Newest U.S. Stealth Fighter ‘10 Years Behind’ Older Jets - Polidicks

[url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html[/url] [QUOTE]America’s $400 billion, top-of-the-line aircraft can’t see the battlefield all that well. Which means it’s actually worse than its predecessors at fighting today’s wars. When the Pentagon’s nearly $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter finally enters service next year after nearly two decades in development, it won’t be able to support troops on the ground the way older planes can today. Its sensors won’t be able to see the battlefield as well; and what video the F-35 does capture, it won’t be able to transmit to infantrymen in real time. Versions of the new single-engine stealth fighter are set to replace almost every type of fighter in the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps inventory—including aircraft specifically designed to support ground troops like the A-10 Warthog. That will leave troops in a lurch when the F-35 eventually becomes the only game in town. “The F-35 will, in my opinion, be 10 years behind legacy fighters when it achieves [initial operational capability],” said one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program. “When the F-35 achieves [initial operational capability], it will not have the weapons or sensor capability, with respect to the CAS [close air support] mission set, that legacy multi-role fighters had by the mid-2000s.” The problem stems from the fact that the technology found on one of the stealth fighter’s primary air-to-ground sensors—its nose-mounted Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS)—is more than a decade old and hopelessly obsolete. The EOTS, which is similar in concept to a large high-resolution infrared and television camera, is used to visually identify and monitor ground targets. The system can also mark targets for laser-guided bombs. [/QUOTE]

the F35 was just an excuse to blow tax payer money on stupid bullshit.

Tower, this is Ghost Rider requesting a flyby.

Can someone explain how they could've possibly fucked up this much?

[QUOTE=booster;46834422]Can someone explain how they could've possibly fucked up this much?[/QUOTE] Probably due to cost overruns, project development delays, production delays, Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-600 engine complexity for the B-version (V/STOL version) and other many parts of the aircraft. It's been quoted that originally the DOD had estimated a FRP (full rate production) start of 2014 in 2006/7 (not sure) and now that won't happen until 2018. LRIP (low-rate initial production) is ongoing to ensure that all faults and discrepancies with the aircraft are ironed out and rectified.

While I think the F35 cost far too much, the guy who wrote this article is an idiot.

[QUOTE=booster;46834422]Can someone explain how they could've possibly fucked up this much?[/QUOTE] it turns out that pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into technological research and development doesn't guarantee the best possible outcome in fact, it might even have the complete opposite effect since having no real budget ceiling to work with you might easily lose track of what's practical and what isn't, and end up over-engineering the shit out of everything to the point of obsolescence and impracticality.

[QUOTE=download;46834464]While I think the F35 cost far too much, the guy who wrote this article is an idiot.[/QUOTE] Care to elaborate?

[QUOTE=download;46834464]While I think the F35 cost far too much, the guy who wrote this article is an idiot.[/QUOTE] Yeah, he made a big fucking deal about ground optics. I'm sure we'll get a new version of the 35 in a decade that rectifies this, just like the F-18 and and the F-16 got modernizations. I'd care about this if it weren't for the fact that the A-10 isn't going anywhere anymore, since the A-10 is staying I could care less if the F-35's ground optics aren't as good.

[QUOTE=Impact1986;46834497]Care to elaborate?[/QUOTE] He's making out the F35 as if it's supposed to be the eyes in the sky for troops on the ground, it's not.

At least it looks fucking badass.

Its built like that on purpose Because than we're gonna have to drop 20 some billion on refitting the fleets

Every fighter is shit on release. They generally are only even able to field one or two missile types and often have severe limitations on their avionics. Somehow I don't imagine upgrading the optics is going to be really that difficult, and we are a pretty good ways from replacing our other support aircraft. There are plenty of problems with the F35, but this isnt really one of them.

The F-35 is the F-111 all over again. "It needs to do everything" "It can but not that well" "Spend more money on it then!"

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46834835]The F-35 is the F-111 all over again. "It needs to do everything" "It can but not that well" "Spend more money on it then!"[/QUOTE] Globally as well. The British dropped the TSR2 project in favor of the f111. Look how that all turned out.

Honestly the requirements should have been 1) supersonic cruising flight 2) do everything a harrier could That's it, it wouldn't need to be a zillion dollar multimultirole aircraft, just replace the harrier and fix the one flaw with it which was its inability to go past the sound barrier

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46834835]The F-35 is the F-111 all over again. "It needs to do everything" "It can but not that well" "Spend more money on it then!"[/QUOTE][QUOTE=cherry gmod;46834882]Globally as well. The British dropped the TSR2 project in favor of the f111. Look how that all turned out.[/QUOTE]Except the Aardvark was fucking amazing though, so it's not like that at all. I don't know what the fuck you guys are talking about, yeah it never turned out to be a super cool fighter bomber rape murder machine but it could do three things really well: strategic bombing, SEAD, (EF-111) and interdiction/interception. Eventually the B-1B took over it's bomber role, and it's ability to intercept enemy aircraft was first intercepted by improvements to the F-15 platform and finally the F-22 Raptor. They did dump a lot of money into it, but that money wasn't pissed away like in the F-35 program and the cost overrun of the F-111's development was nowhere near as bad. Plus when the F-111 rolled off the assembly line, they could fucking actually be flown and the issues that came up in design and testing (which were serious shit) were corrected and ultimately led to the USN/USMC F-111B being cancelled.

Yeah, we are definitely moving towards a warless world.

[QUOTE=Sableye;46835224]Honestly the requirements should have been 1) supersonic cruising flight 2) do everything a harrier could That's it, it wouldn't need to be a zillion dollar multimultirole aircraft, just replace the harrier and fix the one flaw with it which was its inability to go past the sound barrier[/QUOTE] Maybe they'll fix the flaw where the Harrier kills all of its pilots too

"Newest U.S. Stealth [b]Fighter[/b] ‘10 Years Behind’ Older Jets" "A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for air-to-air combat against other aircraft, as opposed to bombers and attack aircraft, whose main mission is to attack ground targets." It's just a sensationalist article, trying to stir up hate against the F-35 by criticising it for not being very good at something which doesn't even factor into it's primary role. It's like criticising the A-10 for not being able to carry out long-range carpet bombing missions.

He expects the F-35 to loiter and recon for the ground, which is the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do We have dedicated recon aircraft for that shit, especially in the form of drones which have low operational costs, good optics, and great loiter time Get your head out of your ass

Still decades more advanced that the aircraft their enemies have, if they even have those. Waste of money.

[QUOTE=David29;46835469]"Newest U.S. Stealth [b]Fighter[/b] ‘10 Years Behind’ Older Jets" "A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for air-to-air combat against other aircraft, as opposed to bombers and attack aircraft, whose main mission is to attack ground targets." It's just a sensationalist article, trying to stir up hate against the F-35 by criticising it for not being very good at something which doesn't even factor into it's primary role. It's like criticising the A-10 for not being able to carry out long-range carpet bombing missions.[/QUOTE] So why is it called Joint Strike Fighter? Why does it have an air radar and is able to launch all kinds of air-to-air missiles? [editline]1st January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Jund;46835479]He expects the F-35 to loiter and recon for the ground, which is the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do We have dedicated recon aircraft for that shit, especially in the form of drones which have low operational costs, good optics, and great loiter time Get your head out of your ass[/QUOTE] So why not use drones also for attacking ground targets? Like they already do? With the money used on the F35 you could have improved drone technology even more [editline]1st January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=download;46834539]He's making out the F35 as if it's supposed to be the eyes in the sky for troops on the ground, it's not.[/QUOTE] If you read the article you would see that most of the stuff is quoted from an air force official. [QUOTE]“The F-35 will, in my opinion, be 10 years behind legacy fighters when it achieves [initial operational capability],” [B]said one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program[/B]. “When the F-35 achieves [initial operational capability], it will not have the weapons or sensor capability, with respect to the CAS [close air support] mission set, that legacy multi-role fighters had by the mid-2000s.”[/QUOTE] It is not the authors opinion, he is merely reporting what an air force official said and comments on it

We should have just overhauled the A-10 for ground attack, built more Raptors for air-to-air (as if that'll ever happen) and canned the F-35 altogether. The idea of a single plane replacing every single role in the entire US military is just unforgivably stupid. We still have B-2s for first strike stealth penetration missions. There is really no job this plane can do that existing options don't do better. But, hey, Lockheed's lobbyists demanded a trillion-dollar payday, and in this country, corporations get what they ask for.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46835924]We should have just overhauled the A-10 for ground attack, built more Raptors for air-to-air (as if that'll ever happen) and canned the F-35 altogether. The idea of a single plane replacing every single role in the entire US military is just unforgivably stupid. We still have B-2s for first strike stealth penetration missions. There is really no job this plane can do that existing options don't do better. But, hey, Lockheed's lobbyists demanded a trillion-dollar payday, and in this country, corporations get what they ask for.[/QUOTE] Its the Bradley all over again. [video=youtube;aXQ2lO3ieBA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA[/video]

They alread have the A-10 which is great for close air support and the F-15/16/18 are all great dog fighters. If they wanted stealth, why not just build an unmanned missile bus? You wouldn't need to spend money on a cockpit or life suppport systems. Such weight and space savings would leave more capacity for bombs. It wouldn't need much agility since it would just be loitering over the battlefield at high altitude. Its cheapness comes from its minimalism; it just needs enough stealth and electronics so it can drop bombs on the target. The F-35 will probably never be canceled since so many of its parts are manufactured in hundreds of congressional districts.

[QUOTE=booster;46834422]Can someone explain how they could've possibly fucked up this much?[/QUOTE] Well probably because they know whatever garbage they make everyone will be forced to buy it

Stupid America. Spends too much on military and too little on the rest. What the fuck for, you already have a bigger army then all the other countries combined. Stupid bitch ass government taking from the people.

[QUOTE=w00tf1zh;46836317]Stupid America. Spends too much on military and too little on the rest. What the fuck for, you already have a bigger army then all the other countries combined. Stupid bitch ass government taking from the people.[/QUOTE] Actually... China has more personal then America by almost a million, India is also right behind America by 40k. Quite the exaggeration you're giving. Unless of course you actually meant military spending.

[QUOTE=O'Neil;46836352]Actually... China has more personal then America by almost a million, India is also right behind America by 40k. Quite the exaggeration you're giving. Unless of course you actually meant military spending.[/QUOTE] Yes, that's what I meant.