F-35

[carlfense]

The Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive weapons system ever developed. It is plagued by design flaws and cost overruns. It flies only in good weather. The computers that run it lack the software they need for combat. No one can say for certain when the plane will work as advertised. Until recently, the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, was operating with a free hand—paid handsomely for its own mistakes. Looking back, even the general now in charge of the program can’t believe how we got to this point. In sum: all systems go!

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/09/joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-martin

[zoogs]

Bummer. It's a beautiful plane.

[carlfense]

Bummer. It's a beautiful plane.

'tis.

[rawhide]

Dismay, frustration, anger, sadness and cynicism; all in one article :

 

and other feelings/emotions I failed to elaborate on.

 

 

l972: worked on AC130's and Flll-F's. The 111's had the adjustable wing sweep that had problems at first. Nuthin' like the JSF though. And at 14m at the time pretty damn expensive.

[BigRedBuster]

OK...I have to ask because this has been on my mind pertaining to projects like this.

 

For the people in the military, is this project over designed? Meaning, do we really need everything this plane was supposed to do?

 

I know we need an updated plane simply because the planes like this are getting old. But, we have so much air superiority that do we really need such an amazing jump in technology like this?

 

I would think that the government would be able to get new planes with small increases in technology that fly just as good or a little better than our current planes for a fraction of the price and still be light years ahead of 99.9% of any other pilots on the planet.

 

This just seems like one of those projects where the designers went over board to impress people and the brass in the military got hard ons over it and nobody ever stopped to ask.....do we really need this?

[StPaulHusker]

OK...I have to ask because this has been on my mind pertaining to projects like this.

 

For the people in the military, is this project over designed? Meaning, do we really need everything this plane was supposed to do?

 

I know we need an updated plane simply because the planes like this are getting old. But, we have so much air superiority that do we really need such an amazing jump in technology like this?

 

I would think that the government would be able to get new planes with small increases in technology that fly just as good or a little better than our current planes for a fraction of the price and still be light years ahead of 99.9% of any other pilots on the planet.

 

This just seems like one of those projects where the designers went over board to impress people and the brass in the military got hard ons over it and nobody ever stopped to ask.....do we really need this?

My business partner is in the Air Force. When he gets back to the office, I will ask his opinion and lay it out here. Not that it carries a ton of weight but it might give some perspective.

 

He is not a pilot but does very dangerous work while deployed, FWIW.

[carlfense]

This just seems like one of those projects where the designers went over board to impress people and the brass in the military got hard ons over it and nobody ever stopped to ask.....do we really need this?

I'm not in the military, but IMO, no. We don't really need this. There is an old cliche about always fighting the last war . . . and to my admittedly untrained eye this looks like a weapon designed to fight a war from decades ago.

 

The future isn't manned aircraft. This is a colossal waste. Over a trillion dollars.

[rawhide]

F-18's and F-16's and F-15's all have superiority over almost every other country except maybe the Ruskies or Chinese. The F-22 has most every other plane beat depending more on pilots than aircraft. If the Corps are saying the airframes of the previous acft are getting old; what do they say about the BuFF's still flyin' since '62. The way the Govt. has companies engineer these acft unless there is poor prev. maintenance most acft will last a long time. The F-35 doesn't every hold a flame to the capabilities of the A-10 for close air support; grunts dig the big gun.

 

A plane to replace four planes. Tropic Thunder quote: Never go full.......... especially for 1T bucks

 

 

Yup Carl, I think unmanned hi G maneuverable planes will be the thing; cheaper and you can recycle the pilot if it crashes.

[zoogs]

IMO, yes. The F-16s are getting ancient. "Except maybe the Russians or the Chinese" isn't going to be good enough. The F-22 is a nice plane, but the government ended up ordering a fraction of what the original program called for -- which is what drives up the per unit cost. Hand out a contract for 750 planes and end up saying, "JK lol, we only want 238 now."

 

In 2040 the F-35 is going to be the backbone of the air fleet. Surely by that time we can't expect to lean on the F-16 anymore.

 

It sounds only like Lockheed has made a mess of things.

[rawhide]

I agree to disagree Zoog's

[zoogs]

I don't ever want to say "Well, we are going to be unable to establish aerial superiority in ___ potential proxy conflict because we can't really match up well enough against the Chinese or Russians."

 

 

[StPaulHusker]

Words from my Air Force business partner:

 

There are 3 versions of the F-35. A, B, C. A is the Air Force version. It is operational and has been for some time. B & C are the marine Corp and Navy versions, respectively, for use on aircraft carriers. These are the problem children. They have not been able to get things right from the start with these 2 versions. They have tried to implement vertical lift which is unnecessary due to the capabilities of the carriers. They are also less fuel efficient than the A version because of the smaller wing span and some other things.

 

He believes that the F-35 is a step backwards from the F-22. He believes that the F-22 is the most advanced weapon there is in terms of jets. He thought that the trillion dollars could have been spent refurbishing and upgrading F-16's and F-18's and would have been more effective.

 

Unmanned aircraft he says has it's pro's and con's. Unfortunately, he had to go into a meeting so we didn't get that far.

 

Hope it helps.

[BigRedBuster]

So, are we buying the "A" version and scrapping the others? Can the "A" version have minor modifications to make it a good plane for the other uses?

 

Or, do we say screw the entire thing and just buy more F22s?

[zoogs]

The other uses are precisely the reason for the 'B' and 'C' versions. The F35C is a carrier capable version of the F35, with the varying size/etc modifications necessary (carriers also have shorter runways). It's the F35B that has either the short or vertical take off and landing (SVTOL) requirements, and that's for I believe the even smaller ships used by the Marine Corps, as well as the smaller carriers of our foreign partners. The F35 is meant to replace a very wide range of aircraft, after all, and not just in the United States; it includes the British STVOL Harriers.

 

The F-35 is a lot smaller than the F-22 I think, and also has a significantly reduced payload capacity. Whereas, the F-22's primary role is air superiority and replacing the F-15 fleet. Although the F-22 also has pretty good ground attack capability....I think mainly it's that we would be able to field a much larger amount of F-35s. I wouldn't mind having more F-22s, personally. But I'm basing most of these thoughts on how beautiful these planes are....so my opinion isn't really reliable

 

I'm not really sure how big of an upgrade the F-35 is going to be over the F/A-18E/Fs in the Navy. So yeah, maybe this isn't a very cost effective program. I do feel that we need something to take over the F-16s and even the F-18s eventually. And we're pretty far down this particular road. Lockheed gotta get their poop together.

[BigRedBuster]

So, the problems they are having with the "b" and "c" versions, are they some extreme upgrade in technology that we really don't need? Or, are they in the basic structure and function of the plane?

 

Meaning, are they simply trying to figure out how to get the plane to fly? OR, are they trying to figure out something like some special radar system amunition system that is way above what we currently have but what we do have would work?