F35 grounded because of engine defects

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > F35 grounded because of engine defects

Tacos Al Pastor: Jun 20, 2003

Dusty Baker 2 posted:

Made this a bit ago. Still 500 billion left over to spend if we're using the 1.5 trillion figure.

Goddamn. Our govt is out of control with wasteful spending. I should say Republicans because they are the majority that love to waste money on defense.

# ? Jan 15, 2015 20:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 16:11

awesome-express: Dec 30, 2008

lol black on dark red

needs more blood money textures and maybe an evil looking military dude to drive the point home ya know

why are some icons flat black, and there's one colored white and then a photo cutout of wheat? stay consistent, man

the main header also isn't centered

kerning's off

type should be left aligned

awesome-express fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jan 15, 2015

# ? Jan 15, 2015 21:01

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

hobbesmaster posted:

Not even B-2s go in alone... Right.

So which USAF platform is used for EW these days?

For dedicated EW, the EC-130H Compass Call, borrowed Growlers and Prowlers, and F-16Cs are what the Air Force would use if necessary. F-15s, B-1s, and B-52s also carry trained EWOs, and AEW&C aircraft all have some EW capabilities. Of course, the desire for multirole craft means that dedicated EW planes are probably off the table for a few years and the main focus will be using the F-35 for S/DEAD.

# ? Jan 15, 2015 23:16

CAPS LOCK BROKEN: Feb 1, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

blowfish posted:

Ahahaha, none in the Midwest.

Expendable flyover country

4 in the st louis region, one of them apparently still has an underground section that's in decent enough shape for urbex if you want to rappel down a silo and can stomach potential felony charges for tresspassing.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 01:04

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

A Winner is Jew posted:

Be honest, were you high when you wrote this?

Mightypeon posted:

And the Soviets were very likely a quite a bit more into counterforce then the USA.

For an overview on their planning:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv//nukevault/ebb285/

I'm extremely leery of anything that claims to have constructed an accurate psychological profile of foreign decision makers, especially Soviet ones.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Jan 16, 2015

# ? Jan 16, 2015 05:20

Rand alPaul: Feb 3, 2010; by Nyc_Tattoo

Dusty Baker 2 posted:

Absolutely. Here's a map that shows the locations of all of them within the United States:

http://goo.gl/maps/E14zi

Really amazed there were nuclear missile silos so close to large cities and that people likely drove past them everyday completely unaware of them being there. I always presumed that poo poo was really far away in the middle of nowhere.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 06:32

Bip Roberts: Mar 29, 2005

Rand alPaul posted:

Really amazed there were nuclear missile silos so close to large cities and that people likely drove past them everyday completely unaware of them being there. I always presumed that poo poo was really far away in the middle of nowhere.

Nike missiles usually weren't nuclear tipped. They're long range SAMs and analogous to SA-2 or more modern Patriot Missiles.

Here's a map of the ICBM silos.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 06:44

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Rand alPaul posted:

Really amazed there were nuclear missile silos so close to large cities and that people likely drove past them everyday completely unaware of them being there. I always presumed that poo poo was really far away in the middle of nowhere.

Well, we're talking about air defence missiles here and those kinda need to be close to something actually worth protecting. The actual nuclear missile silos, i.e. the ones that shoot the missiles that make the russians dead, were mostly out in the middle of nowhere.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 06:44

AtomikKrab: Jul 17, 2010; Keep on GOP rolling rolling rolling rolling.

huh I live about half a mile from an old nike base, I didn't realize it becasue its been turned into a maintance depot for my area school district but cool.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 06:49

crabcakes66: May 24, 2012; by exmarx

Rand alPaul posted:

Really amazed there were nuclear missile silos so close to large cities and that people likely drove past them everyday completely unaware of them being there. I always presumed that poo poo was really far away in the middle of nowhere.

As said above those are air defense. Not strategic nuclear weapons.

I grew up just down the road from a Nike missile site. The local astronomy clubs used to go there because it was on a small hill and away from anything else.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 07:00

Rand alPaul: Feb 3, 2010; by Nyc_Tattoo

Bip Roberts posted:

Nike missiles usually weren't nuclear tipped. They're long range SAMs and analogous to SA-2 or more modern Patriot Missiles.

Here's a map of the ICBM silos.

I thought they were nuclear-tipped AA weapons, no?

# ? Jan 16, 2015 07:03

Graic Gabtar: Dec 19, 2014; squat my posts

This was rebroadcast on ABC NewsRadio (Australia) on the weekend.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/high-tech-heaven-defence-spending-from-the-f111-to-the-f35/5955262

tldr;

Scary parallels to the F-111 process, but maybe not such a great bit of technology by the time we get there.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 07:13

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Bip Roberts posted:

Nike missiles usually weren't nuclear tipped. They're long range SAMs and analogous to SA-2 or more modern Patriot Missiles.

Source?

Because I thought the opposite:

http://alpha.fdu.edu/~bender/N-view.html posted:

Unlike the Ajax, the Hercules missile was designed from the outset to carry a nuclear warhead. Designated "W-31" the Hercules nuclear warhead was available in three different yields: low yield (3-Kilotons); medium yield (20-Kilotons) and high yield (30-Kilotons.). A Kiloton (Kt.) represents the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT. For purposes of comparison, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, near the end of the Second World War had a yield of approximately 15 Kilotons.

Armed with its nuclear warhead a single Nike Hercules missile was capable of destroying a closely spaced formation of several attacking aircraft. However, defending against mass formations of aircraft was not the only reason for deploying atomic warheads on the Hercules missiles. Instead, the atomic capability provided an enhanced capacity for destroying or disabling the nuclear weapons carried aboard an aircraft, helping to ensure that there would be no nuclear detonation of these devices.

Deployment of the first nuclear-armed Nike Hercules missiles was made on an emergency basis within the continental United States. Because sufficient quantities of the W-31 warhead were not available in early 1958, some of these missiles were initially equipped with an already available, although somewhat heavier, nuclear warhead designated "W-7".

The Hercules missile could also be equipped with a powerful, high-explosive, fragmentation-type warhead designated "T-45". This warhead provided a useful alternative to the atomic W-31 warhead. For example, a conventional Hercules missile could have been used to engage a single U-2 type Soviet reconnaissance aircraft, a circumstance when the nuclear capability would have been excessive. Very limited numbers of conventional Nike Hercules missiles were deployed at Nike missile sites within the continental United States. The vast majority of these missiles were, however, nuclear-tipped.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 09:06

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

A Winner is Jew posted:

The F-16 suppose to be the low cost alternative to the F-15 after NATO caught wind of the MIG-25 interceptor which was designed to go after the SR-71, thought it was a high speed high altitude dog-fighter and took the F-15 design which was already better than the MIG 21 & 23 at their roles and pushed aviation design as far as their slide rules allowed. What they got was a plane that could out-dogfight a MIG-21, out shootdown/lookdown a MIG 23, and almost out intercept a MIG 25 which is really loving impressive but for the time was really loving expensive.

Luckily the people that threw together the initial design of the F-16 designed the F-15 as a low cost alternative incase the F-16 didn't get picked up that was still on par with the MIG 21 and MIG 23 at their roles.

Really, the problem is that instead of looking at what the latest and greatest fighter that Russia and China was doing and then top that (because what they were doing was still trying to catch up to the F-15) they designed an F-15 with a bunch of gold plated poo poo in the F-22 and the F-35 was trying to be the F-16, F-18, Harrier, and A-10 which is monumentally dumb as discussed at length here.

No one should be looking at what Russia and China are doing because they lack the ability to produce enough of their "5th generation" attempts to be a threat. There is only one way these fighters could be an issue and that is that they are both at least half as capable as advertised and that they are exported to countries hostile to the west. Which is... some south american countries, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. Russia is broke. China has money but it has money because it's not trying to match the US on a technological level. If it maintained the size of its military and attempted technological parity it would soon not have any money. China is fine being the regional power and isn't interested in a world war any time soon.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 16:26

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Regarde Aduck posted:

No one should be looking at what Russia and China are doing because they lack the ability to produce enough of their "5th generation" attempts to be a threat. There is only one way these fighters could be an issue and that is that they are both at least half as capable as advertised and that they are exported to countries hostile to the west. Which is... some south american countries, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. Russia is broke. China has money but it has money because it's not trying to match the US on a technological level. If it maintained the size of its military and attempted technological parity it would soon not have any money. China is fine being the regional power and isn't interested in a world war any time soon.

It's worth noting that somewhere around half of the PLAAF fighter force still flies later MiG-21s or the technologically similar J-8s, while two-thirds of their strike force flies licensed MiG-19s. The main issues with Chinese/Russian fifth-generation fighters (since the J-31 has already been sold to Pakistan and is being pushed for active export) would probably be more the necessity of committing additional forces to deal with the potential threat rather than large-scale dogfighting.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 16:46

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Regarde Aduck posted:

No one should be looking at what Russia and China are doing because they lack the ability to produce enough of their "5th generation" attempts to be a threat. There is only one way these fighters could be an issue and that is that they are both at least half as capable as advertised and that they are exported to countries hostile to the west. Which is... some south american countries, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. Russia is broke. China has money but it has money because it's not trying to match the US on a technological level. If it maintained the size of its military and attempted technological parity it would soon not have any money. China is fine being the regional power and isn't interested in a world war any time soon.

What Latin American countries are "hostile" to the west? As in actually hostile, once you get over whatever it is that Maduro is saying on TV this week. I likewise don't think that Chinese stealth bombers are going to be making any runs out of Cuba and sinking the entire 4th Fleet at anchor any time soon. Nevermind that a single US fleet carrier could easily destroy the air force of any country south of the rio Bravo. I think that there are legitimate reasons why the USA may need a new fighter (and why it may even need to be super-stealthy etc etc.), but nothing in South America amounts to one.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 17:08

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Nike Ajax was a conventional SAM, with an HE warhead. Nike Hercules was a new missile, but had much the same engagement profile, but with a small nuclear warhead. Nike Zeus was again, a completely new missile, with a nuclear warhead, but was designed as an Anti-Ballistic-Missile interceptor.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 17:13

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

I'd say the West (and by the West, I mean specifically US and UK) is a lot more hostile to South America than vice-versa.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 17:23

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Cat Mattress posted:

I'd say the West (and by the West, I mean specifically US and UK) is a lot more hostile to South America than vice-versa.

From the perspective of an amoral military planner, though, South America is one of the few places where hostility towards the US could boil over into a conflict that conventional operational measures are necessary to resolve and which has the money to purchase modern weapons systems in decent numbers. Of course, the real fear wouldn't be Chinese airplanes, but the possibility of ASBM exports, especially if the claims for second-generation ASBMs aren't complete bullshit.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 17:32

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Cat Mattress posted:

I'd say the West (and by the West, I mean specifically US and UK) is a lot more hostile to South America than vice-versa.

Lol at not including Spain and Portugal.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 17:35

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Disinterested posted:

Lol at not including Spain and Portugal.

Are they currently relevant?

# ? Jan 16, 2015 18:13

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

blowfish posted:

Are they currently relevant?

I'm not exactly sure how the UK fits in to South America apart from Argentina (and that's a preeeeeeeeetty arguable case as to whether it's about a vague idea of 'hostility'). It's basically irrelevant to countries like Venezuela even though it takes rhetorical flak. Spain similarly takes rhetorical flak from its ex-colonies all the time as a sort of figure of fun/casual hatred on occasion.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 18:20

Agnosticnixie: Jan 6, 2015

blowfish posted:

Are they currently relevant?

I'm not sure Porrtugal has ben relevant since the 18th century; by the time american colonies were declaring independence, Portugal ended up being the one european country that had to declare independence from its now dominant colonies.

Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jan 16, 2015

# ? Jan 16, 2015 19:10

Dusty Baker 2: Jul 8, 2011; Keyboard Inghimasi

Rand alPaul posted:

I thought they were nuclear-tipped AA weapons, no?

They were.

In terms of why there were so many clustered around cities, it's because they were meant to defend the cities. Major cities had an "Air Defense Sector" with bases, aircraft, radars and missiles assigned to it. I've got a complete map of all former USAF sites west of Texas (or most of them), a few thousand sites in all. ICBM silos, test sites, various air strips and air bases, anti-air sites, radars, everything. Unfortunately it's on my former laptop, which is dead. I will try to get the files off it this weekend if I'm feeling spergy enough.

e: if anybody in the US or Canada wants me to do an inventory of the sites in their state, please let me know here or via PM. So far I've got Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, British Columbia, and Alaska.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 19:11

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I'd like to see that Cali map.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 20:01

Dusty Baker 2: Jul 8, 2011; Keyboard Inghimasi

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'd like to see that Cali map.

California's loaded with sites. Until I can get that drive working, here's something to tide you over:

http://radomes.org/museum/

On the left side, click "Radar sites", then type "CA" into the state box and there ya go. If the site/station was actually built, odds are there's a Wikipedia page on it, so just search for the name online and you should find the site history that way. The coordinates radomes.org use are ones I don't really understand and can't figure out how to convert because I'm bad at that, but you can always just compare the aerial photos radomes.org gives you with images in google maps.

drat, now I've actually got motivation to fix that laptop. Fuckin' goons making me work.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 20:14

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Dusty Baker 2 posted:

Made this a bit ago. Still 500 billion left over to spend if we're using the 1.5 trillion figure.

I was thinking about this, but I'm not entirely sure the F-35 is the worst offender, here. The F-22 is more expensive (and arguably way better at its intended roles), though the program is smaller.

Then, I started reading up on the RQ-4 Global Hawk... an unmanned aircraft that is running approximately $222 million per unit. Okay, I know there are R&D costs and such, but it's unmanned. It isn't supposed to fight. Why is it so drat expensive?

# ? Jan 16, 2015 20:36

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Evil_Greven posted:

I was thinking about this, but I'm not entirely sure the F-35 is the worst offender, here. The F-22 is more expensive (and arguably way better at its intended roles), though the program is smaller.

Then, I started reading up on the RQ-4 Global Hawk... an unmanned aircraft that is running approximately $222 million per unit. Okay, I know there are R&D costs and such, but it's unmanned. It isn't supposed to fight. Why is it so drat expensive?

Because it turns out the cockpit isn't the most expensive part of a intercontinental high altitude reconnaissance plane?

hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jan 16, 2015

# ? Jan 16, 2015 20:42

Dusty Baker 2: Jul 8, 2011; Keyboard Inghimasi

Evil_Greven posted:

I was thinking about this, but I'm not entirely sure the F-35 is the worst offender, here. The F-22 is more expensive (and arguably way better at its intended roles), though the program is smaller.

Then, I started reading up on the RQ-4 Global Hawk... an unmanned aircraft that is running approximately $222 million per unit. Okay, I know there are R&D costs and such, but it's unmanned. It isn't supposed to fight. Why is it so drat expensive?

To clarify, my figures on that poster may be out of date or exaggerated. I got them from a UNESCO website that didn't look like it had been updated in a while, so yeah, grain of salt.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 21:24

BigPaddy: Jun 30, 2008; That night we performed the rite and opened the gate.
Halfway through, I went to fix us both a coke float.
By the time I got back, he'd gone insane.
Plus, he'd left the gate open and there was evil everywhere.

Cat Mattress posted:

I'd say the West (and by the West, I mean specifically US and UK) is a lot more hostile to South America than vice-versa.

If by the UK you mean Argentina? Why we did not bomb them for daring to put the Holy Trinity of Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond in jeopardy I do not know.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 21:46

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

BigPaddy posted:

If by the UK you mean Argentina? Why we did not bomb them for daring to put the Holy Trinity of Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond in jeopardy I do not know.

Blasphemy against the holy Stig is the only unforgivable sin so Argentina lucked out on that one.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 21:49

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

What's really amazing about that whole thing is that somebody still watches Top Gear.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 22:02

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Dusty Baker 2 posted:

To clarify, my figures on that poster may be out of date or exaggerated. I got them from a UNESCO website that didn't look like it had been updated in a while, so yeah, grain of salt.

Its also using a rounded up figure of the highest estimated lifetime cost of the entire program, which itself is estimated at 56 years

edit: and unless I'm loving my math up that works out so that calculated over the same length of time just the first item on the list, the tuition, is over twice as expensive as the F-35.

Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Jan 16, 2015

# ? Jan 16, 2015 22:03

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

Ghost of Mussolini posted:

What's really amazing about that whole thing is that somebody still watches Top Gear.

Top Gear's audience figures are loving huge. It's one of the BBC's biggest draws. You probably could get enough popular support to start a war out of that voting bloc.

# ? Jan 16, 2015 22:11

Dusty Baker 2: Jul 8, 2011; Keyboard Inghimasi

Jarmak posted:

Its also using a rounded up figure of the highest estimated lifetime cost of the entire program, which itself is estimated at 56 years

edit: and unless I'm loving my math up that works out so that calculated over the same length of time just the first item on the list, the tuition, is over twice as expensive as the F-35.

I got various figures on the tuition one, some were exactly as you say, some were lower. Like I said, take the chart with a grain of salt, I was doing it for maximum impact because I had an agenda. haha.

# ? Jan 17, 2015 00:13

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Dusty Baker 2 posted:

I got various figures on the tuition one, some were exactly as you say, some were lower. Like I said, take the chart with a grain of salt, I was doing it for maximum impact because I had an agenda. haha.

Understood. But lol, if climate change could be stopped AND reversed for $240 billion, I'm pretty sure the island nations of the world and a handful of philanthropists would have already ponied up for that poo poo. Some problems are more than dolla dolla bills y'all, even though it pains me to disagree with the Wu-Tang Clan in even a minor way.

# ? Jan 17, 2015 01:13

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006; Can't post for 7 days!

Jarmak posted:

Its also using a rounded up figure of the highest estimated lifetime cost of the entire program, which itself is estimated at 56 years

Is it a nominal total cost or NPV?

# ? Jan 17, 2015 01:27

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

hobbesmaster posted:

Because it turns out the cockpit isn't the most expensive part of a intercontinental high altitude reconnaissance plane?

Yeah I've made this point in other threads but the reason Preds are so cheap isn't because they're unmanned, it's because they're literally a glorified R/C plane powered by a snowmobile engine (not making that up) with performance somewhere comparable to a Cessna 172.

And even then they cost $3M a pop compared to a C-172 which is around a quarter to half a million (turns out things like advanced multi-spectral targeting pods and surveillance systems are actually kind of expensive).

And that's not even getting into the Reaper, which costs around $15M a piece.

Removing a pilot from the cockpit doesn't magically make planes cheaper. I fully expect the first production UCAVs (i.e., whatever production bird comes off of the X-47 program) to cost just as much as a manned fighter with comparable performance.

e: The Global Chicken has plenty of issues as a procurement program, but its cost really isn't that outlandish (at least as originally conceived, it has had overruns but it wasn't like they were an order of magnitude). You're talking about an aircraft that is powered by a legitimate jet engine (Rolls-Royce AE 3007/F137), which costs $1.4M on its own. That's not counting the cost of integrating the thing into the GH system or everything else that goes along with getting an engine to power a plane, that's just what NG has to pay R-R (I'm being simplistic here) per plane to get a physical engine. There's also the cost of the surveillance package to consider...conservative estimate you're talking about at least $15M, probably quite a bit more. Then there's the comm link equipment, not particularly cheap because we're talking SATCOM here.

And it's worth pointing out that the per unit cost without R&D is only $131M. Turns out that you have to spend a lot of money on R&D when you're creating a high altitude intercontinental plane that quite literally flies itself (takeoffs and landings are completely autonomous, and the pilots that control it while it is at altitude fly using a mouse and keyboard.)

iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Jan 17, 2015

# ? Jan 17, 2015 05:22

Dandywalken: Feb 11, 2014

Regarde Aduck posted:

No one should be looking at what Russia and China are doing because they lack the ability to produce enough of their "5th generation" attempts to be a threat. There is only one way these fighters could be an issue and that is that they are both at least half as capable as advertised and that they are exported to countries hostile to the west. Which is... some south american countries, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. Russia is broke. China has money but it has money because it's not trying to match the US on a technological level. If it maintained the size of its military and attempted technological parity it would soon not have any money. China is fine being the regional power and isn't interested in a world war any time soon.

Russia plans at least 200 Su-50's IIRC.

And 2000 of their new Armata tanks.

I'm not sure where to start the hyphen and "Bwahahahhaa Im sorry cant finish this with a straight face" part, but yeah. Thats the supposed plan for Russia. They're really somethin' else over there.

# ? Jan 17, 2015 08:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 16:11

BIG HEADLINE: Jun 13, 2006; "Stand back, Ottawan ruffian, or face my lumens!"

Dandywalken posted:

Russia plans at least 200 Su-50's IIRC.

And 2000 of their new Armata tanks.

I'm not sure where to start the hyphen and "Bwahahahhaa Im sorry cant finish this with a straight face" part, but yeah. Thats the supposed plan for Russia. They're really somethin' else over there.

Russia's conventional forces are surely a force to be reckoned with.

...if this were 1994.

The main exception being the new cruise missiles. Those are pretty neat, but it's kind of embarrassing that their engine technology still sucks so much that they can't build a decent UCAV.

BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Jan 17, 2015

# ? Jan 17, 2015 08:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > F35 grounded because of engine defects

«‹›51 »