Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

F-35 Lightening II - $237 Million Each and can’t fly within 25 miles of a thunderstorm

3 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Guest


Guest

I have always considered the F-35 to be one of the most wasteful DoD expenditures in recent memory. 1.5 trillion over its life expectancy not including major design flaws. What a waste.

http://rt.com/usa/news/f35-lightning-design-flaw-360/

Guest


Guest

nochain wrote:I have always considered the F-35 to be one of the most wasteful DoD expenditures in recent memory. 1.5 trillion over its life expectancy not including major design flaws. What a waste.

http://rt.com/usa/news/f35-lightning-design-flaw-360/

This is a classic example of where or what can or should be cut from the defense budget...

knothead

knothead

newswatcher wrote:
nochain wrote:I have always considered the F-35 to be one of the most wasteful DoD expenditures in recent memory. 1.5 trillion over its life expectancy not including major design flaws. What a waste.

http://rt.com/usa/news/f35-lightning-design-flaw-360/

This is a classic example of where or what can or should be cut from the defense budget...

********************************************************

'NW, It is also a classic example of 'feeding the beast' where the procurement branch of the Pentagon are too close to the military contractors. Kinda reminds me of the 'too close' or cozy relationship between the oil rig regulators and the oil companies . . . . . a wink and a nod.

Guest


Guest

It also cannot make mid G level turns (5.5 or higher) and cannot make a combat decent faster than 600 ft per second.

There are so many things wrong with this plane it is not even funny.

It won't get scrapped and here is why...the manufacturer has strategically aligned its subcontractors across the entire country. If you cut the plane, you cut hundreds of thousands of jobs in districts where Congressmen are afraid to do so, even if it costs them their job. The contractor had his caca together when this plan was formulated.

Unless something happens radically, this is an albatross we are stuck with.

Even the F-22 did not have this amount of problems and the F-22 was, out at Nellis during an exercise, shot down by a Navy EA-18G. The navy plane isn't even a fighter/air superiority platform either. It is a SEAD/EW/EA platform with just two AIM-10C-7 missiles for defense on most missions. It's the plane that is replacing the EA-6B.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

An F-35B caught fire at Eglin AFB on January 18th. I didn't read about it in the newspaper or online, but this photo was captured and published in this week's Aviation Week magazine, accompanied by a very unflattering article:

F-35 Lightening II - $237 Million Each and can’t fly within 25 miles of a thunderstorm Flash11

Canada has pulled out of the program, Australia is on the edge of pulling out; other international partners will eventually follow suit. I have a feeling that this program will eventually just get axed.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:An F-35B caught fire at Eglin AFB on January 18th. I didn't read about it in the newspaper or online, but this photo was captured and published in this week's Aviation Week magazine, accompanied by a very unflattering article:

F-35 Lightening II - $237 Million Each and can’t fly within 25 miles of a thunderstorm Flash11

Canada has pulled out of the program, Australia is on the edge of pulling out; other international partners will eventually follow suit. I have a feeling that this program will eventually just get axed.

The AF is now dumping more money into the F-15 because of the many F-35 problems:

"January 26, 2013: With continued delays in the arrival of the F-35 fighter, the U.S. Air Force is spending nearly $6 billion to upgrade and refurbish its F-15s. Most of this money is going into upgrades for its 220 F-15E fighter bombers. Between 2008 and 2017, some $3 billion will be spent on the F-15Es, mainly for new electronics.
Most of the remaining money is being spent on 400 older F-15s, some of which have flown over 10,000 hour so far. The F-15 was originally designed to last only 8,000 hours. But since it was introduced over 30 years ago, there have been many improvements to the air frame and the air force is hoping to get 18,000 hours out of most of the older F-15s."

1st the Af Tanker farce and now this. DoD procurement is a money pit....

Guest


Guest

nochain wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:An F-35B caught fire at Eglin AFB on January 18th. I didn't read about it in the newspaper or online, but this photo was captured and published in this week's Aviation Week magazine, accompanied by a very unflattering article:

F-35 Lightening II - $237 Million Each and can’t fly within 25 miles of a thunderstorm Flash11

Canada has pulled out of the program, Australia is on the edge of pulling out; other international partners will eventually follow suit. I have a feeling that this program will eventually just get axed.

The AF is now dumping more money into the F-15 because of the many F-35 problems:

Somehow....someway...this is gonna be Bush's fault...right?....Strange how some on the left always scream that it's the right that feeds the defense budgets well who's feeding it now?....

"January 26, 2013: With continued delays in the arrival of the F-35 fighter, the U.S. Air Force is spending nearly $6 billion to upgrade and refurbish its F-15s. Most of this money is going into upgrades for its 220 F-15E fighter bombers. Between 2008 and 2017, some $3 billion will be spent on the F-15Es, mainly for new electronics.
Most of the remaining money is being spent on 400 older F-15s, some of which have flown over 10,000 hour so far. The F-15 was originally designed to last only 8,000 hours. But since it was introduced over 30 years ago, there have been many improvements to the air frame and the air force is hoping to get 18,000 hours out of most of the older F-15s."

1st the Af Tanker farce and now this. DoD procurement is a money pit....

8F-35 Lightening II - $237 Million Each and can’t fly within 25 miles of a thunderstorm Empty Too Many Things To Be Done 2/2/2013, 12:38 pm

Slicef18

Slicef18

The F-35 is a classic example of the greater the variety of needs to be met, the less efficient it becomes at any single task.

Guest


Guest

Slicef18 wrote:The F-35 is a classic example of the greater the variety of needs to be met, the less efficient it becomes at any single task.

Well, aircraft have to be multi-role because just building fighters and then just building strike aircraft would cost the military more money. I think that the futuristic and unrealistic goals of the military, when the same needs were being met with the tech on the F-15Es,F-16s, and F18s still in service, caused this boondoggle.

Russia is struggling with these same issues in their latest MiG and Suhkoi fighters as well.

Slicef18

Slicef18

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Slicef18 wrote:The F-35 is a classic example of the greater the variety of needs to be met, the less efficient it becomes at any single task.

Well, aircraft have to be multi-role because just building fighters and then just building strike aircraft would cost the military more money. I think that the futuristic and unrealistic goals of the military, when the same needs were being met with the tech on the F-15Es,F-16s, and F18s still in service, caused this boondoggle.

Russia is struggling with these same issues in their latest MiG and Suhkoi fighters as well.


I agree all aircraft have to be multi-role to some extent. But what they're asking of the F-35 is causing a reduction in capability and at a very high cost.

Guest


Guest

Slicef18 wrote:


I agree all aircraft have to be multi-role to some extent. But what they're asking of the F-35 is causing a reduction in capability and at a very high cost.

The contractor has obviously made promises in the tech area that it cannot keep when it won that contract.

Slicef18

Slicef18

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Slicef18 wrote:


I agree all aircraft have to be multi-role to some extent. But what they're asking of the F-35 is causing a reduction in capability and at a very high cost.

The contractor has obviously made promises in the tech area that it cannot keep when it won that contract.


The contractor's job is to manufacture the aircraft according to the specifications stipulated by the military. The exception to this is when the military asks for for a new aircraft platform such as the "multirole fighter aircraft variants." General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin) F-16 and the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) YF-17. The GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. F-16 won the contract. McDonnell Douglas continued to build the YF-17 at it's own expense for the foreign market and was eventually accepted by the U.S. military and designated the F-18.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum