America's 'everything' fighter jet is a total disaster

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
America's 'everything' fighter jet is a total disaster

The Week
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry


The supersonic stealth plane called the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was supposed to be the greatest and best military plane the world has ever seen. While the United States' stealthy F-22 is an "air superiority" plane, ensuring the country's dominance over the skies, which is why exporting it is illegal, the F-35 was supposed to be able to do everything, and be the standard fighter-bomber of the U.S. and most countries with which the U.S. has friendly relations. It was supposed to be stealthy, to be able take off and land vertically, and to know everything about everything thanks to its amazing software and sensors. It can't do any of those things so far.

The program has cost $1.3 trillion so far. By comparison, the Apollo Program, which actually sent people to the moon, cost about $170 billion in 2005 dollars. The F-35 is literally the most expensive military project in history. By 2014, the program was $163 billion over budget, and seven years behind schedule.

From the beginning the F-35 was practically designed to be a horrendous boondoggle. First, there was the idea to make just one plane that would fit every service branch's needs. The Marines wanted a vertical takeoff and landing plane that could bomb things on the ground. The Navy wanted a carrier-borne plane. The Air Force wanted a plane that could shoot other planes.

The original "Joint Strike Fighter" program, from which the F-35 grew, started out in the early 1990s. The goal was to replace most of the country's Cold War era fighters and bombers, including the F-16, the F-18, the A-10, and the AV-8B. The problem with this approach is that it lead to design by committee and design by wishlists. It turned out that trying to make a plane to do everything meant that it did everything poorly.

The project has suffered endless delays and cost overruns, and, still, the thing is half-baked. The latest problem is that the plane's software — absolutely essential for a 21st century plane — doesn't work. Former RAND author John Stillion has written that the F-35 "can't turn, can't climb, can't run." It's heavy, bulky, and doesn't carry that many weapons. It even has safety issues.

Every time the F-35 project it goes beyond schedule, every time it costs more than anticipated, every time something doesn't work, Americans are told it's just a bug, it's just a minor problem. Enough is enough.

There's a well-known trick by defense contractors to make sure a project is never killed and becomes a goose that lays golden eggs: spread the production of the thing over as many congressional districts as possible. But this time, the program took this old trick global. It's even better if you put as many countries in on the action as possible, because if by any chance one government balks, the others will carry it on. Lockheed Martin, which makes the F-35, is expertly practiced in the art of milking the U.S. government for cash.

It's time to end it. The only reason left not to do it is sunk costs — which is exactly the reason why it should be ended. Sunk costs are gone. Many defense experts agree that an air force would be better off using current F-16s and F-18s than the fantastically expensive F-35. U.S. defense specialist Winslow T. Wheeler and aircraft designer Pierre Sprey have written that given the F-35's astronomical costs and design flaws, any air force would be better off maintaining its fleets of F-16s and F/A-18s.

What about the United States' vaunted air dominance, and the need to have super 21st century planes because of China? Well, we might have had that plane, but we don't. The best incentive for defense contractors to produce good products is to show that Washington has the political will to shoot down a $1.3 trillion program in mid-air when it doesn't work.

Does Washington have that political will?
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Weird that Jiggy would post this since it was Obama that shut down F-22 production to devote more money to this pile of crap. I've been complaining about this program for 10 years now. Our defense spending is utterly out of control and almost none of it goes to actual defense.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Weird that Jiggy would post this since it was Obama that shut down F-22 production to devote more money to this pile of crap. I've been complaining about this program for 10 years now. Our defense spending is utterly out of control and almost none of it goes to actual defense.
Nothing weird about that I have always said that Obama has had some mistakes.

I have never been an Obama fanboy but for some reason that does not compute for you.

Anyway as for this program I was actually surprised they were still pouring so much money into it, has been a disaster for quite awhile.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
This runaway defense spending is something that should unify fiscal conservatives and liberals. There's no excuse for it.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Nothing weird about that I have always said that Obama has had some mistakes.

I have never been an Obama fanboy but for some reason that does not compute for you.

Anyway as for this program I was actually surprised they were still pouring so much money into it, has been a disaster for quite awhile.
I called it "aircraft to nowhere" years and years ago and I was stunned that they continued it, but so much money was wasted it became politically expedient to throw good money after bad.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,461
$1.3 trillion, yet it's welfare that gets bitched about the most?
To be fair someone is at least working for that 1.3 instead of just getting it for doing nothing. It's just that the work they are doing is totally useless.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
To be fair someone is at least working for that 1.3 instead of just getting it for doing nothing. It's just that the work they are doing is totally useless.
You'd rather pay poor people high salaries to do useless work than just give them some food and crappy housing. Expensive tastes.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,461
You'd rather pay poor people high salaries to do useless work than just give them some food and crappy housing. Expensive tastes.
No but I'd rather invest money in something that has a chance to succeed then to throw my money in the trash. The fighter jet was a poor investment choice. But it was still at least an investment. Giving stuff away is a guaranteed zero return game.

Should have invested the money in medical research or alternative energy instead. Even though those things also have the potential to fail.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,705
No but I'd rather invest money in something that has a chance to succeed then to throw my money in the trash. The fighter jet was a poor investment choice. But it was still at least an investment. Giving stuff away is a guaranteed zero return game.

Should have invested the money in medical research or alternative energy instead. Even though those things also have the potential to fail.
100% correct.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
To be fair someone is at least working for that 1.3 instead of just getting it for doing nothing. It's just that the work they are doing is totally useless.
Most people on Welfare have actual jobs, this idea that anything close to 1.3 trillion is being given to people sitting on their ass is comical.

Your idea about welfare is very distorted and I know you are too smart to be making this false equivalence, this is the equivalent of corporate welfare at this point because it's obvious this program has failed.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
No but I'd rather invest money in something that has a chance to succeed then to throw my money in the trash. The fighter jet was a poor investment choice. But it was still at least an investment. Giving stuff away is a guaranteed zero return game.

Should have invested the money in medical research or alternative energy instead. Even though those things also have the potential to fail.
I think this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of welfare. The point of social safety nets is to invest in people. I know half a dozen people who had to take welfare at different points in their life, now they're employed and earning money and paying taxes. That's a return on investment.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
I would rather 1 million dollars go to military pork than 1 dollar go to them freeloadin' moochers, by gawd.

If this truly is conservatism, maybe I ain't as conservative as I thought I was.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,705
I would rather 1 million dollars go to military pork than 1 dollar go to them freeloadin' moochers, by gawd.

If this truly is conservatism, maybe I ain't as conservative as I thought I was.
I think there should be military spending cuts. Regardless, though, the money we spend needs to be better managed.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,461
I think this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of welfare. The point of social safety nets is to invest in people. I know half a dozen people who had to take welfare at different points in their life, now they're employed and earning money and paying taxes. That's a return on investment.
Those half a dozen are the rarity. There is a reason the number of people on welfare goes up annually.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Those half a dozen are the rarity. There is a reason the number of people on welfare goes up annually.
What?

Come on Rock you can't actually believe this.

What kind of welfare do you think exists where people can just opt out of working for the rest of their lives?

A rarity?

What are you basing this on.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
I would be interested to know this fighter was an "investment." Investments typically have returns, correct? What is the return if this thing worked? Ability to kill our enemies twice?
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,705
I would be interested to know this fighter was an "investment." Investments typically have returns, correct? What is the return if this thing worked? Ability to kill our enemies twice?
Well, bad investments don't have returns. But, they are still investments. Now, about the advantage... if this thing did what they had hoped it would, it would give us a fairly substantial advantage in the sky if/when it were to be needed. Now, you can argue all day whether it is worth that kind of investment for that advantage, but it is an investment.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
Well, bad investments don't have returns. But, they are still investments. Now, about the advantage... if this thing did what they had hoped it would, it would give us a fairly substantial advantage in the sky if/when it were to be needed. Now, you can argue all day whether it is worth that kind of investment for that advantage, but it is an investment.
Yep, this could have been the thing that put the American military's air superiority over the top.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,917
I would be interested to know this fighter was an "investment." Investments typically have returns, correct? What is the return if this thing worked? Ability to kill our enemies twice?
If it worked the way it was planned, I'd think the return would being able to more effectively engage our enemies. To keep our troops out of harms way more, etc...

The kill our enemies twice line was pretty funny, tho.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,461
What?

Come on Rock you can't actually believe this.

What kind of welfare do you think exists where people can just opt out of working for the rest of their lives?

A rarity?

What are you basing this on.
Social Security disability for starters. I realize most people don't actually get to see this stuff but I actually do up close and first hand. What type of welfare expires?
 
Top Bottom