1) complexity kills
2) complexity and high costs do guarantee technical superiority. usually the result is the opposite.
3) 400,000 helmets and 100+ million still cannot prevent it being shot down by 100 stinger missiles -- ($44,000) each, or being overwheilmed by 5-1 with F-16 equivalent jets (18 million) each. The program is fiction to keep some generals' egos in tact and the gravy train going for cronies.
2) complexity and high costs do guarantee technical superiority. usually the result is the opposite.
3) 400,000 helmets and 100+ million still cannot prevent it being shot down by 100 stinger missiles -- ($44,000) each, or being overwheilmed by 5-1 with F-16 equivalent jets (18 million) each. The program is fiction to keep some generals' egos in tact and the gravy train going for cronies.
2
Here are two axioms I, as an old, experienced engineer live by:
1. It's not how it works, it's how it breaks.
2. Keep it simple, stupid.
Marketing and managing in the technical fields, particularly military technology, are done by incompetent engineers. Good/great engineers stay in engineering and are bossed by incompetents who promise too much and deliver too little.
1. It's not how it works, it's how it breaks.
2. Keep it simple, stupid.
Marketing and managing in the technical fields, particularly military technology, are done by incompetent engineers. Good/great engineers stay in engineering and are bossed by incompetents who promise too much and deliver too little.
4
The F-35C (Naval variation, the C stands for Carrier) should be scrapped altogether. It costs more than an F-35A (Airforce variation) PLUS an F-18E/F (Current Navy fighter). The Navy could get a brand new F-18 and BUY an F-35A for the Air Force!
Yet, the F-18 needs to be phased out. The replacement is NOT the F-35C. It simply does not meet the Navy's needs. The solution is to revive the F-23 - the jet that "lost" to the F-22 two decades ago.
In fact, the F-23C was faster and stealthier than the F-22, and could fly further. It is ESSENTIAL that a Navy jet be capable of flying a LONG ways. Not only is the Pacific ocean incredibly large, but potential rivals have worked hard on their coastal defences, forcing our carriers to stay farther out to sea.
The F-23C would outclass the F-35C in every meaningful metric. And, more importantly, would outclass every potential enemy's jets - something the F-35C DEFINITELY CANNOT do. And, if updated with the latest avionics and jet engines, it would restore to the Navy a vital capability, lost years ago: A combat radius of 1,000 miles.
Yet, the F-18 needs to be phased out. The replacement is NOT the F-35C. It simply does not meet the Navy's needs. The solution is to revive the F-23 - the jet that "lost" to the F-22 two decades ago.
In fact, the F-23C was faster and stealthier than the F-22, and could fly further. It is ESSENTIAL that a Navy jet be capable of flying a LONG ways. Not only is the Pacific ocean incredibly large, but potential rivals have worked hard on their coastal defences, forcing our carriers to stay farther out to sea.
The F-23C would outclass the F-35C in every meaningful metric. And, more importantly, would outclass every potential enemy's jets - something the F-35C DEFINITELY CANNOT do. And, if updated with the latest avionics and jet engines, it would restore to the Navy a vital capability, lost years ago: A combat radius of 1,000 miles.
2
It has been said that when the F-A18 Hornet replaced the A-6 Intruder it could carry half the bomb load, half the distance but twice as fast.
1
What is not mentioned by this article is that stealth technology is eroding as sensors and computers get better. I'm sure everybody has noticed the vast improvement in laptops, cell phones and digital cameras since the 1991 Gulf War. There has also been a big improvement in sensors. Fast computers can process ever fainter signals out of radar data. Networks of geographically dispersed sensors can do things that individual sensors cannot. Infrared sensors has greatly improved, providing alternatives to radar.
Aviation Week reports that counter-stealth systems are starting to be deployed by the Russians and Chinese. They are based on the types of low frequency radars mentioned in the article. The very expensive stealth technology in the F-35 may be on the verge of obsolescence.
I think it is worth pointing out that the US Navy and the US Air Force have made opposite bets on stealth technology. The US Navy depends on radar guided air defense systems like Aegis to protect their ships from air attack. If stealth wins, the US Navy will get sunk. If the radars win, our very expensive and unreliable stealth aircraft will all be shot down by radar guided missiles. Both services can't be right.
http://aviationweek.com/technology/new-radars-irst-strengthen-stealth-de...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/commentary-do-russian-radar-developments...
Aviation Week reports that counter-stealth systems are starting to be deployed by the Russians and Chinese. They are based on the types of low frequency radars mentioned in the article. The very expensive stealth technology in the F-35 may be on the verge of obsolescence.
I think it is worth pointing out that the US Navy and the US Air Force have made opposite bets on stealth technology. The US Navy depends on radar guided air defense systems like Aegis to protect their ships from air attack. If stealth wins, the US Navy will get sunk. If the radars win, our very expensive and unreliable stealth aircraft will all be shot down by radar guided missiles. Both services can't be right.
http://aviationweek.com/technology/new-radars-irst-strengthen-stealth-de...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/commentary-do-russian-radar-developments...
3
The point of the F-35 isn't to work properly. It's to spread as many taxpayer dollars as possible into as many congressional districts as possible.
1
Wasted money, which could have been used to build subways, high-speed trains, hospitals, ...
Despite the atrocious cost, and the design for missions that no longer either exist or have any great utility, and the pretty well crazy incorporation of a pilot in an aircraft almost completely informed and operated externally, the F-35 has unlimited vulnerability to unsophisticated countermeasures, like, for example, no stealthiness for any radar, visible, or other electromagnetic detection not "usual". That is, it can be seen. It can't dogfight, because it's what... visible. It can't defend itself because, like anything manned, it is slower than munitions, like, for example bullets or cheap rockets. It has almost no range, and that stealthy aircraft carrier to base it on doesn't exist.
If our national concept is guns instead of butter, there are other options, but I hope we shift the concept instead.
If our national concept is guns instead of butter, there are other options, but I hope we shift the concept instead.
F-35, Joint Strike Fighter has 8 other nations paying partners. When and if the plane begins service, the US will be paying retail rate for the plane, and all of the others will pay wholesale. The program will be similar to buying prescription drugs in a foreign country that was developed by US companies. Drugs you can easily buy cheaper in Canada, cost us in the US double or more.
1
Aircraft age is not an issue. Look at the B-52 which still has mission responsibility and flies.
The F-16, A-10 and AV-8B are still operational, are in the force, can be maintained and seem to have unique performance capability that the real fighting units need and do not want to lose.
The annual program cost of each of the three aircraft is well understood.
Why drop any of those programs on the basis that vested interests claim the F-35 can perform some part of all three of their missions?
Especially when the F-35 has trouble meeting its own basic mission, such as out-performing the older F-16.
And when it is obvious that the F-35 cannot fly like or carry the weapon load of an A-10.
The F-16, A-10 and AV-8B are still operational, are in the force, can be maintained and seem to have unique performance capability that the real fighting units need and do not want to lose.
The annual program cost of each of the three aircraft is well understood.
Why drop any of those programs on the basis that vested interests claim the F-35 can perform some part of all three of their missions?
Especially when the F-35 has trouble meeting its own basic mission, such as out-performing the older F-16.
And when it is obvious that the F-35 cannot fly like or carry the weapon load of an A-10.
2
The F-35 has a considerably greater payload then the A-10 and can actually fly better in all envelops thanks to immense amounts of body lift. The A-10 and AV-8B can't fly forever, spares haven't been manufactured for decades and they are only flying now thanks to cannibalising other airframes.
Only 1/10th of the B-52's are still in service and they wont be operated in areas that haven't been cleared of enemy air installations, guess what you need to do that? An aircraft that evades radar.
Only 1/10th of the B-52's are still in service and they wont be operated in areas that haven't been cleared of enemy air installations, guess what you need to do that? An aircraft that evades radar.
2
F-35 is not David, it is Goliath. Check the MTOW of F-35, it is as heavy as heavy American and Russian air superiority fighters. The Russian are building a lighter Mig with India to complement the heavy fighter based on stealth Su-30 and the Chinese are evaluating two light weight fighters to complement a heavy fighter/bomber.
F-35 is going to be by far the heaviest and slowest fighter in the sky when facing off against Russian/Chinese air superiority fighters or light weight dogfighters.
F-35 is going to be by far the heaviest and slowest fighter in the sky when facing off against Russian/Chinese air superiority fighters or light weight dogfighters.
2
Actually no.
Russian/Chinese/Indian air superiority fighters are much heavier than the F-35. The Su-30/35 are ~40,000 lbs, the J-20 is ~43,000 lbs and the Pak-FA is ~40,000 lbs.
The Tejas, J-31 and JF-17 are all lightweight multi-role aircraft. All of which lack significantly compared to the F-35.
The F-35 is also significantly better than anything currently being produced. The APG-81 is an improved variant of the F-22's APG-77, the Baracuda is the best RWR around, the EOTS is one of (if not the) best EOTS in the skies, and it's stealth is better than the F-22 according to USAF personnel.
Russian/Chinese/Indian air superiority fighters are much heavier than the F-35. The Su-30/35 are ~40,000 lbs, the J-20 is ~43,000 lbs and the Pak-FA is ~40,000 lbs.
The Tejas, J-31 and JF-17 are all lightweight multi-role aircraft. All of which lack significantly compared to the F-35.
The F-35 is also significantly better than anything currently being produced. The APG-81 is an improved variant of the F-22's APG-77, the Baracuda is the best RWR around, the EOTS is one of (if not the) best EOTS in the skies, and it's stealth is better than the F-22 according to USAF personnel.
1
Why do we continue to refer to the US Military as a 'defense' system? At this point it is abundantly clear that its primary use is offense.
2
Exactly what President Eisenhower warned against (and he knew then it was already a fait accompli) has not only come to pass, but has become institutionalized in our country. The intel-military-industrial complex has not only acquired "undue influence and power", but, in the process, has reduced our nation's ability to sustain its own infrastructure. The taxpayers have been deluded and bled almost dry, with no recourse. Congress and the Pentagon's revolving door policies have insured ex-military personnel move
easily into private sector defense positions and have undue influence on our "lawmakers", thus greasing the wheels for endless cost overruns and outrageous lapses of what was once called "common sense". This report's attempt to align this plane's development with the biblical David is wrong. We've been building a lumbering Goliath for years, with no forceful oversight, no representation of the taxpayers, no alternatives but to "press on" at incredible expense.
We do not need this fighter. We need security, but better to spend some money on our own hopelessly inadequate Pentagon IT security than on the F-35. Chinese hackers routinely make off with who-knows-how-advanced "secrets" by hacking our unsecured databases.
At the same time, we have advanced technology in some "weapon systems", such as the B-2, with it's widely publicized wing ionization technology, that could have huge benefits on private sector aviation design, yet we are held hostage by "ourselves".
easily into private sector defense positions and have undue influence on our "lawmakers", thus greasing the wheels for endless cost overruns and outrageous lapses of what was once called "common sense". This report's attempt to align this plane's development with the biblical David is wrong. We've been building a lumbering Goliath for years, with no forceful oversight, no representation of the taxpayers, no alternatives but to "press on" at incredible expense.
We do not need this fighter. We need security, but better to spend some money on our own hopelessly inadequate Pentagon IT security than on the F-35. Chinese hackers routinely make off with who-knows-how-advanced "secrets" by hacking our unsecured databases.
At the same time, we have advanced technology in some "weapon systems", such as the B-2, with it's widely publicized wing ionization technology, that could have huge benefits on private sector aviation design, yet we are held hostage by "ourselves".
2
Living on the lake Ontario shore during the summers, I once watched a Canadian documentary on the selling of this plane to their military. It was said that they were coerced into buying these planes despite the fact that both the norwegians and French had superior entries to offer.
1
The Russian air force in WWII is a perfect counterpoint to the tail our defense department is chasing. They turned out hundreds of thousands of simple, easy-to-fly, easy-to-service airplanes out of raw materials easily procured. Then they trained hundreds of thousands of fighter pilots, also from raw materials easily obtained. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to fly one of these planes. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work on one, either - any capable garge mechanic of today could do it.
The sheer force of numbers won the war on the eastern front. On the ground, and in the air.
The Pentagon is supremely good at onetwo things: Selling the public a pig in a poke and enriching their buddies and cronies in the aerospace industry.
The sheer force of numbers won the war on the eastern front. On the ground, and in the air.
The Pentagon is supremely good at onetwo things: Selling the public a pig in a poke and enriching their buddies and cronies in the aerospace industry.
1
With nod to the late great Rodney Dangerfield, a picture of the F-35 should be placed next to the definition of "obscene" in the dictionary.
The era of manned flight is over. This aircraft will not make us safer. The opposite is true. The money spent on it could have been spent on more effective weapons. More importantly, it could have been spent to improve the quality of life for us all.
It is easy to imagine the stories that will follow this plane. Its complexity will assure that it spends most of time on the ground being "maintained". Meanwhile, other air forces will overwhelm us by their sheer numbers. The superiority of he F-35 will be immaterial.
While much momey has been already spent, there is still time to salvage a bit. Stop production and kill the program.
The era of manned flight is over. This aircraft will not make us safer. The opposite is true. The money spent on it could have been spent on more effective weapons. More importantly, it could have been spent to improve the quality of life for us all.
It is easy to imagine the stories that will follow this plane. Its complexity will assure that it spends most of time on the ground being "maintained". Meanwhile, other air forces will overwhelm us by their sheer numbers. The superiority of he F-35 will be immaterial.
While much momey has been already spent, there is still time to salvage a bit. Stop production and kill the program.
1
I'd like to see sources. The USAF is 2x the size of any other air force. The F-35 is currently being procured in much greater numbers than any other fighter in any country.
Drones comparable in calability are not cheaper than mannecalability. Look at the MQ-4 and UCLAS. The MQ-4 costs more than the U-2, and had worse capability. The UCLAS is expected to be 50% more expensive than the F-35C, and it has less than 1/2 the payload and doesn't come close in sensors.
The F-35 program also isn't that expensive. The F-35 program will cost 1.3 trillion from 2001 to 2065. During that same time period, it would cost 4 trillion to operate all the aircraft the F-35 is replacing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/06/27/massive-cost-estimate-for...
Drones comparable in calability are not cheaper than mannecalability. Look at the MQ-4 and UCLAS. The MQ-4 costs more than the U-2, and had worse capability. The UCLAS is expected to be 50% more expensive than the F-35C, and it has less than 1/2 the payload and doesn't come close in sensors.
The F-35 program also isn't that expensive. The F-35 program will cost 1.3 trillion from 2001 to 2065. During that same time period, it would cost 4 trillion to operate all the aircraft the F-35 is replacing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/06/27/massive-cost-estimate-for...
2
Other air forces will overwhelm us with their numbers? That's simply not possible.
Eisenhower warned us against the influence of the military-industrial complex. He has been proven correct. Marx warned us that wealth in an unfettered capitalist system would inevitably be concentrated in the hands of a small class of top capitalists. He has been proven correct. Orwell warned us that government would seize people's minds through endless propaganda. He has been proven correct. But most Americans have none of the analytical skills to perceive any of these trends. We've brainwashed ourselves into thinking that the state of our nation as it is now is the only way things can be. Small cadres of political operative direct our political process; most voters use their voting franchise to elect puppets whose primary goal is to protect the status quo.
2
All the talk of the most expensive contract in history is simply ridiculous. Of course its the most expensive since it replaces THREE PROGRAMS. If you developed the FA 18 F16 and AV8B with three different jets the cost would be astronomical indeed, furthermore, the cost of maintaining three totally different airframe throughout their service life would also be astronomical. Comparing an F16 with the F35 is also nonsense. Though the F16 might be able to "outfly" the F35, the entire purpose of the F35 is to dispatch the F16 long before the F16 even knows its there. This was very prominently displayed when the F15 was put in actual simulated combat with the F22. BTW, in those exercises the kill ratio was over 90 to zero. If all you are considering on a fighter aircraft is how maneuverable it is your knowledge of air combat ended in WWII. The F35 like the F22 are much more than airplanes, they are weapon "platforms" they lower they encompass the whole spectrum of air warfare in one platform; detection, electronic warfare, command and control, attack. The F16 is not even in the same planet as far as war fighting capability is concerned.
There was however one big mistake in how the program was executed. The Pentagon dove into a program that was basically in the "Beta" version. Instead of waiting for all the versions to be developed by the manufacturer and then procuring the system they decided to do exactly the opposite with the unsurprising effect of ridiculous development costs
There was however one big mistake in how the program was executed. The Pentagon dove into a program that was basically in the "Beta" version. Instead of waiting for all the versions to be developed by the manufacturer and then procuring the system they decided to do exactly the opposite with the unsurprising effect of ridiculous development costs
2
The F-35 program remains a total boondoggle. The U.S. has in its arsenal several warhorses that with simple updates, re-winging, newer engines, and new avionics cold easily continue to dominate the battlefield. Instead the lunatics at the Pentagon decided that the A-10 Warthog would be retired ( a decision now completely reversed) and the F-16s and F-18s would also be discontinued. Not to forget that our aging B-52s are still on station almost 60 years since they were designed and deployed.
We could have updated the design of the F-16 and kept that production on line for years. Same for the F-18s. We also still have about 200 or so F-22 Raptors, relatively new aircraft, that although they are pricey, the design is already complete and production on that could have continued at a slower rate thus keeping that high tech plane with breaking the bank.
Now the Air Force wants to replace the B-52s and the B-2s which are aging badly as well. Why not stick with proven design and performance? The B-52 can launch cruise missiles from a distance. Certainly Boeing or Lockheed could easily replicate a newer B-52 with updated air-frame, engine and technology. It doesn't have to be a "Super Plane".
The Navy committed the same stupidity by building the Zumwalt destroyer when now it finds it must build "ordinary" destroyers just to have enough ships on the line. The Navy has shrunk to about 280 operational war ships. Not enough to defend America or project power.
Heads need to roll.
We could have updated the design of the F-16 and kept that production on line for years. Same for the F-18s. We also still have about 200 or so F-22 Raptors, relatively new aircraft, that although they are pricey, the design is already complete and production on that could have continued at a slower rate thus keeping that high tech plane with breaking the bank.
Now the Air Force wants to replace the B-52s and the B-2s which are aging badly as well. Why not stick with proven design and performance? The B-52 can launch cruise missiles from a distance. Certainly Boeing or Lockheed could easily replicate a newer B-52 with updated air-frame, engine and technology. It doesn't have to be a "Super Plane".
The Navy committed the same stupidity by building the Zumwalt destroyer when now it finds it must build "ordinary" destroyers just to have enough ships on the line. The Navy has shrunk to about 280 operational war ships. Not enough to defend America or project power.
Heads need to roll.
3
" Improved radar and infrared sensors, some experts say, may make these planes not quite as clandestine as hoped for."
The farther behind the fall on delivery the longer the headstart people have to develop technology to defeat them.
The farther behind the fall on delivery the longer the headstart people have to develop technology to defeat them.
2
-the F-35 was contracted by Lockheed-Martin with a contingency clause which allows full-scale production before all systems have been successfully tested. The “finished” aircraft remains in a continual state of systems retro-fit.
- the F-35 is still without any meaningful flight testing history as a finished product.
-for what it's worth, the F-35 program is in repeated violation of the Nunn-McCurdy Amendment (1982) which requires the cancellation of any defense program the total cost of which grows by more than 25 percent over the original estimate, unless the US Secretary of Defense submits a detailed explanation certifying that the program is:
a. essential to national security
b. affordable (are updated estimates of total cost reasonable?)
c. accountable (is management structure adequate to control costs?)
the project has repeatedly defaulted on all three criteria. Panetta never delivered anything more than a hollow-sounding sales pitch to prospective buyers in rebuttal to Nunn-McCurdy objections.
-it's not just Republicans, by the way: all three of the Vermont delegation -- Leahy, Sanders, Welch -- are stubbornly supportive of this monstrosity and are determined to locate three dozen or so of them in Burlington International Airport. First-strike nuclear weapon delivery systems which will keep our country safe is the refrain, I believe.
- the F-35 is still without any meaningful flight testing history as a finished product.
-for what it's worth, the F-35 program is in repeated violation of the Nunn-McCurdy Amendment (1982) which requires the cancellation of any defense program the total cost of which grows by more than 25 percent over the original estimate, unless the US Secretary of Defense submits a detailed explanation certifying that the program is:
a. essential to national security
b. affordable (are updated estimates of total cost reasonable?)
c. accountable (is management structure adequate to control costs?)
the project has repeatedly defaulted on all three criteria. Panetta never delivered anything more than a hollow-sounding sales pitch to prospective buyers in rebuttal to Nunn-McCurdy objections.
-it's not just Republicans, by the way: all three of the Vermont delegation -- Leahy, Sanders, Welch -- are stubbornly supportive of this monstrosity and are determined to locate three dozen or so of them in Burlington International Airport. First-strike nuclear weapon delivery systems which will keep our country safe is the refrain, I believe.
2
In interviews with aerospace engineers, including the designer of the F-16 (one of the most reliable and cost-effective fighters in the US arsenal), the F-35 is a boondoggle, white elephant project. At the outset, it was, as international military hardware customers refer to as, a "paper airplane." No prototypes were flown at, say, the Paris Air Show (a primary showcase venue for buyers of military aircraft). The entire project was sold via Powerpoint and political power plays.
The notion the F-35 was not designed for dog fights carries risk. Dog fights are inevitable in enemy airspace. Computer models of mock dog fights between an F-35 and, say, a state-of-the-art Russian fighter shows just how defenseless the F-35 really is. It cannot escape by climbing, turning or with sheer speed. The debacle has been considered "clubbing baby seals."
The scam: In a classic maneuver by the military contractors, the project is spread through something like 43 states to "create jobs" (and votes!). Thus, it is impossible to kill a project-gone-bad with so many politicians seeking re-election. Lose a big project and you lose the next election. This is how contractors gouge the US taxpayers while helping to re-elect their supporters in Congress. Furthermore, such sweetheart dealmaking in the Congress creates jobs for lawmakers on K Street and within the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned of.
Thus some International buyers (Australia for one) are canceling their F-35 PO's.
The notion the F-35 was not designed for dog fights carries risk. Dog fights are inevitable in enemy airspace. Computer models of mock dog fights between an F-35 and, say, a state-of-the-art Russian fighter shows just how defenseless the F-35 really is. It cannot escape by climbing, turning or with sheer speed. The debacle has been considered "clubbing baby seals."
The scam: In a classic maneuver by the military contractors, the project is spread through something like 43 states to "create jobs" (and votes!). Thus, it is impossible to kill a project-gone-bad with so many politicians seeking re-election. Lose a big project and you lose the next election. This is how contractors gouge the US taxpayers while helping to re-elect their supporters in Congress. Furthermore, such sweetheart dealmaking in the Congress creates jobs for lawmakers on K Street and within the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned of.
Thus some International buyers (Australia for one) are canceling their F-35 PO's.
3
Canada is the only only country to have cancelled an F-35 order. In fact more countries have actually signed up then left. Be very careful in listening to Pierre Sprey he had nothing to do with designing the F-16 and is now little more then a hired mouthpiece for some parties.
1
No one in congress (an organization with a pathological resistance to being seen as soft on defense) has the guts to pull a plug which should have been pulled years ago. So, the program just stumbles along of its own volition assuming its rightful place on the ever-lengthening list of things that are too big to fail, all the while sucking money into the biggest, darkest most impenetrable black hole you can imagine.
The other question that needs to be answered is why something as technologically complex as the F-35 is necessary to fight the battles that need to be fought. A couple of squadrons of B-17's could probably handle whatever is strategically necessary to conduct operations against ISIS. The F-35 is designed to fight an enemy that doesn't even exist.
The other question that needs to be answered is why something as technologically complex as the F-35 is necessary to fight the battles that need to be fought. A couple of squadrons of B-17's could probably handle whatever is strategically necessary to conduct operations against ISIS. The F-35 is designed to fight an enemy that doesn't even exist.
1
This sounds like a gigantic waste of money, over 2,400 planes costing over $200 million apiece. Our present state-of-the-art stuff is, all of a sudden, no good? This money cannot be better allocated to clean water, health care, education, alternative forms of energy?
What are we going to use these things for, fighting Al Shabob?
What are we going to use these things for, fighting Al Shabob?
3
closer to $70 million a piece, cheaper then every other current multirole aircraft.
Ridiculous. We do not need this plane, and the money would feed a lot of our poorest.
3
We have a number of superb conventional fighter planes. Why do we need this wild boondoggle?
5
Billions and now trillions down the Pentagon rathole for oversold, undereffective boondoggles. Nothing ever changes except adding zeroes to the price tag in multiples of three.
Yet when the issue becomes investing wisely in the future of our children and grandchildren, as well as tackling poverty, economic inequity and disparities in health care, what we get invariably falls far short of what we need.
For shame.
Yet when the issue becomes investing wisely in the future of our children and grandchildren, as well as tackling poverty, economic inequity and disparities in health care, what we get invariably falls far short of what we need.
For shame.
3
The Marines are currently operating a squadron of F-35 lift jets but in the rush to become operational they are using a software package that does not allow them to fully utilize all aspects of the plane. One of the major problems of the F-35 in all its guises is the software and the various iterations of the software that are in development or hope to be in development. The programming for the plane is a multi-million/billion dollar fiasco and those problems have been pointed it out by in Pentagon reviews.
The US could have easily gotten by without a stealthy Marine lift jet. The airforce could have developed its own new plane and the Navy wold have been happy with modified F-18s We now have a mega billion dollar jet that apparent that does nothing well and and won't even be doing that for years yet.
The US could have easily gotten by without a stealthy Marine lift jet. The airforce could have developed its own new plane and the Navy wold have been happy with modified F-18s We now have a mega billion dollar jet that apparent that does nothing well and and won't even be doing that for years yet.
OK,
Lets say I just won the recent lottery and I have $500M in cash. Chump change for many governments and for a few people.
Now a few years ago a guy in the Midwest, with a team of like 5 people, built a brand new P-51 Mustang from the ground up for about a $1M.
So say I take his team and build say 500 P-51 Mustang's.
Now say I am a nut case and find 500 other nut case pilots. I decide to raid Washington DC. Do you think that the air defenses of Washington could stand up against 500 aircraft coming in all at once?
My point is that someone is going to wake up to the fact that technology in and of itself does not always carry the day. A smart opponent can use a low tech approach in great numbers and still carry the day.
Given the costs associated with such programs, we are entering that realm.
Lets say I just won the recent lottery and I have $500M in cash. Chump change for many governments and for a few people.
Now a few years ago a guy in the Midwest, with a team of like 5 people, built a brand new P-51 Mustang from the ground up for about a $1M.
So say I take his team and build say 500 P-51 Mustang's.
Now say I am a nut case and find 500 other nut case pilots. I decide to raid Washington DC. Do you think that the air defenses of Washington could stand up against 500 aircraft coming in all at once?
My point is that someone is going to wake up to the fact that technology in and of itself does not always carry the day. A smart opponent can use a low tech approach in great numbers and still carry the day.
Given the costs associated with such programs, we are entering that realm.
2
Funny you should mention that. Back in the 1960s, in Canada a guy built a prop driven aircraft that cost in the neighbourhood of 15,000 to 20 thousand dollars. It only flew at around 350 to 400 miles per hour, but was armed with machine guns and was difficult to damage from ground fire. He approached the Canadian government by telling them that the military could defend against any invading force by building thousands of his planes at a fraction of what the government was then spending on the CF 100. He was told that pilots wanted to fly jets. His answer was that this low tech weapon could be stationed by the thousands in the North and that it would be easy to train pilots to fly them.
Even today such planes would be impossible for the most advanced AWAC to spot because they can fly so low to the ground. He was dismissed as a crank of course, and now Ottawa spends billions on planes like the F35 which is unsuitable for arctic flight because it only has one engine and is so expensive that only a few of them can be bought. I still think that this " Crank" had a great idea for national defence that is much cheaper than the high tech crap that we send our guys to war in today.
Just like our friend with his P51 Mustang.
Even today such planes would be impossible for the most advanced AWAC to spot because they can fly so low to the ground. He was dismissed as a crank of course, and now Ottawa spends billions on planes like the F35 which is unsuitable for arctic flight because it only has one engine and is so expensive that only a few of them can be bought. I still think that this " Crank" had a great idea for national defence that is much cheaper than the high tech crap that we send our guys to war in today.
Just like our friend with his P51 Mustang.
I think the best option would have been to just produce more F-22s while integrating new technology into the design as new batches are produced. But people said that the F-22 was too expensive and they demanded as cheaper fighter. That's how we ended up with the F-35. Now people say that the F-35 is also too expensive. People just need to accept that developing new technology is a slow and expensive process.
My favorite story about the stealth program is that camo experts wanted to paint the bottom of the planesa bluish-white to blend in with the sky but that the military insisted that the plane be black lest it look un-military.
2
With all due respect to the troops, rah, rah; what would the pentagon do without these development projects? Sit around folding paperclips into interesting shapes all day.
1
Sunk Cost Fallacy. Bring in so many players, so many congressional districts, balloon the budget to incredible proportions, and you have a project that becomes too big to fail.
2
The F-35 is a replay of the F-111 (TFX program), a complicated, multipurpose tactical fighter bomber of the 1960's. The F-111 couldn't fulfill all of its intended roles and was too expensive. And so, here we are today, still flying the better, cheaper B-52 bomber from the 1950's.
8
While the usual suspects here complain about the Pentagon, many problems come from meddling members of Congress...concerned more about how some phase of development and production will benefit them.
3
Does it protect us against someone shooting up a school? Does it protect us from jobs leaving the country? Does it protect our education system from continued decline? The answer is NO! Does it protect the jobs of politicians and the aerospace industry. The answer is YES!
You decide.
You decide.
5
One conscious choice was the less powerful and more weighty Pratt-Engine, with no 'alternate engine'. A political and short sighted 'cost saving'. Having worked on the project just a little, one sees the mistakes and political decisions are numerous and avoidable. Truly expensive for a low performance aircraft. It was supposed to be a logistics win, a low-cost easy to repair system. HAHAHAHAHA
2
You work for GE don't you. Please post your address in the vicinity of the Lynn plant.
Unfortunately, as with so many acquisition programs, the Air Force has billed itself as the high technology rulers of the planet. Thus the taxpayer is doomed to pay for these programs. Our major problem is with aircraft range - all of the new designs must operate close to base. Which means that if we have a conflict with Russia or China we would have to take off from forward bases that are within easy conventional missile range of the other side. Design problems abound - we all remember the F-22 pilots trapped in their cockpits because they wouldn't open; the enemy adjusts his radars and missile defenses. Cheaper designs with advanced weaponry (usually the last item upgraded) and standoff weaponry for ground attack is a far more effective approach than $100 million dollar aircraft.
Money spent on various investment classess have different "money velocity" effects & societal ROIs. Consumer product investing has the highest, Defense spending the lowest. And the f35 program appears to be the worst ever defense program. Aren't we supposed to get better governance as we learn?
2
The F-35 has so many conflicting requirements from its various patrons that it is not able to live up to any of them including costs that were supposed to be lower for a military plane fulfilling so many different roles. There is a saying, If Columbus had an advisory committee, he would still be at dock. The services will be stuck with this 'flying piano' designed by a committee for decades, which may be for the best because they have not covered themselves in glory for the wars they started and it serves its primary purpose of putting money into the pockets of the armament manufacturers.
3
Not sure that David's sling and stone is an apt analogy here! The triumph of the stone was in its simplicity, and David's underdog status. The F-35 is a hugely expensive and complicated boondoggle built for the most powerful military on earth. What/who will be the David to our Goliath?
3
Spending this kind of money on one system is an obscenity. And in light of today's economic reality it is unconscionable. It's a profligate use of fiscal resources, of MY tax-paying dollars, and should be scaled back. We have an aging transportation, water, energy infrastructure in this country that goes begging for gods sake. Not to mention a domestic policy agenda that's in tatters. Yet we spent such stupendous amounts on THIS? We have our priorities all out of wack.
John~
American Net'Zen
John~
American Net'Zen
2
Without boondoggles like this, republicans wouldn't have anything to vote for.
3
Money for weapons and bullets we do not need. No money for the poor or the old. Plenty of money to make things to kill people. No money to help people live. That is all that read here.
4
1/2
The strike fighter is one of the most used weapons systems in the US armed forces. Tanks see less use than the USAF's F-16 fleet.
The average age of USAF fighters are about 25 years old. That number, however, is scewed. Of the ~1,600 fighter jets that make up the USAF, about 300-350 of them are F-22/35 aircraft which are about 10 or less years old. The rest of them are F-15s that have far surpased their life times or F-16s in the same situation. To continue flying, these old aircraft require a 10-20 million USD for another 10 years of life. The US Navy is also in this boat, but USN aircraft are only built to last 20 years. Thus if no replacement for the USAF and USN's fleet is procured, then their simply will be no fighters in the USAF or USN (besides 200 F-22s).
The strike fighter is one of the most used weapons systems in the US armed forces. Tanks see less use than the USAF's F-16 fleet.
The average age of USAF fighters are about 25 years old. That number, however, is scewed. Of the ~1,600 fighter jets that make up the USAF, about 300-350 of them are F-22/35 aircraft which are about 10 or less years old. The rest of them are F-15s that have far surpased their life times or F-16s in the same situation. To continue flying, these old aircraft require a 10-20 million USD for another 10 years of life. The US Navy is also in this boat, but USN aircraft are only built to last 20 years. Thus if no replacement for the USAF and USN's fleet is procured, then their simply will be no fighters in the USAF or USN (besides 200 F-22s).
1
2/2
But I can see you want to downsize the US Military. The F-35 actually does that (to certain extents). The USN cannot currently downsize unless you can convince politicians to give up several aircraft carriers. For the USAF, they're purchasing 1,700 aircraft to serve over 50 years. Which means in real terms the USAF will steadily decline in numbers as aircraft are replaced (to around 1,000-1,200 fighters). On top of flying less aircraft, the F-35A will cost ~6.2 million per aircraft per year. That compared with 6.1 million per F-16 currently. The F-35 figure is also given in future year dollars which means the F-35 actually costs less to operate per year than the F-16 (it should be noted that the F-35A will be flying 270 hours a year down from the F-16's 310, those hours being augmented withsimulators). So what about that 1.3 trillion dollar figure? Well that figure is every cost associated with the F-35 fleet out to 2065. Applying the same method of measurement to all the aircraft it's replacing, means it would cost 4.5 trillion USD to operate the US' current legacy fleet over that same time period. Thus the F-35 is significantly less expensive than the aircraft it's replacing.
If you want the US Military to downsize more, thats fine. You just need to understand the F-35 is inevitable, just less would be purchased.
But I can see you want to downsize the US Military. The F-35 actually does that (to certain extents). The USN cannot currently downsize unless you can convince politicians to give up several aircraft carriers. For the USAF, they're purchasing 1,700 aircraft to serve over 50 years. Which means in real terms the USAF will steadily decline in numbers as aircraft are replaced (to around 1,000-1,200 fighters). On top of flying less aircraft, the F-35A will cost ~6.2 million per aircraft per year. That compared with 6.1 million per F-16 currently. The F-35 figure is also given in future year dollars which means the F-35 actually costs less to operate per year than the F-16 (it should be noted that the F-35A will be flying 270 hours a year down from the F-16's 310, those hours being augmented withsimulators). So what about that 1.3 trillion dollar figure? Well that figure is every cost associated with the F-35 fleet out to 2065. Applying the same method of measurement to all the aircraft it's replacing, means it would cost 4.5 trillion USD to operate the US' current legacy fleet over that same time period. Thus the F-35 is significantly less expensive than the aircraft it's replacing.
If you want the US Military to downsize more, thats fine. You just need to understand the F-35 is inevitable, just less would be purchased.
1
The missing piece from the video version of this story is the enormous lobby power of the military industrial complex. This 'project' is more a public works program for wealthy corporations than it is a weapons system. While it continues to fail miserably as a fighter it has dramatically succeeded as a massive transfer of public money into private hands. Congress simply gets so much money from the military tech lobby that they are willing to sacrifice our nations economic well being for their own personal wealth.
Another issue not mentioned is who is this weapon designed to defend us against? The cold war has been over from 25 years. Russia is not developing new jet fighters and China's simply up-dating copies of Russian planes developed a generation ago. So we are arming ourselves against a phantom enemy and as Pogo said, the real enemy is us.
Another issue not mentioned is who is this weapon designed to defend us against? The cold war has been over from 25 years. Russia is not developing new jet fighters and China's simply up-dating copies of Russian planes developed a generation ago. So we are arming ourselves against a phantom enemy and as Pogo said, the real enemy is us.
2
I couldn't help notice that this story on a 400 billion dollar military boondoggle appears right next to a story on Detroit's crumbling schools.
4
Detroit's crumbling schools are Detroit's, possibly Michigan's, problem. NOT a national problem.
2
Think of Military Jet development of the last 30 years as trying to build a cellphone in 2001 that will meet your needs for 3 decades.
Thats what the pentagon tries to and has to with every development.
Thats what the pentagon tries to and has to with every development.
3
The specific problem with large scale military procurements is that they are designed for 50 year+ lives with trillions of total eventual costs and millions of jobs and careers associated with them. They are based on old views on how to project force and have huge adjacency costs. Like aircraft carriers which require an entire fleet of support and defensive ships to operate, these planes require an entire airforce to support them. A fundamental pivot to remotely piloted/autopiloted vehicles is already happening and these programs should be scrapped and the monies redeployed. Within a few years, we will be able to project force using aircraft that are cheaper, much higher performance, deliver payloads in far more impactful ways while eliminating risk to pilots and the massive supply chain and logistics costs
1
Why is the public not demanding someones resignation for this POS military hardware? Peter Sprey's "vision" is shortsighted and only feeds his ego, it's time to pack up this circus...
1
This piece undertakes a cost-benefit analysis of the F35 without addressing the plane's most important feature--its ability to conduct cognitive electronic warfare (EW) in real time using Bayesian algorithms to support its defensive and offense EW features. http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/01/most-important-technology-f... Along these lines, the F35 will replace old EW aircraft like the Prowler.
A more focused concern is the delay in the delivery of the Block 3 software. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/01/22/dod-weapon... And the prospect of a hurry-up approach to rolling out this software package for the F35.
I'm neither a booster nor a detractor of the F35. It's a complicated procurement--partly because DOD can't reveal much of the plane's EW capabilities due to security issues and due to the fact that no one knows exactly how this foray into cognitive EW is going to work out. I'm glad the NYT is devoting some attention to the F35, but this article seems to have undershot the mark.
A more focused concern is the delay in the delivery of the Block 3 software. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/01/22/dod-weapon... And the prospect of a hurry-up approach to rolling out this software package for the F35.
I'm neither a booster nor a detractor of the F35. It's a complicated procurement--partly because DOD can't reveal much of the plane's EW capabilities due to security issues and due to the fact that no one knows exactly how this foray into cognitive EW is going to work out. I'm glad the NYT is devoting some attention to the F35, but this article seems to have undershot the mark.
4
EW using Bayesian algorithms. Read the article, nice technical dream, article admits upfront the F35 is far far from achieving this. A lovely technical achievement which is still a dream, years and years away. Of course by the time this is achieved the technologies used to identify and locate your F35 will have evolved. For all your pontification that is all EW is, an attempt o defeat radar shifting wavelengths, which is a response to your F35 stealth technology.
It is a chimera, lots of money, but you are building to the past. Flying planes into enemy territory is the past, the future is small unmanned drones, satellites locating and directing small smart missiles, small antimissile smart systems mounted in trucks, linked to the satellites, thinking through computer systems in a backpack. Laser guided shoulder mounter missiles.
Lets debate what we want to spend our 1.5 trillion dollars on Both halves, technology (obviosly I think the wrong one), and, of course the alternatives for investing in our society. As the son of a 35 year aerospace engineer with P&W who grew up reading Aviation Wekly at 12 as bathroom reading I admire the technology and the people but respectfully disagree with you.
It is a chimera, lots of money, but you are building to the past. Flying planes into enemy territory is the past, the future is small unmanned drones, satellites locating and directing small smart missiles, small antimissile smart systems mounted in trucks, linked to the satellites, thinking through computer systems in a backpack. Laser guided shoulder mounter missiles.
Lets debate what we want to spend our 1.5 trillion dollars on Both halves, technology (obviosly I think the wrong one), and, of course the alternatives for investing in our society. As the son of a 35 year aerospace engineer with P&W who grew up reading Aviation Wekly at 12 as bathroom reading I admire the technology and the people but respectfully disagree with you.
1
hi tech is all very good, but it needs to be working hi-tech to be useful. And if you're going to trust your success to it, it had better stay working.
Certainly one problem that concerned observers have is that because it's been sold as a 'one airframe does everything', there's no backup being built or in the pipeline because, well - this will do it all.
If it doesn't work, what then? And if it fails at one of its tasks, will the compromises made in the original design for that task make it less good at the remaining tasks?
How can they possibly be sure the software is up to the rigour of combat? I've been a software engineer for 32 years and I know how hard it is to make even relatively trivial programs bug-free under all conditions of input... trying to make something work when bits get shot-off, or the network connection comes and goes because of ECW - how many planes will get shot down and pilots killed because of a bug in the software or an edge case that isn't considered?
Remember - they're (and my government here in Oz) betting the farm on this working. Over here in Australia we certainly don't have the money to try something else if this goes pear-shaped, we're stuck with it.
Certainly one problem that concerned observers have is that because it's been sold as a 'one airframe does everything', there's no backup being built or in the pipeline because, well - this will do it all.
If it doesn't work, what then? And if it fails at one of its tasks, will the compromises made in the original design for that task make it less good at the remaining tasks?
How can they possibly be sure the software is up to the rigour of combat? I've been a software engineer for 32 years and I know how hard it is to make even relatively trivial programs bug-free under all conditions of input... trying to make something work when bits get shot-off, or the network connection comes and goes because of ECW - how many planes will get shot down and pilots killed because of a bug in the software or an edge case that isn't considered?
Remember - they're (and my government here in Oz) betting the farm on this working. Over here in Australia we certainly don't have the money to try something else if this goes pear-shaped, we're stuck with it.
We should keep producing the F-22. It was cancelled due to cost overruns that don't seem so outrageous compared to the F-35.
The F-22 wasn't canceled because of cost over runs. It was cancelled because there was no sizable enemy to justify it's cost. Russia's program fell flat until 2001, when development on the Pak-FA first started. And the Chines just started their development a few years ago. By the time either of those countries get a more than 200 of those aircraft, the F-X will be well under way. Even then, the F-35 is more than enough to handle any threat it could face over the next 30 years (I can elaborate later).
On top of that, the F-35 is far less expensive. In FRP UNRF, the F-35 is half the cost of the F-22. The only reason why the F-35 program costs more than the F-22 program (70 billion vs 400 billion) is that their are going to be 12 times as many F-35s as F-22s.
On top of that, the F-35 is far less expensive. In FRP UNRF, the F-35 is half the cost of the F-22. The only reason why the F-35 program costs more than the F-22 program (70 billion vs 400 billion) is that their are going to be 12 times as many F-35s as F-22s.
1
The idea that the F-35 would be considered as a replacement for the A-10 sounds like wishful thinking at best. The A-10 is a relatively simple low-tech highly-armored flying gun, that has been highly effective in its mission in the Middle East. The pilots of these aircraft do not need $400,000 helmets to accomplish the mission.
It seems that development of the F-35 came about before sophisticated drones existed As drones became more prevalent, no one in the Pentagon wanted to question the need for a piloted stealth fighter.
It makes sense to accept that the F-35 program was a great learning experience, and probably created some advanced technologies that will insure our air superiority in the future, but the program should be ended. The money saved can be applied to improving existing piloted aircraft programs, such as the F-16 and F-18 and yes, the A-10, and drone aircraft.
It seems that development of the F-35 came about before sophisticated drones existed As drones became more prevalent, no one in the Pentagon wanted to question the need for a piloted stealth fighter.
It makes sense to accept that the F-35 program was a great learning experience, and probably created some advanced technologies that will insure our air superiority in the future, but the program should be ended. The money saved can be applied to improving existing piloted aircraft programs, such as the F-16 and F-18 and yes, the A-10, and drone aircraft.
9
The Air force has never wanted the close air support mission. That is why the army has the Apache helicopter. They are simply hoping to get out of it by saying they are going to replace the A10 with the F35. Even the A 10 is an oxymoron for what its being used for. They are using 30 MM antitank rounds to kill guys toting AK47's, real brilliant indeed. The A10 was designed to kill tanks in Germany not guys hiding in caves. If the Air Force close air support were so crucial to the Army they would be demanding more AC130 gunships not A10's
2
What is also sad is that the US foisted this piece of technological crap off onto allies, such as South Korea when something cheaper would have been more than enough. Someone must be laughing over this, somewhere but not here, in Seoul.
1
The JSF program highlights all that is wrong with the defense procurement process. Essentially, the foxes guard the chicken coop. The generals supposed to oversee the programs on the Pentagon side of things act like defense contractor salesmen, prepping themselves for a cushy retirement as a consultant or executive with defense contractor firms. The members of Congress meant to provide oversight are helping lighten the pockets of American tax payers in exchange for sub-contracts for cronies in their home districts.
Essentially, the people paying attention to defense spending are often those who profit from it. Those who would actually curb the abuses are usually not paying attention.
Although it is a field mired in technical jargon and secrecy, we are pretty much left to act as our watchdogs in one of biggest areas of government spending and overspending.
Essentially, the people paying attention to defense spending are often those who profit from it. Those who would actually curb the abuses are usually not paying attention.
Although it is a field mired in technical jargon and secrecy, we are pretty much left to act as our watchdogs in one of biggest areas of government spending and overspending.
2
The F-35 is everything that is wrong with not only the Defense budget, but DC priorities overall. It is a plane that no one needs, that doesn't work and can't seem to be cancelled, no matter what happens.
Cancel this program NOW!
Cancel this program NOW!
2
There are two aspects to the F-35 disaster. One is terrible development management, the other poor strategic planning.
The huge costs stem primarily from various customers dictating design specifications while the plane was still under development. As a result, the F-35 had to be redesigned many times over before it was actually finished. From an engineering point of view, this is insane. It would have made much more sense to develop one basic model first and then come up with variants instead of trying to create a flying Swiss Army knife.
From a military point of view, the F-35 is unnecessary in the asymmetrical wars of today, and won't do the US military much good in a proxy war with an enemy that has access to advanced Russian and Chinese technology, because of a number of relatively cheap countermeasures which can nullify the advantages of the F-35 . In future air wars, the US will only be able to achieve air superiority if it relies on its traditional strengths: excellent pilot training and overwhelming numbers
The huge costs stem primarily from various customers dictating design specifications while the plane was still under development. As a result, the F-35 had to be redesigned many times over before it was actually finished. From an engineering point of view, this is insane. It would have made much more sense to develop one basic model first and then come up with variants instead of trying to create a flying Swiss Army knife.
From a military point of view, the F-35 is unnecessary in the asymmetrical wars of today, and won't do the US military much good in a proxy war with an enemy that has access to advanced Russian and Chinese technology, because of a number of relatively cheap countermeasures which can nullify the advantages of the F-35 . In future air wars, the US will only be able to achieve air superiority if it relies on its traditional strengths: excellent pilot training and overwhelming numbers
Many of the most successful aircraft went through long messy development phases. The P-51 Mustang wasn't much of a fighter until the British started installing Merlin engines into the airframes. The early B-29 engines were very powerful but prone to self destruction. And the troublesome 787 Dreamliner seems to be doing well. The continuing attachment to older designs like the A-10 and F-16 is nostalgia for the days of the fighter ace and lack of real opponents in our current aerial conflicts.
2
WE need superior Defense and Offense but a simple motto with regards to design would have been much more effective in designing future military aircraft: "Keep it simple, stupid".
1
A drone that can pull G's without killing a pilot will be the dominant aircraft design for a generation. Hmm. Where could we find the money to develop it.
1
Ask the fighter jocks what they think about the F-16. Ask the groundpounders how much they love the A-10. The people who actually have their butts on the line and no financial interest are the only ones who will tell you the truth.
2
American soldiers are still being killed by 40 year-old AK47s.
1
This story typifies what passes for thinking in the field of military procurement. Start with a decently innovative idea that might be useful. Wait for various services to get worried that they'll miss out if they don't get a piece of the action. Throw in some members of Congress looking to protect their districts and you end up with a kludge job. Meeting the requirements of the different services will cost more than it was touted to save and reduce the effectiveness of the F35 for each of its missions. The A10 exemplifies a far better approach. Design a plane for one specific task and you end up with a product that works well and remains in service far beyond its expected lifetime. Same with the B52. Machines that, while costly, are better long term investments and that can be thrown into the brutality of real world combat without unit cost driving tactical decisions. For the ground attack mission, where stealth is mostly irrelevant and stoutness is a major virtue, America would be better served by an incremental update of the A10. And by some effort to restrain the flights of fancy of the military industrial complex.
2
The program was flawed from the beginning. A product designed to excel at all trades will ultimately excel at none. Now, given the complexity of the jet, it takes ever increasing resources to force solutions to fundamental design flaws.
The Pentagon will continue to insist that it's worth it, but what choice do they have after devoting so many tax dollars towards it? I just hope that the jet is not such a bad product that it puts our servicemen and women in danger.
The Pentagon will continue to insist that it's worth it, but what choice do they have after devoting so many tax dollars towards it? I just hope that the jet is not such a bad product that it puts our servicemen and women in danger.
1
Incredibly "smart weapons" used by western allies have proved very ineffective against "dumb" IED's. The consequences have been similar to using the proverbial sledgehammer to kill deadly flies. Instead of creating smarter weapons, we need to create smarter strategies.
1
I'll bet that the Russians hope that we continue pouring money into the F-35.
3
Nothing much has changed in the procurement process in the last 30 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/03/opinion/a-runaway-pentagon.html
The F 35 even if it worked is a poor replacement for a dedicated ground support aircraft - doesn't have ability to take damage and still fly, the fuel to loiter over target, or the ordinance capacity.
Meanwhile the Navy is building a new class of destroyer that grew so expensive it can only afford three.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/03/opinion/a-runaway-pentagon.html
The F 35 even if it worked is a poor replacement for a dedicated ground support aircraft - doesn't have ability to take damage and still fly, the fuel to loiter over target, or the ordinance capacity.
Meanwhile the Navy is building a new class of destroyer that grew so expensive it can only afford three.
Pentagon has shown over and over again that it's not good at planning or spending money efficiently. Simple logic and commonsense shows.that trying to build a.plane or anything that tries to.satisfy multiple needs is not.going to work very well. This plane is.a.solution looking for a.problem to solve. The A 10 is the more.valuable plane.to.fight the types.of conflicts we.will.face.in the.future.
1
Texas gets a trillion dollar plane built near Dallas. If there was a proposal to spend a trillion in Ohio, Texans would be up in arms, pardon the pun, and rightfully so. Ted Cruz, after pocketing the loot should spare us the lectures on fiscal responsibility. Cruz's comment on Trump's "New York Values" is just another way of saying, he's a Yankee. A Damned Yainkee. The war between the states has never ended. Stop sending them our money.
1
War for profit will take us all out, it's just a matter of time now. People's willingness to wallow in their own selective ignorance plays right into the military industrial machines plans. Ignorance equals fear and anger. Anger grows when misguided beliefs slam into the real unforeseen realities of life. One apparent unforeseen reality is that we are all human, if we could just acknowledge this one reality this might get a bit more sane.
2
We should recognize the F35 program for what it actually is: a welfare program for the military industrial complex. And, given that is exactly what it is, we should apply the same critical questions and standards to it that we apply to other welfare programs, such as food stamps or aid to dependent children.
Should we dare ask such questions, we would find that this program, and those like it, are a very poor investment, a very inefficient way of lifting people out of poverty or pumping money into the economy. But I am not holding my breath in anticipation of such questions being asked by either of the two branches of the Party, because both are reliant on the campaign contributions and other perqs provided by the war industry.
Should we dare ask such questions, we would find that this program, and those like it, are a very poor investment, a very inefficient way of lifting people out of poverty or pumping money into the economy. But I am not holding my breath in anticipation of such questions being asked by either of the two branches of the Party, because both are reliant on the campaign contributions and other perqs provided by the war industry.
2
It is just stupid to intentionally give up fighter plane superiority. If we do we will come to regret it.
2
This will make for a great campaign issue:
Bernie -- too expensive, we should've spent the money on education.
Hillary -- we need to develop our military.
Trump -- shut up, we're making it.
Is anyone else running?
Bernie -- too expensive, we should've spent the money on education.
Hillary -- we need to develop our military.
Trump -- shut up, we're making it.
Is anyone else running?
2
I see what the author was trying to do there at the end of the article, bringing us back to the David vs. Goliath analogy, but he got it wrong. Taking five stones for your slingshot is not "having a backup system" analogous to having mulitple types of aircraft. It is merely five versions of the same armament, similar to the 2,400 copies of the F-35 that the Pentagon plans to acquire.
Pierrre Sprey has never been part of any aircraft design programme, he has never been employed or contracted to any of the companies that have manufactured any of the now many aircraft he has claimed to have designed. He was an analyst and nothing more. He often misquotes now dead designers and engineers but luckily many of there statements that contradict him are on record. He has no understanding of wing lift, wing loading or body lift. No understanding of LF radar that he frequently mentions and no understanding of modern weapon systems.
Instead of spending 400 billions on F35s, establish research centres that can come up with better ECMs, BVR Missiles and trying pilots and working within the adverseries Duma not to invade USA and its allies.
Homeless needs homes, jobless needs jobs, people without insurance needs healthcare, infrastructure needs overhaul, cities need better disaster prevention and protection equipment, yet 400 billion are wasted on F35s.
Another scenario, give 40 billion dollars to,Israelis for resraech and they would find novel solutions to problems of 2050's in Air, Sea and on ground.
Homeless needs homes, jobless needs jobs, people without insurance needs healthcare, infrastructure needs overhaul, cities need better disaster prevention and protection equipment, yet 400 billion are wasted on F35s.
Another scenario, give 40 billion dollars to,Israelis for resraech and they would find novel solutions to problems of 2050's in Air, Sea and on ground.
Suppose we didn't build the F-35. No nation would dare attack us given the size of our military. And our military can still exert power throughout the world.
Putting that trillion plus dollars into mass transit, bridges, and other infrastructure would give us trillions more in savings. Instead we want to, in 2035, drive by F-35s sitting rotting out in the desert at Davis-Monthan AFB--a massive cost that hurt this nation and brought it no added benefit.
Putting that trillion plus dollars into mass transit, bridges, and other infrastructure would give us trillions more in savings. Instead we want to, in 2035, drive by F-35s sitting rotting out in the desert at Davis-Monthan AFB--a massive cost that hurt this nation and brought it no added benefit.
1
Nothing new in this report, which would have benefitted from research of the sort the Times used to do. The key to understanding the F-35 is the dispersion of contracts for it across the country and abroad, for legislators are slow to say no to a project when district jobs are involve. Of particular interest is the refusal by Sen. Bernie Sanders to question the project and the early decision to base a fighter wing with the Vermont Air National Guard, despite fierce local opposition to the basing due to its AF documented noise.
1
As a retired government auditor, accounting professor, and certified public accountant, I can say with a high degree of confidence that the best stealth technology applied here was from the defense contractors, legislators, and government procurement officials - on the taxpayer. I could sit here for hours enumerating multiple very overpriced failed or marginal weapons systems and other travesties visited upon us by the Military Industrial Complex. Ike, the former president and five star general warned us about these people and organizations in no uncertain terms - but no one was paying attention.
2
In spite of his normally inspiring rhetoric, the sad thing is Bernie Sanders completely embraces the F-35. He has gone "all-in" on basing the F-35 in Vermont and refused to even meet once with the 1,000's of homeowners whose home values are now in free-fall because of this basing decision. According to Bryan Bender's article in the Boston Globe, Senator Leahy intervened with the Air Force to force it here, against their wishes for rural Utah or South Carolina. The F-35 will be 3-4 times louder than the already very loud F-16 and an area deemed "not suitable for residential use" is expanding, all in Vermont's most densely populated area. And the impacted populations are the very demographics Bernie pretends to care about: immigrant refugees; the elderly; disabled Veterans; and lower income/working class. On this issue, at least, John McCain is actually more progressive and sensible than Bernie Sanders and the Democrats.
1
As always, follow the money. The unequivocal
winners in this debacle are Lockheed-Martin and the many
subcontractors, the recipients of the Terabuck.
Completing a contract on time and under budget is just
so old-school. Much better to drag the project out
endlessly, with taxpayers forced to continue feeding
the Military-Industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us about.
Late 2030's? Really? By then, they will have a whole new design,
and recommending we scrap this one.
2
great article. more reporting on this is necessary! this plane is a mess. the costs are astonishing. the tax payer deserved better. sick.
but the hook at the end of the article did not make sense. David picked out five stones for his slingshot.
That's not a different system -- that's five of the same thing, using the same weapon.
the point C Haberman was trying to make was we need different planes -- different systems. not one kind of weapon (ie a slingshot.)
but the hook at the end of the article did not make sense. David picked out five stones for his slingshot.
That's not a different system -- that's five of the same thing, using the same weapon.
the point C Haberman was trying to make was we need different planes -- different systems. not one kind of weapon (ie a slingshot.)
David was a shepherd. All a shepherd has to do all day, is stay out in the fields with his sheep and practice using his slingshot. The slingshot is what he is has to protect his sheep, it is his primary weapon.
The controversy is familiar. Critics railed against the M1 Abrams and AH-64 Apache gunship as overly complex and bound to fail. They proved otherwise. Other systems have similar histories; C-5 Starlifter and B-1 Lancer. See recent article on B-1 in Wa Po and you'll see it's now a highly successful system.
The US has always been willing to do one thing; spend money to keep our people safe. If we're to put military personnel in harm's way they need to be in the best systems possible. It's a valid point to say how many schools can be built for the cost of a single F-35. But failure to strive for the best systems will cost lives. Not only the pilot but lives on the ground.
With all the presidental candidates (except Sanders and Paul) making war cries, doubt the fighting will stop. If you want to save money, tell these canditades to stop beating their chests.
The US has always been willing to do one thing; spend money to keep our people safe. If we're to put military personnel in harm's way they need to be in the best systems possible. It's a valid point to say how many schools can be built for the cost of a single F-35. But failure to strive for the best systems will cost lives. Not only the pilot but lives on the ground.
With all the presidental candidates (except Sanders and Paul) making war cries, doubt the fighting will stop. If you want to save money, tell these canditades to stop beating their chests.
1
I just had to add this... Slingshot in the day of David were the incredibly improved Egyptian war weapin slingshots made with hide and stick. They could propel a spear or rock at a tremendous speed compared to the rubber band slingshots of our childhood.
I won't judge the F-35 one way or another as a weapon since I don't have the first hand knowledge of its capabilities or the capabilities of its opposition (including other aircraft, weapons, and detection systems).
However, this much I can judge, our military, the defense industry, and our politicians have an almost impossible time being honest with the American People or each other. It takes money, time, lots of mistakes, and determined effort to push the envelope of technology. Its as true of military technology as it is true for civilian technology. Unfortunately, it has become axiom for defense contractors to low ball the cost and over promise the capability. The military, the politicians, and all those people with potential jobs are happy to look the other way with a wink and a nod knowing full well that once a program gets going and more and more people benefit from the flow of money it is almost impossible to stop no matter how much the cost run.
Ultimately, however, the real problem is with the American people. You would think by now they would stop pretending they don't know how the game is played and stop with the phony indigence as it unfolds exactly as expected.
However, this much I can judge, our military, the defense industry, and our politicians have an almost impossible time being honest with the American People or each other. It takes money, time, lots of mistakes, and determined effort to push the envelope of technology. Its as true of military technology as it is true for civilian technology. Unfortunately, it has become axiom for defense contractors to low ball the cost and over promise the capability. The military, the politicians, and all those people with potential jobs are happy to look the other way with a wink and a nod knowing full well that once a program gets going and more and more people benefit from the flow of money it is almost impossible to stop no matter how much the cost run.
Ultimately, however, the real problem is with the American people. You would think by now they would stop pretending they don't know how the game is played and stop with the phony indigence as it unfolds exactly as expected.
1
The Wrong Stuff, I think.
1
Apart from its cost, delay and dubious stealth capabilities (detection devices have immensely progressed) F-35's biggest inadequacy is its limited range, that will render it almost useless facing China, for instance, forcing aircraft-carriers to get too close, and then extremely vulnerable.
Just saying.
Just saying.
1
Why is it that Pierre Sprey is seen as a credible source? Up front, Sprey did have an influence into the development of the F-16 and A-10, but that influence has repeatedly been misconstrued now that many of the engineers who developed these machines have passed. Pierre had an engineering degree, but he was not an engineer; he was an analyst who, as one member on a team of many, put forward their ideas of what the Light Weight Fighter should be and what the A-X should be. Within those teams, Pierre was viewed by his partners as a "true luddite" (the words of ret. Gen Mike Roh) and was an advocate for having as many cheap, simple aircraft as possible, for the effect of winning wars via attrition. His idea for the LWF (which became the F-16) for example, was a fighter with no radar, no air-to-ground weapons, no radar guided missiles, no all-weather or night flying capability (too bad if your enemy doesn't fight on a sunny day) and with only a gun and 2 heatseeking missiles. Those on the team that were more responsible sought to include a reasonable amount of modern systems on the aircraft, and so the F-16 became a fighter with a radar, with air-to-ground capabilities, with (albeit delayed) radar guided missiles, the capability to fight in austere conditions and a flight control system dependent on computers to give extra performance.
When it came to the A-X program (which became the A-10), Sprey had more of his ideas approved, but while some things were appreciated [Part 1]
When it came to the A-X program (which became the A-10), Sprey had more of his ideas approved, but while some things were appreciated [Part 1]
2
[cont.] like the 30mm GAU-8, other things were not, such as the WW2-era aiming sights, TACAN-only navigation system and limited radio capabilities. When the A-10A entered service, pilots that had previously flown A-1 Avengers (propeller-driven close air support aircraft) found it to be a downgrade.
Furthermore, following his self-described frustration with the Pentagon and the way that systems were becoming more complex, Sprey left the Pentagon in the 1970s, ultimately changing his career and becoming a high end stereo (music player) designer. In the past 40 years, while air warfare has changed, gun kills have changed from making up ~50% of kills to ~2%, and computers have grown many orders of magnitude more powerful, Sprey has had nothing to do military aviation. It's only now that legends from back in the day, such as Harry Hillaker (1919-2009), have passed that Sprey has gone wild, citing himself (at times) as "F-16 co-designer", etc, despite that honor belonging to the engineers at General Dynamics, etc.
I could go on for some length as to why Sprey is wrong about his assertions (and I will if anyone desires me to elaborate), but the fact that a man, who has been absent for the past 40 years of military aviation, is being used as fuel against the best bang-for-buck fighter on the market is just disappointing.
Furthermore, following his self-described frustration with the Pentagon and the way that systems were becoming more complex, Sprey left the Pentagon in the 1970s, ultimately changing his career and becoming a high end stereo (music player) designer. In the past 40 years, while air warfare has changed, gun kills have changed from making up ~50% of kills to ~2%, and computers have grown many orders of magnitude more powerful, Sprey has had nothing to do military aviation. It's only now that legends from back in the day, such as Harry Hillaker (1919-2009), have passed that Sprey has gone wild, citing himself (at times) as "F-16 co-designer", etc, despite that honor belonging to the engineers at General Dynamics, etc.
I could go on for some length as to why Sprey is wrong about his assertions (and I will if anyone desires me to elaborate), but the fact that a man, who has been absent for the past 40 years of military aviation, is being used as fuel against the best bang-for-buck fighter on the market is just disappointing.
1
In actual warfare, what do we arm our Syrian friends with? AK-47's. When we need to 'wave the flag' to the DPRK, what weapon do we send over? The B-52. When we provide ground support for Iraqi, what do we use? The A10. When we need to attack terrorists in far flung places, what weapon do we use? Drones carrying the Hellfire missile.
The F-35 just isn't demanded by our on-the-ground commanders. We already have weapons systems that work quite nicely to fill the needed combat roles, thus abrogating the need for the F-35. For example:
As for stealth capability, ground hugging cruse missiles can get the job done without putting pilots at risk.
As for dog fighting, the Patriot missile can take the plane down quickly.
So the F-35 has no role that isn't already covered by multiple weapons systems. It should be cancelled.
The F-35 just isn't demanded by our on-the-ground commanders. We already have weapons systems that work quite nicely to fill the needed combat roles, thus abrogating the need for the F-35. For example:
As for stealth capability, ground hugging cruse missiles can get the job done without putting pilots at risk.
As for dog fighting, the Patriot missile can take the plane down quickly.
So the F-35 has no role that isn't already covered by multiple weapons systems. It should be cancelled.
1
"It breaks with the past by meeting the requirements of three military branches — the Air Force, Navy and Marines — each of which traditionally developed its own planes."
The 3-in-1 approach was tried before, with the F-4 Phantom, a very successful airplane after some early problems were addressed.
The writer should have noted that the trillion dollar figure includes all costs associated with the F-35 through its projected retirement in 2065, including fuel, pilot training, and maintenance. That's still a lot of money, of course, but a lot of it would have to be spent anyway, whatever airplane the Pentagon had chosen to build.
The 3-in-1 approach was tried before, with the F-4 Phantom, a very successful airplane after some early problems were addressed.
The writer should have noted that the trillion dollar figure includes all costs associated with the F-35 through its projected retirement in 2065, including fuel, pilot training, and maintenance. That's still a lot of money, of course, but a lot of it would have to be spent anyway, whatever airplane the Pentagon had chosen to build.
1
This is tragic. And probably more than slightly amusing to the Chinese and the Russians who are bounded by tighter budgets and common sense. Iraq, Afghanistan.. AK-47 vs F35?? What war is this plane fighting? Are we going to engage the Russians or Chinese conventionally? Probably not, but if we did this money pit is still not necessary. Unfortunately this plane has already done more damage to us than any enemy could have hoped to do themselves.
The F35 is beyond overkill and a spectacular failure by all involved. If we would only listen to our helpful friends at the GAO once in a while.
-We can defend ourselves with a fraction of the current military budget. The savings could be used(amongst the endless other possibilities) to protect Americans from more pressing and deadly enemies like cancer and heart disease. Put that money into research, find a cure. Who doesn't know someone who they have taken, by all odds that's how most of us will die. Has the Pentagon forgotten the point of their mission? They need to remember that their lofty budgets and fancy toys come at a high price to our society. If only cancer and heart disease were invented by ISIS.
The F35 is beyond overkill and a spectacular failure by all involved. If we would only listen to our helpful friends at the GAO once in a while.
-We can defend ourselves with a fraction of the current military budget. The savings could be used(amongst the endless other possibilities) to protect Americans from more pressing and deadly enemies like cancer and heart disease. Put that money into research, find a cure. Who doesn't know someone who they have taken, by all odds that's how most of us will die. Has the Pentagon forgotten the point of their mission? They need to remember that their lofty budgets and fancy toys come at a high price to our society. If only cancer and heart disease were invented by ISIS.
1
By the time this plane is ready, it will be obsolete. Unmanned aircraft will have replaced it long before it has ever seen combat.
1
There is no bigger corporate welfare than the absurd contracts doled by DoD to their weapons building buddies. This $1 TRILLION monstrosity could fund healthcare, infrastructure spending, education, and housing with billions left over. Not only will this boondoggle not make us safer, it is also a major driver of the deficits that Republicans love to rail against. If this country were a true democracy the perpetrators of massive theft and misappropriation of tax payer dollars would be behind bars.
3
And the next big mistake? The Air Force's new stealth strategic bomber, to be designed to replace the B-2. We are fools to allow the military to proceed with such programs and to let members of Congress provide for such programs as welfare for their constituents. Eisenhower warned us, but we didn't listen. We're not listening still.
2
To fight a guy in a suicide vest. Get real. The world has changed.
2
What a waste of resources, money, time ...
2
David used a sling, not a slingshot, against Goliath. Error #1, error #2 is the idea that he used it too kill Goliath. This is a common occurrence where 'folklore' is attributed to scripture rather than looking up the actual text (similar to the popular non biblical 'spare the rod spoil the child' euphemism). The stone stunned Goliath, it did not kill him. The story states that David ran down and jumped on Goliath, drew Goliath's own sword and killed him with it by cutting of his head. The F-35 may well prove to be an effective aircraft - eventually. But in the meantime every day, week, months and years it takes to become effective just gives the opposition all the more time to find its weaknesses and counter them.
2
I don't understand how a radar system that put out a large spectrum of
frequencies and then is attached to a computer - could not filter out the
one space in the airspace that seems not to be reflecting any radiation
and is moving at 600 mph.
frequencies and then is attached to a computer - could not filter out the
one space in the airspace that seems not to be reflecting any radiation
and is moving at 600 mph.
2
A small amount of research by the author on the shoot down of the F-117 Nighthawk by the Serbs in 1999 would have been worthwhile but then he could not have used it as an example of the failure of the jet's stealth capabilities. This was a case of pilot error, do your research and drop the cute literary reference to Harry Potter!
3
"The Bible says he first picked out five smooth stones from a brook. Plainly, he understood the importance of having a backup system."
I guess I'm missing the comparison, not that I disagree with the findings: Wouldn't David grabbing 5 stones be exactly the same thing as 2400 fighters? It would be one thing if David grabbed 5 stones and a sword and a dagger and a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, instead he's only grabbing five of the same weapon...which seems to be exactly what the three branches of service are looking to do, just on a larger scale.
I guess I'm missing the comparison, not that I disagree with the findings: Wouldn't David grabbing 5 stones be exactly the same thing as 2400 fighters? It would be one thing if David grabbed 5 stones and a sword and a dagger and a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, instead he's only grabbing five of the same weapon...which seems to be exactly what the three branches of service are looking to do, just on a larger scale.
2
The real problem is a near-total lack of accountability, consequences, and independence. The CEO of Lockheed-Martin, Marilyn A. Hewson, a 30-year Lockheed-Martin lifetime employee, has never held a job outside of the US defense cartel giant, and was promoted to CEO in spite of Lockheed's abysmal performance, and is paid $18 million a year for the taxpayer's trouble. What kind of message does this send? No General or Admiral has faced a military court over this. On the contrary, the Lockheed Board of Directors includes an Air Force General and a US Navy Admiral, another practice common.
4
what is the F-35 for anyway? it looks like the real problem will be even having enough soldiers to serve anyway...can anyone imagine todays 18 actually going into combat....you get a few of these golden hammers to try to beat down people who will strap a bomb to there back and destroy a neighborhood...
Have we actually reached the point of national stupidity that overruns of this proportion in a failed "national security" objective are acceptable and necessary when we lag the industrial societies of this world in healthcare and infrastructure.? Have we all gone insane?
2
If the services went off with three separate designs the folks on the sidelines would demand commonality. Just remember none of them or their kids will likely have to insert their pink bodies into such a machine and go after the bad guys...who aren't going away. If cost were the only consideration we'd be still flying the P-51. If it were my kids I'd want the best and the services are trying to do that. We live in an imperfect world.
2
Those that bemoan the expense of these sums for new aircraft and call for redirection of dollars to other projects are the folks who believe that all we have is free of charge. Everything we hold dear is paid for daily with the blood of Americans in arms. The enemy is hard at work in China and in Russia right now developing this technology----to use against us and against our allies. F-16 and F15's are great planes. but those who are critical of the new stealth aircraft---the F22, the F35 and the next strategic bomber---do not understand that the principle upon which these aircraft are designed is to win through the use of supersonic stealth. The B-2 and the YF-117 are subsonic planes. These next generation aircraft defeat the enemy before the enemy knows they are there.
The F-35 is a mistake.
In the larger concept of national security, taught in all of our senior military schools, there are higher priority programs which should be funded rather than the F-35. Senior Defense/Intelligence officials have concluded that global warming is the greatest threat to national security.
I think everyone understands that the F-35 program would not exist with the lobbying, and revolving doors of the defense industrial contractors. The F-35 would have not gotten beyond the concept stage. It is an example of the danger of the military industrial complex cited by Eisenhower.
I recommend that we redirect the efforts of our engineers to develop technologies that will help reduce the threat posed by global warming by making it possible for the economy to continue to prosper without fossil fuels.
I suggest converting most of our electric power generation to solar satellites in orbit beaming energy to Earth. If this payload is launched by Maglev which is only 1% of the launch costs of chemical rockets we can produce wholesale electricity very cheaply, Then with cheap electricity, we can make synthetic gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel from air and water. Maglev is remarkably efficient so we should create a national network and manufacturing enterprise to move passengers and freight truck hauling at 300 mph. This will save lives & injuries on our congested highways.
This would improve the strength of the economy and "provide for the General Welfare".
In the larger concept of national security, taught in all of our senior military schools, there are higher priority programs which should be funded rather than the F-35. Senior Defense/Intelligence officials have concluded that global warming is the greatest threat to national security.
I think everyone understands that the F-35 program would not exist with the lobbying, and revolving doors of the defense industrial contractors. The F-35 would have not gotten beyond the concept stage. It is an example of the danger of the military industrial complex cited by Eisenhower.
I recommend that we redirect the efforts of our engineers to develop technologies that will help reduce the threat posed by global warming by making it possible for the economy to continue to prosper without fossil fuels.
I suggest converting most of our electric power generation to solar satellites in orbit beaming energy to Earth. If this payload is launched by Maglev which is only 1% of the launch costs of chemical rockets we can produce wholesale electricity very cheaply, Then with cheap electricity, we can make synthetic gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel from air and water. Maglev is remarkably efficient so we should create a national network and manufacturing enterprise to move passengers and freight truck hauling at 300 mph. This will save lives & injuries on our congested highways.
This would improve the strength of the economy and "provide for the General Welfare".
2
The answer to 21st century air warfare; sleek, built like a rock, yet packed with the most modernized weaponry on the planet! At a cost a fraction of the F-35 a piece, I introduce to you.... *drumroll*.....
The F-15 Strike Eagle!
The F-15 Strike Eagle!
2
The first two paragraphs are so laughably wrong about Bronze Age warfare in general, and the David vs. Goliath duel in particular, that one is forced to sharply discount the understanding by the writer as to the facts of the discussion that follows.
For example: The F-35 is hardly the first attempt an fulfilling the various U.S. services with a common aircraft. Cursory research would turn up McNamara's attempt to square the circle with the F-111. Similarly, there was to be either the F-16 or the F-18, but we turned out to have both.
Unmanned flight is most of the future of air combat. Everybody knows this but the ex fighter pilots elevated to high command and the civilians who hold the purse strings but who defer to the military who have never ever managed to have the right airplanes at the start of a major war. The fighter pilot in the 21st century will go the way of the cavalryman in the 20th. But there will be much resistance to this reality from those who divide airplanes into two types: Fighters and targets. This is not about ground attack. The history of the A-10 is a primer on the Air Force's real feelings about ground support, and that's why the Army has its own enormous rotary wing air force (they are not allowed by law to have anything with real wings amazingly enough).
Don't you have a Defense specialist on staff who understands these matters? Considering how much of the treasure of the United States is devoted to "defense" it would seem prudent.
For example: The F-35 is hardly the first attempt an fulfilling the various U.S. services with a common aircraft. Cursory research would turn up McNamara's attempt to square the circle with the F-111. Similarly, there was to be either the F-16 or the F-18, but we turned out to have both.
Unmanned flight is most of the future of air combat. Everybody knows this but the ex fighter pilots elevated to high command and the civilians who hold the purse strings but who defer to the military who have never ever managed to have the right airplanes at the start of a major war. The fighter pilot in the 21st century will go the way of the cavalryman in the 20th. But there will be much resistance to this reality from those who divide airplanes into two types: Fighters and targets. This is not about ground attack. The history of the A-10 is a primer on the Air Force's real feelings about ground support, and that's why the Army has its own enormous rotary wing air force (they are not allowed by law to have anything with real wings amazingly enough).
Don't you have a Defense specialist on staff who understands these matters? Considering how much of the treasure of the United States is devoted to "defense" it would seem prudent.
13
People have to stop thinking that we live in the Star Trek universe. Drones are fabulous, if your foe is basically limited to throwing stones at you. A drone would be useless in any scenario involving a technologically advanced opponent since all they would need to do is to jam the signal controlling the aircraft or disable the satellites used for that purpose. Indeed our greatest strength, a network centric battle space, is our greatest weakness since everyday we become more reliant on a communication system that relies on a smattering of satellites to control our forces on a real time basis. A single EMP enhanced ionospheric blast would render a whole air force of drones useless in 15 minutes. Furthermore, we already have thousands of autonomous "drones" in inventory and they haven't changed the nature of aerial warfare, they are called cruise missiles.
1
"The history of the A-10 is a primer on the Air Force's real feelings about ground support"
In what way? They want something simple that works? Or they don't want something new and shiny because they don't want to do it anyway?
In what way? They want something simple that works? Or they don't want something new and shiny because they don't want to do it anyway?
Ed you make a great case for ditching the F-35 in so far as all the threats you mention also threaten the very capabilities that the JSF is heralded for.
APS you don't know the history of the A-10. The Air Force resisted building the aircraft and only did so because otherwise the Army would have taken their money and put it into the first generation attack helicopter. The A-10 was a grudging response to an inter-service rivalry. That's why it went to Air Guard units immediately upon delivery. Look into the story, it's quite interesting and speaks volumes about the Air Force's attitude towards ground support (it's improved since then).
APS you don't know the history of the A-10. The Air Force resisted building the aircraft and only did so because otherwise the Army would have taken their money and put it into the first generation attack helicopter. The A-10 was a grudging response to an inter-service rivalry. That's why it went to Air Guard units immediately upon delivery. Look into the story, it's quite interesting and speaks volumes about the Air Force's attitude towards ground support (it's improved since then).
With asymmetrical warfare becoming the norm, why does America bother with a fifth generation fighter? Our current fleet of F-16s, stealthy F-117s and even the old, venerable B-52s are more than up to the task of war with any nation-state.
The race for "newer" weaponry harks back to the warnings of President Eisenhower, a war veteran turned stateman who recognized; "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
When American tax payers spend one in three tax dollars annualy on a military budget, we need to ask ourselves why. No country has invaded America since the British in 1812. America has had a "large" war every 20 years for centuries now. Maybe chicken hawk fear-mongers are to blame. They point to foreign dangers, ramp up military spending, deplete reserves when America was never in any real danger.
Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan/Iraq … were these wars necessary from a homeland security standpoint? Were evil-doers in boats about to invade Florida or California? How large a Navy, Air Force, Army and Marine Corps does America really need to ensure the safety of our homeland only? I think a lot smaller than we have now plus we have the industrial ability to "ramp up arms production" and draft /train soldiers in short order if another World War loomed on the horizon.
The race for "newer" weaponry harks back to the warnings of President Eisenhower, a war veteran turned stateman who recognized; "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
When American tax payers spend one in three tax dollars annualy on a military budget, we need to ask ourselves why. No country has invaded America since the British in 1812. America has had a "large" war every 20 years for centuries now. Maybe chicken hawk fear-mongers are to blame. They point to foreign dangers, ramp up military spending, deplete reserves when America was never in any real danger.
Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan/Iraq … were these wars necessary from a homeland security standpoint? Were evil-doers in boats about to invade Florida or California? How large a Navy, Air Force, Army and Marine Corps does America really need to ensure the safety of our homeland only? I think a lot smaller than we have now plus we have the industrial ability to "ramp up arms production" and draft /train soldiers in short order if another World War loomed on the horizon.
10
I look at the F-35 as a self inflicted wound of the federal contracting process and compare it to the new home we just finished building. We made all the choices up front, made no change orders, contracted with the builder for a fixed cost, made sure the contract included performance and inspection clauses at each step in the building process(both the building inspector as well as our own personal approval), along with a schedule of completion and penalties. I actually lived on site the entire time to oversee the construction (I am retired). The house was built on time, on budget, the builder ate some expenses due to their own errors, some subcontractors had to redo their work, but we never paid an additional penny. I found it interesting that some of our neighbors down the road asked me to oversee their construction projects and the general contractor asked me if I wanted a job During a short time during my career when I worked for the federal government and managed contracts, most vendors walked very carefully.
7
400 billion for a delayed fighter jet program that's not likely to live up to its hype. We only need a tiny fraction of that, perhaps only 10%, to fix our education and medical systems. Remember, all that money comes from taxpayers. Imagine if 40 billion dollars were spent on a national single-payer health care system, so every American citizen would get the care he or she needs. Imagine 40 billion dollars on education so teachers get a reasonable pay and students get a good public k-12 education and emerge from college debt-free. Imagine 40 billion dollars to improve our infrastructure. So much good could've been done with only 10% of the cost to develop something that seems to solely benefit the military industrial complex.
12
"Imagine 40 billion dollars to improve our infrastructure. "
I am sure that the democrats would love to spend billions on infrastructure repairs with all of the work being done by union members who would then kickback most of their union dues to the democrats. The GOP would be stupid to ever agree to such an agreement.
I am sure that the democrats would love to spend billions on infrastructure repairs with all of the work being done by union members who would then kickback most of their union dues to the democrats. The GOP would be stupid to ever agree to such an agreement.
1
What a tragic dissipation of our resources. We have all we need to be safe now, and will be no safer for this impossibly expensive plane.
5
The F-35, whatever else it is or may turn out to be, is a jobs and profits program, and the contractors and subcontractors who make it are milking the project for all they can get away with. The contractors reward congressmen with campaign contributions and the workers reward the congressmen with votes. Military personnel get nice jobs when they retire.
Everyone is as honest and clear-headed about the need for this plane and whether it is a good value as Iowa corn farmers are about ethanol, prison guards about long sentences as a crime fighting strategy , hedge fund managers about carried interest, or the NRA about guns.
It is unrealistic and unfair to target the military-industrial complex as the only part of the economy that has to listen to reason and seek value. We all have to start cleaning up our acts in order to get any of us to do it without resisting to the bitter end. And since cleaning up our acts will leave many unemployed, we have to have an industrial policy that will see that they have something to do that pays a decent wage. Otherwise we get a battle to force others to clean up their acts while avoiding cleaning up our own acts. "Soak the rich" battles "make the lazy poor work", and however this battle ends, the common welfare is damaged.
Everyone is as honest and clear-headed about the need for this plane and whether it is a good value as Iowa corn farmers are about ethanol, prison guards about long sentences as a crime fighting strategy , hedge fund managers about carried interest, or the NRA about guns.
It is unrealistic and unfair to target the military-industrial complex as the only part of the economy that has to listen to reason and seek value. We all have to start cleaning up our acts in order to get any of us to do it without resisting to the bitter end. And since cleaning up our acts will leave many unemployed, we have to have an industrial policy that will see that they have something to do that pays a decent wage. Otherwise we get a battle to force others to clean up their acts while avoiding cleaning up our own acts. "Soak the rich" battles "make the lazy poor work", and however this battle ends, the common welfare is damaged.
7
It is hardly "unrealistic and unfair to target the military-industrial complex", because this is the single, greatest cost of our tax dollars. As President Obama recently stated, we spend more on "defense" than the next eight countries in the world COMBINED. We do not get anything close to sufficient value for that.
We don't the hypothetical enemies the Pentagon thinks it's "defending" against, nor will we.
One major problem with our society is the erosion of our education system, a very good reason why money spent there will better ensure our strong economic future. The major source of damage to the "common welfare" is currently the military-industrial-complex, aided by a non-representative legislature (thanks, in no small part, to its dependence on private money in the unending election cycle), not from any other section of our society (with the possible exception of unregulated banksters gambling with others' money).
We don't the hypothetical enemies the Pentagon thinks it's "defending" against, nor will we.
One major problem with our society is the erosion of our education system, a very good reason why money spent there will better ensure our strong economic future. The major source of damage to the "common welfare" is currently the military-industrial-complex, aided by a non-representative legislature (thanks, in no small part, to its dependence on private money in the unending election cycle), not from any other section of our society (with the possible exception of unregulated banksters gambling with others' money).
1
A trillion dollar boondoggle.
4
The main problem is in commiting massive resources before adequate testing. The procurement process definitely needs to be further refined. The true benefits of an "eggs in one basket" approach is highly questionable. Look at NASA's Commercial Crew program. They provided seed funding and used a staggered contract award process. NASA will likely end up with two distinct human capable vehicles and a variety of space cargo ferries. All for a far lower cost than previously though possible for even one new spacecraft. Other criticisms aside, the trillion dollar price tag for F35 is a bit deceptive. After all, we are talking about replacing virtually all US combat aircraft over a 15-20 year span with 2400 brand new planes. Even if F35 was perfect out of the gate, it's hard to see how all of America's fighter defenses could ever be completely replaced for much less. The overall argument about how much we commit to defense is a separate discussion. I believe that if we are spending a trillion, we should have broken it up into two or three different designs from different contractors. That would give the US far more flexibility to change direction down the road.
2
This is essentially what has happened Andy - there was (a lot) of R&D funding paid up front, but since then, F-35s have only been ordered on a yearly basis - by my estimates (based on how many jets have been produced so far, how far we're through the R&D program, etc) we're up to about $100-$110 billion spent so far. That is a lot, but that's across 20 years of development, so you're looking at about $6 billion a year on average. In comparison, NASA (who is often considered underfunded) has had a budget of approximately $15-18 billion a year (with all of these figures in today's dollars) over that period.
No expert, but isn't this just the military/industrial complex in action? Many commenters here appear to assume this is a sincere effort. Isn't it really just an effective way to put lots of money in a few pockets?
How much did that helmet cost, again?
Imagine spending that money fostering detente in creative, modern ways, all over the globe. Seems that a tremendous amount could be accomplished in the name of peace. That is the objective - right?
How much did that helmet cost, again?
Imagine spending that money fostering detente in creative, modern ways, all over the globe. Seems that a tremendous amount could be accomplished in the name of peace. That is the objective - right?
6
The stealth fighter F-35 strives to be 'all things to all services', and gains complexity and cost exponentially while reaching for this goal. Meanwhile remote-piloted technology continues to advance. I just have to wonder if the stealth and 'all things airborne' capabilities will offset ten or twenty or thirty times as many RPV's which can, because they are not trying to sustain a fragile human pilot inside, be smaller, turn tighter, pull higher G's, and be surely as stealthy as the F-35. Will the F-35 be the first weapon of war to disprove the old adage that, 'other things aside, more is better'? I think the F-35 program will be the last big fancy ultra-expensive weapons program. We need to figure out how to fight our battles without bankrupting the nation - when one plane costs $200 million we can't afford to use them in anger. The pilots are the rarest part of the program, let's figure out how to keep them away from the missiles and bullets. We should be developing RPV technology instead of wasting hundreds of billions on this boondoggle program, which sheerly by coincidence, has suppliers in every Congressional district.
6
It is maddening to watch the military waste money year after year while conservatives demand accountability and austerity from everyone else. The f35 program, costing many billions is bumbling along even as it is clear that drones have passed them by long ago. Furthermore, spending unlimited money on a weapon that has no war to fight is ludicrous. I could possibly understand this if it was the only example of wasted tax dollars, wasted by our military. But it is not isolated. Our military has many projects that are a waste of dollars, hiding behind classification curtains. To make matters worse, the military is used as a back door for congressmen to spend money in their districts. Often, the military can't even stop some of the ridiculous projects. It is well past time to find a way to hold the congress and the military accountable for their expenditures in peacetime. If you want any hope at all ( And it is slim hope) vote for Bernie.
2
It's been another terrible year for the F-35 program considering the plane's poor availability, inadequate performance, lagging development, increasing costs to foreign buyers and the bogus bragging about combat capable planes which aren't. All of this resulted in the project not being able to finalize a limited production contract in FY2015, ending September 30.
2
A swarm or inexpensive enemy drones and/or missiles will make swift work of F-35s as well as the sitting duck carriers they fly from. It's like "Charge of the Light Brigade" all over again. Brave young officers in their dashing 20th century flying machines going off to their doom against 21st century weapons.
6
The F-35 reminds me of the F-4. Recall that the makers of the F-4 also thought dogfighting was a thing of the past, missiles would be the end of dogfighting. So during Vietnam, when our F-4s were getting shot down a lot in dogfights, F-4s had to be retrofitted with cannon pods. Similarly, the F-35 manufacturer has again convinced the flying armed forces that it will be the end of dogfights. This is unlikely. All it takes is an enemy stealth aircraft, itself invisible to radar, to get up close an personal with an F-35, and radar will evolve. So the end of dogfighting is an illusion. I just won't happen. Second similarity with the F-4 is the lack of a bubble canopy. So the pilot cannot turn around and see behind him, except for his headrest. Again, this is related to dogfighting. If no one can sneak up behind you, you don't need to see behind you. Again, this belief is an illusion. Third, the F-35 is unsuitable for aircraft carrier deployment as it has only one engine. Finally, the range of the F-35 is low, which limits its flight time, and forces its aircraft carrier to get in closer to the actual hostility, thus increasing the danger to the carrier, its crew and entire air wing. So the F-35 is not a very good airplane for its intended purpose---it purposefully incorporates all of the defects we knew not to incorporate 50 years ago, through costly trial and error.
9
In Vietnam long range radar guided missiles could not be used until another aircraft (F104) was sent ahead to visually confirm that the target was not a friendly plane. This did not work very well. This was in spite of all the high tech radar, IFF etc.
AB - that's a misconception - early in the war, F-4s were only getting a kill to loss ratio of about 2:1. To solve the issue, the USAF and USN went 2 separate ways. The USAF could afford to modify their aircraft, so they developed models with internal cannons, while the US Navy briefly tried a podded gun, but quickly threw it away in favor of improving the training of pilots and maintainers through what became Top Gun.
As the war continued, the USAF's gun-equipped F-4s saw their K:L ratio roughly stay the same, at times even dipping lower. The US Navy however had their kill ratio jump up to 13:1 in their favor, using just missiles. Even those USAF F-4s that did achieve kills primarily obtained them using Sidewinders and Sparrows, not their 20mm.
We've had guns on our fighters for years now as a just-in-case and to have the best of both worlds. On the F-35, they've also thought ahead - an enemy stealth aircraft for example can't sneak up on an F-35 because the F-35 has thermal imagers pointed in all directions, letting it spot aircraft from dozens of miles away, in any direction (and when jet engines depend on generating tens of megawatts of thermal energy to produce thrust, you can't make a fighter invisible to infrared). For your other points; there's been many single engine carrier aircraft in the past, and the F-35 has a range about 50% longer than that of a Super Hornet (a range similar to the F-14).
As the war continued, the USAF's gun-equipped F-4s saw their K:L ratio roughly stay the same, at times even dipping lower. The US Navy however had their kill ratio jump up to 13:1 in their favor, using just missiles. Even those USAF F-4s that did achieve kills primarily obtained them using Sidewinders and Sparrows, not their 20mm.
We've had guns on our fighters for years now as a just-in-case and to have the best of both worlds. On the F-35, they've also thought ahead - an enemy stealth aircraft for example can't sneak up on an F-35 because the F-35 has thermal imagers pointed in all directions, letting it spot aircraft from dozens of miles away, in any direction (and when jet engines depend on generating tens of megawatts of thermal energy to produce thrust, you can't make a fighter invisible to infrared). For your other points; there's been many single engine carrier aircraft in the past, and the F-35 has a range about 50% longer than that of a Super Hornet (a range similar to the F-14).
The F4 Phantom II has a nasty blind spot at the "Six."
AMERICAN SOLUTION: The USAF, USN and US Marine solution was to always fly with a wingman so you can each watch the other guy's back. Also the radar officer in the back was supposed to watch the 6.
ISRAELI SOLUTION: The IDF found a simpler and cheaper solution. They epoxied in a rear view mirror so the pilot could watch his own six.
Example. Radar guided missiles were a real problem.
AMERICAN SOLUTION: Install an expensive radar detector that warns a pilot that an enemy missile has locked onto him and he can jinx the plane so the missile misses. Problem is, radar detectors are expensive.
ISRAELI SOLUTION: They bought a bunch of the cheap FUZZBUSTERS and changed the frequency that triggered them. Then they wired a couple into each plane and for $400 they had a way to tell a radar guided missile had locked onto them.
AMERICAN SOLUTION: The USAF, USN and US Marine solution was to always fly with a wingman so you can each watch the other guy's back. Also the radar officer in the back was supposed to watch the 6.
ISRAELI SOLUTION: The IDF found a simpler and cheaper solution. They epoxied in a rear view mirror so the pilot could watch his own six.
Example. Radar guided missiles were a real problem.
AMERICAN SOLUTION: Install an expensive radar detector that warns a pilot that an enemy missile has locked onto him and he can jinx the plane so the missile misses. Problem is, radar detectors are expensive.
ISRAELI SOLUTION: They bought a bunch of the cheap FUZZBUSTERS and changed the frequency that triggered them. Then they wired a couple into each plane and for $400 they had a way to tell a radar guided missile had locked onto them.
Remind me why the f14 d was shredded in favor of the f35, which will never fly?
3
Because the F-14 was over 40 years old, difficult to maintain and had a Radar signature that would allow any modern radar system to track it easily. Over 100 F-35's are already flying.
The F-22 was a far superior aircraft, but it couldn't make coffee or collate copies for all the services, so it got replaced. In the next war, I'd want an F-22 flying to defend me, rather than an F-35 on the ground to avoid intra-service rivalries...
6
The F-35 makes perfect sense if you look at it from the point of view that the purpose of our defense programs is to provide care and feeding of defense contractors. Just as a novel will have the disclaimer,"This book is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to real events or real people is coincidental," so it is with defense spending. Any relationship between a defense contract and national security is a coincidence. The P-51 Mustang of WWII fame incorporated many engineering advances-a laminar flow airfoil, a zero-drag radiator,etc., yet was rolled out 115 days after the contract was let. As some banks are too big to fail, so are some defense projects.
14
I understand and agree with all the criticism expressed here. This is just another, yet another, horrible waste of money and diversion of funds from real problems that could be addressed if not solved by truly bad people in our government. But, what? What can any of us do about it? What can any of the critics here do to change this? Has this kind of waste and immoral behavior ever been successfully addressed? When? How? Somebody lay out a realistic, doable plan to end this debacle. Bernie? Donald?
5
Strangely, Bernie Sanders is entirely in favor of the F-35 (and basing it in Vermont), despite the very negative impact it will have on 1,000s of homeowners/his constituents. He defends his decision as being about preserving jobs, without acknowledging that this budget-busting boondoggle leaves zero left-over in the federal budget for the other priorities he is championing in his presidential campaign.
1
Well, that is strange and disappointing. Just goes to show that no one is above selling out. Guess I won't be voting for Bernie.
1
Last time I checked this isn't the plane that any of the armed forces wanted... and now we get to pay even more for the "one" plane that fits all? We spend a couple of trillion dollars on wars that have had no benefit to the American people and ruin our reputation with the world, but we can't provide money for infrastructure, social security, education and health care?
Thats seriously messed up, its corporate welfare and the American public has had enough regardless of all the so called "jobs" we hear are created by our military industrial complex.
Eisenhower warned in his farewell speach.. "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex" and we must ask ourselves. Have we failed?
Thats seriously messed up, its corporate welfare and the American public has had enough regardless of all the so called "jobs" we hear are created by our military industrial complex.
Eisenhower warned in his farewell speach.. "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex" and we must ask ourselves. Have we failed?
51
As DDE said, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." If those words from 1961 were heeded America would be just as secure but at significantly less cost.
5
Unaffordable technology, absolutely. Affordable health care, absolutely not. Solution: Put the Pentagon in charge of health care.
2
Building weapons systems to fight enemies that we don't have because the contractor has facilities in the districts of influential Senators and Representatives is asinine - and a sure way to bankrupt the country.
44
One of the F16 designers observed in a recent NPR interview that the F35 was outperformed in aerial combat by the older airframe. Both Russia and China have paraded aerobatic performance suggesting possible superiority.
It has been observed that should we build one fewer F35 than planned, we could give every first grader in america an iPad.
We have schools, bridges, roads and hospitals in need. Not to mention affected populations. We really need this tri-service overbloviated boondoggle?
It has been observed that should we build one fewer F35 than planned, we could give every first grader in america an iPad.
We have schools, bridges, roads and hospitals in need. Not to mention affected populations. We really need this tri-service overbloviated boondoggle?
25
We could build F-15 Eagles at $50 million a copy and be safer even considering their radar signature. I hate to be suspicious of people who are probably nice people, but this just stinks.
3
I expect drones to render even china & Russia's superior performance platforms obsolete. Makes the f35 debaucle even sadder.
1
If this plane is to be located close to its target, then why not use cruise missiles or drones? This plane might be better for recognizance than attack. We've never tested these high tech weapons against a real adversary in a real war, like against Russia or China. Isn't that what they're made for, or only to attack third world countries? The real quiet tradgedy here, despite going forward, they are already obsolete.
4
Unfortunately, there have already been so much fortune spent on the hapless F-35 that its "sunk costs" are proving to make the aircraft program, "too big to fail." So, money keeps getting thrown into the black hole that is the F-35 program.
Despite having produced 145 F-35s thus far, only 10 F-35Bs were accepted by the U.S. Marine Corps for Initial Operational Capability (IOC), in a very deceptive and truncated testing program this past September. Those aircraft will not be deployed for many years -- if ever, as they are not even close to having achieved combat readiness.
The F-35 program needs to be completely cancelled before it can do any further fiscal harm to the country. The Air Force can re-open the F-22 Raptor line (all tooling equipment with instruction videos have been preserved). The U.S. Navy needs to procure and continue to upgrade the FA-18 Super Hornet, while putting the X-47 UAV aircraft on the fast track for production as its next fighter/bomber, and the Marine Corps will need to independently build its own replacement for the AV-8B Harrier, using off-the-shelf STOL technologies that currently exist. That should be a fairly easy and quick task to pull off.
Despite having produced 145 F-35s thus far, only 10 F-35Bs were accepted by the U.S. Marine Corps for Initial Operational Capability (IOC), in a very deceptive and truncated testing program this past September. Those aircraft will not be deployed for many years -- if ever, as they are not even close to having achieved combat readiness.
The F-35 program needs to be completely cancelled before it can do any further fiscal harm to the country. The Air Force can re-open the F-22 Raptor line (all tooling equipment with instruction videos have been preserved). The U.S. Navy needs to procure and continue to upgrade the FA-18 Super Hornet, while putting the X-47 UAV aircraft on the fast track for production as its next fighter/bomber, and the Marine Corps will need to independently build its own replacement for the AV-8B Harrier, using off-the-shelf STOL technologies that currently exist. That should be a fairly easy and quick task to pull off.
22
We beat the USSR because they could not afford to keep up with military spending. Now we are looking to do the same to ourselves?
It is a truly cool aircraft, but I worry what percentage of them will be available versus those grounded for maintenance, bug fixes, software patches, etc. should there be a conflict?
Perhaps many more lower cost, lower tech, highly reliable/robust systems would be better than fewer extremely expensive and "fragile" systems that are difficult and expensive to maintain operational in a war.
A government backed hacker (and possibly a slingshot) could do an awful lot of damage to one of these planes!
It is a truly cool aircraft, but I worry what percentage of them will be available versus those grounded for maintenance, bug fixes, software patches, etc. should there be a conflict?
Perhaps many more lower cost, lower tech, highly reliable/robust systems would be better than fewer extremely expensive and "fragile" systems that are difficult and expensive to maintain operational in a war.
A government backed hacker (and possibly a slingshot) could do an awful lot of damage to one of these planes!
13
We did not heat the USSR. They collapsed from within.
2
We have met the enemy and he is us, would seem to summarize this incredible boondoggle.
20
I didn't see it mentioned, but it's certainly true that pilotless aircraft can pull more G's and outmaneuver a piloted aircraft, so the F-35 may get outmaneuvered by pilotless enemy aircraft, and defeated.
6
The F-35 can be out maneuvered by plenty manned aircraft now, including the F-16 which the F-35 is intended to replace!
On top of all the listed problems with the F-35 is the one that will find the technology obsolete by time it is actually working. Just like the US needed to cut their losses and get out of Afghanistan, it also needs to cut its losses and look for smarter and more efficient ways to manage it's aircraft. The US commitment to war is obviously insane. Iraq should never have happened and Afghanistan should have been a targeted bombing campaign on al Qaeda camps.
9
The Feds ought to sue Lockheed-Martin. They sold us a bill of goods and are fleecing us in a way no other company has robbed us previously. I say cancel the contract immediately and turn to Boeing. This one isn't even close.
6
I feel that I need to put these links up before people start quoting Pierre Sprey:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31oJIo8EVwY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyHlp7tJrxY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31oJIo8EVwY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyHlp7tJrxY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U
1
Should have built more F-22's.
3
Contrary to the article, this is the second attempt to produce a universal fighter. The F111 was supposed to be the solution. It too ended up late and expensive. It turned out to be to heavy to land on any existing or planned carrier and too unmaneuverable to function as a fighter. It ended up as a low level night bomber which initially had an unfortunate tendency to dive in to the ground.
As the author observed, the design is very ambitious. That means that Murphy's law is working over time, greatly increasing capital and operating costs while degrading performance.
The nation would have been better served by producing thee separate aircraft, perhaps updated developments of the F16, A10 and Harrier which might have incorporated stealthy features where appropriate. The Super Hornet F/A18D is just that a new aircraft developed from an older one.
As the author observed, the design is very ambitious. That means that Murphy's law is working over time, greatly increasing capital and operating costs while degrading performance.
The nation would have been better served by producing thee separate aircraft, perhaps updated developments of the F16, A10 and Harrier which might have incorporated stealthy features where appropriate. The Super Hornet F/A18D is just that a new aircraft developed from an older one.
2
The F-35 is the ultimate DoD Boondoggle to end all Boondoggles. Ike is spinning in his grave in Kansas. Everything in DoD procurement is needlessly complex and lots of stuff does not work. You have Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) that are insane and that no one understands. Not only is Lockheed Martin feeding at the Trough, all the subcontractors who feed Lockheed Martin are too. Many of them are smaller manufacturers who are owned by private equity that feed on DoD contracts. When you try to get the cost or pricing data to support their proposals to Lockheed, they can't do it or do a very poor job because they have bought these companies, loaded up on debt and fired lots of the people who keep the books. Guess what, they get the subcontract anyway at the full proposed price with no government analysis of costs and Lockheed does not care either. We will go broke fighting any enemy from within.
9
We provide poisoned water to poor communities in an effort to cut government costs and then we spend a trillion dollars on a single fighter jet project with no guarantee that it will work. No wonder Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are doing so well
14
This is nauseating. Are we REALLY this stupid? Are we really this stupid?
24
• Cost of just the OVERRUNS thus far for the useless F-35: $163 billion
• Cost of making grad school degrees (MBA’s, MD’s, Lawyers, Engineers) FREE for everyone enrolled: $153 billion
• Cost of making public college tuition FREE: $62.6 billion
• Cost of Federal Emergency Management Agency/FEMA per year (all natural disasters): $10.38 billion
• Cost of universal Health Coverage (Bernie’s plan actually saves billions & covers everyone): $00.00
4 better ways to spend just the $163 Billion: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/avi-yashchin/4-better-ways-to-spend-16_2_b...
Imagine the better ways to spend $1.5 TRILLION instead of corporate welfare for military-industrial monstrosities Lockheed Martin & Northrop Grumman.
Canada's cancelling their order for F-35's so can the USA.
The remaining $700 billion could make college tuition FREE for everyone for at least a DECADE if we pull the plug on the F-35 now.
We don’t need another 2,000 obsolete war-planes, we need health care & education.
• Cost of making grad school degrees (MBA’s, MD’s, Lawyers, Engineers) FREE for everyone enrolled: $153 billion
• Cost of making public college tuition FREE: $62.6 billion
• Cost of Federal Emergency Management Agency/FEMA per year (all natural disasters): $10.38 billion
• Cost of universal Health Coverage (Bernie’s plan actually saves billions & covers everyone): $00.00
4 better ways to spend just the $163 Billion: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/avi-yashchin/4-better-ways-to-spend-16_2_b...
Imagine the better ways to spend $1.5 TRILLION instead of corporate welfare for military-industrial monstrosities Lockheed Martin & Northrop Grumman.
Canada's cancelling their order for F-35's so can the USA.
The remaining $700 billion could make college tuition FREE for everyone for at least a DECADE if we pull the plug on the F-35 now.
We don’t need another 2,000 obsolete war-planes, we need health care & education.
61
The f-35 program will be cancelled by the next administration. The last time we tried a multi role concept wax the f-4 phantom and we had 700 shot down in Vietnam. With our competition developing new aircraft and ground based radar systems, it is foolish to the point if insanity to commit to a flawed single engine airplane that requires a 40 service liife to justify its outrageous cost. We will cancel the f-35 and return to a layered air strategy as soon as practicable.
6
Where do you get those numbers, absolutely false! It was NOT produced for the marines or air force but the navy. It proved so good that it was used by all three services.
2
Alan, the F-4 was not "so good that was used by all three services." It was produced for all three services because then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara wanted procurement and parts commonality for all services.
The F-4 Phantom was not intended as a "common" multi-service aircraft like McNamara's F-111 Aardvark. It was designed for the Navy and was so good that it was adopted by the Air Force since it is easier to adopt a carrier aircraft to land use than the other way around.
According to all the GOP candidates running for President our military has never been weaker... so I guess the most logical thing to do is keep spending billions of dollars in a weapons platform that will never be fully operational. Perhaps the NFL could ask the Pentagon about that $400,000 helmet .. there's gotta be something in it they can use..
10
The Air Force, in particular, has gone institutionally insane over this aircraft. It is betting America's security based on the fact that it is in too deep on this system to admit that it might be less capable than everyone's worst fears. War is expensive, but sometimes "good enough" is enough to meet the need. It might be better to have a good enough (and comparatively cheap) airplane every 5-10 years rather than a supposed best of all every 30 years. Given advances in automation, detection, and air defense, every 30 years at great cost might turn out to be seriously harmful to US security.
8
Mr. Haberman should stick to reporting about NYC and other things he understands. There are two very distinct -- and ignored or misreported issues.
The first is that there is today -- as predicted more than 10 years ago -- an acute shortage of fighter aircraft. Clinton decisions triggered this; Bush and Obama made it worse. After Congress cut F-22 numbers by 40% and as F-35 availability shifted to the right, the expected teething issues with the F-35 became grist for its opponents.
More importantly, Mr Haberman understands neither that close to 70+% of the F-35's functionality resides in software (continuing a steady upward spiral common to all modern aircraft) nor that the F-35 is not a fighter aircraft. It is, instead, the first of a generation of network-centric battle planes. The heavily sensored, networked F-35 will operate with fleets of unmanned air and ground vehicles, other air/ground units, and perform as no current aircraft can.
I've flown nearly every US fighter aircraft in our inventory since 1965, including several that had development problems dwarfing those of the F-35 but that went on to deliver excellent service. The F-35 will prove to be a game-changer in the Information Age. As for the opinions of Pierre Sprey, I can say only that he never met an advanced aircraft he liked, was a fierce critic of the F-15 (which more than 40 years since it first flew is still undefeated in aerial combat), and has made a career of similar criticisms.
The first is that there is today -- as predicted more than 10 years ago -- an acute shortage of fighter aircraft. Clinton decisions triggered this; Bush and Obama made it worse. After Congress cut F-22 numbers by 40% and as F-35 availability shifted to the right, the expected teething issues with the F-35 became grist for its opponents.
More importantly, Mr Haberman understands neither that close to 70+% of the F-35's functionality resides in software (continuing a steady upward spiral common to all modern aircraft) nor that the F-35 is not a fighter aircraft. It is, instead, the first of a generation of network-centric battle planes. The heavily sensored, networked F-35 will operate with fleets of unmanned air and ground vehicles, other air/ground units, and perform as no current aircraft can.
I've flown nearly every US fighter aircraft in our inventory since 1965, including several that had development problems dwarfing those of the F-35 but that went on to deliver excellent service. The F-35 will prove to be a game-changer in the Information Age. As for the opinions of Pierre Sprey, I can say only that he never met an advanced aircraft he liked, was a fierce critic of the F-15 (which more than 40 years since it first flew is still undefeated in aerial combat), and has made a career of similar criticisms.
5
So - with >70% of functionality in the software (and we all know how easy it is to write mission-critical bug-free software, right?), and being the centre of a network - how's that going to fly when someone on the other side bathes the environment in enough EMR that nothing can get through?
Just guessing here, but I bet the development problems of the aircraft you flew were very probably of a considerably lower order of magnitude than those of this does-everything fighter (and it's been called a fighter by nearly everyone, because that old-fashioned term pretty much describes a major part of what it has to do).
This affects me too because the Australian Govt. has been led astray by its slavish devotion to strengthening the ties with the US, and by the RAAF's desire for the latest shiniest - we're spending a huge amount of our future defence budget on these, and if they don't work, we're stuffed.
You win wars by having the weapons where you need them, when you need them and being rugged enough to do the job is what winning-wars is all about. Not having the shiniest and trickest items in your TOE. In the 50s you could get away with bling weapon systems that didn't really work but looked good - no longer!
Proponents of this system seem to have completely forgotten the risk/reward payoff. They're tying EVERYTHING to this working, and they're disposing of proven aircraft to make sure that there's no other way forward. If it doesn't work - then what? What's the backup plan?
Just guessing here, but I bet the development problems of the aircraft you flew were very probably of a considerably lower order of magnitude than those of this does-everything fighter (and it's been called a fighter by nearly everyone, because that old-fashioned term pretty much describes a major part of what it has to do).
This affects me too because the Australian Govt. has been led astray by its slavish devotion to strengthening the ties with the US, and by the RAAF's desire for the latest shiniest - we're spending a huge amount of our future defence budget on these, and if they don't work, we're stuffed.
You win wars by having the weapons where you need them, when you need them and being rugged enough to do the job is what winning-wars is all about. Not having the shiniest and trickest items in your TOE. In the 50s you could get away with bling weapon systems that didn't really work but looked good - no longer!
Proponents of this system seem to have completely forgotten the risk/reward payoff. They're tying EVERYTHING to this working, and they're disposing of proven aircraft to make sure that there's no other way forward. If it doesn't work - then what? What's the backup plan?
2
It's the absolutely outrageous cost of the f-35, not the myriad of problems teething.
What fighter are you familiar with that had a more screwed up development process than the F-35? Bear in mind that the F-111 was not a fighter, neither was the F-117. They were put forth as "fighters" just because it sounds sexy.
The F7U (Gutless) Cutlass was a total flop but it was only a Navy plane. About the only plane that was successfully used by the Air Force, Navy and Marines was the F-4 Phantom. On the other hand, the Sprey-designed F-16 has been one of the most successful fighters ever built. BTW, how many times has the F-15 seen aerial combat? It's mostly been used as a strike aircraft.
The F7U (Gutless) Cutlass was a total flop but it was only a Navy plane. About the only plane that was successfully used by the Air Force, Navy and Marines was the F-4 Phantom. On the other hand, the Sprey-designed F-16 has been one of the most successful fighters ever built. BTW, how many times has the F-15 seen aerial combat? It's mostly been used as a strike aircraft.
2
Getting this aircraft to be "Ready" or "Effective" is totally besides the point. As long as the military-industrial complex hogs are being "slopped at the trough" by the American tax payer, as is well in Conservative world.
2
Reminiscent of a short story, "The Gun Without a Bang", by Robert Scheckley, about the limits of technology.
1
Call it what it is... a government funded jobs program.
20
The US military wants to buy turkeys. They start with impossible demands, sees all this stuff on paper, whispered in their ears by the conmen and then starts trying to convince everyone they weren't taken for a ride when it falls flat. The military/industrial complex promises big paydays for their supporters and the ride starts for the taxpayers. It's interesting we continue to make the staffing less important so the crooks can have more of the pie. Got to love it.
14
Follow the money. What we might fond are all manner of suppliers and the manufacturer greasing the Congressional skids and pocketing huge profits thanks to a Congress which continues to represent only themselves and their incomes.
I believe all incumbents or professional politicians offer just more of the same unacceptable, irresponsible behavior that has totally bankrupted our nation and created a government rife with institutionalized corruption.
We let this happen. We let these "representatives" get away with this behavior and we are now paying a HUGE price.
I have but a single vote and will, in the primaries and the general election, NOT vote for any incumbent or "professional politician". I will vote against them all until we turn our nation around.
I believe all incumbents or professional politicians offer just more of the same unacceptable, irresponsible behavior that has totally bankrupted our nation and created a government rife with institutionalized corruption.
We let this happen. We let these "representatives" get away with this behavior and we are now paying a HUGE price.
I have but a single vote and will, in the primaries and the general election, NOT vote for any incumbent or "professional politician". I will vote against them all until we turn our nation around.
2
Many of the subcontractor's to Lockheed Martin have been bought up by private equity. Yes, follow the money.
2
We keep on fighting the last war.
A recommendation from Sen Mc Cain. The same genius who picked Sarah Palin.
What's next? Horses and lancers?
They want to keep it going. Orwell was right "War is not meant to be won it is meant to be continuous"
Here's another one from Mr Orwell, who died in 1950 "War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it"
A recommendation from Sen Mc Cain. The same genius who picked Sarah Palin.
What's next? Horses and lancers?
They want to keep it going. Orwell was right "War is not meant to be won it is meant to be continuous"
Here's another one from Mr Orwell, who died in 1950 "War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it"
51
Anyone was was held as a POW and tortured should be given a pass. I don;t know how the man kept his sanity.
F-35, F-22, V-22, and so many other Pentagon boondoggles--nothing but endless welfare for our war profiteers and Wall St. Ike warned us. How right he was.
68
Right, because Ike said we should disarm and unilaterally surrender. Besides, everyone knows it was our schools and hospitals that brought Iran to the negotiating table recently. And, whenever we find those nasty ISIS characters committing some atrocity, we drop school supplies on them.
I wish the Pentagon would learn from history. The F111 Fighter-Bomber program really never reached its goals back in the 1960's. Defense Secty McNamara wanted a carrier capable plane for the Navy and another bomber for the Air Force. Neither worked.
I hope my fears are wrong and that we get a new fighter than can actually work against a new developing Chinese Air Force as well as a newly resurgent Russian Federation.
I hope my fears are wrong and that we get a new fighter than can actually work against a new developing Chinese Air Force as well as a newly resurgent Russian Federation.
1
"As any schoolchild knows, one well-aimed fling was all it took to put Goliath down for good. The big guy never saw it coming."
Great, subtle reinforcement that the military is doing god's work, but it's okay because separation of church and state is just a formality. Of course all the children have been indoctrinated in the Judeo/Christian bible stories because god's on our side, and we all know exactly just whose god it is. And if those children have to do without clean water it's okay, because the military has to do god's work.
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we’re forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God’s on your side
Read more: http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/god-our-side#ixzz3yDRcSer4
Great, subtle reinforcement that the military is doing god's work, but it's okay because separation of church and state is just a formality. Of course all the children have been indoctrinated in the Judeo/Christian bible stories because god's on our side, and we all know exactly just whose god it is. And if those children have to do without clean water it's okay, because the military has to do god's work.
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we’re forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God’s on your side
Read more: http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/god-our-side#ixzz3yDRcSer4
2
Remember the B1 and B2 bombers - one couldn't fly in the rain. We spend billions/trillions on new planes that we don't need, and still the B52 keeps flying and is our go to bomber. Makes you wonder what we could do back in the fifties and can't do today.
37
The B-1 Bomber has been the "go to" workhorse of the Air Force for a decade. It's capabilities and performance in combat far exceed the B-52 and the combined firepower of over 3 dozen "F#" attack jet fighters.
Reference WaPo Dec 2015 -https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/12/30/the-under-a...
Reference WaPo Dec 2015 -https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/12/30/the-under-a...
More than likely engineers and the people who use them were allowed to build what worked rather than management and congress interfering.
Mark,
I applaud your observations. Further, another fighter-in-trouble is the F-22. It has ben noted that flying near a thunderstorm could knock out the entire electronics system thus turning this into a lawn dart. Then there was the oxygen-delivery system to the pilots that have caused dizziness and total unconsciousness resulting in fatal crashes.
Fact: the F-16, F-15 Fighting Eagle and the F-18 Hornet (and updated Super-Hornet) can hold their own against anything the Russians and Chinese can throw at us. Australia is likely to cancel their order for F-35s in favor over more F-15 and F-18 fighters. The F-35 has become too expensive with no target date for delivery to international customers. The cost keeps rising with no end in sight with absolutely no political will in Congress to kill this project.
I applaud your observations. Further, another fighter-in-trouble is the F-22. It has ben noted that flying near a thunderstorm could knock out the entire electronics system thus turning this into a lawn dart. Then there was the oxygen-delivery system to the pilots that have caused dizziness and total unconsciousness resulting in fatal crashes.
Fact: the F-16, F-15 Fighting Eagle and the F-18 Hornet (and updated Super-Hornet) can hold their own against anything the Russians and Chinese can throw at us. Australia is likely to cancel their order for F-35s in favor over more F-15 and F-18 fighters. The F-35 has become too expensive with no target date for delivery to international customers. The cost keeps rising with no end in sight with absolutely no political will in Congress to kill this project.
The main trend that is not discussed in this article is that of drone warfare. Clearly a larger number of missions are being flown by remotely piloted cheaper aircraft even today, something not anticipated in 1991 when this project was conceived. As AI continues to improve, the accuracy and reliability of remote piloted aircraft will make a manned plane seem quaint and absurd. Already the U.S. Is relying heavily on these cheap and effective weapons for warfare as the cost and complexity of manned aircraft are inefficient and far less capable (predators can be aloft for 36 hours etc.). This program was conceived and funded before the paradigm that the Internet revolution made clear and should be scrapped as even if it did achieve its goals (unlikely) it is with certainty obsolete and a huge waste of money.
6
I completely understand the sticker shock of this weapon system, especially when you compare it's cost to the price of building schools, public services, etc. But I'd offer another perspective.
If our citizens continue to expect, I'd even say, take for granted, that the United States will forever be able to defend itself against any nation on Earth, and be able to project military power anywhere, anytime, with absolute impunity, then - this may sound uncomfortable - the government has a responsibility to feedi and grow the world's greatest defense industry to ensure technical superiority.
Forget the F-35 for a moment.
The real issue is, given the expectations placed on our military, how does a capitalist nation grow the world's greatest defense industry when that industry has no other customer besides the government? It's an incredibly complicated paradox riddled with compromise.
If citizens no longer expect this god-like military superiority, then we can invest elsewhere. Until then, the F-35, and everything that comes from advances made during that program, fit the bill.
If our citizens continue to expect, I'd even say, take for granted, that the United States will forever be able to defend itself against any nation on Earth, and be able to project military power anywhere, anytime, with absolute impunity, then - this may sound uncomfortable - the government has a responsibility to feedi and grow the world's greatest defense industry to ensure technical superiority.
Forget the F-35 for a moment.
The real issue is, given the expectations placed on our military, how does a capitalist nation grow the world's greatest defense industry when that industry has no other customer besides the government? It's an incredibly complicated paradox riddled with compromise.
If citizens no longer expect this god-like military superiority, then we can invest elsewhere. Until then, the F-35, and everything that comes from advances made during that program, fit the bill.
3
The F-35 is a boondoggle. The retired generals of the U S Marine Corps do not want the F-35B.
How did the USAF hoodwink the U S Navy to buy a fighter that only has one engine.
The USAF is now using F-16 drones at Eglin AFB as targets for the F-22 and F-35. The F-16 is a great aircraft. Why are we using F-16's as drones? The contractor is writing software to make the F-22 superior. This will make the U S Navy inferior to the USAF. Why? The F-22 has 2 engines.
The F-18 Super Hornet is what the Navy needs to deliver ordnance. Stealth an F-18. The F-22 and the F-35 are yet to be qualified to deliver any air to ground ordnance.
The F-35 program is evil.
I attended air shows in November at Pensacola and Moody AFB were the F-35 was displayed or performed. The USAF did a pitiful job with the F-35.
How did the USAF hoodwink the U S Navy to buy a fighter that only has one engine.
The USAF is now using F-16 drones at Eglin AFB as targets for the F-22 and F-35. The F-16 is a great aircraft. Why are we using F-16's as drones? The contractor is writing software to make the F-22 superior. This will make the U S Navy inferior to the USAF. Why? The F-22 has 2 engines.
The F-18 Super Hornet is what the Navy needs to deliver ordnance. Stealth an F-18. The F-22 and the F-35 are yet to be qualified to deliver any air to ground ordnance.
The F-35 program is evil.
I attended air shows in November at Pensacola and Moody AFB were the F-35 was displayed or performed. The USAF did a pitiful job with the F-35.
1
I believe that the reason the F-35 only has one engine is because of the Marine requirement for a VTOL/STOL aircraft to replace the problem-plagued Harrier.
The requirement for supersonic flight didn't allow a fuselage wide enough to house two engines.
The requirement for supersonic flight didn't allow a fuselage wide enough to house two engines.
Everyone should ask themselves what is the primary purpose of the F-35.
It is to bring jobs and money to many different states. That was why it was approved by Congress. Just about every state gets something.
Another commenter also pointed out that it would be a perfect plane for the 20th century. Pilots will be completely obsolete by the time the F-35 comes online. Drones don't have the constraints or the costs of maintaining a pilot. An unmanned aircraft can go where a manned aircraft can't. Human beings can only handle so many Gs, but a drone has a much higher upper limit. Unfortunately, another comment pointed out pilots are the pinnacle of the Air Force. The thought of no more fighter pilots is more than they can bear.
It is to bring jobs and money to many different states. That was why it was approved by Congress. Just about every state gets something.
Another commenter also pointed out that it would be a perfect plane for the 20th century. Pilots will be completely obsolete by the time the F-35 comes online. Drones don't have the constraints or the costs of maintaining a pilot. An unmanned aircraft can go where a manned aircraft can't. Human beings can only handle so many Gs, but a drone has a much higher upper limit. Unfortunately, another comment pointed out pilots are the pinnacle of the Air Force. The thought of no more fighter pilots is more than they can bear.
6
It's plane in search of a mission. The Cold War is over. We have enough B-2 stealth bombers, guided missiles of every sort, drones, standoff anti -aircraft, anti shipand air to surface missiles. We don't need to defeat an armada of advanced fighters fro Russia or China. The craft we have will do nicely. And, for the money we're paying for this enormous boondoggle we could have fleets of fighters better than those two regional powers. How does the F-35 help us with ISIS or any other modern threat. Enough has got to be enough.
49
"The Cold War is over" ???
Where on Earth does anyone get the idea it is over ? It has been put back on the burner & recooked. The Cold War is bubbling on the stove on high once again.
Oh, wait - I forgot, that idea must have been spun out of that older idea - "The Peace Dividend". Remember that ridiculous Hype ? Died a quick Death didn't
it ?
Don't forget -they are now at this moment cooking up "The Future Bomber". The wonderous machine that will replace the B-52. What a joke.
I recently heard from my deceased father, a former Aerospace engineer. He is indeed rolling over in his grave when he observes the modern inability of almost anyone being able to engineer & launch almost any type of new aircraft these days.
Where on Earth does anyone get the idea it is over ? It has been put back on the burner & recooked. The Cold War is bubbling on the stove on high once again.
Oh, wait - I forgot, that idea must have been spun out of that older idea - "The Peace Dividend". Remember that ridiculous Hype ? Died a quick Death didn't
it ?
Don't forget -they are now at this moment cooking up "The Future Bomber". The wonderous machine that will replace the B-52. What a joke.
I recently heard from my deceased father, a former Aerospace engineer. He is indeed rolling over in his grave when he observes the modern inability of almost anyone being able to engineer & launch almost any type of new aircraft these days.
1
Would anyone actually risk one of these things on a real ground support mission knowing it could be taken down by an antique anti-aircraft gun mounted on the back of a pickup truck?
35
Remember the FB111!
2
The British Labour government stopped the development of BAC TSR-2 which was a low level nuclear bomber and planned to purchase the FB111 until as you are alluding to the aircraft became very expensive. I think it eventually became a useful aircraft but at considerable cost. I always thought the F-35 was an over ambitious and politically driven plane. I suppose eventually it will become a useful but also have doubts on its Stealth capabilities but I know as much as the NY Times does in this regard.
2
Another defense contractor with its snout deep in the trough....this jet will never ever meet expectations. Either cancel it or modify the program. I wonder how many Air Force officers pushing this jet retired and went to work for Lockheed?
2
Economies of scale- our military/political leaders envisioned the creation of a single multi role air frame for our military. They assumed that only one design was needed and that tweaking it here and there would work for the other branches. The theory was by mass producing and concentrating production, costs would go do over time. How much time? Enough time in which our adversaries would be able to play catch up(a better mouse).
With an estimated 1 trillion dollars in lifetime cost, no clear benefits, and no end in sight; this is beginning to seem like your typical government program: over budget(check), over-schedule(check), tied up in so much bureaucratic tape, and no one with the cojones to say enough is enough.
Come on politicians, you all are smarter than that.. I think! Don't believe all the bull these contractors feed you.
With an estimated 1 trillion dollars in lifetime cost, no clear benefits, and no end in sight; this is beginning to seem like your typical government program: over budget(check), over-schedule(check), tied up in so much bureaucratic tape, and no one with the cojones to say enough is enough.
Come on politicians, you all are smarter than that.. I think! Don't believe all the bull these contractors feed you.
1
" this is beginning to seem like your typical government program: over budget(check), over-schedule(check), tied up in so much bureaucratic tape"
Even the government loving NYTs has said numerous times that "government is always inefficient and often corrupt". It would appear that anything involving politics is always corrupt.
Even the government loving NYTs has said numerous times that "government is always inefficient and often corrupt". It would appear that anything involving politics is always corrupt.
1
A couple of points. 1. The shared plane idea worked beautifully with the F4 Phantom during the Vietnam era. The Air Force had the base version and the Navy/Marine Corps version had specialized heavy-duty landing gear and (I think) foldable wings, for carrier duty. The idea should have worked well again, but the Good Idea Fairy worked his/her bad magic this go around. 2. While obscenely expensive, this item, nor the defense budget, will cause the downfall of America. Defense expenditure is still 'only' 3.5% of our GDP, behind Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia.
1
Yes on the F-4, but it started life and entered service first as a purely Navy program. Once the capabilities of the plane were obvious, the Air Force decided to test and then buy. It was never joint from conception. And, as the program continued each service created vastly different variants such as the F-4E and F-4J. The F-35 should also have started as a Navy only program that later spawned an Air Force variant. And the USMC should have been given the freedom to pursue its needs entirely separately.
6
Although the Air Force hates to to do do, it is much easier to adapt a carrier aircraft for land based use than to adapt a land based aircraft for carrier use since land based aircraft are not designed to withstand the stresses of arrested carrier landings.
The question isn't why the F-35 does not function as proposed, the question is who benefited from its malfunctions? The American Defense Industry, with all of the criticisms, has produced a line of advanced weaponry which has impressed the world. The Military, always seeking the inventor of the next generation of weapons to maintain, what they believe in, our military superiority; is not always educated enough to know what is currently not possible to invent. This is where exaggerated and unrealistic designs, sold to the Military, by Military Contractors, must be seen, potentially, as treasonous business practices, not Pork Barrel Expenditures. It's one thing for the Military to fund weapons exploration and development; it is quite another to be sold on something that has not proven to work to expectation, the F-35 "expectation" also coming with an enormousand growing price tag. Someone benefitted from this government spending without having to deliver the working aircraft our military expects and needs. Find out who made money off of this dysfunction, take that money back, isolate and quarantine those responsible, so as to protect National Security, use their money to make sure this weapon works, as promised.
Scot E. Torquato, MS, LCSW
Scot E. Torquato, MS, LCSW
There is a saying known by all... "Jack of all trades, master of none". So seems the F-35. They should have upgraded the A-10, built a new and better Harrier and a new jet for the Navy. They could have accomplished all three in half the time and half the budget. The guy who backed the idea of a "universal" fighter must have been nuts or a hell of a salesman. America is less secure in the future because of the F-35's unreliability and questionable performance. Even the Chinese and Russians won't copy it's design from plans stolen by well placed spies. (just my speculation).
48
"The guy who backed the idea of a "universal" fighter must have been nuts or a hell of a salesman"
The person responsible for the idea of a universal aircraft was Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara. He cancelled programs for fighter and bomber versions of the SR-71 Blackbird because they threatened his pet F-111 Aardvark and even tried to force the USN to adopt the F-111 even though it was too heavy to be used for aircraft carrier operations.
The person responsible for the idea of a universal aircraft was Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara. He cancelled programs for fighter and bomber versions of the SR-71 Blackbird because they threatened his pet F-111 Aardvark and even tried to force the USN to adopt the F-111 even though it was too heavy to be used for aircraft carrier operations.
3
The A-10 Warthog is one of the favorite aircraft of our forces on the ground. Enemy forces fear the Warthog more than any other jet. It sweeps in fairly quietly before unleashing the nose-mounted Gatling gun and the seemingly countless supply of wing-mounted air-to-ground weapons. When our troops have been pinned down by Taliban fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan, nothing brings cheers of relief more than seeing Warthogs entering the fight.
This plane is a weapons marvel while the pilot and fuel supply are protected by titanium sheathing, Photos of Warthogs that have been shot up while making it home safely with a pilot unharmed are the stuff of legend. Republic Aircraft should not only keep producing this aircraft, they should keep working to improve an already-amazing ground-attack fighter.
The F-35 started as a Powerpoint presentation and should have been laughed out of the sales meeting.
This plane is a weapons marvel while the pilot and fuel supply are protected by titanium sheathing, Photos of Warthogs that have been shot up while making it home safely with a pilot unharmed are the stuff of legend. Republic Aircraft should not only keep producing this aircraft, they should keep working to improve an already-amazing ground-attack fighter.
The F-35 started as a Powerpoint presentation and should have been laughed out of the sales meeting.
The Chinese are developing their own "stealth fighter" called the "J-7." It looks remarkably like the F-22 Raptor, most likely based on classified designs stolen through China's program of intellectual property theft. Why spend billions on engineering and development costs when it is far easier to steal your adversaries' designs and build your arsenal based upon purloined research? The Peoples' Liberation Army has mastered these techniques!
1
Great plane for the 20th century.
17
The F-35 is a huge $1.5 trillion boondoggle that has done wonders for the Lockheed-Martin company. LMT has done a wonderful job in making sure that Congress will not take needed decision to cancel this expensive boondoggle.
56
I wish journalists would not refer to the David and Goliath myth as history.
34
I agree about presenting myths as though they are historically accurate. But if the reporter does want to allude to the David and Goliath story, the F35 seems a lot more like the ineffective Goliath (overburdened with complexity weaponry) than David with a simple stone.
The Air Force is where the Navy was in 1941. Just as the Navy was wedded to the battleship as the queen of the seas (until the Japanese put paid to that notion at Pearl Harbor), the Air Force is wedded to manned, fixed wing aircraft. The whole culture of the Air Force rests on the notion of the pilot in the cockpit -- any other job is second rate at best. As if we need any more evidence of this, the Air Force wants a manned, fixed-wing bomber to replace the B-2. Odds are it will be 1) even more expensive than the F-35, 2) beset by delays and overruns, and 3) obsolete when it's fielded. And of course Gen Bogdan stands by the F-35 program (as have all of his predecessors) -- it would be career suicide to do otherwise.
29
There's a Stephen Coonts book where the latest technology aircraft is so expensive that it's joker "we can only afford one, we'll park it on the White House lawn to impress foreign dignitaries." Not far from the truth. The military procurement system is a mess. The services, the contractors, and congress team up to make it near-impossible to fix rationally.
17
In 1951 Arthur C. Clarke wrote the short story "Superiority"
http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html
making the point that the most advanced weapons can be worse than useless.
A recommended read.
http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html
making the point that the most advanced weapons can be worse than useless.
A recommended read.
3
"we can only afford one, we'll park it on the White House lawn to impress foreign dignitaries."
The Air Force will get to fly it four days a week, the Navy three days a week, and the Coast Guard every February 29th.
The Air Force will get to fly it four days a week, the Navy three days a week, and the Coast Guard every February 29th.
2
The importance of testing decreases as the weapon cost rises. There is too much political pressure for any bad news, so before the report can say, "Goals not met," the bar is simply lowered. LM in particular with the F-35 and LCS ships have made a mockery of the process.
One one hand, F-35 seems remarkable for achieving such parts commonality between three very different variants. But the lower costs that McNamara sought with TFX/F-111 in the 60s/70s clearly aren't happening here, at the expense of programs now being looked at to take up the inventory slack. Both the prime contractor and the Pentagon could care less.
One one hand, F-35 seems remarkable for achieving such parts commonality between three very different variants. But the lower costs that McNamara sought with TFX/F-111 in the 60s/70s clearly aren't happening here, at the expense of programs now being looked at to take up the inventory slack. Both the prime contractor and the Pentagon could care less.
5
Has anyone asked themselves lately what lofty ideals we're protecting when we invest in such hypertrophied systems? Most of our volunteer army is recruited from economically deprived areas making them little different than the barbarian troops enlisted by the Romans, except perhaps more gullible. Each of these planes is equivalent to a hundred schools. The dichotomy is sickening.
Why don't we ask everyone in this country worth over a hundred million dollars to 'sponsor' one of these planes, one for each hundred million. They could even have a little plaque with their name on it - a stealth plaque of course. After all, it's really their interests we're defending at this point; no one else has anything worth preserving.
Why don't we ask everyone in this country worth over a hundred million dollars to 'sponsor' one of these planes, one for each hundred million. They could even have a little plaque with their name on it - a stealth plaque of course. After all, it's really their interests we're defending at this point; no one else has anything worth preserving.
123
Our fellow citizens who are willing to go through basic training, then specialized training and put their life on the line in the defense of our nation are not little different than barbarians. The gullible people are the ones who accept your incorrect and profoundly ungrateful description of the men and women that are willing to lay " so costly a sacrifice upon the alter of freedom." "Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum" are words designed to protect one thing that everyone should consider worth preserving, our freedom.
Now if your desperate to find fault with a large monolithic culture in which efficiency no longer exists and effectiveness is on the decline, use your rhetoric on the your New York's, Miami's or Los Angeles' school systems and you will find the hypertrophied systems you want to dislike.
Now if your desperate to find fault with a large monolithic culture in which efficiency no longer exists and effectiveness is on the decline, use your rhetoric on the your New York's, Miami's or Los Angeles' school systems and you will find the hypertrophied systems you want to dislike.
2
Stan,
Being economically deprived does not make one gullible and I think comparing American citizens performing their duties as a citizen a very long stretch. Worse yet, the NY times made your inflammatory comments one of their picks...really?? I guess you're right...we need a draft so that we consider those who know the real costs of war our sons and daughters instead of gullible barbarians. Shame on you.
Being economically deprived does not make one gullible and I think comparing American citizens performing their duties as a citizen a very long stretch. Worse yet, the NY times made your inflammatory comments one of their picks...really?? I guess you're right...we need a draft so that we consider those who know the real costs of war our sons and daughters instead of gullible barbarians. Shame on you.
2
Dear Stan,
I love your concept even as a metaphor. When one considers the "naming opportunities" used for various fundraising projects and mega-projects in higher education, commercial development and sports arenas, your idea makes sense. "This F-35 is sponsored by ..." Or, just as our WW2 bombers and fighters painted the names of girlfriends, wives and celebrities on their aircraft, The Donald or Jamie Dimon, or some other representative of the top One Percent would put up their own $100M as a sponsor for each aircraft.
Funneling the savings into our schools and infrastructure (where the rich prefer NOT to invest) seems a natural business model. Thank you for such a brilliant idea.
I love your concept even as a metaphor. When one considers the "naming opportunities" used for various fundraising projects and mega-projects in higher education, commercial development and sports arenas, your idea makes sense. "This F-35 is sponsored by ..." Or, just as our WW2 bombers and fighters painted the names of girlfriends, wives and celebrities on their aircraft, The Donald or Jamie Dimon, or some other representative of the top One Percent would put up their own $100M as a sponsor for each aircraft.
Funneling the savings into our schools and infrastructure (where the rich prefer NOT to invest) seems a natural business model. Thank you for such a brilliant idea.
A key question, what are the real opportunity costs of building this unneeded weapon, i.e. infrastructure, like schools, roads, health facilities, and housing that won't be funded?
70
The F-35 is coming scarily close to fulfilling the following prediction made by ex-CEO of Lockheed Martin Norm Augustine:
"Law Number XVI: In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day."
"Law Number XVI: In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day."
76
And no one will be willing to risk it in actual combat because they can't afford to replace it. Technology is good, but there is an old military maxim "quantity is a quality all of it's own."
1
Murphy's Law XVII:"Some innocent birds flew into the jet engine by accient and crash the jet hat costs 25% of US GDP."
Murphy's Law XVII-1:"A pilot tries to take a selfie to sextext his girl friend, hit the eject button and crash the jet that costs 25% of US GDP, inadvertently."
Murphy's Law XVII-1:"A pilot tries to take a selfie to sextext his girl friend, hit the eject button and crash the jet that costs 25% of US GDP, inadvertently."
General Norton A. Schwartz at 3:55 in the Runaway Plane video mentions "stealth like the Star Wars cloaking mechanism". Romulan cloaking technology is actually found in "Star Trek".
1
The analogy made at the end of the article is flawed. David had but one weapon and no back up system. The author mistakes having a small amount of ammunition as a separate or different system.
Now to understand the underlying strategy. Ask any war historian which was the better tank, the German Tiger or the Soviet T-34 and the answer is clear. Ask which country had the greater array of superior weapons and Germany again is the clear winner with everything from the V2 rocket, ME 262 jet fighter, MG 42 machine gun, the StG 44 assault rifle, and the Tiger tank. However, if you were one of the relatively few Tiger tank operators with support troops carrying Stg's and MG 42s coming onto the field of battle outnumbered 10 to 1 by T-34s, the wide array of weapons pales in importance compared to the vast numbers opposing you. Having one good weapons system in large quantities, operable and maintainable throughout the armed forces branches is both efficient and effective.
Now let's see if our world's leaders and politicians can avoid ever having to deploy them.
Now to understand the underlying strategy. Ask any war historian which was the better tank, the German Tiger or the Soviet T-34 and the answer is clear. Ask which country had the greater array of superior weapons and Germany again is the clear winner with everything from the V2 rocket, ME 262 jet fighter, MG 42 machine gun, the StG 44 assault rifle, and the Tiger tank. However, if you were one of the relatively few Tiger tank operators with support troops carrying Stg's and MG 42s coming onto the field of battle outnumbered 10 to 1 by T-34s, the wide array of weapons pales in importance compared to the vast numbers opposing you. Having one good weapons system in large quantities, operable and maintainable throughout the armed forces branches is both efficient and effective.
Now let's see if our world's leaders and politicians can avoid ever having to deploy them.
9
The German Panther tank was clearly superior to the US M-4 Sherman tank, but the Germans built 5,000 Panthers while the US built 50,000 Shermans. As the old saying goes "Quantity has a Quality all its own".
26
The Harrier is known as a very difficult plane to fly, and does need replacement. However, the F-35 doesn't seem ready to step into the Harrier's role of a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) jet intended to conduct close air support ... and it may never be.
In close air support, the planes get shot at by ground forces, who can often identify the target visually. This makes stealth of less value - and the price tag for each F-35 makes it hard to believe that we'd be willing to send them low enough to perform the ground support role effectively. (Notice the rugged A-10's success at this role is that it can survive ground fire which would take out faster jets.)
The other problem with expensive weapons systems was illustrated in Arthur C Clarke's classic story "Superiority", where overly sophisticated weapons systems proved no match for well-understood but less complex weapons. Overly expensive weapons systems open one up to losing wars through bankruptcy - if one can't afford to supply the troops with weapons, they can't win.
In close air support, the planes get shot at by ground forces, who can often identify the target visually. This makes stealth of less value - and the price tag for each F-35 makes it hard to believe that we'd be willing to send them low enough to perform the ground support role effectively. (Notice the rugged A-10's success at this role is that it can survive ground fire which would take out faster jets.)
The other problem with expensive weapons systems was illustrated in Arthur C Clarke's classic story "Superiority", where overly sophisticated weapons systems proved no match for well-understood but less complex weapons. Overly expensive weapons systems open one up to losing wars through bankruptcy - if one can't afford to supply the troops with weapons, they can't win.
88
So glad to see that someone remembers Clarke's wonderful story.
The A-10 is one of the best weapons in our arsenal if we have air superiority. Unfortunately the F-35 won't help there. Your analysis of the issue is spot on. IF we needed a new plane it would either be for air superiority or for strategic bombing to replace the B-52 from the 1950's, which is still an effective workhorse once the enemy's anti-air defense network is destroyed by aircraft from the 1970's (F-15) that is continually being modernized (and very effectively) and once the enemies air-to-air capability is destroyed by aircraft from the 1970's and1980's.
A Harrier is needed why? And at what cost? If I were a "boot on the ground" I'd think I'd rather see an old A-10 Warthog flying above me. Seems to me the Harrier (or it's replacement) cost ≠ usefulness.
Anyone who understands our military has known this project was a failure right from the start. Unmanned aircraft will rule the sky's and the only people who refuse to acknowledge this are old school pilots. A trillions dollars for an abject failure and no one is held accountable. Pretty soon there won't be much of a country to protect.
105
They said a similar thing right around 1965...
2
Nice. You just gave the best reason to not live anyplace near the centralized command and control remote pilot centers. They will be the first places to receive boomed into ashes.
Nobody in their right mind would rely on drones and once the head is cut off, they are useless. Real wars and real battle fields are places that change every second. Your faith in technology is touching. Too bad reliance on it will loose you the next war.
Nobody in their right mind would rely on drones and once the head is cut off, they are useless. Real wars and real battle fields are places that change every second. Your faith in technology is touching. Too bad reliance on it will loose you the next war.
People are too enamored with the idea of unmanned aircraft (UA). They can be hacked and jammed. The human brain and eyeball are still world class hardware.
The sling was a proven technology used as far back as alexander the great.
David did not experiment in killing a lion and a bear, he was very good with a sling.
Perhaps you should have discussed the expedited approval/procurement process for the F-35.
Eisenhower's military-industrial-(political) complex spawns incredibley expensive toy.
David did not experiment in killing a lion and a bear, he was very good with a sling.
Perhaps you should have discussed the expedited approval/procurement process for the F-35.
Eisenhower's military-industrial-(political) complex spawns incredibley expensive toy.
4
We cannot provide clean water, affordable health care or higher education, address our infrastructures issues and employ our citizens, but we can sure afford another weapons system. I feel safer already.
174
Agreed about the priorities, but the David's sling is several hundred years (perhaps thousands) before Alexander. David's story is estimated (if true) to occur around 600 to 700 years before Alexander. The sling was represented in King Tut's tomb (around 1325 BC), about 1,000 years before Alexander.
1
Yeah, wonder what it's going to protect. The remains of the U.S.
1
This country has long forgotten what the word "priorities" means. Congressmen and senators can talk about the jobs the plane is providing when everything you mentioned would do the same and then some. It is not the plane that's the problem, it's the U.S. Congress, which puts a premium on those who give it the most campaign contributions, meaning defense contractors. It seems hopeless to more and more of us because they don't even care anymore who knows just how corrupt they are.
How do the Russians do it? They seem to have beautifull tools.
2
"Mistake"? Inconceivable.
And I do know what that word means. This entire project and concepts have been committeed and vetted and experted and Congressed - for decades.
Whatever it is doing - it's 100% intentional.
And not at all hard to understand. There is vast wealth in the old ploy of promising military superiority - without ever intending to deliver it. As a con game- it's guaranteed to work. Since ancient Greece; Ancient Egypt; Ancient China. They all have identical stories.
My fave is still the Maginot Line. Obviously could not possibly work. Was built anyway- enriching the builders and those they corrupted immensely. And failed instantly when war arrived. The F-35 is an improvement on that model - no need to do all that heavy construction- just keep promising, and charging for all the overruns. Time tested; guaranteed; and totally transparent. And pointing all that out is also- guaranteed to be useless.
And I do know what that word means. This entire project and concepts have been committeed and vetted and experted and Congressed - for decades.
Whatever it is doing - it's 100% intentional.
And not at all hard to understand. There is vast wealth in the old ploy of promising military superiority - without ever intending to deliver it. As a con game- it's guaranteed to work. Since ancient Greece; Ancient Egypt; Ancient China. They all have identical stories.
My fave is still the Maginot Line. Obviously could not possibly work. Was built anyway- enriching the builders and those they corrupted immensely. And failed instantly when war arrived. The F-35 is an improvement on that model - no need to do all that heavy construction- just keep promising, and charging for all the overruns. Time tested; guaranteed; and totally transparent. And pointing all that out is also- guaranteed to be useless.
11
The Maginot Line worked perfectly in the region where it was fully built. The problem was that the French did not build it on their Belgian border, because they originally wanted to collaborate with Belgium in building the defenses closer to Germany. The collaboration never developed, the emplacements were not built as planned, and the Germans (obviously) attacked where the French defenses were weakest.
There's a more to this story than most people think.
There's a more to this story than most people think.
When an article on weapons technology states that David used a "slingshot" to kill Goliath- all the rest is immediately called in question.
Not slingshot. "Sling". Slingshots are basically toys- slings have been incredibly important weapons of war even long after the development of the bow. Gad. Anyone who has seriously studied the history of warfare knows that one.
Not slingshot. "Sling". Slingshots are basically toys- slings have been incredibly important weapons of war even long after the development of the bow. Gad. Anyone who has seriously studied the history of warfare knows that one.
14
David had a sling, not a slingshot; they are quite different. The Romans and others uses slings with great effect. David was presumably well practiced with his weapon, having used it to protect flocks.
13
I absolutely loathe the military-industrial complex. War is mass murder. War for profit is the quintessence of evil.
30
Perhaps siphoning off a trillion dollars for a weapons system that may well prove unaffordable in the planned numbers and unusable in most conditions will somewhat reduce the funds being used for more cost-efficient mass murder?
And war for freedom? Interests? To protect?
2
War for freedom in Iraq? You mean that kind of protection? I'll take my chances without it, thanks.
To echo an earlier commentator, stealth technology in an age of asymmetric warfare is an unneeded expense. The British Mosquito of World War II vintage, built of plywood due to shortages of aluminum,, was perhaps the first "stealth fighter." It was inexpensive to build, could be left out in the rain on the tarmac, unless current "stealth aircraft," and performed admirably in the environment in which it was designed to operate. We need to return to the pragmatism which dominated combat aircraft design of the 1940's through the 1980's, rather than the gold-plated, bells and whistles of the present.