough."  Also, if the airplane stays broken or cannot operate at its design specs, it is not very useful.  I know that right now we are not up against any adversaries that can go toe to toe with even the previous generation stuff, much less what the F-35 can do on paper - but the need may arise, and the F-35 ONLY looks good on paper.  It is like when you let engineers make a thing but don't let any real world wrenches torture test it before it gets released - on paper, and in the real world, don't match up.  The F-35 is making itself into a great example of this.  I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, just this seems like a very real issue, at least from my point of view.
 
2020-05-18 11:38:39 AM  

akula: That's a pretty mediocre article.

Yes, the F-15 and F-16 are designed to be capable of Mach 2+. Which they can't do with much of any external stores mounted and by the way, they'll run out of fuel REALLY fast if they do try. The Super Hornet isn't a Mach 2 fighter either.

And pilots just don't fly supersonic much at all. It burns a lot of fuel, is restricted over most places, and just usually isn't a thing.

Not saying the F-35 program hasn't had a lot of problems, but compared to some of the issues it's had this one just doesn't seem to be a thing.


They asked for and paid for an airpalne to do that thing and the services planned on using it that way. So I'd say it matters.

I also suspect that if it's damaging the airplane in afterburner, it will also damage the aircraft at other thrust settings. It will just take a long longer to manifest the damage, likely years, but I think we'll read about early rework on aft sections in the future.
 
2020-05-18 11:42:31 AM  

mrmopar5287: steve_wmn: Well, there's that and the possibility that starting over with the same Gov't/Industry partners won't get anything better.

Dunno. The Boeing X-32 is starting to look like maybe the version we should have purchased for the A and C models of what we want to do.


I did kind of like the looks of those prototypes somehow, but I'm not convinced Boeing would be any better at delivering a working next generation fighter than Lockheed and partners. They're both much better at powerpoint engineering than delivering in the real world these days.
 
2020-05-18 11:52:59 AM  

StarshipAngel: madgonad: StarshipAngel: dittybopper: See what happens when you stop designing airplanes with these?

[purdue.edu image 360x211]

Probably also why it's been nearly 9 years since the US has had the ability to launch a human into space.

Slide rules are what made the F-106 and its area-ruled fuselage - one of the fastest and, in my opinion, graceful interceptors ever made.  It hurts that none were preserved as airworthy.

I do not understand why we keep trying to make "swiss army knife" combat aircraft that may do everything, but only do it poorly - and they don't simplify anything or save any money.  In the case of the F-35, it seems like it can't really do anything, except look cool to some people, and make some people money.

In theory it is much cheaper. Also, the number of companies that can design and produce military aircraft is dwindling. Have you noticed how we have kept the F15/F18/A1/F16 around for a long time? We still have mission-specific aircraft - they are just old airframes with modern avionics and payloads.

That's the point - on paper and on the press releases it claims that is saves money, but it seems like it doesn't - the aircraft cost way way more, the maintenance is a nightmare, and each of those mission-specific, older, airframes that you mentioned seem to be be able to beat it at their specialty - when lives are on the line, an generic "good enough" aircraft is not really "good enough."  Also, if the airplane stays broken or cannot operate at its design specs, it is not very useful.  I know that right now we are not up against any adversaries that can go toe to toe with even the previous generation stuff, much less what the F-35 can do on paper - but the need may arise, and the F-35 ONLY looks good on paper.  It is like when you let engineers make a thing but don't let any real world wrenches torture test it before it gets released - on paper, and in the real world, don't match up.  The F-35 is making itself into a great example of this.  I' ...


The F35 combines all of the costly boondoggles of stealth with all of the costly boondoggles in maintaining support for all of the roles the plane fills across all of the missions. The Navy equivalent to the Littoral Combat Vessel.
 
2020-05-18 11:53:22 AM  

madgonad: Jets only fly that fast when serving as an interceptor (or in a nuclear strike mission). Far more efficient to save fuel and stick to cruising speeds. The core roles of ground support and air superiority don't require speed often.


You've obviously never read any Tom Clancy.

/ducks
 
2020-05-18 11:53:34 AM  
Doesn't matter anyway, because, like most any major American piece of military equipment, the Chinese have a missile for that.
 
2020-05-18 11:55:06 AM  
Any aircraft we intend to sell will suck.
 
2020-05-18 12:00:44 PM  

steve_wmn: mrmopar5287: steve_wmn: Well, there's that and the possibility that starting over with the same Gov't/Industry partners won't get anything better.

Dunno. The Boeing X-32 is starting to look like maybe the version we should have purchased for the A and C models of what we want to do.

I did kind of like the looks of those prototypes somehow, but I'm not convinced Boeing would be any better at delivering a working next generation fighter than Lockheed and partners. They're both much better at powerpoint engineering than delivering in the real world these days.


It was foolish to say that we were going to use one airframe (kinda, sorta) to do three tasks. USMC needs a replacement for the Harrier, so the X-35B model dominated the selection process with the lift fan performing better than the Boeing plan to use jet thrust for STOVL.

Still, cooler heads should have prevailed to split the program and use the X-32 for A and C model tasks.
 
2020-05-18 12:01:31 PM  

StarshipAngel: dittybopper: See what happens when you stop designing airplanes with these?

[purdue.edu image 360x211]

Probably also why it's been nearly 9 years since the US has had the ability to launch a human into space.

Slide rules are what made the F-106 and its area-ruled fuselage - one of the fastest and, in my opinion, graceful interceptors ever made.  It hurts that none were preserved as airworthy.

I do not understand why we keep trying to make "swiss army knife" combat aircraft that may do everything, but only do it poorly - and they don't simplify anything or save any money.  In the case of the F-35, it seems like it can't really do anything, except look cool to some people, and make some people money.


You answered your own question.
 
2020-05-18 12:02:10 PM  

madgonad: the number of companies that can design and produce military aircraft is dwindling. Have you noticed how we have kept the F15/F18/A1/F16 around for a long time? We still have mission-specific aircraft - they are just old airframes with modern avionics and payloads.

They're dwindling because they're not as necessary.  Weapon heydays come and go.  This has been going on since before humans invented history.  The M2 Browning debuted in 1933.  No one's been able to do appreciably better.  The 9mm Luger's been around since 1902.  FFS, chain mail was invented as early as the 5th century BC, to stop stabbing/piercing weapons.  It is useful -- as in, they're actually still making the stuff -- to this day at doing so.  But its modern applications are niche and far from any battlefield.

Arms races aren't infinite progressions; to the contrary, they're the beginning of a paradigm.  The arms race for combat aircraft had its heyday in the middle of the 20th century, when a state-of-the-art fighter could become obsolete in as little as three years.  These days it's still hard to find aircraft that can reliably shoot down an F-15, and if you manage to make one. . . what have you accomplished in terms of resources vs. mission objectives?

Designs rapidly reach the point of diminishing returns right around the time innovative minds start looking elsewhere.  In Europe, the sword eventually evolved into the rapier, arguably the apex of swordmaking, at a time they were rapidly becoming obsolete due to firearms.  The obsession with a "next-generation" fighter is itself the obsolete concept, not the current crop.  That's why the older designs are still kept around.  The F-35 is basically a glorified money laundering scheme, but it's more than that.  It's the 21st century's Yamato -- the last generation of battleship, a marvel of battleship engineering. . . also a huge strategic mistake, an obscenely expensive coffin, a revolting outcome of a country rotted at the top investing waaay too much precious resources into a dick-waving weapon that will get quickly overwhelmed when its many drawbacks are targeted.
 
2020-05-18 12:09:49 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Rapmaster2000:

See also, Littoral Combat Ship.

I can't wait to buy one for $500 on the US-SURPLUS.GOV auction site!!

Throw a 25HP Evinrude on the back and I've got me a fishing boat!


The little man in the boat?
 
2020-05-18 12:12:59 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-18 12:15:32 PM  

dragonchild: madgonad: the number of companies that can design and produce military aircraft is dwindling. Have you noticed how we have kept the F15/F18/A1/F16 around for a long time? We still have mission-specific aircraft - they are just old airframes with modern avionics and payloads.
They're dwindling because they're not as necessary.  Weapon heydays come and go.  This has been going on since before humans invented history.  The M2 Browning debuted in 1933.  No one's been able to do appreciably better.  The 9mm Luger's been around since 1902.  FFS, chain mail was invented as early as the 5th century BC, to stop stabbing/piercing weapons.  It is useful -- as in, they're actually still making the stuff -- to this day at doing so.  But its modern applications are niche and far from any battlefield.

Arms races aren't infinite progressions; to the contrary, they're the beginning of a paradigm.  The arms race for combat aircraft had its heyday in the middle of the 20th century, when a state-of-the-art fighter could become obsolete in as little as three years.  These days it's still hard to find aircraft that can reliably shoot down an F-15, and if you manage to make one. . . what have you accomplished in terms of resources vs. mission objectives?

Designs rapidly reach the point of diminishing returns right around the time innovative minds start looking elsewhere.  In Europe, the sword eventually evolved into the rapier, arguably the apex of swordmaking, at a time they were rapidly becoming obsolete due to firearms.  The obsession with a "next-generation" fighter is itself the obsolete concept, not the current crop.  That's why the older designs are still kept around.  The F-35 is basically a glorified money laundering scheme, but it's more than that.  It's the 21st century's Yamato -- the last generation of battleship, a marvel of battleship engineering. . . also a huge strategic mistake, an obscenely expensive coffin, a revolting outcome of a country rotted at the top investing waaay too much precious resources into a dick-waving weapon that will get quickly overwhelmed when its many drawbacks are targeted.


Obligatory:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-05-18 12:22:12 PM  

Esc7: Any aircraft we intend to sell will suck.


Apparently, so will any we intend to keep.
 
2020-05-18 12:25:38 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: It is supposed to cruise at supersonic speeds.  A huge problem with F-15/F-16 flight at supersonic speed is that it has to be on afterburned, which is something like 10% as efficient as non-afterburner power.  So a F-35 should be able to go there and back again (and only refuel behind friendly lines).


Article was referencing issues with the afterburner. F-35 isn't a true supercruise fighter, even though it kinda can.

Moreover, the issue was only found once, even with attempts to replicate it. They have even come up with a new coating that supposedly fixes the issue.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/​0​6/12/supersonic-speeds-could-cause-big​-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coatin​g/

Sure, a concern. Sure, somebody screwed up. Sure, the F-35 seems to be finding a lot of limitations pretty late in the program. But like I said, of all its issues, this one if pretty down the list. The abortion that ALIS is turning into is a bigger deal. The plane has some nifty capabilities, but Lockheed sure as hell has pulled one over on the US taxpayer, even though it's going to end up delivering on most promises (not all).
 
2020-05-18 12:37:54 PM  

akula: yet_another_wumpus: It is supposed to cruise at supersonic speeds.  A huge problem with F-15/F-16 flight at supersonic speed is that it has to be on afterburned, which is something like 10% as efficient as non-afterburner power.  So a F-35 should be able to go there and back again (and only refuel behind friendly lines).

Article was referencing issues with the afterburner. F-35 isn't a true supercruise fighter, even though it kinda can.

Moreover, the issue was only found once, even with attempts to replicate it. They have even come up with a new coating that supposedly fixes the issue.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/0​6/12/supersonic-speeds-could-cause-big​-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coatin​g/

Sure, a concern. Sure, somebody screwed up. Sure, the F-35 seems to be finding a lot of limitations pretty late in the program. But like I said, of all its issues, this one if pretty down the list. The abortion that ALIS is turning into is a bigger deal. The plane has some nifty capabilities, but Lockheed sure as hell has pulled one over on the US taxpayer, even though it's going to end up delivering on most promises (not all).


Yes, then its a problem.  Afterburners suck outside of combat (and Blackbirds).  Looks like I fell for yet another F-22 bait-and-switch trick.  We really should stick to F-16s and move to drones as possible.
 
2020-05-18 12:46:48 PM  

mrmopar5287: steve_wmn: Well, there's that and the possibility that starting over with the same Gov't/Industry partners won't get anything better.

Dunno. The Boeing X-32 is starting to look like maybe the version we should have purchased for the A and C models of what we want to do.


Based on what Boeing has been producing lately, it'd probably be even worse.

/Like the Boeing lunar lander.
//Wait, there isn't one, because they couldn't meet the specs in a competition designed to help them win the contract? Oh well.
 
2020-05-18 12:47:20 PM  

Esc7: Any aircraft we intend to sell will suck.


Except for the new F-15s, of course.
 
2020-05-18 1:06:50 PM  

mrmopar5287: steve_wmn: Well, there's that and the possibility that starting over with the same Gov't/Industry partners won't get anything better.

Dunno. The Boeing X-32 is starting to look like maybe the version we should have purchased for the A and C models of what we want to do.


I dunno, performance and capabilities may have been there, but with that front air scoop it looks like a freaking basking shark to me.
 
2020-05-18 1:08:32 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
hej
2020-05-18 1:11:03 PM  
Well.... at least they're cool looking.
 
2020-05-18 1:15:25 PM  

madgonad: StarshipAngel: dittybopper: See what happens when you stop designing airplanes with these?

[purdue.edu image 360x211]

Probably also why it's been nearly 9 years since the US has had the ability to launch a human into space.

Slide rules are what made the F-106 and its area-ruled fuselage - one of the fastest and, in my opinion, graceful interceptors ever made.  It hurts that none were preserved as airworthy.

I do not understand why we keep trying to make "swiss army knife" combat aircraft that may do everything, but only do it poorly - and they don't simplify anything or save any money.  In the case of the F-35, it seems like it can't really do anything, except look cool to some people, and make some people money.

In theory it is much cheaper. Also, the number of companies that can design and produce military aircraft is dwindling. Have you noticed how we have kept the F15/F18/A1/F16 around for a long time? We still have mission-specific aircraft - they are just old airframes with modern avionics and payloads.


Except, it's really not.

If you hand me a very nicely made and expensive multi-tool, it's still not going to be as efficient at doing what needs to be done as a set of individualized, specialized tools for each task.  It's going to take me longer to do the job with the multi-tool, which is also a significant cost, and I'll probably more like skin a knuckle or something that way.
 
2020-05-18 1:24:37 PM  

Slives: I dunno, performance and capabilities may have been there, but with that front air scoop it looks like a freaking basking shark to me.


Form follows function. The air scoop was required for the engine to function in STOVL operation, but the design could have been refined a bit when put into production.

Paint some shark teeth nose art on it and it's fine.
 
2020-05-18 1:39:40 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Funny that I was watching Pentagon Wars last night... for the 100th time I think

Can't get the video embed thing to work... But it's free if you have Amazon Prime.

https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA


That clip is what I show people when they ask what it's like in the Army.

I can't even count the times I was told to do something, then angrily asked why I did it. Even having an email chain showing you were told to do that didn't save you an ass chewing.
 
2020-05-18 1:49:11 PM  
Gov't "Here is a gazillion dollars. We need you to make an aircraft that does A, B, and C."
Lockheed "Thanks for the money.  We made your aircraft. It doesn't do A very well, we haven't figured out how to do B yet, but we should have that down in maybe 6 years, and if you do C, it catches on fire. Sign here for delivery."
Gov't "Didn't we have a contract for A B and C in exchange for all that money we gave you? "
Lockheed *shrugs* "Your point?"
Gov't "What if we gave you a bazillion more dollars, would that help?"
Lockheed "...couldn't hurt."
 
2020-05-18 2:17:55 PM  

MythDragon: Gov't "Here is a gazillion dollars. We need you to make an aircraft that does A, B, and C."
Lockheed "Thanks for the money.  We made your aircraft. It doesn't do A very well, we haven't figured out how to do B yet, but we should have that down in maybe 6 years, and if you do C, it catches on fire. Sign here for delivery."
Gov't "Didn't we have a contract for A B and C in exchange for all that money we gave you? "
Lockheed *shrugs* "Your point?"
Gov't "What if we gave you a bazillion more dollars, would that help?"
Lockheed "...couldn't hurt."


You left out the step where Lockheed says "We'll give you a nice job working on our other contracts after you retire if you roll over on this contract".
 
2020-05-18 2:20:24 PM  
Projects like the F-35 and Ford-class carriers go way back:

WARNING: - Almost an hour long.

French Pre-Dreadnoughts - When Hotels go to War
Youtube 9ygXLnRAm-A
 
2020-05-18 2:23:13 PM  

dittybopper: Except, it's really not.

If you hand me a very nicely made and expensive multi-tool, it's still not going to be as efficient at doing what needs to be done as a set of individualized, specialized tools for each task.  It's going to take me longer to do the job with the multi-tool, which is also a significant cost, and I'll probably more like skin a knuckle or something that way.


It is really just a stealth F16. The F15, F16, and F18 have all been turned into attack and ground support variants. The only plane that has actually stayed in its role in the last 40 years is the F14 and that was really a plane designed to carry a missile (AIM54). The previous generations all eventually became jacks of all trades, at least we started with that premise. The issue has always been with the stealth or bugs in the avionics, not the airframe.
 
2020-05-18 2:40:29 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: It's an opportunity to spend more money.  That's how cost plus contracts work.


Socialize the costs/liabilities
Privatize the profits
 
2020-05-18 2:43:51 PM  

pup.socket: Sid Vicious' Corpse: We can't scrap this program! We've already spent 1.5 Trillion Dollars! We'd look like idiots!

Well, a trillion here, and a trillion there, and one day you may start spending real money.


1 trillion seconds is ~ 31,700 years.
 
2020-05-18 2:58:33 PM  

dragonchild: The obsession with a "next-generation" fighter is itself the obsolete concept, not the current crop.  That's why the older designs are still kept around.  The F-35 is basically a glorified money laundering scheme, but it's more than that.  It's the 21st century's Yamato -- the last generation of battleship, a marvel of battleship engineering. . . also a huge strategic mistake, an obscenely expensive coffin, a revolting outcome of a country rotted at the top investing waaay too much precious resources into a dick-waving weapon that will get quickly overwhelmed when its many drawbacks are targeted.


Yup. This is not only a cold war weapon, but has all the problems of building super weapons.

If you properly go to war, and not just bombing guys with RPGs and IEDs but a real enemy, you need easy to build, easy to maintain weapons. Something you can ramp up to factory line production. And then you throw more craft into the fight and win.

It's like Panzers vs T-34s. Panzers were kinda hand-crafted. The Russian T-34s came off an assembly line. The Panzers would win 1 on 1, but the Russians won by numerical superiority.

Not that I think a serious war is on the horizon in any reasonable timeline.
 
2020-05-18 3:00:48 PM  
We cannot spare a single cent of that jet's funding for things like healthcare or education, though. That would be wasteful.
 
Displayed 50 of 65 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
  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.