The F35

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by G51989, Jun 28, 2014.

?

Should the F35 project go on?

  1. Yes

    6 vote(s)
    17.6%
  2. No

    27 vote(s)
    79.4%
  3. Undecided

    1 vote(s)
    2.9%
  1. G51989, Jun 28, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2014

    G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #1
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-26/air-force-grounds-its-lockheed-f-35s-after-fire.html

    I used to be a big supporter of the F35 project years ago, the theory was awesome, instead of having tons of different models of planes, and variants, you would have one plane that could do it all.

    , but it seems these days, it has turned into a huge waste of taxpayer money, which has resulted in a mediocre plane that can't even seem to stay in the sky without catching on fire, crashing, failure of the O2 system, constant complaints from test pilots, poor maneuverability and visibility, can't fly properly in the rain or clouds. And has had so many problems the entire fleet has been grounded several times, there seems to be no progress on it.

    Its gotten to the point where the RAAF will need to keep purchasing and using F18s.

    http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/2014/03/due-to-f-35-failures-raaf-classic-f-18s.html

    [​IMG]


    I am all for defending the country, but not being the world police, and developing new weapon systems.

    But it just seems like to me, the F35 is just a big welfare check for a product that the pilots hate, and doesn't seem to work in the real world at massive expensive.

    I would think its time to throw away the F35, and start again. Poll added.

    If you throw 400 billion dollars at something for over a decade and it still doesn't work as advertised, or work at all in this case. Time to get rid of it.

    Maybe its time to ditch the F35 and restart F22 production for domestic defense? And upgrade the F18s yet again?

    I would say yes. Ditch the F35 and start over with a new company. And develop several new single purpose planes, instead of this " master of nothing, failure at all " plane.
     
  2. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #2
    I'm inclined to agree with you. Certainly, it appears to be a case of throwing good money after bad. I will say this-- this isn't the first time for a unified fighter program, and, to my knowledge, it has never been a success. It is one of those things that sounds good to bean counters, but, the reality is that it is more cost-effective to have several different kinds of planes for different purposes.
     
  3. G51989, Jun 28, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2014

    G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #3
    Exactly, the only modern fighter I can think of that kinda pulls it off is the Dassault Rafale.

    I also think Lockheed Martin is LOVING this, they get to keep failing and stuffing their pockets with taxpayer money.

    Also I think if we went with Boeing, this would have not happened, Boeing is MUCH better at keeping down costs than Lockheed.
     
  4. Vanilla Ice, Jun 28, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2014

    Vanilla Ice macrumors 6502

    Vanilla Ice

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #4
    The F35

    What do you know, another possible failed Lockheed jet. I don't like anything that comes from Lockheed. Yes the F22 is awesome when working, but Northrop's YF23 was way better. Politics play a big picture when it comes to military bids. Union and Aerospace make a horrible combination. That plays a major part of Lockheed problems when it comes to cost and production.
     
  5. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #5
    Though Boeing's alternative wasn't that great looking and had the same flaws the Harrier had which the military was hoping to mitigate with the JSF program.

    ----------

    Wouldn't say way better. From what I read, the YF-23 was faster and stealthier, but the Raptor is more agile.

    It's a matter of what you prefer. Be able to get out of dodge a bit quicker and able to not be detected better or once found and engage in a dogfight, have a better plane than the enemy. I would go with the better dogfighter because stealth will be defeated one day.

    Though I agree the JSF should be cancelled and develop three separate planes for each branch of the military. Maybe the F-35 would have been an awesome Harrier replacement if it was designed just for that role.....
     
  6. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #6
    Yeah it was not all that great either, but it wasn't nearly as complicated, and probably wouldn't have cost nearly as much.

    The reason I suggested Boeing is that, because they are so huge in the Civilian world, ( I used to work for them actually many moons ago ), they are REALLY good at keeping the quality and reliability up and production costs as low as possible. Hence the saying " If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going ". So I feel they would be able to reduce costs and failures by a lot.

    Lockhead Martin doesn't really exist outside the defense world as far as I know, so they are pretty used to blank checks, which gives you blunders like the F35.

    The F22 is pretty freaking badass tho, but it still isn't without its problem.

    I personally feel the F18 is still the best overall multirole plane America has.

    ----------

    What do you mean? Some of the best planes in the world are built by Union workers.

    Labor is a TINY part of a military aircrafts cost. This is also not the guy working down the shop, its just stupid over complicated engineering.
     
  7. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #7
    There is going to come a day, maybe not for ten or fifteen years, when China is going to make a push into an area of the Pacific. Its going to try and assert control over an island, or a prospective oil field, that some other country (the Phillipines, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia) already believe is part of their territory.

    Who is going to stop them?

    The way things are right now, the only way to prevent a military seizure of remote islands is with an aircraft carrier battle group. (Submarines are very good a sinking enemy ships - but they aren't good at dealing with troops already on the ground.)

    To have a twelve-carrier global power-projection navy (the only one in existence) you do sorta need a carrier-borne strike/fighter aircraft that can hold its own against any opponent. It needs to be stealthy, it needs to be able to carry a wide range of weapons systems, and it needs to be able to engage and defeat any enemy aircraft it is likely to encounter.

    And - by the by - if its operating off carriers, it needs to be rugged enough to handle the incredible stresses brought about through catapult launches and arrestor-wire landings.

    Such an aircraft doesn't come cheap. And we are the only country in the history of the world that can build that sort of plane. For now.

    We pissed away a couple of trillion dollars fighting a useless war in Iraq. If we can guarantee the stability of the Pacific region for the next fifty years or so by investing less than a quarter as much money - then it will be a bargain.

    Of course: All of that is moot if autonomous or remotely-piloted aircraft suddenly make the Aircraft Carrier battle group an expensive white elephant.

    And to correctly predict how that is going to work out - you need a crystal ball.
     
  8. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #8
    I just wanted to say:
    Wonderful OP Picture.
    That is all.
     
  9. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #9
    I love Boeing, don't get me wrong. But I am not feeling their proposal either. In concept, the F-35 is better.

    And all I have to point out is the 787 to show Boeing may have slipped a bit in that regard. What were they thinking of using GS Yuasa for the battery? They never made an aviation battery before and they were struggling with their automotive application of a lithium ion battery. I know Boeing and Japan have a wink-wink nudge nudge relationship, but still..... Also engineers were stupid not to put vents on the battery case allowing heat to build up as well....
     
  10. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #10
    On paper the F35 is better, but it doesn't actually work, and I don't think Lockheed is going to be able to pull it off in short order. They have a history of **** not working.

    I have no doubt that Boeing could at least get theirs into service without all these terrible problems the F35 has.

    Yeah, I am aware of that. But outside of that, the 787 is a pretty damn good plane.
     
  11. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #11
    Or hellaciously well developed and refined predictive analytics software...
     
  12. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #12
    True I share your faith in that regard



    The 787 had more issues during development too. The horizontal stabilizer wasn't fitting correctly into the fuselage, etc. Boeing's outsourcing killed them. The Dreamliner is a great plane and I am sure once the bugs are worked out, it will be one of the best in the industry as time goes on. But here they had a process that was an outstanding success when they developed the 777, but they said nope, lets pinch pennies and do this way instead for the 787.
     
  13. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #13
    Yes, they will exert their power in their part of the globed, but there will not be a war over it. Just posturing.

    Also, China is far moer than 15 years away from having a blue water navy with 1/2th of 1/4th of the US Navy.

    You know we don't even have 12 super carriers now right? You suggest we build more?

    The only country in the world that can build advanced carrier based fighters?

    ummmm


    No?

    Also, the F35 isn't a very good plane to start with. It would find itself outmatched by purpose built planes from many developed countries. That is why we have the F22.
     
  14. Vanilla Ice macrumors 6502

    Vanilla Ice

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14

    Northrop Grumman was in the middle of building B2 bombers that had a contract worth almost $45 billion. Lockheed I'm sure reminded the pentagon more than once when the next big thing came up. That's why politics plays a big picture. The YF23 was truly the winner for the next ATF contract.
     
  15. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #15
    I am not sure the Y23 was that much better than the F22, yes it was faster and more stealthy, but it was lacking pretty bad in the maneuverability department when compared to the F22. Maneuverability is a HUGE deal for an Air to Air fighter.
     
  16. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #16
    Though as an air superiority fighter, the Raptor has a pretty bad flaw..... If the engine that supplies oxygen to the pilot malfunctions or gets shot up, you pretty much lost.

    What was Lockheed thinking designing it that only one engine supplied the pilot with air to breath?

    Other than that, absolutely. As I stated, I would take the better dogfighter over the YF-23's advantages of faster and stealthier. Faster doesn't matter much in a dogfight unless you're running away and stealth will be defeated one day.
     
  17. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #17
    Yeah, I feel Boeing is big step above Lockheed, mostly because they have a lot more real world experience in building planes they actually have to compete to sell.

    The Boeing way, which was drilled into my head during my few years at Boeing, is pretty much the Soviet way of engineering something, don't make it to complicated, and try in the real world, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over * breaths * and over and over and over again until its goddamn flawless.

    Yeah, outsourcing played a big problem with the 787, thats what happens when you listen to Shareholders and not engineers.

    ----------

    Honestly, the only reason I don't see that as a flaw, is that this is not the A10 or F14 days where you could shoot the hell out of an Airframe and have it still fly, it doesn't take much fire to bring down an airframe made of composites mostly, if an F22 took heavy fire from another plane, a failing engine is gonna be the least of its problems.
     
  18. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #18
    We're at ten Nimitzes - and we've got two Gerald R. Ford class building. (The Navy has set an 11 carrier minimum requirement.)

    Can other countries build fixed-wing carrier-launched aircraft systems? Right now? And have any of the infrastructure to train pilots, and deck crews, and landing signal officers? And have the depth of enlisted crew experience to maintain steam catapults and arrestor wires? To have schools, with experienced instructors, to train the next generation of all of the above?

    No. We're the only game in town. And, as expensive as it is for us to keep going in that particular game, its doubly expensive and risky for some other country to try to get into it.

    That isn't to say that they couldn't have done the F-35 differently. Maybe designed and built a carrier-specific airframe from the ground up.

    But I'm sure the engineers at Lockheed, and the Pentagon, did their sums based on at least some sort of logic. And maybe by having enough parts/avionics/ subsystems commonality they could rationalize doing it the way they did.
     
  19. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #19
    And the Ford is having its own issues. The new magnetic catapult is having a higher failure rate than the required minimums...... The projected sorties of 220 is appearing to have been overly optimistic, etc. The cost ballooned from $6-$8 billion to $12 billion.

    It's a new class with a lot of new tech so hopefully those issues are fixed by the time the Ford enters service in 2016.

    And I am glad CVN-80 is named Enterprise as well.
     
  20. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #20
    You do realize that while most countries do not use a steam catapult, they do use arresting wires and ramps, not exactly stone age.

    Also, France operates a nuclear powered carrier with catapults. its not a Nimitz, but its not stone age either, there is another one in the works at all.

    ----------

    Hopefully it turns out better than the F35.
     
  21. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #21
    Yeah. Though they are about comparable to our Wasp Class ships than our Nimitz's and Ford.
     
  22. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #22
    Yes, exactly.

    I don't feel a need for carrier battlegroups in the next 50 years or so, I feel they are going to turn into a giant target that can be defeated more easily than you think.
     
  23. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #23
    Maybe. But just like with the battleship, that will have to be proven in a war. And hopefully that never comes.
     
  24. FreemanW macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Location:
    The Real Northern California
    #24
    It would seem that every other significant first world country (NOT the U.S.) understand the importance of support and development of intellect and schooling.

    Stupidity will lose the day on every stage of importance while we spend our national treasury on the industrial war complex and the select few that own it.

    Well played America, well played.
     
  25. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #25
    The Aircraft Battle group, from almost ANY Blue water, it a pretty formidable formation. You've got submarines, surface ships, helicopters, planes, radar, sonoar, all that stuff just tracking everything.

    Despite all that, in NATO war games, submarines from Sweden, France, England, America, have been able to sneak in there, and get a firing solution on the carrier, so they are not impossible to sink.
     

Share This Page