- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
A not too kind assessment of the F-35 program.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:34 pm
Forbes
quote:
Brown’s comments are a tacit admission that the F-35 has failed. As conceived in the 1990s, the program was supposed to produce thousands of fighters to displace almost all of the existing tactical warplanes in the inventories of the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. The Air Force alone wanted nearly 1,800 F-35s to replace aging F-16s and A-10s and constitute the low end of a low-high fighter mix, with 180 twin-engine F-22s making up the high end. But the Air Force and Lockheed baked failure into the F-35’s very concept. “They tried to make the F-35 do too much,” said Dan Grazier, an analyst with the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.
24
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:36 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
“They tried to make the F-35 do too much,”
quote:
F-35s to replace aging F-16s and A-10s
Aren't the F-16 and A-10 vastly different aircraft designed to perform very different roles? Seems pretty obvious that one aircraft would have difficulty filling both roles.
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:37 pm to UndercoverBryologist
How much money have we spent on this program? Hundreds of billions if not trillions right?
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:37 pm to UndercoverBryologist
link was just some blurry image for me, but there was a lot of this type negative pub on the F-14 and the B-1 in the early stages too, I'd take it with a sizable grain of salt
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:38 pm to UndercoverBryologist
Let me explain to you how Defense Contracting works these days:
Lockheed: We can build the F-35 and make it do these gazillion things for just a couple billion!
DoD: OMG OMG OMG! You get the contract.
Lockheed: *snickering* Suckers...
--one year later--
Lockheed: Ya, so, um, turns out we can only do half the things we said we could, and it's going to cost three times as much.
DoD: Uh, ok. Here's your money.
Lockheed: *snickering again* Suckers....
--One Year Later--
Lockheed: So, um, turns out we're only going to be able to do a quarter of the things we said we would, at five times the cost, and it's going to take three times as long.
DoD: Ok, here's more money!!!
Rinse and repeat.
Lockheed: We can build the F-35 and make it do these gazillion things for just a couple billion!
DoD: OMG OMG OMG! You get the contract.
Lockheed: *snickering* Suckers...
--one year later--
Lockheed: Ya, so, um, turns out we can only do half the things we said we could, and it's going to cost three times as much.
DoD: Uh, ok. Here's your money.
Lockheed: *snickering again* Suckers....
--One Year Later--
Lockheed: So, um, turns out we're only going to be able to do a quarter of the things we said we would, at five times the cost, and it's going to take three times as long.
DoD: Ok, here's more money!!!
Rinse and repeat.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:38 pm to 777Tiger
Yep, I have heard all kinds of mixed stuff on the F-35, but its shortcomings seem overly dramatized by some.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:39 pm to UndercoverBryologist
I'll never understand the military brass thinking it was better to have one plane be shitty at a bunch of things instead of many planes being great at one thing each.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:39 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
link was just some blurry image for me
Subtle “I’ve maxed out my 4 free Forbes articles for the month” brag.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:39 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
the early stages
quote:
As conceived in the 1990s
25 years later, we should be past the "early stages."
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:40 pm to LSUtiger17
quote:
Aren't the F-16 and A-10 vastly different aircraft designed to perform very different roles?
yes, there was a push back in the eighties to try and use the F-16 to take the role of the A-10 but
quote:
pretty obvious that one aircraft would have difficulty filling both roles.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:42 pm to IAmNERD
quote:they dont care it isnt their money or their lives.
I'll never understand the military brass
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:44 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
They tried to make the F-35 do too much,”
The Jack of all trades is a master of none
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:44 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
I'll never understand the military brass
Here's how you understand the military brass:
Just about every single one of them is jockeying for a board seat on one of the big defense contractors. And they will do whatever's necessary to make that happen.
There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:45 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Yep, I have heard all kinds of mixed stuff on the F-35, but its shortcomings seem overly dramatized by some.
I have a good friend who's an engineer for LM on the F-35, they have a different perspective of course, but similar to to the 777 engine fragging out the other day the media has a sky is falling(pun intended,) reaction when in reality those engines are incredibly reliable and operate millions of incident free hours..."I've built a thousand bridges..."
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:48 pm to UndercoverBryologist
Even to a person like me, with a passing knowledge of military aviation, trying to force a plane to be everything to everyone seemed like a bad idea.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:50 pm to TheFonz
quote:
25 years later,
que? F-35 hasn't been in service that long
ETA: "conceived" =/= in service/production
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:51 pm to UndercoverBryologist
If only there had been some historical precedent, where DoD nincompoops with outsized vocabularies and masturbatory requirements lists had tried to make a bunch of groups share the same hardware and failed... if only. Then we would have known better.
Welp, now that it's happened at least it'll never happen again.
Welp, now that it's happened at least it'll never happen again.
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:57 pm to UndercoverBryologist
It was foolish to think one platform could meet all the needs of 3 branches AND perform multiple roles in each. The military has tried it plenty since WW2 and it never worked.
The F-4 was the only fighter-bomber that somewhat did the job.
The F-4 was the only fighter-bomber that somewhat did the job.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:58 pm to UndercoverBryologist
F-35 is like a soup you throw every item of you kitchen into, has it all, but just not good.
The F-35's also failed by not looking as cool as the F-14. I don't care how they are 10x better, have a different mission (both can take off from carriers so that is enough for me), they failed the cool test to grandpa.
The F-35's also failed by not looking as cool as the F-14. I don't care how they are 10x better, have a different mission (both can take off from carriers so that is enough for me), they failed the cool test to grandpa.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 12:58 pm to UndercoverBryologist
You know why the military brass hates the A-10? Because it does one thing, CAS, really REALLY well and not much else. Yes it can kill armor but we haven't used it in that role in forever.
But what really pisses them off? It doesn't cost much. It doesn't have a ton of new tech. The planes last forever. The planes are durable as hell. They really can't stand that stuff.
It is hilarious that they keep trying to shove expensive new tech into the airframe and the people who fly them are all "we don't need that."
But what really pisses them off? It doesn't cost much. It doesn't have a ton of new tech. The planes last forever. The planes are durable as hell. They really can't stand that stuff.
It is hilarious that they keep trying to shove expensive new tech into the airframe and the people who fly them are all "we don't need that."
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News