4 ms·

We could clear out all student debt in the United States and have a handful of change left over... ...or we could build a plane that doesn't fly.

by Lancey 11y ago

Someone1234 11y ago
... For an enemy that doesn't exist in a war that won't happen... PS - Before people yell "China," China's air power isn't even on par with what the US currently has. Their only remotely threatening aircraft is a bad clone of the F-35.
- sremani 11y ago
  There is a very illuminating video on Youtube by designer of F-16 and A-10 about F-35. Please remember F-22 is a very expensive plane and great for Air superiority, but you need planes in other roles. The Airforce in their sexy trip are trying to replace the reliable A-10 with the F-35. F-35 for ground support, bad bad bad idea, but the guys in Airforce have careers and they will have to move the needle, if you think about it, the military bureaucracy is its own worst enemy.
  - frandroid 11y ago
    This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
    - sremani 11y ago
      Affirmative.
- satai 11y ago
  Hard to say, how bad the clone is. At least they avoided some "not so great" design decisions, that made Marines happy with F35.
exelius 11y ago
The plane flies; but I wonder what we're doing putting humans in an airplane at all at this point. The amount of additional engineering that has to be done to support a human in the cockpit is crazy -- life support systems, multiple redundant flight control systems, etc. All of these have maintenance schedules, checklists and protocols that make them very expensive to operate. By the time this weapons system is operational, it will be obsolete. I would maybe understand if the goal of this program was to produce a weapons system that was a great leap forward in performance, but the F-35 was never designed to be that. It was supposed to remove the need for 3 or 4 different specialized aircraft by creating a general-purpose platform that can serve in multiple roles. It's essentially a cost-reduction program that basically fails at reducing costs because of the additional overhead some of the requirements brought. In its current iteration, it doesn't do that, and having a single-engine fighter jet is a colossally stupid idea. In the event of engine failure, the pilot has no choice but to eject because fighters are far less aerodynamically stable than passenger planes, and with no engine power, the plane wouldn't be controllable. You don't have these problems in two-engine fighters -- if one engine goes out, you can still limp back to base and land the plane. So your single engine has to be that much more powerful and reliable, which leads to an engine that is more expensive to buy and that needs to be maintained more often. So they ultimately fail in reducing cost and complexity. For the roles the F-35 will be appropriate for by the time it's finished, drones will be a much better option. The F-35 is explicitly not an air superiority fighter (a role human pilots are still better suited for, and for which the F-22 is a far superior aircraft), and most of the ground support and reconnaissance roles the F-35 is supposed to play are already handled by drones today. The program only exists because big defense programs are parceled out to congressional districts, whose representatives are loathe to lose the jobs. I don't think the military even wants it that badly at this point.
- DrStalker 11y ago
  The F-35 started life in 1996 with the Joint Strike Fighter Program. That's almost 2 decades ago, and long before the idea of using drones instead of humans was feasible. That doesn't mean that the F35 program shouldn't be scrapped and the useful technology used elsewhere but the program goals were reasonable when they started. Or at least not completely ridiculous... I personally think it's a bad idea to have one type of aircraft for everything because if anything happens to cause the fleet to be grounded there is nothing else to step in to fill the gap.
cryoshon 11y ago
...consider that this is a great illustration of the government's actual rather than stated priorities.
pekk 11y ago
Will that cover all future student debt as well?
- Lancey 11y ago
  Actually yeah, probably.

We could clear out all student debt in the United States and have a handful of change left over... ...or we could build a plane that doesn't fly.

by Lancey 11y ago

We could clear out all student debt in the United States and have a handful of change left over... ...or we could build a plane that doesn't fly.

Someone1234 11y ago

... For an enemy that doesn't exist in a war that won't happen... PS - Before people yell "China," China's air power isn't even on par with what the US currently has. Their only remotely threatening aircraft is a bad clone of the F-35.

sremani 11y ago
There is a very illuminating video on Youtube by designer of F-16 and A-10 about F-35. Please remember F-22 is a very expensive plane and great for Air superiority, but you need planes in other roles. The Airforce in their sexy trip are trying to replace the reliable A-10 with the F-35. F-35 for ground support, bad bad bad idea, but the guys in Airforce have careers and they will have to move the needle, if you think about it, the military bureaucracy is its own worst enemy.
- frandroid 11y ago
  This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
  - sremani 11y ago
    Affirmative.
satai 11y ago
Hard to say, how bad the clone is. At least they avoided some "not so great" design decisions, that made Marines happy with F35.

exelius 11y ago

The plane flies; but I wonder what we're doing putting humans in an airplane at all at this point. The amount of additional engineering that has to be done to support a human in the cockpit is crazy -- life support systems, multiple redundant flight control systems, etc. All of these have maintenance schedules, checklists and protocols that make them very expensive to operate. By the time this weapons system is operational, it will be obsolete. I would maybe understand if the goal of this program was to produce a weapons system that was a great leap forward in performance, but the F-35 was never designed to be that. It was supposed to remove the need for 3 or 4 different specialized aircraft by creating a general-purpose platform that can serve in multiple roles. It's essentially a cost-reduction program that basically fails at reducing costs because of the additional overhead some of the requirements brought. In its current iteration, it doesn't do that, and having a single-engine fighter jet is a colossally stupid idea. In the event of engine failure, the pilot has no choice but to eject because fighters are far less aerodynamically stable than passenger planes, and with no engine power, the plane wouldn't be controllable. You don't have these problems in two-engine fighters -- if one engine goes out, you can still limp back to base and land the plane. So your single engine has to be that much more powerful and reliable, which leads to an engine that is more expensive to buy and that needs to be maintained more often. So they ultimately fail in reducing cost and complexity. For the roles the F-35 will be appropriate for by the time it's finished, drones will be a much better option. The F-35 is explicitly not an air superiority fighter (a role human pilots are still better suited for, and for which the F-22 is a far superior aircraft), and most of the ground support and reconnaissance roles the F-35 is supposed to play are already handled by drones today. The program only exists because big defense programs are parceled out to congressional districts, whose representatives are loathe to lose the jobs. I don't think the military even wants it that badly at this point.

DrStalker 11y ago
The F-35 started life in 1996 with the Joint Strike Fighter Program. That's almost 2 decades ago, and long before the idea of using drones instead of humans was feasible. That doesn't mean that the F35 program shouldn't be scrapped and the useful technology used elsewhere but the program goals were reasonable when they started. Or at least not completely ridiculous... I personally think it's a bad idea to have one type of aircraft for everything because if anything happens to cause the fleet to be grounded there is nothing else to step in to fill the gap.

cryoshon 11y ago

...consider that this is a great illustration of the government's actual rather than stated priorities.

pekk 11y ago

Will that cover all future student debt as well?

Lancey 11y ago
Actually yeah, probably.