|
http://www.thestate.com/2014/07/04/3546887/pentagon-grounds-all-f35s-over.htmlquote:Already the costliest weapons system in U.S. history with a projected price tag of almost $400 billion for 2,443 aircraft planned for production, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been plagued by a series of software and hardware problems, including bulkhead cracks, since manufacturing began in 2006. The cost has risen 70 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since design started in 2001. $400 billion for a piece of poo poo airplane that is nearly completely useless and radically unsafe. For reference, that is nearly 1.5x as much as the entire budget of India for a year.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
I was at an aerospace conference recently and one of the plenary talks was on the economic success of the "F35 global supply chain", where they talked at length about all the amazing innovations in the design of the aircraft that were saving people so much money. It was almost like performance art, the entire thing was done completely deadpan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
I hear the F35 is bad. I hear it's, in fact, not good. It's a bad plane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
 Made this a bit ago. Still 500 billion left over to spend if we're using the 1.5 trillion figure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
Dusty Baker 2 posted:
That's a nice graph. Do you mind if I spread it around on some other sites?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI This has been posted in other F-35 threads but is no less relevant. A-10 Designer ripping the F-35 a new rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
The F-35 is an overwhelming success at it's primary mission. The primary mission being to take as much of the publics money as possible and put it into the pockets of defense industry executives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
The article didn't mention it, but I found this in the Auspol thread: "The inspections were triggered after one plane caught fire at a Florida airbase last Tuesday. Witnesses reported the engine tore through the top of the plane, CBC News reports."  e: Well it makes sense if you think about it, I you were a jet engine would you like to stay in a F-35 that was also on fire?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 12:23
|
|
|
The tories here in Australia are practically cancelling its world class welfare system to buy 50 of these loving things. As in no more unemployment benefits for under 30s , raising the pension age to 70(!!) and kicking most people off the sickness pension. Which will save less money than the cost of buying these garbage loving airplanes and the new submarines. gently caress conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
Dusty Baker 2 posted:
This would be an excellent entry in a "misleading infographics" competition. The total cost estimate is stretched over fifty years, while most of the numbers given in the image are over shorter timescales. Granted it's still an enormous waste of money, but that doesn't make the comparisons any less specious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
It's also hard to read since it has a black-on-dark text format.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
duck monster posted:The tories here in Australia are practically cancelling its world class welfare system to buy 50 of these loving things. I don't get it. Why are other countries buying this garbage despite there being actual decent planes out there they can get for much less. I understand we are going to pay for it because the MIC run Megaton, but why are countries trying to turn themselves into US 2.0. It's even more depressing watching America poo poo itself into oblivion because everyone else should know better by virtue of our example  .
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:I don't get it. Why are other countries buying this garbage despite there being actual decent planes out there they can get for much less. I understand we are going to pay for it because the MIC run Megaton, but why are countries trying to turn themselves into US 2.0. It's even more depressing watching America poo poo itself into oblivion because everyone else should know better by virtue of our example Believe it or not America is not the font of conservative thought. Young Earth Creationism began in Australia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
On the plus side, more delays mean that the Queen gets to cruise around on a nice new Royal Barge for a few years whilst we wait for you guys to mend your aeroplane: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28146412 A £3billion, 65,000t barge (with a spare just in case this one sinks), nice!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:I don't get it. Why are other countries buying this garbage despite there being actual decent planes out there they can get for much less. I understand we are going to pay for it because the MIC run Megaton, but why are countries trying to turn themselves into US 2.0. It's even more depressing watching America poo poo itself into oblivion because everyone else should know better by virtue of our example Part of being an American "ally" is that you don't have much say in these things. You're expected to buy American defence products. As I've said before, the F-22 might be a ridiculous boondogle, but at least it's an impressive aircraft. The F-35, I mean from an engineering perspective V/STOL is always impressive, but it's just such a poor plane in so many respects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Hopefully grover can come in here and explain that the F-35 is in fact a good pane. Maybe it's normal for aircraft to burst into flames?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 Baracula posted:Hopefully grover can come in here and explain that the F-35 is in fact a good pane. Maybe it's normal for aircraft to burst into flames? You have no idea how much restraint it took to avoid grover references in the OP
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1QCbXCezNc
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Baracula posted:Hopefully grover can come in here and explain that the F-35 is in fact a good pane. Maybe it's normal for aircraft to burst into flames? Usually after it has been shot at, not before take off. The Netherlands have two of the drat things as well for testing, but we can't affort the engines for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
What's fun about the F-35 is that when China stole the designs their engineers went "Huh, this would be a great airframe if we took out all the bullshit required for VTOL!" And then they did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
The F-35 program is an terrorist plot to destroy America's air power by saddling it with piece of poo poo plane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
duck monster posted:The tories here in Australia are practically cancelling its world class welfare system to buy 50 of these loving things. In commonwealth solidarity Canada was going to buy some too but there's been enough poo poo that our tories have decided not to buy them, blaming the civil service for pushing the plane on them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
When I was in high school I was playing Falcon 4.0, so naturally I was excited about the F-16 replacement, the JSF. I was speaking to my mother's cousin about it since he was an engineer working for the Australian military under contract to fix problems with the new Collins class submarine(he didn't go into specifics since it was classified), he is clued in with defense projects. So I asked him how cool he thought the new JSF was. He rolled his eyes and specifically said to me that he would be surprised that with everyone coming in and asking for their own specific design requirements (Air Force, Marines, etc...), he would be shocked if we saw the aircraft in service within 10 years. That was in 1999. That conversation still sticks with me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:What's fun about the F-35 is that when China stole the designs their engineers went "Huh, this would be a great airframe if we took out all the bullshit required for VTOL!" And then they did. Wait, what plane is China making that stole the F-35 design? Also, haha, the Marines ruin useful things, I'm not surprised.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
F-35 is Uncompetitive in both of its intended multipurpose roles. Source That website seems to generally have a lot of info on how the F-35 is actually at a large disadvantage vis a vis the upcoming heavy air superiority stealth fighters Russia and China are developing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Was this the one chosen over Boeing's proposal because it looked cooler or was that the F-22? Also, which one was the plane they had to totally redesign because they forgot to account for the mass of the pilot?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:Was this the one chosen over Boeing's proposal because it looked cooler or was that the F-22? Also, which one was the plane they had to totally redesign because they forgot to account for the mass of the pilot? Yes I believe it was the F35 and the competitor was nicknamed "Monica" for fairly obvious reasons. The competitor to the F22 actually looked a lot cooler than the Raptor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
So what are the issues with the F35 besides being an infinite money pit? I think the GBS thread basically said they tried to make it do to many things and now it's severely under armored and too slow for an air superiority fighter and also armed like poo poo especially compared to the A-10 for a close air support role.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:That website seems to generally have a lot of info on how the F-35 is actually at a large disadvantage vis a vis the upcoming heavy air superiority stealth fighters Russia and China are developing. Are there many plausible scenarios where this will matter? Is there much chance of a major faceoff between advanced airforces not leading to WW3?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Baracula posted:Hopefully grover can come in here and explain that the F-35 is in fact a good pane. Maybe it's normal for aircraft to burst into flames? This plane is bad and poorly insulated. Also passed inspections the same way as our Lord and Savior's battlebarn (seriously).
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Are there many plausible scenarios where this will matter? Is there much chance of a major faceoff between advanced airforces not leading to WW3? Export licenses to client states? That's certainly setting off the panic sirens regarding Russia's SAM capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:F-35 is Uncompetitive in both of its intended multipurpose roles. Source The F-35 isn't an air-superiority plane - that would be the F-22 which actually turned out to be a good plane despite the bitching about it. Coincidentally one of the Russian PAK-FA's also caught fire and burnt down on the runway a few weeks ago. Dr.Zeppelin posted:Was this the one chosen over Boeing's proposal because it looked cooler or was that the F-22? Also, which one was the plane they had to totally redesign because they forgot to account for the mass of the pilot? The Boeing project was somehow a bit more hosed than Lockheed's, if that tells you anything. Of course one of the various things it failed to achieve was shoving VTOL into the design successfully, so maybe in the end it would inadvertently avoided some of the issues anyways. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The F-35 isn't an air-superiority plane - that would be the F-22 which actually turned out to be a good plane despite the bitching about it. Coincidentally one of the Russian PAK-FA's also caught fire and burnt down on the runway a few weeks ago. The site I linked actually clearly states that the US should be building more F-22's to be competitive with the PAK-FA; isn't the F-35 replacing most of the planes that are otherwise doing the air superiority role today? Isn't it a problem if it can't do that role? That the PAK-FA caught fire isn't a surprise I think to anyone regarding the development cycle of a heavy fighter, the difference is that the F-35 is costing 1.5 trillion and has been in development for longer and will continue to cost money while the PAK-FA likely won't cost as much or be in development for as long. Because the PAK-FA is being designed to be a stealthy air superiority fighter and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The site I linked actually clearly states that the US should be building more F-22's to be competitive with the PAK-FA; isn't the F-35 replacing most of the planes that are otherwise doing the air superiority role today? Isn't it a problem if it can't do that role? Well, it may end up replacing air superiority aircraft because we cut the funding on the F-22. It's mostly meant to replace things like the F-16s, which have similar bomb truck-with-missiles kinda roles. I didn't say the PAK-FA catching fire was a surprise, just pointing out that the F-35 isn't unique in this particular problem when it comes to the list of upcoming new planes. Ethiser posted:Can we still blame the marines for wanting VTOL capabilities in this piece of crap? Probably. It was bad enough that they wanted a multirole plane from the ground up (historically those projects don't work out too well!), the addition of VTOL as a requirement was just hilariously poorly thought out. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Can we still blame the marines for wanting VTOL capabilities in this piece of crap?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
The F-22 was originally supposed to be more expensive, American only air superiority fighter. It had a very rough start (computer glitches by crossing the international date line, canopies locking up, oxygen system malfunctioning) but those issues got sorted out. You can argue about the cost and the actual need for the F-22 but it does what it does well (more than choking pilots). The F-35 was originally seen as cheaper export multirole fighter. It had several versions: A. A conventional aircraft that takes off and lands. B. A Vertical Takeoff and Landing variant, used on small carriers. IIRC the USMC and the British particularly pined for this one. C. A carrier version, designed to take off from US carriers. This issue has been plagued with problems and still doesn't work correctly, on top of the F-35s problems. So you have a fighter that is already a compromise in role, that is being broken up into fairly different variants on top of that. This would be be potentially costly even without Lockheed Martin being a money black hole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Majestic posted:As I've said before, the F-22 might be a ridiculous boondogle, but at least it's an impressive aircraft. The F-35, I mean from an engineering perspective V/STOL is always impressive, but it's just such a poor plane in so many respects. Even then, the F-22 was an overpriced piece of poo poo like the F-35.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Overpriced, yes. Piece of poo poo, no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Well it did kill a couple of pilots (and crash, perhaps even in that order).
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
Problems in development and early on isn't unheard of. The F-111 had teething problem too. Of course, the F-111 was nowhere near as expensive as the F-22.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:01
|
|