It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Source: www.jqpublicblog.com...

Snippet:

As Air Force senior officials prepare for posture hearings this week with the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the subject of modernization promises to be front and center. Core to that discussion will almost certainly be the limping, $1.4 trillion F-35 program. Belying the conventional wisdom, which touts the Joint Strike Fighter as something of a futuristic aerial Swiss army knife, the F-35 is proving to be little more than a dull, bent, and unwieldy butter knife — a jack of no trades, master of only one: burning through taxpayer dollars at a rate that would embarrass Croesus. The bloat of the program is now placing increasingly excruciating pressure on the entire Air Force budget, this despite the F-35 being years from genuine operational capability. The pressure it is exerting is leading to a parade of rhetorical and actual absurdity of the variety that should, under normal circumstances, alarm Congress and anyone else concerned about the future of American defense.


Are we getting what we expect from the F-35 funding program? I think it is clearly at boondoggle level. It is inspiring Lockheed to develop the next boondoggle the advanced bomber concept. America I submit you rarely get what you pay for and go into unending debt to pay for. The F-35 is no better than the last as far as cost over runs and utter failure as far as systems go.


edit on 03am2015-03-22T07:15:35-05:0007153America/Chicago15331 by machineintelligence because: Syntax challanges




posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

They should do more research before they go on about how bad it is. Costs are dropping fast, both per aircraft and total program. Just in the last week there was a 3% drop due to changes made.

As for capabilities nothing in the world will be able to do what it will be able to.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It appears they have researched their topic to me.



Among the crippling problems highlighted in the DOT&E report: Software glitches disrupting enemy identification and weapon employment. A redesigned fuel tank that continues to demonstrate unacceptable vulnerability to explosion from lightning or enemy fire. Departures from controlled flight during high-speed maneuvering, a six-year-old problem that apparently will not be solved without sacrificing stealth or combat capability. Helmet issues fundamentally degrading pilot situational awareness. Engine problems so severe they’re limiting sortie rates, impeding the test schedule, and generating risky operational decisions. Nightmarish maintainability issues leading to over-reliance on contractor support.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

Many of which have fixes in the works, or done. Maintenance crews love this jet because they have such an easy time working on it. Sortie rates are on the way back up after the one engine problem last year was solved. A new software patch for sensor integration is installed and being checked on aircraft now.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
If often referred to this fighter as the F-35 Strike Flop. Australian ABC current affairs program, "4 Corners" did a review of the continuing saga of this aircraft which Australia has purchased with an open cheque book.

This show was aired in 2013, however I believe it's a must see for every Aussie on ATS who is interested in this aircraft.

Reach For The Sky. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
This is the one time I wish to hell they'd leak the classified stuff this aircraft can do.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Can't find the link - but it was news today, that two Squadron Leaders from Oz. took the controls for the first time and - were quite happy I hear ...


edit on 22-3-2015 by Timely because: punctuational error ...



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Timely

The RAF and RN flew them as part of the trials on the Wasp and absolutely raved about them. Everyone that has anything to do with the program seems to love this aircraft.

A former Harrier pilot compared landing the Harrier to the B model. He said in the Harrier they pick a point and land within a foot or two of it, and that's a good landing. In the B model, they pick a point and land within inches of it.
edit on 3/22/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

I was shocked when I first heard about the $1 trillion + projected price tag.

Gold plating is alive and well. These are the sorts of easy cuts that the defense department can make without compromising our military readiness.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

It's way down from where it was. That's also for a projected 50 year life span. Within a year or two or will be below $800B for the entire life span, if it isn't already.

The 8th production lot of A models, including engine cost was down to $108M per airframe. The other two were a little higher, but by lot 10 or 11 at least two should be at or below $100M with engine.

This program CAN'T be cut. Leaving aside new weapons that are going to hurt older fighters badly, most of our Air Force is as old as or older than the people flying them. With development taking so long now we can't afford to cut this and start over.


edit on 3/22/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/22/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I am just up the beach from Williamtown AFB. Home of the FA/18 Super Hornets. Hawk lead in fighter trainers as well.

Can't wait to see the JSF buzzing the gulf !




posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I am for a strong military and I just can't imagine that there isn't a better way to go than man-on-board systems.

I remember when Darkstar came out in the 90s and thought that was it, how could we be pursuing an airframe like this?

We would have to make it exceed human capacity (thus squishing our pilots) or hamper its operational capability severely.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Timely

If I can get a car I'm going to spend a couple days near Edwards and try to see them there.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Nice mate !

Hope you see them showing off !!




posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Timely

I'm hoping Scaled Composites will have the clean sheet T-X entry out too. I'll be right near where they are too.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Timely

The RAF and RN flew them as part of the trials on the Wasp and absolutely raved about them. Everyone that has anything to do with the program seems to love this aircraft.

A former Harrier pilot compared landing the Harrier to the B model. He said in the Harrier they pick a point and land within a foot or two of it, and that's a good landing. In the B model, they pick a point and land within inches of it.


Not to mention the harrier has very VTOL time.

Water has to be injected into the engines so they don't overheat during VTOL but only carries 300 gallons of water on board.

The F-135 has no problems with this.

It can hover all day without worry, no need to inject water or even carry the weight associated with it.

Seems like a serious design flaw that should have been dealt with honestly.

8lbs per gallon times 300 gallons=2400 lbs that could have gone to something useful instead of water to inject into the engines.

I hope the F-135 gets the kinks shook out before the can it and waste all that money.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Zaphod58

I am for a strong military and I just can't imagine that there isn't a better way to go than man-on-board systems.

I remember when Darkstar came out in the 90s and thought that was it, how could we be pursuing an airframe like this?

We would have to make it exceed human capacity (thus squishing our pilots) or hamper its operational capability severely.


I agree here.

The F-22 already pushes the pilots to their limits.

Human flight in combat is at it end.

Tomorrow belongs to the drones.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

They can't yet. They can detect and choose to attack ground targets, but they're probably 10 years from a realistic air to air UAV.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Surgeons may be replaced by automated remote controlled devices too.
And that happens now. It does not however negate the need for hands on specialists for certain applications.

The same can be said for todays precision trained fighter squadrons.

They still have their place ...



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

To suggest or believe that the F-35 will be good for 50 years is far more of a laughing matter than for me to continually chide you airfoil buffs that the triangles are here and now and are entirely operational.

The only people fooled by the lack of acknowledgement about the existence of the triangles are the people that are paying for them, the American public. Certainly, the Russians and Chinese are aware of them. Why the experts on this forum always avoid the issue is not exactly a mystery anymore, not that I take them as fools you understand.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join