Ryoken Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 New U.S. Stealth Jet Can Osiris, Gerowen and natocccp 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadEndAccount Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 This is what I find funny - those on the right going on about 'welfare queens' and 'takers' yet not a single politician in the US is willing to stand up and hold these contractors to account for their failure to deliver on time and on budget. If those on the right want to talk about fiscal responsibility then they should first start on doing something about these run away go no where defence contracts that are little more than public works projects under the guise of national defence. Shiranui and theyarecomingforyou 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Raphaël G. MVC Posted January 1, 2015 MVC Share Posted January 1, 2015 How is it possible that, 13 years after winning the JSF competition, there is still no software to fire the gun? Praetor 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aergan Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 123456789A, Gerowen, Raa and 11 others 14 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francescob Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Does that mean the F35s will finally bring world peace? LaP, MikeChipshop and Buttus 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnónna Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 software smoftware, a little thinking out of the box is all that is required here. Just run a bit of string (baling twine might be sturdier and since it's a military program, damn the expenses !) out the cockpit and down the side to the weapons trigger. job's a good-in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAQT Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Not sure if that would matter much for the US Navy/Air force though, as there is limited to none one-to-one combat that they would face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Zagadka Subscriber² Posted January 1, 2015 Subscriber² Share Posted January 1, 2015 This is what I find funny - those on the right going on about 'welfare queens' and 'takers' yet not a single politician in the US is willing to stand up and hold these contractors to account for their failure to deliver on time and on budget. If those on the right want to talk about fiscal responsibility then they should first start on doing something about these run away go no where defence contracts that are little more than public works projects under the guise of national defence. The funnier thing is that in many cases, the military doesn't necessarily WANT more stuff. New stuff, maybe, but not more. There was that big story a year or two ago where the Army just keeps getting vehicles delivered and puts them straight into mothballs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duoi Veteran Posted January 1, 2015 Veteran Share Posted January 1, 2015 $400b! wow. What an absolute waste of money. The 4th generation crafts are more than enough for anything the US wants to do for the next 30 years. I can't even comprehend why they thought this would be a good idea. I hope that the $400b was wisely spent, i.e that it created plenty of jobs or greatly advanced weapons and aviation tech. sworph 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 This is what I find funny - those on the right going on about 'welfare queens' and 'takers' yet not a single politician in the US is willing to stand up and hold these contractors to account for their failure to deliver on time and on budget. > You clearly don't understand how the F-35 procurement has survived, and no it isn't partisan. Lockheed Martin and United Technologies (UT owns Pratt & Whitney, who makes its engine) are masters of the government procurement game. They don't build something in just one place, assuring jobs in the districts of as many Congressmen and Senators as possible - in both parties. As of now the F-35 program employs about 130,000 people in 47 states including California (Democrat), Texas (Republican), Ohio (swing state) and most of the states in New England (mostly Democrat). Lockheed Martin itself is based in Maryland, and Pratt & Whitney is in Connecticut. In addition to that it's being sold to the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Japan and South Korea. These usually have local content rules, so some parts are made locally for their planes. Because of this it gets support in Congress from their government representatives too. Getting the drift? This program has the inertia of a lightspeed dinosaur. bguy_1986 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddman Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 $400b! wow. What an absolute waste of money. The 4th generation crafts are more than enough for anything the US wants to do for the next 30 years. I can't even comprehend why they thought this would be a good idea. I hope that the $400b was wisely spent, i.e that it created plenty of jobs or greatly advanced weapons and aviation tech. The problems start when you underestimate the enemy. We don't really know what kind of adversaries US and NATO might face in the upcoming 30 years and using 4th gen fighters which were designed more than 40 years ago wouldn't be the best idea, not to mention the US fighter fleet is quite old already and are getting harder and harder to maintain and keep in fighting condition. If you want to win fast and with lower casualties, then you need to have better tools for the job. P.S. I'm not saying F-35 is a great plane; we won't know until it sees combat, but to keep using the old stuff isn't really an option. robertwnielsen 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Excepet in the case of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Warthog. The brass may think F-35 can take over for it, but any grunt or spotter will tell you otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddman Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Excepet in the case of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Warthog. The brass may think F-35 can take over for it, but any grunt or spotter will tell you otherwise. By 4th gen, I was referring to F-16 and F/A-18C/D. I don't really know how capable F-35 can be for close air support, but surely A-10 beats it in durability and fire-power for that role. That 30mm cannon is a really an impressive piece of weaponry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadEndAccount Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 You clearly don't understand how the F-35 procurement has survived, and no it isn't partisan. Lockheed Martin and United Technologies (UT owns Pratt & Whitney, who makes its engine) are masters of the government procurement game. They don't build something in just one place, assuring jobs in the districts of as many Congressmen and Senators as possible - in both parties. As of now the F-35 program employs about 130,000 people in 47 states including California (Democrat), Texas (Republican), Ohio (swing state) and most of the states in New England (mostly Democrat). Lockheed Martin itself is based in Maryland, and Pratt & Whitney is in Connecticut. In addition to that it's being sold to the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Japan and South Korea. These usually have local content rules, so some parts are made locally for their planes. Because of this it gets support in Congress from their government representatives too. Getting the drift? This program has the inertia of a lightspeed dinosaur. Never said it was Democrat or Republican - I specifically used the term 'right' and 'fiscal conservative' because those two descriptors exist on both sides of the Isle and yet for all the whining of the American public they keep voting back in their local congressman who 'brings in the pork'. The funnier thing is that in many cases, the military doesn't necessarily WANT more stuff. New stuff, maybe, but not more. There was that big story a year or two ago where the Army just keeps getting vehicles delivered and puts them straight into mothballs. It doesn't help when the average voter is sucked into the vortex of 'national security' and 'strong on defence' because of the over the top paranoia built up off the back of over the top patriotism and nationalism that seems to be part of the steady indoctrination diet in the US. DerAusgewanderte and theyarecomingforyou 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachno 1D Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Another senior Air Force official with stealth fighter experience agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryoken Posted January 1, 2015 Author Share Posted January 1, 2015 In addition to that it's being sold to the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Japan and South Korea. These usually have local content rules, so some parts are made locally for their planes. Because of this it gets support in Congress from their government representatives too. It's worth noting that several countries in that list are reviewing their order for them, due to the MASSIVE cost over-runs and delays. It's already on hold in Canada. I'm a Canadian, I believe we need to get ourselves a Strong national Defense. I don't like the idea of having to rely on the US or anyone else if ###### happens. With that said, I think the F35 is a waste of money. Cost/Benefit, and looking at what we actually do with our airforce, We should have just ordered a new flight of Super Hornets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trek Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 So they have to wait 4 years for a software patch to even be able to shoot; however even when it can, the gun fires at 3300rpm and they carry 180 rounds. Pretty much a 4 second burst and you're done. Sounds great... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachno 1D Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 It might be ready in time for our Aircraft Bus carriers Alera 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctebah Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I like the looks of the F-35 but I think they should have stuck with the F-22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobSlob Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I like the looks of the F-35 but I think they should have stuck with the F-22. Different planes, different roles. The raptor doesn't do a ground war at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melfster Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 F-35 had numerous problems and is probable not the most efficient use of resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 You clearly don't understand how the F-35 procurement has survived, and no it isn't partisan. Lockheed Martin and United Technologies (UT owns Pratt & Whitney, who makes its engine) are masters of the government procurement game. They don't build something in just one place, assuring jobs in the districts of as many Congressmen and Senators as possible - in both parties. As of now the F-35 program employs about 130,000 people in 47 states including California (Democrat), Texas (Republican), Ohio (swing state) and most of the states in New England (mostly Democrat). Lockheed Martin itself is based in Maryland, and Pratt & Whitney is in Connecticut. In addition to that it's being sold to the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Japan and South Korea. These usually have local content rules, so some parts are made locally for their planes. Because of this it gets support in Congress from their government representatives too. Getting the drift? This program has the inertia of a lightspeed dinosaur. In fact, the headquarters of Lockheed Martin is in the Congressional district of Chris van Hollen (current chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - taking over from Debbie Wassermann-Shultz, who now runs the DNC); van Hollen himself is a political pal of House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer. bguy_1986 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippleman Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 If I was starting a armed forces of a newly formed country, I would sink almost all my effort into drones. Imagine how many drones you can buy with $400 billion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Red King Subscriber² Posted March 13, 2015 Subscriber² Share Posted March 13, 2015 Jesus... more money than I can imagine... military contractors need more steep competition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Zagadka Subscriber² Posted March 13, 2015 Subscriber² Share Posted March 13, 2015 If I was starting a armed forces of a newly formed country, I would sink almost all my effort into drones. Imagine how many drones you can buy with $400 billion? Drones would be theoretically vulnerable to electronics interference, hijacking, etc. That said, we aren't really hurting for air superiority weapons and drones can accomplish many missions at much lower cost in dollars and human lives. svmpatel 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts