• Man arrested after attempting to send Technical specs and Blueprints of The F-35 to Iran.
    49 replies, posted
Even if he did manage to send them over, how would Iran get enough money to build one?
[quote]as much as i dont like the F-35, it is an advanced piece of hardware that would probably make us lose our edge if Intel of it went out.[/quote] We said the same thing about the Arrow, yet you still forced us to scrap it and stole our best engineers for your shitty space program.
[QUOTE=pentium;43534129]We said the same thing about the Arrow, yet you still forced us to scrap it and stole our best engineers for your shitty space program.[/QUOTE] Stop listening to conspiracy theories, they did not steal our engineers or force the program closure, that was Diefenbaker's fault.
[QUOTE=Advancedrock;43530593]How is it only 10 years? This is clearly some sort of treason, which carries more than 10 years, in fact...it can mean a death sentence.[/QUOTE] Treason and Espionage are distinct and different charges. Particularly since this is really industrial espionage. Treason implies that he is one of the following: 1) An entrusted member of some branch of the United States (A general, a Congressman, a Judge) 2) Engaged in illegal activities for the benefit of someone we are actively at war with. 3) Was employed by a sovereign power to do real or material damage to the U.S. (The president, a war factory.) He's none of these things. He's the employee of a contractor who just tried to illegaly sell specs for what is openly called the most cutting edge jet on the planet. No matter how much we trump up our amazing technological edge though it's still just the tinker toy project of defense firms, and not the secret weapon we're about to blow Uncle Joe or old Adolf out of the water with.
ITT: Terrorist Lovers
[QUOTE=Tuskin;43534145]Stop listening to conspiracy theories, they did not steal our engineers or force the program closure, that was Diefenbaker's fault.[/QUOTE] It's well known that Dief' was pushed by the states. When Avro collapsed everyone went south.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;43530578]That joke flew over you like an F-35 prototype.[/QUOTE] Okay i laughed my ass off at that.
well, actually it's a good move, then they would spend billions of dollars to get something with about the same flying ability as a cessna.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;43535259]well, actually it's a good move, then they would spend billions of dollars to get something with about the same flying ability as a cessna.[/QUOTE] that's just insulting the cessna
[QUOTE=pentium;43535107]It's well known that Dief' was pushed by the states. When Avro collapsed everyone went south.[/QUOTE] I'm interested in hearing why you think it was our fault? From what I've read, the Gov considered it a money sink and canned it because getting F-16's from the US was cheaper and serve the same purpose.
MIPS is just crazy, don't bother with it.
Why so much hate on the F-35? Just because it's expensive? Remember we spent about $2 Billion dollars per B-2, and bought 21 of them. Enough money to make 10 and a half nuclear powered Nimitz class Aircraft carriers. On just 21 planes. The F-35 would see use on Carriers, Airports for Air Forces, it can do Air to Air as good or better than an F-15, can do Air to Ground as well or better than an F-16. Yeah it's a little expensive, but big fucking deal. This thing is going out to a lot of countries, and performs a lot of roles, and besides price, the minor issues it has can be worked out during testing. It's what testing is for
[QUOTE=Swilly;43544858]MIPS is just crazy, don't bother with it.[/QUOTE] I ended up reading more about it again. Looks like it was canned because they wanted to decide between Avro Arrows, or Nuclear Armed Missiles for Fighter Jets. They chose Nuclear Armed Missiles for Fighter Jets.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43544893]Why so much hate on the F-35? Just because it's expensive? Remember we spent about $2 Billion dollars per B-2, and bought 21 of them. Enough money to make 10 and a half nuclear powered Nimitz class Aircraft carriers. On just 21 planes. The F-35 would see use on Carriers, Airports for Air Forces, it can do Air to Air as good or better than an F-15, can do Air to Ground as well or better than an F-16. Yeah it's a little expensive, but big fucking deal. This thing is going out to a lot of countries, and performs a lot of roles, and besides price, the minor issues it has can be worked out during testing. It's what testing is for[/QUOTE] But but but R&D shouldn't cost Money! To be honest, it's like everyone forgets the F-16s original R&D.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43544893]Why so much hate on the F-35? Just because it's expensive? Remember we spent about $2 Billion dollars per B-2, and bought 21 of them. Enough money to make 10 and a half nuclear powered Nimitz class Aircraft carriers. On just 21 planes. The F-35 would see use on Carriers, Airports for Air Forces, it can do Air to Air as good or better than an F-15, can do Air to Ground as well or better than an F-16. Yeah it's a little expensive, but big fucking deal. This thing is going out to a lot of countries, and performs a lot of roles, and besides price, the minor issues it has can be worked out during testing. It's what testing is for[/QUOTE] It trades a whole lot for high parts compatibility between 3 different types of aircraft, and from what I've heard is a maintenance nightmare due to the frames construction, especially the engine mountings. Also the B2 is a special aircraft, a stealth bomber that is only used in specific circumstances, and actually only costs 1 billion a piece(with all equipment added on), the 2 billion is when you add development costs onto it as well and average it out. If it was put into mass production it would likely be far cheaper per unit. The problem with the f-35 is that it is a multirole aircraft, meaning you need a whole lot of them to do everything, combined with the cost it is pretty expensive. Also,you are wrong about it being better than the f-16 or f-15 at those roles, it has the same carry capacity, higher maintenance costs(which increase downtime), limited stealth capability when in those configurations(missiles and bombs on external mounts are visible to radar), and costs far more. It is an amazing aircraft, the issue is that for it to do as well as our current stuff, it loses it's main benefit of stealth. Which at that point it is the same as out current equipment. [editline]15th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;43545014]But but but R&D shouldn't cost Money! To be honest, it's like everyone forgets the F-16s original R&D.[/QUOTE] The f-16 was designed as a cheap, lightweight, versatile fighter, it succeeded in that, the f-35 was designed as do-everything and worry about the costs later, because they will buy it anyways. The f-16 costs nearly 1/10 the cost of a f-35.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43544893]Why so much hate on the F-35? Just because it's expensive? Remember we spent about $2 Billion dollars per B-2, and bought 21 of them. Enough money to make 10 and a half nuclear powered Nimitz class Aircraft carriers. On just 21 planes. The F-35 would see use on Carriers, Airports for Air Forces, it can do Air to Air as good or better than an F-15, can do Air to Ground as well or better than an F-16. Yeah it's a little expensive, but big fucking deal. This thing is going out to a lot of countries, and performs a lot of roles, and besides price, the minor issues it has can be worked out during testing. It's what testing is for[/QUOTE] The F-35 is pretty much militaryindustrialcomplex.txt encapsulated. Lockheed Martin was pretty much awarded the contract with no effort since they greased enough palms and then went on to make the whole program an expensive, delayed mess. It didn't help either that the marines wanted a vertical lift-off/short take off system so they could wank themselves into huge paychecks upon navy carriers, which caused all sorts of headaches when combined with the incompetence of the people building the damn things. Not that it matters anyway, since the only imaginable scenario they will be used in is bombing nomadic tribes with no anti-air capabilities in the middle-east, which could be achieved with biplanes rather than $150 million messes. But hey shiny new toys the military brass can masturbate over in their cold war fantasy war with Russia.
[QUOTE=Swilly;43544858]MIPS is just crazy, don't bother with it.[/QUOTE] I think you're confusing MIPS and Pentium as one in the same, two different people.
[QUOTE=mralexs;43533904]Even if he did manage to send them over, how would Iran get enough money to build one?[/QUOTE] Shhhhh, you'll give away our plan to make enemy nations waste their resources on building a billion dollar paperweight!
[QUOTE=deadoon;43545036]The f-16 was designed as a cheap, lightweight, versatile fighter, it succeeded in that, the f-35 was designed as do-everything and worry about the costs later, because they will buy it anyways. The f-16 costs nearly 1/10 the cost of a f-35.[/QUOTE] You mean to say that a plane that has been in production for forty years, with over 4,500 produced, and has been aggressively exported to other countries, has a lower per-plane cost than an in-development successor? Uh, go figure? General Dynamics and Northrop were collectively paid $80 million to develop the YF-16 and YF-17 prototypes for the Lightweight Fighter Program in 1972, which in 2013 dollars would be $445,850,000. For two planes. And that wasn't even the end of the program, once it ballooned into the Air Combat Fighter competition. If they had decided to build a hundred planes and then terminate the contract, the per-plane cost of the F-16 would be astronomically higher. Also, here's a fun fact: The per-plane flyaway cost of the F/A-18 in the 2012 buy was $55.6 million. While the per-plane cost of the F-16 today isn't publicly available, it almost certainly isn't lower than $40 million. The 2011 Selected Acquisition Report budgeted the F-35 just under $85 million apiece for FY2016. So while a forty-year-old airframe is still lower (go figure) and the overall program cost has paid itself back, the F-16 certainly won't be a tenth the price of the F-35 when we start having to replace or update the oldest aircraft. The only reason we keep having these expensive aircraft programs is because our leaders don't have the balls to stick through with them to where they can start becoming financially viable. Cancelling a program after only a handful of planes are produced might be a great way for a politician to say that he's looking out for the taxpayer, but it does nothing useful in the long-term when we launch another such program in five or ten years.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.