F-35

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Program Cost: $1.5t
Enemy Planes Destroyed: 0
F-35s Destroyed: 1
Production Cost Per F-35 Lost: $90-120m

A Highly Bloated Project Spanning 20 Years Producing Almost No Results: Priceless


- - - - - - - - - - - - -


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/military-plane-crash-beaufort-county-south-carolina-live-updates-2018-09-28/

Quote:A military plane crashed in coastal South Carolina on Friday, authorities said. The Marine Corps said the pilot of the single-seat aircraft ejected safely.

The Beaufort County Sheriff's Office said the crash was reported about 11:45 a.m. near the Grays Hill community. The plane was an F-35B. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that this marks the first crash of the U.S. military's newest and most expensive aircraft. On Thursday, the Marines announced the aircraft's first use in combat in Afghanistan.

In a statement, Marine Corps Capt. Christopher Harrison said the pilot was being evaluated by medical personnel. No civilians were injured, Harrison said.

The plane belonged to a Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 (VMFAT-501), stationed at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, which is about 4 miles from the crash site.

Authorities asked people to avoid the area.

The cause of the crash was under investigation, Harrison said.

Keep in mind this is the same fighter that's had issues with it's oxygen system and it's ejection system both just last year. The same year that they were declared "combat ready". Lol

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The F-14 had huge teething problems and was frequently referred to as a bust. They lost several during the testing process. The F-22 had oxygen flow issues as well, iirc a test pilot ended up dying due to this issue. The Osprey had enormous and ongoing issues during development. Not saying the F-35 will have similar success, just illustrating that the current issues do not mean the program is a failure.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-28-2018, 08:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The F-14 had huge teething problems and was frequently referred to as a bust.  They lost several during the testing process.  The F-22 had oxygen flow issues as well, iirc a test pilot ended up dying due to this issue.  The Osprey had enormous and ongoing issues during development.  Not saying the F-35 will have similar success, just illustrating that the current issues do not mean the program is a failure.

Over 20 years already for the F-35, SSF. Forget teething, that shit is about to graduate from college.

Much more teething like that and it's stealth capability will become technologically outdated, making the entire aircraft useless.

I mean, the plane took almost two decades to get a working cannon...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-us-stealth-jet-cant-fire-its-gun-until-2019?account=thedailybeast&medium=twitter&source=socialflow&via=twitter_page
...assuming you consider "working" to be a weapon that holds all of 180-220 rounds. (Which will totally replace the A-10's 1,150 rounds when close air support is needed. )

Single engine, range of 1,380 miles, 300mph slower than an F-16, can only carry 2 AtA missiles and 2 bombs while keeping stealth profile.

MEH.

[NATI BENGALS]

I dont see how the future isnt with drones.

Who wins a manned plane limited by what the human body can withstand or an unmanned aircraft with greater maneuverability and capability operated by a human playing a video game. Pilot A is blacking out from too many Gs. Pilot B is sitting in an air conditioned room.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-29-2018, 12:00 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I dont see how the future isnt with drones.

Who wins a manned plane limited by what the human body can withstand or an unmanned aircraft with greater maneuverability and capability operated by a human playing a video game. Pilot A is blacking out from too many Gs. Pilot B is sitting in an air conditioned room.

Probably because drones are limited by signal jamming, and hacking.

Also until they manage to get some planet-wide zero delay wireless connections to the drones, they will always lose to a human pilot in reaction time even if it's .2 seconds between you moving your joystick in your air conditioned room and the drone reacting... unless you go fully-automated with zero human input, which I believe there's a bunch of international accords/ethical issues to prevent.

[Benton]

(09-28-2018, 09:23 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:  

Much more teething like that and it's stealth capability will become technologically outdated, making the entire aircraft useless.
 

They'll sink another billion or so into it, but this is what bugs me. It's the business model. They'll drag this out and wring as much cash out of it as possible, overnight fix all the bugs and six months later, they'll start on the next thing that'll cost tax payers obscene amounts of money. 

[Dill]

(09-28-2018, 09:23 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Over 20 years already for the F-35, SSF. Forget teething, that shit is about to graduate from college.

Much more teething like that and it's stealth capability will become technologically outdated, making the entire aircraft useless.

I mean, the plane took almost two decades to get a working cannon...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-us-stealth-jet-cant-fire-its-gun-until-2019?account=thedailybeast&medium=twitter&source=socialflow&via=twitter_page
...assuming you consider "working" to be a weapon that holds all of 180-220 rounds. (Which will totally replace the A-10's 1,150 rounds when close air support is needed. )

Single engine, range of 1,380 miles, 300mph slower than an F-16, can only carry 2 AtA missiles and 2 bombs while keeping stealth profile.

MEH.

What exactly is its mission then? Seems like the comparison to the A-10 is bit unfair, as that was a tank buster, not a fighter aircraft.  The f-35 's big plus is stealth, right? can't hook up all those weapons pods with negating the stealth capacity.

[Bengalzona]

(09-28-2018, 08:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The F-14 had huge teething problems and was frequently referred to as a bust.  They lost several during the testing process.  The F-22 had oxygen flow issues as well, iirc a test pilot ended up dying due to this issue.  The Osprey had enormous and ongoing issues during development.  Not saying the F-35 will have similar success, just illustrating that the current issues do not mean the program is a failure.

Not to mention the F-111.

Heck, they were killing test pilots left and right in new planes back in the heyday 50's and 60's.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-01-2018, 06:45 PM)Dill Wrote: What exactly is its mission then? Seems like the comparison to the A-10 is bit unfair, as that was a tank buster, not a fighter aircraft.  The f-35 's big plus is stealth, right? can't hook up all those weapons pods with negating the stealth capacity.

It's supposed to be the every-plane. "You can replace X many different types of planes with this plane!" They have been trying to scrap the A-10s for years by calling the F-35 capable of performing CAS. Hence the comparison. The Air Force even had a CAS competition between the two that it "won" (after heavily rigging the competition, which was designed exclusively by a contractors with finanvial interests in the F-35).
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22118621/f35-a10-warthog-flyoff-pogo-report/

The problem is, by trying to make it capable at doing all the roles, it's pretty much made it useless at doing all roles.

(10-01-2018, 07:32 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Not to mention the F-111.

Heck, they were killing test pilots left and right in new planes back in the heyday 50's and 60's.

Yeah, but they didn't have Twitter then to tell their woes to the world, and were likely just told to have a cigarette and walk it off.

[Bengalzona]

(10-01-2018, 10:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yeah, but they didn't have Twitter then to tell their woes to the world, and were likely just told to have a cigarette and walk it off.

You'd be surprised how effective that is. It always worked for me.

Remember when the NFL used to be that way. Guy would have two broken ribs, a concussion and a broken clavical.... the coach would say, "Have a cigarette and walk it off".

[Dill]

(10-01-2018, 10:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It's supposed to be the every-plane. "You can replace X many different types of planes with this plane!" They have been trying to scrap the A-10s for years by calling the F-35 capable of performing CAS. Hence the comparison. The Air Force even had a CAS competition between the two that it "won" (after heavily rigging the competition, which was designed exclusively by a contractors with finanvial interests in the F-35).
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22118621/f35-a10-warthog-flyoff-pogo-report/

The problem is, by trying to make it capable at doing all the roles, it's pretty much made it useless at doing all roles.

Thanks for the info.  I was sorry to see the Warthog go. Amazing for close support.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-01-2018, 11:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Thanks for the info.  I was sorry to see the Warthog go. Amazing for close support.

It's not gone... yet. There's actually a handful of politicians who keep fighting to shoot down any attempt to end it. McCain was one of them.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/05/05/senators-pilots-jtacs-speak-out-in-favor-of-a-10/

[mallorian69]

(10-01-2018, 10:23 AM)Benton Wrote: They'll sink another billion or so into it, but this is what bugs me. It's the business model. They'll drag this out and wring as much cash out of it as possible, overnight fix all the bugs and six months later, they'll start on the next thing that'll cost tax payers obscene amounts of money. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, when the government grants a contract it should be in the contract that if the company goes over budget or is late then the company eats the cost of being over budget and pays a penalty if it is late. Doesn't matter if its paper clips or aircraft carriers.

The only exception would be if the government changes the specifications of the project. For example, the Acme  plane company gets a contract to build a new fighter that can go mach 2, carry 20000lbs of ordinance, with a range of 1500 miles. Half way through development the government decides the plane needs to go mach 2.5, carry 30000lbs, with a 2000mile range. Then and only then would they get extra time and money. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2018, 11:55 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It's not gone... yet. There's actually a handful of politicians who keep fighting to shoot down any attempt to end it. McCain was one of them.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/05/05/senators-pilots-jtacs-speak-out-in-favor-of-a-10/

Being a Air Force guy myself I can tell you, the Air Force hates attack planes.  They like sleek fighters, high payload bombers and high tech recon platforms.  They absolutely loathe dirt level attack planes.  The A-10 is the perfect weapons platform for its role, nothing else comes close.  Air speed coupled with time over target plus firepower equals an unmatched airframe to this day.  It's just not what the Air Force looks for, quite the opposite in fact.  The A-10 is the perfect example of what works over what is preferred.  In short what works over what is "fundable".  Keep that airframe flying for the next twenty years and it will be money well spent.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-02-2018, 01:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Being a Air Force guy myself I can tell you, the Air Force hates attack planes.  They like sleek fighters, high payload bombers and high tech recon platforms.  They absolutely loathe dirt level attack planes.  The A-10 is the perfect weapons platform for its role, nothing else comes close.  Air speed coupled with time over target plus firepower equals an unmatched airframe to this day.  It's just not what the Air Force looks for, quite the opposite in fact.  The A-10 is the perfect example of what works over what is preferred.  In short what works over what is "fundable".  Keep that airframe flying for the next twenty years and it will be money well spent.

That's because the top ranks of the Air Force is absurdly over-saturated in people who were fighter pilots. It influences their desires and priorities, which is why I am not really against a dedicated Space Force branch of the military so it's out of the hands of the Air Force.

[*michaelsean*]

I know nothing about planes, but the A-10 just comes off as the baddest sumbitch there is. That and the Angel of Death one. Can't remember what it's called. Flies mostly at night.

[Dill]

(10-02-2018, 01:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Being a Air Force guy myself I can tell you, the Air Force hates attack planes.  They like sleek fighters, high payload bombers and high tech recon platforms.  They absolutely loathe dirt level attack planes.  The A-10 is the perfect weapons platform for its role, nothing else comes close.  Air speed coupled with time over target plus firepower equals an unmatched airframe to this day.  It's just not what the Air Force looks for, quite the opposite in fact.  The A-10 is the perfect example of what works over what is preferred.  In short what works over what is "fundable".  Keep that airframe flying for the next twenty years and it will be money well spent.

Looks like we agree on something. 

I used to watch these things flying low over the countryside around Ramstein AFB back in the early '90s.  Locals hated the noise.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2018, 10:15 AM)Dill Wrote: Looks like we agree on something. 

I used to watch these things flying low over the countryside around Ramstein AFB back in the early '90s.  Locals hated the noise.

They are loud.  I also forgot to mention durability, another trait the A-10 has in spades.  It's ability to absorb punishment is unmatched by anything else in our arsenal.  Nothing else even comes close.

[Dill]

(10-02-2018, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They are loud.  I also forgot to mention durability, another trait the A-10 has in spades.  It's ability to absorb punishment is unmatched by anything else in our arsenal.  Nothing else even comes close.

Yes.

Reminds me of this. Capt. Kim Campbell, April 7, 2003. Shot to hell on a ground support mission in Iraq. Lost computerized control of guidance/steering, which left the aircraft heading towards Baghdad. But the A-10 evidently has a secondary manual system of levers and pulleys a pilot can use. She did--turned the plane around and landed safely on base.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-02-2018, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes.

Reminds me of this. Capt. Kim Campbell, April 7, 2003. Shot to hell on a ground support mission in Iraq. Lost computerized control of guidance/steering, which left the aircraft heading towards Baghdad. But the A-10 evidently has a secondary manual system of levers and pulleys a pilot can use. She did--turned the plane around and landed safely on base.

Yeah, I think the titanium armoring around the cockpit on an A-10 is rated for something like armor piercing 20+mm fire. Also designed to be able to fly missing an engine and half of a wing. It's pretty absurd.

Meanwhile the F-35 is vulnerable to being downed by 7.62 fire from an AK if it flies low, so it will literally never be doing that because nobody will risk losing their $120m fighter to small arms fire.