It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


F-35 looking more like white elephant

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:00 PM
Part of the reason why the cost is so high, is because the U.S.A is giving away 20 F35's to Isreal as part of an aid package. The cost of which will be paid for by the American taxpayer.
So they probably upped the unit cost to take this into account.

Please see original thread by ModernAcademia for more info.

edit on 13-1-2011 by HEREFORD 1969 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:18 AM
just like all chinese copies, on the outside it'll look like a perfect f-35 but the inside will be powered by an old mig-29 engine.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:57 AM
what i see happening in the pentagon and congress they don't realize that this fighter could be a very big cashcow for us . almost all our friends want them especially the jump jet variety . they are seeing the cost but not the rewards plus you got boeing saying manned jets are a thing of the past buy our ucav drones basically boeing wants all lockheeds money.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:02 AM
Recently Gates is trying his best to promoting F-35 to more countries...

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:37 AM
No I don't think so.

What seems more reasonable I would think, is that the F35 is a front.

And like 85-90% of these funds go into black projects.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:37 AM

Originally posted by HEREFORD 1969
Part of the reason why the cost is so high, is because the U.S.A is giving away 20 F35's to Isreal as part of an aid package.

Although I have not link to prove it part of what the U.S. will get out of giving twenty of the planes away is they will find out how well they will work. As Israel starts to modify them the U.S. can then decide what changes should be made. Not saying I agree with plan to give them away.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:50 AM
It always gets me how government contracts never seem to contain penalty clauses for late delivery or cost overruns. In the private sector it's mandatory. Go figure!

The other thing I always find funny are the posts claiming the superiority of US tech and it's armed forces. However, when did the US ever go toe to toe with anyone, in the last few decades, that even had an airforce, navy or mechanised land army? It's easy to look at the stats for this aircraft and proclaim it's superiority and invincibility, but in a real war situation things are often very different indeed from simulations and exercises with preset parameters.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:19 AM
Thanks to everyone for posting.

Hopefully when the plane gets put in the field, weather you wanted to see it there or not, we will find out if it can live up to any of it expectations.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:36 AM
it's interesting to watch discussions like this one from my perspective - living in a country that has 4 mig 21 as airforce.

Americans always complain about new airplanes being expensive. Not realizing that their all economy and world status is based on war machine.

Being first amd strongest bully in world gang of bullies is expensive and hard job. Esppecially when you are democratic capitalist country, Your technicians, engineers, world-class scientist cost money. Production cost money.
I doubt that some communist driven factory in some crappy hidden region in China has paycheks like Lockheed or McDonnell.
Living in Yugoslavia was like that- communist factories are not expensive so they could mass produce all kind of russian hi-tech weaponry at very low costs.
Nowadays turning capitalist - we can't even buy 2nd hand turd planes

So if you want to have most advanced aircraft - you must pay.

Or lower paychecks in all factories to 500$ a month and see how will that effect the final price.

I know this is off topic but i had to...

Now on topic
Being ground unit I would love to be protected any day by new F 35 and 22's rather then some Russian or Chinese crap with loosing bolts and cheap wires.
Air superiority means a lot less sweat for ground units.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:07 AM

Originally posted by RedGolem

Originally posted by RustyShakleford92

Hey, I don't necessarily think that Lockheed Martin is trying to swindle anything. This is suppose to be a top of the line aircraft, with no others like it in the world for decades to come.

Thanks for posing

spoken like a true tool of the industry. Yes it is suppose to be a top of the line aircraft. I am not in the loop to really know how much each plane costs, but can you clarify any of that?

Nice attempt at discussion Red. Not. So when someone expresses their opinion they're a pawn for industry.
Get real, if you post to ATS expect a discussion. Otherwise read the existing posts or go to a different site.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:10 AM
reply to post by danielhanson420

Not really, the Chinese aircraft touted as stealth in the news recently is only considered 4th generation.
Although they are moving a lot faster then anyone had expected.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:11 AM
I think they should just replace the F16's with more F22's. F22's are also much better looking and probably stealthier than the new bubble F35.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:59 AM
I think its funny how folks act like the US makes all this money by selling arms. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc are all fortune 500 companies...they are NOT owned by the gov!! Plus the amount of money they make selling arms isnt even a percentage point of the US GDP.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by princeofpeace

How does the government not make money off of selling weapons to other countries? They basicaly own the rights to the any designs that they forked the money out to create so when it gets sold to others I'm sure they get a good cut. Plus there is a thing called taxes. There are taxes on goods that are sold no matter what they are. Also they stand to make some money selling used weapons that we do not want any more. The U.S. frequently sells there hand me downs to others.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:37 PM
this might be news to the masses but Lockheed or Northrup or Boeing or any aircraft company can not legally sell fighter or bomber aircraft to other nations with out us government approval . if you give weapons or fighter craft or war ships or small arms to a foreign power with out approval of goverment then you risk being shutdown and locked up for arms smuggling

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:14 PM
Is it a white elephant? Probably not. But its certainly not turned out to be the 'cheap stealthy multi mission wonder machine' it was sold as. Probably because it couldn't possibly be.

Allowing US fighter makers to consolidate down to 2 behemoths was dumb. Launching a winner takes all JSF procurement that became a 'must win' was dumber.

The USAF cant cancel it, theres no plan B, lockheed has known that from early on. Its not fixed price either so they wont reap the whirlwind of their earlier extravagant promises.

I've no doubt it will eventually meet spec but by then the unit cost will prevent anybody buying them in the numbers envisaged. So much for F-16 replacement...The worry is that a small F-35 force will end up fighting a larger (not quite so gucci but still ok) aggressor force of PAK-FA. Its ok for USAF to say F-22 saves the day but thats no good to the RAF or RAAF. If its too expensive to buy in enough numbers to be credible on its own it looks like a bad deal.

The problems are the same problems occurring on all the latest generation fighter developments:

-avionics integration taking longer and costing more than was originally intended (F-22 had this too).
-flight control issues (Euro-fighter had this).
-engine problems.
-weight saving measures leading to fatigue problems.

To win the jobs management promise more than can be delivered and then the engineers try to somehow make it all work...when you understand that these companies are mostly run by professional managers/accountants rather than greybeard engineers it explains much. There are no Kelly Johnson's these days.


F-35B is a dead plane. It might take some time for the blood to stop pumping but its a goner. Too heavy, too expensive and the concept of a stealthy harrier makes no sense.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by proteus33

As a matter of fact, Lockheed Martin DOES do contract work for the Russian military to this day. They are allowed to sell certain parts of fighter jets, but not all, and they are limited what they can sell when it comes to radar technology.

But they do have other countries as their clients.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Ikema

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
reply to post by budski

the j20 from china will and can compete with the f22 its better in someways but we have to see what the j20 can do

Yeah yeah, with all due respect I lived all this before with the Mig 25 and the F-15.

Turns out the Mig couldn't turn and was a bucket of bolts and vacume tubes.

MiG-25 is not the F-15 equivalent. The Su-27 is, and it is probably the top 4th generation fighter.

In fact I wouldn't expect the MiG-25 to need to turn on a dime, because it doesn't look like a dogfighter; it appears to be a long range, BVR interceptor or striker.

I'll fly an F-35 and take on 2 of each of the above fighters simultaneously.
And win, before the dog fight even starts!

okay, rookie

The T-50, J-20, and F-35 all appear to have different roles. In terms of a dogfight, the T-50 would get the bounce on both of them anyways.

My country, canada, is in for 16 billion dollars for a plane that we havent even seen the final drawings for....

Aye, no #. Our stupid government has been under the sphere of the US's military industrial complex since the 50s. We keep buying crappy American equipment that has little relevance to our own necessities all because of the politics involved. I lust for the day when we start building our own weapons again, which have always proven to be world-leading projects.

In a mountainous combat zone, an F-35 assigned to CAP or SEAD will knock down anything but the TR-3B.
If your scrambling along the plains, or ocean, an F-22 will have air superiority.

I highly disagree. For one, SEAD has nothing to do with dogfighting.

Secondly, just look at the northern example. Canadian CF-18s crash a few times a year because of sensory overload usually caused by the environmental conditions like snow or frost. There was the F-22 that crashed in Alaska, I have little doubt that it had something to do with sensory malfunctions due to environmental conditions.

I'd rather Canada ditch that stupid $16 billion F-35 deal and invest it into some real all-weather fighters, like Su-35MKIs, T-50s, Gripens or Typhoons.

In Russia and China, the people making and designing these planes are making a FRACTION of the salary an American does. America is known to be a place to make great money. Russia and China aren't, unless you are in a governmental or high business position, so alot of the high cost comes with the "greatness" of America.

Or maybe in the US, engineers push for gaining as much money as possible for their work while in Russia and China, they develop weapons for the technological achievements and nationalism. Just because something is expensive does not mean it is good.

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:03 PM
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

My father works on the anti-radar detection systems on planes, and possibly this one too,.... he could make a hell of a lot more money in other fields of the electrical engineering trade, they don't write their own salaries.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:14 PM

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by tristar

Or never stop spending money on something that is really not needed.

It's obscene.

Let us not forget when the French built the famous Maginot Line and its generals stated its impossible to pass though, what did German tacticians do, they simply went around.

Never Underestimate !

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in