Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If the Military’s Future Stealth Jet Fails, the Navy’s Got a Backup Plan

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Link

I saw this article and now pretty much convinced the F-35 is in deep crap.
About a Trillion spent on a plane that we won't have till about 2019.



The U.S. Navy is carefully backing away from the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program — and putting in place a backup plan in case the trillion-dollar, jack-of-all-trades stealth jet can’t recover from mounting technical and budgetary woes. So much for the F-35 being too big to fail.

The Navy’s Plan B is still taking shape. But its outlines are coming into view, thanks in large part to recent comments from its top officer. It involves fewer F-35s (the Navy’ll still buy some) and more copies of the older Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet carrier-based fighter, which the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 was originally meant to replace. In the unlikely event the F-35C — the naval version of the radar-evading plane — gets canceled, the Super Hornet could be upgraded past its current shelf life. The twin-engine F/A-18E/F is already getting new weapons. Extra fuel tanks and some stealth treatments could be added as well.


However this article led me to another interesting article on the Navy shopping around for another fighter.

www.wired.com...


On Friday, the Navy quietly released a “market survey” asking the big defense contractors for their “candidate[s]” for “strike fighter aircraft” in the decades to come. Which is a little weird, considering the Pentagon is currently spending a trillion dollars on just such an aircraft: the troubled Joint Strike Fighter.


Interesting that they are bypassing the F-35 and going for a plane that actually works.




posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
It sure is nice that it took them this long, and over a trillion dollars to say, "Um... oops, looks like we have a problem"

I don't see why they haven't spent the extra money and time upgrading our current fighters, and stop trying to pump out the latest and greatest fighter every 3 - 5 years (it seems). I mean we already spend an absurd budget on military equipment already, it doesn't help the nation's taxpayers when they waste trillions on programs that end up failing. I'm not saying we shouldn't be on the cutting edge, but I'm saying there has to be a more practical and responsible approach to developing this kind of technology, as to reduce wasteful spending. But, what do I know, I'm a peon.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
It's very likely the F-35 never existed in the first place. Just a nice way to right off a $Trillion for god knows what.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Anyone want to bet whether or not our congressmen and senators have stock in these airplane companies? I am betting they do and the more taxpayer money thrown down that bottomless hole, the more money they make.

Looks like some of them do!

More corrupt politicians.

Old news dirty secrets

Filthy Traitors!!

Good for the Navy for taking the position of upgrading the current best fighter.
edit on 3-25-2013 by groingrinder because: Edite to provide links.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
It's very likely the F-35 never existed in the first place. Just a nice way to right off a $Trillion for god knows what.


All those people who have seen the public demos of it got good value from the money invested in holographic projections f/sure






posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Is it too late to bring back the Northrop YF-23? That would have made a great carrier fighter. High speed, great stealth capabilities, decent armament and a very high combat range.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by eXia7
 


Have you really looked into the status of our current fighter fleet? It's nothing to upgrade (although they are anyway). The average age of the F-15 and F-16 are in their mid 20s, the F-18 is only about 17 because of the Super Hornet. The F-16 at one point had 25% of the fleet showing cracks, the early blocks in the wings, the later blocks in the bulkheads, to the point where for the first time in history a Top Gun class was cancelled because their Aggressor fleet was grounded. The F-15 is G and Mach limited due to fatigue life (something like 95% of the C/D fleet is over 90% of the life cycle). The answer? Get Boeing to extend the life cycle to 18,000 hours, after one extension already.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
It's very likely the F-35 never existed in the first place. Just a nice way to right off a $Trillion for god knows what.


Interstellar craft aren't cheap. Not to mention they have a high loss rate, although that's getting better as the control systems evolve.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by eXia7
It sure is nice that it took them this long, and over a trillion dollars to say, "Um... oops, looks like we have a problem"
But, what do I know, I'm a peon.


When you try to make something be everything to everyone, you get a piece of trash.

See also: JTRS.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
It's very likely the F-35 never existed in the first place. Just a nice way to right off a $Trillion for god knows what.


Interstellar craft aren't cheap. Not to mention they have a high loss rate, although that's getting better as the control systems evolve.


Right and you just can't be losing a trillion dollars a year from the pentagon.
The money has to be "put" into something so it looks good on the books.

Gotta fund that secret space fleet somehow.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
If you ask me, I think Lockheed-Martin should stick with designing and building heavies( cargo aircraft).



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
The trillion dollar plus figure for the F-35 is in then-year dollars for the total program cost, for thousands of aircraft across multiple services, including fuel, training, andm aintenance, out till past 2040. So far they have spent 84 billion dollars.
edit on 28/3/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Its been rumored that theres an f/a-xx thats been in the black world for years. It wouldn't shock me



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


It wouldn't shock me either. With the black budget being what it is, and with things that I've heard over the last few months, I'm almost certain something is out there, and has been flying for at least the last few years.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I was at B.A.E. the other day, and the guy I was talking to told me that Lockheed Martin hadn't scrapped the production tools for the F-22, which is standard procedure, but had laid them up in storage instead. That being the case, it's entirely possible that the Raptor figures in any plan B.

Apart from the ability to go supersonic, it seems to me that the F-35 has little or no advantages over the Harrier.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Exactly, nice way to fund the Real black projects......Did'nt someone say the Black Triangles have been superseded now? Not to mention Ben Rich and "We are 50 years ahead of what you know" quotes.

Maybe the Tall Whites at Nellis AFB want More Lockheed toilets etc, in their spaceships..........




posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Hatred
 


And how have we screwed you? The program is advancing, and is currently not in danger of being cancelled. It's behind, but it's on schedule currently to be completed on the revised schedule. So how is anyone being screwed here?






top topics



 
3

log in

join