Newest U.S. Stealth Fighter ‘10 Years Behind’ Older Jets
50 replies, posted
[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]
We'll stop spending money on a big-ass military when Russia and China stop being assholes to everyone.
[QUOTE=SexualShark;46834377]the F35 was just an excuse to blow tax payer money on stupid bullshit.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=booster;46834422]Can someone explain how they could've possibly fucked up this much?[/QUOTE]
Step 1: Design a new multirole aircraft requirement to use next-generation technology. This craft will not be a specialist, but a generalist aircraft, carrier-borne, that can replace a myriad of specialized designs, and provide close support in a variety of operations. It won't be the best at everything, but it won't be fighting World War 3, it'll be fighting counter-insurgency campaigns and providing force projection from carrier forces, and being able to adapt it to multiple roles will give us a larger effective fleet for any particular operation. The best part is we can sell it to allies and recoup the cost, making it affordable as well as effective.
Step 2: Watch Congress and senior generals get their hands on the plans and demand all the bells and whistles. No, it can't be an adequate generalist, it has to be the best of the best at [i]everything[/i]. Use the best technology, outperform everything else, kick ass and take names. Basically the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA"]Bradley[/URL] all over again.
Step 3: Begin development. Run into obstacles. Correct them. Continue development.
Step 4: Watch Congress get cold feet. Oh shit, you're having problems in development? Nobody told us a brand new multi-million dollar aircraft would have [I]problems[/I] in development. They forget the troubled development of the F-16, F-22, and literally every other aircraft that has been considered high-tech- very high initial R&D costs and teething troubles before they get ironed out and hit mass production. So they scale back the order, increasing unit cost.
Step 5: With the order scaled back, production is delayed. Cost-cutting measures are instituted. Cheaper substitutes for planned equipment have to be made, shortcuts have to be taken rather than spending the time and money to correct problems. Congress wants a 2010s fighter with 2000s technology at 1990s prices so we have to give them the best we can.
Step 6: Elections. Now that public sentiment is rising against the program, what better way to get public support than to cut funding to an expensive, bloated military program? Slash the funding. Slash the order. Slash deployment and subsidies.
Step 7: Try to build a next-generation fighter on cheaper last-generation technology as your cut budget forces you to redesign yet again. Watch everyone blame you for failing to squeeze blood from a stone.
The F-35 is a perfect example of why our government is really fucking awful at long-term investments. The problem is that a program started with fanfare in the last election cycle is first on the chopping block in the next election cycle if there's any perception of failing to live up to its lofty goals. Throw in politicized requirements ('It'll be a better fighter than the F-16 AND a better CAS aircraft than a A-10!') and the chances of it ever reaching deployment intact are negligible.
The same shit happened to the Space Shuttle- a plan for a reusable, cost-effective, rapid-turnaround surface-to-orbit hauler got reamed by Congress until it had turned into a bloated, expensive, inefficient vehicle that stayed around decades longer than planned because we couldn't get our thumbs out of our asses and replace it. And the same happened to the F-22, a fighter that drastically exceeded planned cost because the order number was rapidly cut back. Now we have a fighter that kicks the collective asses of [I]everything else in the world[/I], but we don't have enough to actually replace our aging fleets.
Compare to the F-16, which went through a similarly troubled history. Enormously expensive initial R&D, close to ten years of development before production, extremely ambitious technological advances like the bubble canopy or fly-by-wire electronics, and initial technical problems that honestly, make the F-35 look pretty good- at least no F-35s have suddenly lost all flight control (it earned the nickname 'lawn dart' for a reason) or had all their electronics crash due to a divide-by-zero when flying over the Dead Sea. The difference is that the government stuck with the F-16, and once the initial enormously expensive R&D was completed, we manufactured so many of them that the price dropped to a tiny fraction of the initial outlay, even as we continued to update and modernize it. The F-22 and F-35 could have been the same, but without a unified Congress, economic bubble, or strong military interest (no Cold War anymore), they couldn't stand up to petty governmental squabbles and budget cuts.
People saying the F-35 is a mess because they had an unlimited budget or because of bloated defense programs or because everyone would be forced to buy it anyways or because the engineers don't know what they're doing are either grossly uninformed or idiots. It was a solid plan ruined by politics and overly optimistic sales pitches, not engineering.
There's a movie on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Like the F35, and tons of other military programs, it was plagued with problems. Those problems saw fixes within the first few years of it being introduced to service with updated variants.
The F35 is an alright Jet, it has been given a bad name due to cost overruns, and malfunctions.
[QUOTE=Jund;46835429]Maybe they'll fix the flaw where the Harrier kills all of its pilots too[/QUOTE]
they did... they put better computers on it, the harrier is basically as safe as any other combat jet today, remember the first harriers debued in 1969 with no computer flight controls
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;46836799]There's a movie on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.[/QUOTE]
Someone linked it a few posts up.
Anyways, the F35 may not be that great, but I love the design for some reason.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46834835]"It needs to do everything"
"It can but not that well"
"Spend more money on it then!"[/QUOTE]
Even on the small scale it doesn't work, because the Army was like "We need a gun that can fill the role of Submachine Gun, Carbine, Battle Rifle, Automatic Rifle, Marksman's Rifle, and Sniper Rifle so we can just issue them to everyone" and we go the M14 rifle. It could do some of those things well, but as far as automatic fire went it was near uncontrollable for even an experienced soldier.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;46836091]They alread have the A-10 which is great for close air support and the F-15/16/18 are all great dog fighters.[/QUOTE]
I thought we were retiring the A-10 and giving their role to the F-35?
[QUOTE=booster;46834422]Can someone explain how they could've possibly fucked up this much?[/QUOTE]
The people who say either yes or no the budget(Congress, Senators) get money from the program spent in their states(ie 'jobs'). This is incentive to say yes. No one cares if the program works or not, since if it doesn't work the military will simply ask for more money. They will get it because they will say "give us money or the Chinese will take over the world" and they'll get the money. Rinse, repeat.
the problem with the f-35 is that the airforce was incharge of it, i'm not blaming them but all the best multi-role fighters started as navy projects.
the f-14,f-16, f-4 phantom, f-18, basically if it works for the navy then it will work for the airforce
[editline]1st January 2015[/editline]
[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]
troop numbers don't mean squat in mechanized warfare, you can have legions of grunts but if you only have a handful of aircraft and tanks its not much of a fighting force. russia, china, and india may have large amounts of "trained" troops (they all have conscripted armies), they don't have excessive numbers of tanks, aircraft, and the ability to project power anywhere quickly.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;46835874]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?[/quote]
He's saying it's a multirole fighter, not a dedicated ground attack or recon craft (which would make air to ground sensors less important, you know the entire thing the article is based off of)
[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[/quote]
Drones are slow, vulnerable to symmetric AA and cyberwarfare
No machine will ever be able to replace everything a man in a cockpit brings
[quote]If you read the article you would see that most of the stuff is quoted from an air force official.
It is not the authors opinion, he is merely reporting what an air force official said and comments on it[/QUOTE]
Yeah, an unnamed air force official. Googling the quote only links back to your source, which is already a tabloid and not a proper news source to begin with anyway
[editline]1st January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;46836812]they did... they put better computers on it, the harrier is basically as safe as any other combat jet today, remember the first harriers debued in 1969 with no computer flight controls[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses[/url]
[editline]1st January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=AntonioR;46835793]Still decades more advanced that the aircraft their enemies have, if they even have those. Waste of money.[/QUOTE]
World politics change faster than aircraft R&D
[editline]1st January 2015[/editline]
I mean shit, we were pretty chill with Russia a year ago. Now look what happened
[QUOTE=Impact1986;46835988]Its the Bradley all over again.
[video=youtube;aXQ2lO3ieBA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA[/video][/QUOTE]
This video confuses me every time. It is funny, but the point is sorta lost when the Bradley turned out to be an excellent IFV.
[QUOTE=GunFox;46837293]This video confuses me every time. It is funny, but the point is sorta lost when the Bradley turned out to be an excellent IFV.[/QUOTE]
If I had a dollar every time this video was posted in an F-35 thread I'd be able to buy an F-35
[QUOTE=GunFox;46837293]This video confuses me every time. It is funny, but the point is sorta lost when the Bradley turned out to be an excellent IFV.[/QUOTE]
Have you seen the full movie or read the book it's based on? The point of it is that because of this meddling, the Bradley was turned into an expensive, ineffective deathtrap, and it was only through extensive revision after trials proved its flaws that it became the Bradley used today. External fuel tanks, a stronger engine, considerable additional armor (something like three tons' worth IIRC), and spall liners were all the result of the trials. The designed vehicle was awful, but revisions turned it into an effective IFV.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;46835874]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?[/quote]
Because it's a fuckin fighter jet? Ground attack is a secondary role, it's primary role has been, and always will be, anti air. It has an air radar and A2A missiles because thats it's primary function. Why the fuck wouldn't it have these things?
[QUOTE=Impact1986;46835874]
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
[/quote]
Because thats fucking stupid. Drones will [b]NEVER[/b] have the full capabilities that a pilot in the air has. Drones are used as support, not primary methods of attack. They're not bad when you're taking on cave-dwellers with AKM's who don't have the AAA to take down a drone a few thousand feet in the air. If you take on an actual military, drones aren't going to be used all that much in an attack role.
You can't win a war on drones. You need pilots in the air and boots on the ground if you want to get shit done. Satellite images and drone feeds will only get you so far.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;46835874]
If you read the article you would see that most of the stuff is quoted from an air force official.
[/quote]
"The F-35 is a pizza shit-Said some nameless dipshit somewhat affiliated with the F-35 program".
[QUOTE=Impact1986;46835874]
It is not the authors opinion, he is merely reporting what an air force official said and comments on it[/QUOTE]
It's not the authors opinion, it's some jackasses opinion that the author is regurgitating in a bullshit, uninformed, opinionated, sensationalist method.
still cost way too much, even if it was a good jet
they need to make a dark comedy about the F35 like they did for the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars]Bradley[/url]
[QUOTE=General J;46838099]still cost way too much, even if it was a good jet[/QUOTE]
If it makes you feel any better, its projected that the whole project will cost us around a Trillion American Fun Bucks over the next 50 years.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46835225]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.[/QUOTE]
And the f111 was on the locker door of every kid growing up in the 80s/90s
>dem variable geometry wings
>dem afterburners
>DAT nuclear strike capability
F22 and f35 are just gay in comparison really
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
