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.

 

F-35 fighter 'hit by software and reliability problems'

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Britain’s new £70 million F-35 fighter is struggling with “unacceptable” software problems and is less reliable than hoped a new report has warned.
The Pentagon’s chief weapons tester has warned the new stealth fighter being bought by the British and the US militaries is facing more delays and remains vulnerable to fires.
British MPs said the findings raised concerns over the future costs of one of the country’s most expensive military projects, with the Ministry of Defence committed to buying dozens of the aircraft.
The 25-page report to be delivered to the US government is the latest to contain sharp criticism of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project.


www.telegraph.co.uk...


Makes you wonder if there really should be some serious effort by our government to escape from the contracts to buy this thing. Every story i have read about it so far has been negative, with lots of stories about under performance so why exactly are we still buying it?




posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by solidshot
 


There are very good reasons the F-35 is being pushed (all classified). It will be capable of doing things (necessary things) nothing else can. If those reasons ever go white then it will be understood why such a "bad" aircraft is so important.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
The costs must be spiralling by the delays. If you don't get the software right, it is a complete disaster.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankinpillow
 


Yes and no. The delays push costs up but the new contracts put at least some if not most of the over run on the contractors.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thanks for that Zaph. That makes me hold onto some hope for the F35 and this country's future even when there are so many reports and opinions out there that are making me loose faith in the system.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


So, it will be even more cool than the F-22? I enjoy watching those zip around.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Yes and no. Performance wise the F-35 won't even be close. In other metrics the F-35 will do things the F-22 can't.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   

If all goes to plan, the Pentagon is on track to spend a huge figure of $396 billion on the jets, including R&D. It doesn't help that the cost to build each F-35 has risen to an average of $137 million from $69 million in 2001.


But more horrifying is not the cost of buying F-35s but the cost of operating and supporting them: $1 trillion over the planes' lifetime. Ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain, described that estimate as “jaw-dropping."

Read more: www.businessinsider.com...


Man if there was a WW2 type situation where assets were required to win you have to wonder... WW2 our tanks sucked compared to the Tiger (or any German tank with the 88) yet we were able to out produce and place more tracks in the field and basically swarm kill in some of the big big battles.

Germans had some serious advantages with the ME-262 but they were to few to change the outcome of the war. What I am trying to say it has always scared me to put all the eggs in one basket or a few basses which can be taken out in a airstrike all in the first strike package. Some of our hardware is down to fly one hour and work on the thing for 3 hours so it can fly again. It is like some of this stuff is for show and not for war.

This aircraft does not even have an $1800 toilet and I have to wonder how many $500 hammers were used in it's construction ?

Hope they get this stuff right for there is a distinct possibility that they will be called upon to fight in a real shooting war during the airframes life time.

edit on 24-1-2014 by 727Sky because: ..



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


I was thinking the same thing. Then I found out more and it makes a lot more sense.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


Those are older numbers. They've changed a good bit recently.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

727Sky



Germans had some serious advantages with the ME-262 but they were to few to change the outcome of the war.


I think it was Freeman Dyson that said how the RAF laughed at the V2 as for every V2 that hit a random UK spot that was 1 less squadren of ME-262 which really would have been a problem to the allied forces.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by solidshot
 



…so why exactly are we still buying it?

Who's we? The government and the defense industry are the same thing these days, right? What choice is there after that? We have to go with it because the sole source contract says so.

Besides whats the alternative? Oh, nothing.

The more advanced everything becomes the more complex, the more computer controlled, the more software and… bugs.

Good luck wining a war with that crap. Pilots eyes will be forever in the cockpit looking at screens instead of eyes up, head on a swivel--- checking their SIXXXXXX !!!



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


The contract was awarded like every other contract.

There are scary new threats out there and new technology is needed to fight it. People aren't going to suddenly start getting along tomorrow even if we get rid of the military. New threats mean better sensors. Better sensors mean more computers.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



New threats mean better sensors. Better sensors mean more computers.

Which will all go dark anyway after the first few EMPs, regardless of how well they work in peace time.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


You seriously think they haven't developed a defense against EMP? It's not the be all end all weapon. The military and weapon designers have been aware of it since the 40s, and you think they haven't come up with a counter?



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
never ending story..... an truly crab project
Russia and china are ROTFL..
and the tax payers are miked out for the incompetence of the warlord"s engineers

best option is bring it straight to the scrapyard...
by the times its finally flying its already out of date....



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ressiv
 


It's a lot more useful than people will realize. And a lot more valuable. One of the reasons it's having problems is because of the sensor complexity. They will have sensor resolution the likes of which other aircraft couldn't even imagine even ten years ago.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Hey get over to fox news and see what India is trashing! The new MAK 50 it looks like..
See we are not only ones with problems.
At least in the F-35 situation..a massive computer upgrade will bring it up to Parr.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


tell that to them who are suffering for it now the finance system collapses on all fronts......for only 10 years advance



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ressiv
 


It's a lot more than ten years. I said they couldn't dream of it that long ago not that it was only ten years ahead.

There are several threats out there that the sensor integration will help counter.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join