F35 cant beat the plane is supposed to replace...

[UCFWayne]

https://gma.yahoo.com/military-don-t-worry-f-35-most-expensive-213045869--abc-news-topstories.html

We are spending how much on these damn plans again? I think they need to scrap the damn thing and start over again. Instead of 1 plane, there needs to be 2 or 3.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Maybe I'm wrong but aren't these planes built to completely avoid dog-fighting. They should never have to see an enemy plane.

 

[UCFEE]

We should be able to dump more money in to failed defense programs if we can just get Obamacare overturned.

 

[sk8knight]

https://gma.yahoo.com/military-don-t-worry-f-35-most-expensive-213045869--abc-news-topstories.html

We are spending how much on these damn plans again? I think they need to scrap the damn thing and start over again. Instead of 1 plane, there needs to be 2 or 3.

Here's your solution: http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/x47bucas/Pages/default.aspx

 

[UCFEE]

Maybe I'm wrong but aren't these planes built to completely avoid dog-fighting. They should never have to see an enemy plane.

Correct, but we already have superior technology in UAVs to replace what this fighter was designed for. This thing is just as wasteful as if it were a giant tank program. Scam to keep money flowing to defense contractors that design systems as if we're still fighting wars in the 1960s.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Here's your solution: http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/x47bucas/Pages/default.aspx

 

[brahmanknight]

https://gma.yahoo.com/military-don-t-worry-f-35-most-expensive-213045869--abc-news-topstories.html

We are spending how much on these damn plans again? I think they need to scrap the damn thing and start over again. Instead of 1 plane, there needs to be 2 or 3.

The entire middle of the piece explains plainly why that situation happened. You can talk about that program for a lot of problems, this was not one of them IMO.

But none of DellaVedova’s comments directly address the central claim in the War Is Boring report -– that the plane isn’t good at maneuvering in close-up dogfighting –- likely because DellaVedova said it isn’t really designed to be.

“The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual ‘dogfighting’ situations,” he said.

The F-16 was designed with dogfighting in mind, the F-35 was not. The Viper was built for one service, the F-35 was built for three ( with each having specific mods for the Navy, AF, and Marines ).

This is comparing the Apollo capsule to the Space Shuttle, one being built for a specific purpose and adapted to other roles, and the latter being built for multiple roles, never mastering one role well ( the was even, by US law at the time, the only rocket allowed to launch US satellites, civilian or military....that law was dismissed in 1986 for obvious reasons, several billion dollars and seven fatalities too late ).

 

[brahmanknight]

Now, all of that said, this is playing out very similarly to the F-111 program, which was designed to serve roles in the Navy and Air Force, but ended up being too many eggs in one basket and became a waste, and dropped by the Navy. That experience, among others ( like the lack of built in, close in dogfighting capability of the F-111, F-4, and the Century Series of fighters ) led to the separation of some roles into the complementary systems of the F-15 and F-16 for the Air Force, and the F-14 and F/A-18 of the Navy.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Correct, but we already have superior technology in UAVs to replace what this fighter was designed for. This thing is just as wasteful as if it were a giant tank program. Scam to keep money flowing to defense contractors that design systems as if we're still fighting wars in the 1960s.

You're an absolute mindless ignorant moron. I'm sorry.

For you to say that UAVs are supposed to be capable of doing what ANY fighter aircraft can currently do is mind blowingly stupid. The largest UAV at this time can carry a Hellfire rocket system which is efficient for killing Jihadist pick up trucks moving at 50 mph but entirely insufficient for defeating ANYTHING at long range with even a hint of armor or counter-attack systems.

Nearly every single study on UAV technology has basically said that they'll be absolute minced meat when they're used against an enemy that actually ahs capable air defense capabilities. They are, at best, good for CISR on the battle field and precision small strike capability on targets that are available at an opportune time.

On the other hand, JSF was designed to be a fighter, bomber, CISR, and ground support aircraft all in one. The target defeat capabilities of the plane classified of course but it's obviously designed to defeat hardened targets, moving infantry, incoming attack aircraft, and prepositioned naval assets from engagement distances where dogfighting will be completely not needed.

In fact, talks about "dog fighting" in 2015 are really idiotic unless India and Pakistan have at it with their old MIG aircraft.

I really don't care if someone wants to criticize this project, or any project, but I do require you to have even a goddam sliver of knowledge about what you're talking about. You don't. You just spew out moronic talking points that are absolutely absurd.

Fail.

 

[Dmarino110]

can we bring back the f23...it was cooler than the 22...

 

[UCFEE]

You're an absolute mindless ignorant moron. I'm sorry.

For you to say that UAVs are supposed to be capable of doing what ANY fighter aircraft can currently do is mind blowingly stupid. The largest UAV at this time can carry a Hellfire rocket system which is efficient for killing Jihadist pick up trucks moving at 50 mph but entirely insufficient for defeating ANYTHING at long range with even a hint of armor or counter-attack systems.

Nearly every single study on UAV technology has basically said that they'll be absolute minced meat when they're used against an enemy that actually ahs capable air defense capabilities. They are, at best, good for CISR on the battle field and precision small strike capability on targets that are available at an opportune time.

On the other hand, JSF was designed to be a fighter, bomber, CISR, and ground support aircraft all in one. The target defeat capabilities of the plane classified of course but it's obviously designed to defeat hardened targets, moving infantry, incoming attack aircraft, and prepositioned naval assets from engagement distances where dogfighting will be completely not needed.

In fact, talks about "dog fighting" in 2015 are really idiotic unless India and Pakistan have at it with their old MIG aircraft.

I really don't care if someone wants to criticize this project, or any project, but I do require you to have even a goddam sliver of knowledge about what you're talking about. You don't. You just spew out moronic talking points that are absolutely absurd.

Fail.

Don't be sorry, I love when you expose yourself as a fragile piece of shit that can't tolerate someone pointing out that the GOP supports government waste (or when something goes against the stupid ideology you tie your entire identity to). Fact is, the JSF offers no new capabilities to the military. UAVs have supplemented the current arsenal and made the JSF obsolete; we have all the capabilities it was supposed to provide already. The entire point of the project was to save money by consolidating the capabilities you mention in to a single aircraft, and it's missed that mark by miles. It's an absolutely pointless waste of a project.

 

[cnsaguy]

the F-35 was built for three ( with each having specific mods for the Navy, AF, and Marines ).

Their's probably has more flashing lights, bigger buttons, larger writing and shorter words.

 

[brahmanknight]

Don't be sorry, I love when you expose yourself as a fragile piece of shit that can't tolerate someone pointing out that the GOP supports government waste (or when something goes against the stupid ideology you tie your entire identity to). Fact is, the JSF offers no new capabilities to the military. UAVs have supplemented the current arsenal and made the JSF obsolete; we have all the capabilities it was supposed to provide already..

False. There is no other stealty aircraft that can provide close in weapon support.

There is no othercurrent aircraft with VTOL capability to do vertical takeoff.

UAVs cannot carry the amount of payload that the F 35 can.

UAV's cannot engage an enemy air threat and carry a bomb load.

I could go on but I think I proved your statement incorrect.

 

[UCFEE]

False. There is no other stealty aircraft that can provide close in weapon support.

There is no othercurrent aircraft with VTOL capability to do vertical takeoff.

UAVs cannot carry the amount of payload that the F 35 can.

UAV's cannot engage an enemy air threat and carry a bomb load.

I could go on but I think I proved your statement incorrect.

We have every capability you mentioned in that list already, just not in one aircraft. We don't NEED that in one aircraft, the whole project was a cost savings play. It failed

 

[jetsaholic]

We have every capability you mentioned in that list already, just not in one aircraft. We don't NEED that in one aircraft, the whole project was a cost savings play. It failed

Dude, seems like you're getting PWNED on this thread. Maybe the whole "I'm against everything everybody else is in favor off" schtink doesn't work all the time.

Just saying...

 

[UCFEE]

I'm not going to back down on this because the JSF project is the poster child of defense waste. 85 pounced on the fact I overstated our current UAV capabilities to distract from the fact that the JSF will cost $1 trillion to provide absolutely nothing new.

You can't rail on "waste" from entitlements out of one side of your mouth and accept the JSF failure out of the other side.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

So the smart phone is a failure and a waste? It doesn't do anything new, it just packaged everything we need in one device. To hell with efficiency.

 

[jetsaholic]

PWNED again.

 

[Sir Galahad]

We should be able to dump more money in to failed defense programs if we can just get Obamacare overturned.

You're very predictable.

 

[Sir Galahad]

We have every capability you mentioned in that list already, just not in one aircraft. We don't NEED that in one aircraft, the whole project was a cost savings play. It failed

We just need to grow and smoke more pot, right EE?

 

[UCFKnight85]

False. There is no other stealty aircraft that can provide close in weapon support.

There is no othercurrent aircraft with VTOL capability to do vertical takeoff.

UAVs cannot carry the amount of payload that the F 35 can.

UAV's cannot engage an enemy air threat and carry a bomb load.

I could go on but I think I proved your statement incorrect.

Just stop being polite and call him a total dipshit.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I've never seen someone destroyed on this board more regularly than EE is. And you'd think he'd temper his viewpoints once and a while after being wrong nearly every time, yet he's only upped the ante.

 

[UCFEE]

85, justify the trillion dollar price tag or shut the fck up. What value is the U.S. military receiving for the cost? That's the fundamental question you're avoiding by focusing on my foot in mouth statement about UAVs.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Consequences will never be the same.

 

[UCFKnightfan08]

Consequences will never be the same.

Not with this aircraft*

 

[UCFKnight85]

85, justify the trillion dollar price tag or shut the fck up. What value is the U.S. military receiving for the cost? That's the fundamental question you're avoiding by focusing on my foot in mouth statement about UAVs.

How am I supposed to even attempt to do this when I'm talking to an imbecile who can't comprehend even the most basic of differences that exist between a UAV and a f*cking advanced fighter jet?

You're a moron and thus won't get this but I'll try:

First, that "$1T" price tag is what the GAO assessed the program to cost over the operational life cycle of the plane which is 55 years. Tell me, what else in this world do we assess cost on for a basis of half a century? I could make a shit ton of things look horribly expensive if I started placing price tags on the entire next 55 years. In other words, it's a moronic talking point that the welfare lovers latched onto as mindless fodder to kill the F35.

Second, the US Military is receiving not only the most advanced fighter/attack aircraft in history, but it's also finally achieving a cross-service common platform AND it will share this platform with 15 of our allieis who are also buying F35's. So in the future, if we're in an engagement somewhere with the UK, we won't have to deal with them flying Typhoons while we're flying F16's and F22's. We'll have a common aircraft where you can share parts, maintenance, armaments, etc

It will also in the end give the Pentagon better buying power since they'll no longer have to buy for 25 different variants of 4 different aircraft that are currently used throughout the Army, Navy, Air Force, and USMC. Our current lack of common aircraft is absurd and it frequently prevents our services from streamlining logistics, procurement, and armaments.

There. That's a brief explanation, but I'm sure next you'll throw out some idiotic talking point that makes no sense or just scream that the F35 sucks. Per usual.

 

[UCFEE]

How am I supposed to even attempt to do this when I'm talking to an imbecile who can't comprehend even the most basic of differences that exist between a UAV and a f*cking advanced fighter jet?

You're a moron and thus won't get this but I'll try:

First, that "$1T" price tag is what the GAO assessed the program to cost over the operational life cycle of the plane which is 55 years. Tell me, what else in this world do we assess cost on for a basis of half a century? I could make a shit ton of things look horribly expensive if I started placing price tags on the entire next 55 years. In other words, it's a moronic talking point that the welfare lovers latched onto as mindless fodder to kill the F35.

Second, the US Military is receiving not only the most advanced fighter/attack aircraft in history, but it's also finally achieving a cross-service common platform AND it will share this platform with 15 of our allieis who are also buying F35's. So in the future, if we're in an engagement somewhere with the UK, we won't have to deal with them flying Typhoons while we're flying F16's and F22's. We'll have a common aircraft where you can share parts, maintenance, armaments, etc

It will also in the end give the Pentagon better buying power since they'll no longer have to buy for 25 different variants of 4 different aircraft that are currently used throughout the Army, Navy, Air Force, and USMC. Our current lack of common aircraft is absurd and it frequently prevents our services from streamlining logistics, procurement, and armaments.

There. That's a brief explanation, but I'm sure next you'll throw out some idiotic talking point that makes no sense or just scream that the F35 sucks. Per usual.

Everything you just said was a talking point. Give me the numbers. How much are U.S. taxpayers going to save from the claimed streamlining and "buying power" (LOL) relative to the cost overruns?

There's no new capability being delivered to the military here and the test pilots that have flown the thing have hated it, so calling it "the most advanced fighter/attack aircraft in our history" sounds like something out of a damn brochure. Each time there's a flight test, the pentagon tells LMCO to go back and fix a litany of errors, which they're happy to do given the perverse cost-plus structure of the contract.

The thing is a money pit. It's corporate welfare for a defense contractor, that has no incentive or pressure to deliver.

Also, you really need to watch the way to talk to me.... Seriously.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Consequences will never be the same again.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

Everything you just said was a talking point. Give me the numbers. How much are U.S. taxpayers going to save from the claimed streamlining and "buying power" (LOL) relative to the cost overruns?

There's no new capability being delivered to the military here and the test pilots that have flown the thing have hated it, so calling it "the most advanced fighter/attack aircraft in our history" sounds like something out of a damn brochure. Each time there's a flight test, the pentagon tells LMCO to go back and fix a litany of errors, which they're happy to do given the perverse cost-plus structure of the contract.

The thing is a money pit. It's corporate welfare for a defense contractor, that has no incentive or pressure to deliver.

Also, you really need to watch the way to talk to me.... Seriously.

Seriously, or what? I want to know.

I once asked this of bluechip when he was threatening usfsucks. Like a little pussy, he never answered. So I will ask you: or what?

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Why doesn't anyone ever threaten me. I'm just as much of an asshole. I'm starting to feel left out.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

Why doesn't anyone ever threaten me. I'm just as much of an asshole. I'm starting to feel left out.

Bitchboy bob. That was blue's threat to you.

I actually miss having him in here talking/fellating tebow and threatening to beat usfsucks' ass. Those were great times.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Everything you just said was a talking point. Give me the numbers. How much are U.S. taxpayers going to save from the claimed streamlining and "buying power" (LOL) relative to the cost overruns?

There's no new capability being delivered to the military here and the test pilots that have flown the thing have hated it, so calling it "the most advanced fighter/attack aircraft in our history" sounds like something out of a damn brochure. Each time there's a flight test, the pentagon tells LMCO to go back and fix a litany of errors, which they're happy to do given the perverse cost-plus structure of the contract.

The thing is a money pit. It's corporate welfare for a defense contractor, that has no incentive or pressure to deliver.

Also, you really need to watch the way to talk to me.... Seriously.

LOL

It's really uncanny how many unstable people have made their way to this board and have lobbed veiled threats after not being able to contain their emotions on a message board.

"Let me say the most idiotic things possible but don't you dare be a meanie to me!"

 

[UCFEE]

Seriously, or what? I want to know.

I once asked this of bluechip when he was threatening usfsucks. Like a little pussy, he never answered. So I will ask you: or what?

Lol, what do you expect people to say that on the internet? Something to incriminate themselves? Bottom line, I don't tolerate being talked to that way and he wouldn't speak that way to me in person, so it's irrelevant.

 

[UCFEE]

LOL

It's really uncanny how many unstable people have made their way to this board and have lobbed veiled threats after not being able to contain their emotions on a message board.

"Let me say the most idiotic things possible but don't you dare be a meanie to me!"

You turned the discussion personal to avoid the fact that you can't justify this government waste, but if you admitted that you'd invalidate every other political argument you've made about government spending.

There's really no reason to continue the discussion, nor is there any reason to engage you in an argument. You're balls deep in hypocracy and are incapable of realizing it.

 

[UCFKnight85]

You need to pop a f*cking pill dude, seriously.

If you think that communicating to a screen name is "getting personal" that I fear for your emotional state of mind when you deal with people in the real world you actually know you.

You live in druggie land don't you? Go get your fix already and pipe down.

 

[UCFEE]

Lol! Keep piling on to that false image if it makes you feel better. Smh.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

Lol, what do you expect people to say that on the internet? Something to incriminate themselves? Bottom line, I don't tolerate being talked to that way and he wouldn't speak that way to me in person, so it's irrelevant.

I am willing to bet 95% of the people on this board would speak to you in person the same way that they write to you.

 

[chemmie]

Should have just stuck with the F22 and a next gen F16. F35 isn't doing much the f22 can't do already.
...and the F35 doesn't have VTOL. It might, if they ever get it to work.

 

[UCFEE]

I am willing to bet 95% of the people on this board would speak to you in person the same way that they write to you.

Probably, and 85 ain't one of them.

 

[Happy Hands]

Is that plane supposed to look like a gorilla?