F-35 stealth jet 'will not be able to fire its guns until 2019' - Polidicks

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11319455/F-35-stealth-jet-will-not-be-able-to-fire-its-guns-until-2019.html[/url] [QUOTE] Amercia's much-vaunted new F-35 stealth jet has reportedly suffered the latest in a series of problems with the discovery of a software glitch which prevents the use of its on-board cannon. The jump jets – 14 of which have been ordered by Britain – are costing US taxpayers nearly $400 billion (£257 billion) and are due to enter service next year. But the Pentagon has been forced to deny reports in America that it will take a further four years before they will be able to shoot their guns. The news will cause further embarrassment for the programme, which has been dogged by delays, soaring costs and glitches since its inception in 2006. [/QUOTE]

14 / 400b = ~29b [I]per planes.[/I] what the [B]FUCK.[/B]

Misleading article. Nowhere does it mention that the gun wont be able to be fired until 2019. It only mentions that a software glitch is preventing it.

[QUOTE=Tmaxx;46850183]14 / 400b = ~29b [I]per planes.[/I] what the [B]FUCK.[/B][/QUOTE] 14 is how many britain ordered, we're building way more of them. The actual unit cost is like $350 million per aircraft which is still insane since F-22s cost a third of that. e: Apparently by 2019 they're expected to cost around $120 mil on average, as low as 85 mil for the 35A. The F-35 is a tragic case of gross mismanagement and abuse of funding. When the plane enters service it will be nowhere near what it was intended to be. The program had a lot of potential but we'd be better off axing it now. The Pentagon projects the entire program cost at just over one trillion over 55 years.

^The thing it's too far in to be axed now. Too much money has been sunk into this for everyone involved to just go "Well, we tried let's pack our bags and go home."

And that's the most frustrating part of it, if you ask me. We're going to be stuck with these ineffective problem-riddled planes while our clueless Congress tries to replace our tried and true single role aircraft with them, and it's going to neuter our air power. There's no reason to replace any of the aircraft we have, they all do their jobs just fine and will for the forseeable future.

Can't axe it now, we're stuck with a mismanaged overpriced pos... We could've upgraded existing aircraft, made new build versions which would've still given us an edge, while saving money, and we could've built much more Raptors... I mean seriously, It's one thing to have an edge in combat, it's another to bankrupt yourself to acquire a perceived edge that doesn't work as intended. As for the apologists who scream it's teething problems, no, fuck no. Actually hell no, this colossal waste of money is overpriced, doesn't work as intended, and its going to take years of extra money to make it work. We could've made something better for cheaper, but we fucked up.

This is from a story done on it in February of 2014 [quote=CBS News]Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan is the man in charge of the F-35 and every morning starts with problems that have to be dealt with ASAP. ___ David Martin: Has the F-35 program passed the point of no return? Chris Bogdan: I don't see any scenario where we're walking back away from this program. David Martin: So the American taxpayer is going to buy this airplane? Chris Bogdan: I would tell you we're going to buy a lot of these airplanes. __________ Frank Kendall is the under secretary of Defense for Acquisition - the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer. This May 2010 Pentagon memo detailed the "flawed...assumptions," "unrealistic...estimates" and "a general reluctance to accept unfavorable information" that put the program seven years behind schedule and more than $160 billion over budget. To stop the bleeding, Kendall pumped an extra $4.6 billion into flight testing and froze production. [/quote] In fact Kendall called this delay in software last fucking year. [quote]Shortly after he spoke with us, Kendall issued this memo stating "progress is sufficient" to increase production next year. But, he warned, the plane's software "is behind schedule" and "reliability...is not growing at an acceptable rate." [/quote] It's all a mess. Here's the story, video + transcript. [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-60-minutes/[/url] [editline]3rd January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;46850294]And that's the most frustrating part of it, if you ask me. We're going to be stuck with these ineffective problem-riddled planes while our clueless Congress tries to replace our tried and true single role aircraft with them, and it's going to neuter our air power. There's no reason to replace any of the aircraft we have, [b]they all do their jobs just fine and will for the forseeable future.[/b][/QUOTE] Agreed completely, and I couldn't believe the justification Air Force General Mark Welsh gave for their production. [quote]Mark Welsh: We're not the only ones who understand that going to this next generation of capability in a fighter aircraft is critical to survive in the future of battle space and so others are going, notably now the Chinese, the Russians and we'll see more of that in the future.[/quote] Berlin Wall fell 25 years ago now I mean jesus.

how can you make fighter plane that no shoot bullets! also when the airforce realised the f-4 needed to shoot bullets they made it shoot bullets in like 6 months

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;46850294]And that's the most frustrating part of it, if you ask me. We're going to be stuck with these ineffective problem-riddled planes while our clueless Congress tries to replace our tried and true single role aircraft with them, and it's going to neuter our air power. There's no reason to replace any of the aircraft we have, they all do their jobs just fine and will for the forseeable future.[/QUOTE] Except the fact that our older 4th gen planes are in many cases inferior to Russian aircraft such as the SU-35? The F35 is a technological marvel, and glitches throughout its development were to be expected. People seem to forget that many of our previous aircraft experienced the same problems during development. Several F16s were lost during testing due to the fly-by-wire systems failing. To my knowledge, not a single F35 has been lost.

heavy weapons guy not impressed [highlight](User was banned for this post ("shitpost" - Orkel))[/highlight]

It'd be nice if the Russians pumped billions of dollars into their infrastructure maybe we'd try to outdo them there instead of trying to outdo them with fighters preparing for a war that'll never happen.

[QUOTE=Anders118;46850344]Except the fact that our older 4th gen planes are in many cases inferior to Russian aircraft such as the SU-35? The F35 is a technological marvel, and glitches throughout its development were to be expected. People seem to forget that many of our previous aircraft experienced the same problems during development. Several F16s were lost during testing due to the fly-by-wire systems failing. To my knowledge, not a single F35 has been lost.[/QUOTE] Perform a cost-benefit analysis. At this point, even if it magically met all of its original program goals (and it won't, we've already accepted that), we're still paying too much for too little. It can't even hover anymore, that's been reduced to limited STOVL capability available for one out of three models. It's not compatible with many of the munitions we still field, it's heavily reliant on a barely working computer system just to keep flying, it won't fly at all if the fuel isn't within a very narrow temperature range... We should've built more Raptors and left the rest of our aircraft alone. Even the F-14 would've been good with another upgrade until at least 2030, but we chopped it in anticipation for the F-35. And plans to retire the A-10 in the same vein have been retracted because the F-35 cannot do what the A-10 does.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;46850367]Perform a cost-benefit analysis. At this point, even if it magically met all of its program gaols, we're still paying too much for too little. It can't even hover anymore, that's been reduced to limited STOVL capability available for one out of three models.[/QUOTE] I am curious as to where you got your information that the F35 can't hover. Under full load, no it can not. No VTOL aircraft can. And on an LHD sized ship, STOVL works quite well. And regarding your point of paying too much for too little, Boeing's F-15SE, which is an upgraded F15 with new avionics, reduced radar cross section, etc, costs 100 million an aircraft, compared to the F35A, which will cost 85 million during full scale production. You say we should upgrade our existing aircraft. Well guess what? We did. And the F-15SE is extremely expensive. Edit: What is with people's fixation on horribly outdated aircraft like the Tomcat? I mean seriously? The thing has a radar signature the size of Venus, and its engines emit an equally large IR signature. An entire squadron would be knocked out of the sky before you could say "S-400."

We aren't facing S-400s and in the event that we were we have specialized aircraft that can knock them out and it'd still be cheaper and more effective than replacing everything with F-35s.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;46850367]Perform a cost-benefit analysis. At this point, even if it magically met all of its original program goals (and it won't, we've already accepted that), we're still paying too much for too little. It can't even hover anymore, that's been reduced to limited STOVL capability available for one out of three models. It's not compatible with many of the munitions we still field, it's heavily reliant on a barely working computer system just to keep flying, it won't fly at all if the fuel isn't within a very narrow temperature range... We should've built more Raptors and left the rest of our aircraft alone. Even the F-14 would've been good with another upgrade until at least 2030, but we chopped it in anticipation for the F-35. And plans to retire the A-10 in the same vein have been retracted because the F-35 cannot do what the A-10 does.[/QUOTE] What dazzles me the most about F-35 is how slow it is. According to Wiki, "Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+ (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)" "Cruise speed: 1.2 mach for 9.8 min" MiG-21-93 could do Mach 2.0. Su-35 which can be considered a current Russian rival to the F-35 (multirole fighter) can do Mach 2.25. MiG-31, which is admittedly a dedicated interceptor, can go Mach 2.83. [editline]4th January 2015[/editline] Hell, F-15 could do Mach 2.5. Why the hell is the next thing meant to be slow as fuck?

The guy writing these articles is known for writing some batshit crazy stuff in the past, so I'd take these with a grain of salt. Edit. Whoops I thought this was the Daily Beast article. The writer there thinks that an F22 airstrike costs more than India's mission to Mars

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;46850469]We aren't facing S-400s and in the event that we were we have specialized aircraft that can knock them out and it'd still be cheaper and more effective than replacing everything with F-35s.[/QUOTE] No, we are not currently facing S-400s. But the F35 isn't designed for threats that we are currently facing, it is designed for threats we will face in the future. Also, you mention how we have specialized aircraft capable of knocking out said SAM sites, that do it more effectively and cheaper. The point of stealth aircraft such as the F35, is the fact that you don't have to dick around with destroying every possible SAM site, and you can just fly directly to your target. Further, the only way a HARM missile is effective against a SAM site is if its radar is online. I somehow doubt 100% of enemy air defense would have all of their radars online at the same time. Further, with the incredible speed of the S-400, they could activate their radar, open fire, have the radar guide the missile to target, impact, then shut it off before the AGM-88 was even half way to its target. If we kept a mentality of "Our planes work just fine for the current threats we face", we would still be flying P51 Mustangs. In response to Awesomecaek, the F15 could only maintain Mach 2.5 for approximately seven minutes, as reaching and maintaining this speed required full afterburner. I would surmise the same is true for the SU-35.

The F-35 really excited me when I was younger. It was my favorite plane. That's all past tense. They've shot it full of holes now. It's regrettable and it hurts but it's the truth. Hitting all SAM sites is cheaper and more effective than trying to dodge them all with the F-35. As for top speeds, even so the F-35 is clearly inferior speed-wise.

[QUOTE=Anders118;46850344]Except the fact that our older 4th gen planes are in many cases inferior to Russian aircraft such as the SU-35? The F35 is a technological marvel, and glitches throughout its development were to be expected. People seem to forget that many of our previous aircraft experienced the same problems during development. Several F16s were lost during testing due to the fly-by-wire systems failing. To my knowledge, not a single F35 has been lost.[/QUOTE] Then upgrade one of the existing platforms?

snip

[QUOTE=Code3Response;46850554]snip[/QUOTE] 1.6 mach is the F-35's top, 2.5 is the F-15's. One plane is faster than the other, even cruising. And guess which one carries more munitions? I'd bet that F15Es with a modernized ACTIVE style supermaneuverability kit would outperform the F35 nine times out of ten.

[QUOTE=Anders118;46850525]No, we are not currently facing S-400s. But the F35 isn't designed for threats that we are currently facing, it is designed for threats we will face in the future. Also, you mention how we have specialized aircraft capable of knocking out said SAM sites, that do it more effectively and cheaper. The point of stealth aircraft such as the F35, is the fact that you don't have to dick around with destroying every possible SAM site, and you can just fly directly to your target. Further, the only way a HARM missile is effective against a SAM site is if its radar is online. I somehow doubt 100% of enemy air defense would have all of their radars online at the same time. Further, with the incredible speed of the S-400, they could activate their radar, open fire, have the radar guide the missile to target, impact, then shut it off before the AGM-88 was even half way to its target. If we kept a mentality of "Our planes work just fine for the current threats we face", we would still be flying P51 Mustangs. [/QUOTE] What happens if (or better, once) Radar stealth becomes obsolete? Developments like scattered array radars and such already make huge advances, and it's not a stretch that radar development still has massive improvements ahead. Then you gonna end up with a plane that's expensive, sluggish and slow, all in sake of a feature that's useless at that point. Meanwhile, speed will always be at least somewhat useful.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46850490]What dazzles me the most about F-35 is how slow it is. According to Wiki, "Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+ (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)" "Cruise speed: 1.2 mach for 9.8 min" MiG-21-93 could do Mach 2.0. Su-35 which can be considered a current Russian rival to the F-35 (multirole fighter) can do Mach 2.25. MiG-31, which is admittedly a dedicated interceptor, can go Mach 2.83. [editline]4th January 2015[/editline] Hell, F-15 could do Mach 2.5. Why the hell is the next thing meant to be slow as fuck?[/QUOTE] i thought one thing the f-35 COULD do was super-sonic cruising without afterburners, thats one of the big selling points of the f-22 is that its the only plane capable of sitting above the sound barrier without using a massive blowtorch [editline]3rd January 2015[/editline] guess it can't

I read a post on reddit that was explaining this pretty well. The phrase "Won't be able to fire its guns" is a bit deceiving. There's a lot of work that goes into writing the code for these airplanes. I don't know what bells and whistles they're putting onto it; finishing all of them will likely take until 2019. With that being said, if we get into a war, it's not like we're going to have 1000 planes sitting around which can't fire their main cannon. I bet you one of the software guys can write and upload a patch within an hour which will enable the main cannon. The only difference is that it won't have 100% of the 'bonus features' like ignoring a fire command if it recognizes you're aiming at a friendly soldier or some shit like that. [editline]3rd January 2015[/editline] And what's the rush? Rushing it through will cost more money. We have no plans to enter a full scale war anytime soon. Traditionally, fighter jets hardly even use their main cannon. There was a lot of dispute among the developers that the F-35 shouldn't even have a main cannon. Especially when they're fighting insurgents, dropping bombs on an 'army' which doesn't have a single flying aircraft. [editline]3rd January 2015[/editline] Project requirements in peacetime are much stricter than project requirements in wartime. Planes were flown in WWII with known bugs like "Will overheat within minutes if flown at full throttle", "Engine stalls out under negative G's", and "Pilot may be killed by tail upon bailing from the aircraft". In the peacetime, everything has to be perfect. If we got in a war today, the gun would be operational by midnight.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;46850564]1.6 mach is the F-35's top, 2.5 is the F-15's. One plane is faster than the other, even cruising. And guess which one carries more munitions? I'd bet that F15Es with a modernized ACTIVE style supermaneuverability kit would outperform the F35 nine times out of ten.[/QUOTE] Thats why I snip'd it... Read the post wrong

[QUOTE=Code3Response;46850770]Thats why I snip'd it... Read the post wrong[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'd already started typing a response by the time I noticed.

[quote]OK this article is completely inaccurate and full of misinformation. There is no glitch whatsoever. On page 6 of this PDF from February of 2013 [url]http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18234[/url][1] It shows very clearly that the gun has always been planned for block 3f which is set for fleet release to the f35a and f35b in 2017. The 2019 date referred to is the IOC for the navy but that has nothing to do with the gun. Unnamed air force officials = random air force official.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;46850564]1.6 mach is the F-35's top, 2.5 is the F-15's. One plane is faster than the other, even cruising. And guess which one carries more munitions? I'd bet that F15Es with a modernized ACTIVE style supermaneuverability kit would outperform the F35 nine times out of ten.[/QUOTE] And what's the configuration of that F-15 going Mach 2.5 and how much fuel does it have left when it eventually reaches it? Most combat aircraft never reach their top speeds outside of testing because in the real world they're often, at least if they wish to be useful, laden with external fuel tanks and external weapons (called being 'dirty') which are heavy and create large amounts of aerodynamic drag that make that Mach 2.5 figure purely hypothetical. An F-15 in a typical combat configuration would probably max out at around Mach 1.2 or so. The F-35's listed top speed of Mach 1.6, meanwhile, is in a realistic combat configuration with a full internal weapons bay. The same applies, once you start mounting external weapons that top speed starts plummeting and it does so very sharply. The difference is that the F-35 doesn't need to mount weapons externally, the F-15 does.

Since when did it take 4 years to role out a software patch for something so small