F-35 cost $400 billion and can't carry the weapons system it was designed for

Yeah no.

Read that again.

Yeah probably should have thought that one through.

quote:

---

This jet is so bad, and so expensive, and so late, that significant, stealthier upgrades to the existing workhorses: The F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon, F-18 Hornetand A-10 Warthog – are being hurriedly rolled out.  The F-15 Silent Eagle and the F-18 Advanced Super Hornet are starting to look like sensible replacements for the F-35. They may also become indispensible replacements, since the new wing on the F-35, we just now discover, will delay the seven years overdue jet by another five years.

---

Scrap that bitch

quote:

---

Scrap that bitch

---

Trump will be labeled a job killer for it as it will hurt the us manufacturers

I was in awe of how disappointing this jet performed and mildly amused about it until I read that line. This means that the jet will be around 12 years overdue and that's if nothing else goes wrong.

This weapons system make take a quarter of a trillion dollars (complete guess on my part) to complete. That is insanity. If something costs that much to develop, it better be the best at everything, and it appears it is the best at nothing and bad at several things

quote:

---

That's what happens when you try to use one air-frame to support too many missions in three separate branches of the military.

---

It didn't work before either.

What? Yes of course I had this model kit.

As I recall hearing about this POS, they kept changing the requirements and all, it finally got too heavy to land on aircraft carriers.

quote:

---

But at almost $500B in, we're pot committed

---

This thinking is how we got here in the first place.

Any good businessman will tell you that using sunk costs to justify future decisions is a fool's errand.

The only questions NOW are simple.

1. Will the plane ever meet requirements.

2. If not, STARTING today, could we meet requirements on a new plane?

3. If yes to number 2, what would it cost

4. If no to number 2, can we do better than the F35? If so. What will it cost.

5a Finally, if we stick with the F35, how soon will we be stuck starting a new program to replace is sorry arse?

5b. When considering non F35 options in prior questions, the answer to 5a must be considered.

Those worked pretty well on Libya in the 80's.

Used them a bit in DESERT STORM too.

quote:

---

That is called sunk cost. At some point, someone needs to make a call on how viable it is going forward.

---

Fully familiar with the concept, but at $500B into what will likely be a $2T program I'd love to see the ballsy bastard that calls it sunk costs and dusts his hands. We still need a new 5th generation fighter since the F-22 program is finished, and our allies are waste deep in this shite too.

They need to figure out how to make this work or prepare a suite of cells at a federal pen for every GO/FO, project manager, and industry executive who touched this shite. And save some space for some members of the Armed Services Committee.

quote:

---

This thinking is how we got here in the first place.

Any good businessman will tell you that using sunk costs to justify future decisions is a fool's errand.

---

Were we that far in when the thinking started? That's just reality. They're going to have to figure out a way to get and keep those pieces of shite in the air for at least a decade and a half.