All 51 F-35 fighter jets are temporarily grounded due to engine trouble.
82 replies, posted
More and more it's looking like the idea of this aircraft replacing almost our entire fighter fleet is a complete joke. Just another trillion-dollar handout to Lockheed Martin while our schools close down and our bridges crumble apart.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39690991]What if communications are jammed.[/QUOTE]
Then the same goes for the aircraft with a pilot, the exact same issues arise for both of them, the only difference is that with the drone there's no risk of losing an experienced pilot.
The pilot would be at a colossal disadvantage considering most modern aircraft gather a lot of their information from sources outside the aircraft such as other fighters or command centers.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39690972]And that's why I said a purpose built drone, There's nothing to stop them from essentially recreating a cockpit with the ability to see camera feeds of the entire aircrafts surroundings and those possibilities can happen for a piloted aircraft as well, the only difference being a drone falls out the sky and you send another one up, a piloted aircraft falls out the sky and you might lose the pilot.[/QUOTE]
Iran just snatched another drone, supposedly...
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39693293]Then the same goes for the aircraft with a pilot, the exact same issues arise for both of them, the only difference is that with the drone there's no risk of losing an experienced pilot.[/QUOTE]
No, if communications are lost between the control center and a drone, the drone is completely combat ineffective. If a manned aircraft loses communications, the pilot can decide whether or not to continue with his mission, or he can safely return to base.
[QUOTE=Apache249;39693303]Iran just snatched another drone, supposedly...
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
No, if communications are lost between the control center and a drone, the drone is completely combat ineffective. If a manned aircraft loses communications, the pilot can decide whether or not to continue with his mission, or he can safely return to base.[/QUOTE]
You say it like a drone is completely at the mercy of the skies if it loses it's connection to command, they're not, they have routes back to a base built into them and they update their location accordingly, they can still carry out a mission without human input as long as it essentially has a plan to fall back on.
And everyones saying about losing connection like it's some horrifying prospect, it's a drone, even if it fell out the sky it's not that bad since it's a drone. Furthermore there's nothing to stop Western nations from essentially creating some software that teaches the drone the principles and maneuvers of dog fighting.
Regardless it's pretty much a waste of time since they're never actually going to go up against an enemy that can even field a respectable air force, let alone a 4th/5th gen air force.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39693390]You say it like a drone is completely at the mercy of the skies if it loses it's connection to command, they're not, they have routes back to a base built into them and they update their location accordingly, they can still carry out a mission without human input as long as it essentially has a plan to fall back on.
And everyones saying about losing connection like it's some horrifying prospect, it's a drone, even if it fell out the sky it's not that bad since it's a drone. Furthermore there's nothing to stop Western nations from essentially creating some software that teaches the drone the principles and maneuvers of dog fighting.
Regardless it's pretty much a waste of time since they're never actually going to go up against an enemy that can even field a respectable air force, let alone a 4th/5th gen air force.[/QUOTE]
Let me spell it out for you. We don't want to load a drone full of the latest and greatest fighter technology because, as you've made very clear, drones are somewhat disposable.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Beafman;39690231][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA[/media][/QUOTE]
That was quite possibly the greatest thing I have ever seen.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39691370]I can see air superiority drones working. If everything is autonomous it could work fine and be cheaper.[/QUOTE]
This is a very ill thought through comment.
are you aware of the technology required to create something like that? The F35 is having issues already with 24m lines of code, and has a human pilot. It is also hideously expensive, and uses plenty of experimental technology.
What you are suggesting is programming a human brain into the thing?! How the hell will that save money? Can you imagine the coding monolith that would be? How does it know friend from foe? Does it know what reasonable force is? What happens if it malfunctions and destroys a civilian jet airliner? People are already bitching (like idiots) about remote control drones, how would that go down with the public?
If they pumped $400bn into that you'd be the first person to waltz over and claim that having a pilot instead of the computer was an obvious option. Jesus Christ a thinking attack aircraft?
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39690972]And that's why I said a purpose built drone, There's nothing to stop them from essentially recreating a cockpit with the ability to see camera feeds of the entire aircrafts surroundings and those possibilities can happen for a piloted aircraft as well, the only difference being a drone falls out the sky and you send another one up, a piloted aircraft falls out the sky and you might lose the pilot.[/QUOTE]
Like I just stated, communication failure, jamming, ECM all break drones. Furthermore, what makes you assume that a drone would be less expensive than a modern fighter jet? If anything they would be more expensive because of all the computers, communications, cameras, and tons of very complicated technology going into the birds. If one gets shot down it would an absolutely massive loss. You're better off having a pilot in the sky, because like I said, the human element is the most important part of a fighter aircraft.
[editline]23rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39693293]Then the same goes for the aircraft with a pilot, the exact same issues arise for both of them, the only difference is that with the drone there's no risk of losing an experienced pilot.
The pilot would be at a colossal disadvantage considering most modern aircraft gather a lot of their information from sources outside the aircraft such as other fighters or command centers.[/QUOTE]
If an aircraft that has a pilot in it loses communication, it doesn't suddenly fall out of the sky like a drone would.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39693390]You say it like a drone is completely at the mercy of the skies if it loses it's connection to command, they're not, they have routes back to a base built into them and they update their location accordingly, they can still carry out a mission without human input as long as it essentially has a plan to fall back on.
And everyones saying about losing connection like it's some horrifying prospect, it's a drone, even if it fell out the sky it's not that bad since it's a drone. Furthermore there's nothing to stop Western nations from essentially creating some software that teaches the drone the principles and maneuvers of dog fighting.
Regardless it's pretty much a waste of time since they're never actually going to go up against an enemy that can even field a respectable air force, let alone a 4th/5th gen air force.[/QUOTE]
That whole "software to make drones RTB and fly themselves" is great and all, but it fails. How do you think Iran captured one of our stealth drones? It lost it's signal to it's pilot and it crash landed in Iran because the software to pilot itself back to base failed.
I would have canned the program years ago, honestly. It's not even that pretty an aircraft, it doesn't perform all that well, it's terribly unreliable, and it hasn't gotten any better in years.
How much did the whole project cost so far I wonder?
[QUOTE=H4wkeye;39699399]How much did the whole project cost so far I wonder?[/QUOTE]
$400bn.
Holy shit. 400 billion dollars for 30 or so, apparently faulty, planes. Goddamn.
[QUOTE=H4wkeye;39701011]Holy shit. 400 billion dollars for 30 or so, apparently faulty, planes. Goddamn.[/QUOTE]
400 billion for the entire thing.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39691019]
The F-35 is meant to fight everything else[/quote] Hmm...let's see if it's truly necessary. [quote] from insurgents on the ground[/quote]AH64 Apache, AC130, A-10
[quote]
to armor columns[/quote] AH64 Apache, AC-130, A-10, F14, F15, F16, F18, F117, B2, B52 [quote]to 2nd and 3rd gen fighters of backwater nations.[/QUOTE] F15, F16, F18, F22, perhaps even an A-10 if the pilot is ballsy enough since these things can out-turn pretty much anything else in the sky and the minigun will rip through anything you point it at.
Oh, would you look at that. We already have plenty of hardware that can deal with those threats in the inventory [I]right now.[/I] We don't need the F35.
[QUOTE=TestECull;39704819]Hmm...let's see if it's truly necessary. AH64 Apache, AC130, A-10
AH64 Apache, AC-130, A-10, F14, F15, F16, F18, F117, B2, B52 F15, F16, F18, F22, perhaps even an A-10 if the pilot is ballsy enough since these things can out-turn pretty much anything else in the sky and the minigun will rip through anything you point it at.
Oh, would you look at that. We already have plenty of hardware that can deal with those threats in the inventory [I]right now.[/I] We don't need the F35.[/QUOTE]
would you really want to break a rich generals heart and not deliver to him stealth fighterjets?
[QUOTE=catbarf;39691019]The F-35 is meant to fight everything else.[/QUOTE]
Watch out for our new stealth super fighter! Note that it's super expensive that we can only buy one, but we'll manage this by sharing the aircraft between the navy, airforce, and marines with this handy schedule we shall draft.
[QUOTE=TestECull;39704819]Hmm...let's see if it's truly necessary. AH64 Apache, AC130, A-10
AH64 Apache, AC-130, A-10, F14, F15, F16, F18, F117, B2, B52 F15, F16, F18, F22, perhaps even an A-10 if the pilot is ballsy enough since these things can out-turn pretty much anything else in the sky and the minigun will rip through anything you point it at.
Oh, would you look at that. We already have plenty of hardware that can deal with those threats in the inventory [I]right now.[/I] We don't need the F35.[/QUOTE]
All of which have their own maintenance schedules, parts, specialty training, etc.
If we COULD get our entire fleet down to a couple different models, it would save hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39706315]All of which have their own maintenance schedules, parts, specialty training, etc.
If we COULD get our entire fleet down to a couple different models, it would save hundreds of millions of dollars a year.[/QUOTE]
Well, the F-35 cost us an arm and a leg and the damn thing doesn't even work right, much less replace all the aircraft we have right now. Now we have yet another ground-bound money hog.
I find it interesting how this entire thing cost 400 billion while the entire Apollo program was a little more than 170 (in today's money).
It barely even flies, for fucks sake.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39706315]All of which have their own maintenance schedules, parts, specialty training, etc.
If we COULD get our entire fleet down to a couple different models, it would save hundreds of millions of dollars a year.[/QUOTE]
Jack of all trades, Master of none. What makes our current aircraft so goddamn badass is their specialization. The A10, AH-64 and AC130 specialize in close air support and ground attack. That's what they do best. They're not all that good at anything else. The F14 and F15 are air superiority fighters. They [i]can[/i] do ground attack but they're not all that good at it, they're designed to and excel at shooting other jets down. The F14 is also carrier capable. The F22 takes that one step further, being a pure-bred interceptor. It excels at shooting down entire squadrons of enemy aircraft before the enemies can even tell they're there. The F/A-18 Hornet is already a jack-of-all-trades multirole fighter, and there's nothing wrong with it. It doesn't really excel at anything...an A-10 is a better tankbuster, an F14 or F15 a better air-superiority fighter, an F22 a better interceptor...but it will do all of those things, and it will do them from the deck of a carrier if need be. The B2, B1 and F117 can put a bunker buster down on anything and everything completely undetected, and the B52 can make any city on this planet disappear in seconds while operating from bases here in the USA.
We don't need the F35. Our current aircraft are more than capable, and it's far cheaper to keep the current fleet flying than it is to try to replace them with the F35. Our current fleet is also more effective since we don't have one aircraft that's trying to do everything and failing to excel at any of it.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39705067]would you really want to break a rich generals heart and not deliver to him stealth fighterjets?[/QUOTE]
If it means saving the taxpayer nearly half a trillion dollars then hell yes I would. The rich general can go eat a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned, the only person's wallet I would care about if I were in the position to decide these matters is the taxpayer's.
If the F35 actually worked it would be a different story. But it doesn't. They're so horribly unreliable they haven't even completed the necessary trials to be used experimentally in the field. We're wasting billions of dollars on these things, yet a Cessna 172 flies better. Humongous waste of taxpayer money.
holy fuck that's a lot of money
[QUOTE=Deep;39707314]I find it interesting how this entire thing cost 400 billion while the entire Apollo program was a little more than 170 (in today's money).
It barely even flies, for fucks sake.[/QUOTE]
Unlike the military, NASA has had budget overruns, but nothing like this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.