America's F-35s Can't Fly 22% of the Time, Repair Facilities Six Years Behind Schedule (indiatimes.com)

"[N]early 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for," according to one defense news site. And now Bloomberg reports: The Pentagon is accelerating production of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 jet even though the planes already delivered are facing "significantly longer repair times" than planned because maintenance facilities are six years behind schedule, according to a draft audit. The time to repair a part has averaged 172 days -- "twice the program's objective" -- the Government Accountability Office, Congress's watchdog agency, found. The shortages are "degrading readiness" because the fighter jets "were unable to fly about 22 percent of the time" from January through August for lack of needed parts.

The Pentagon has said soaring costs to develop and produce the F-35, the costliest U.S. weapons system, have been brought under control, with the price tag now projected at $406.5 billion. But the GAO report raises new doubts about the official estimate that maintaining and operating them will cost an additional $1.12 trillion over their 60-year lifetime.
Slashdot reader schwit1 writes, "This is akin to buying an exotic car you can barely afford, without also budgeting for insurance, repairs, and tuneups."

Comments

Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Lisandro]

At this rate the US could just pour money into buying perfectly capable, top-of-the-line fighters and write them off as losses in the F-35 program.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC the tooling to build new parts went "missing" some time ago (probably stolen, I would guess), and would be extremely costly to replace (possibly on the order of developing a new fighter). So not only can they not build F-22's, their ability to repair and maintain the ones they currently have is limited. Worse yet, they cut the budget significantly so they have considerably fewer than they had originally planned.

I have not heard anything to this effect, but it wouldn't surprise me if one of the reasons we're stuck with the F-35 is that the F-22's would be so very hard to replace, and there just aren't that many of them.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Desprez]

No. Production stopped in 2011.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Lisandro]

That's a shame. I figure the F-22 was scrapped as being too expensive, but it is still very likely the most technologically advanced fighter out there and, in retrospective, it would've probably been cheaper for the US to keep it around.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Daemonik]

The Air Force does not scrap a plane for being expensive, as the F-35 demonstrates. The F-22 was shut down over politics and to fund, and justify, the F-35, as were the A-10 and a few other planes.

Take the A-10 Thunderbolt for instance. Preferred dedicated ground support aircraft of the Army. So to help nudge along the F-35, the AF killed the A-10 so they could claim that they needed a replacement ground support craft, and aha! the F-35 could fill the roll. Pay no attention to the facts that the F-35 is not armored like the A-10, probably couldn't handle the weight if they tried, and carries a pitiful amount of ammunition for its pitiful little gun.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC the tooling to build new parts went "missing" some time ago (probably stolen, I would guess), and would be extremely costly to replace (possibly on the order of developing a new fighter). So not only can they not build F-22's, their ability to repair and maintain the ones they currently have is limited. Worse yet, they cut the budget significantly so they have considerably fewer than they had originally planned.

I have not heard anything to this effect, but it wouldn't surprise me if one of the reasons we're stuck with the F-35 is that the F-22's would be so very hard to replace, and there just aren't that many of them.

He wasn't talking about the F22, he was talking about something like the Rafael or even lower profile Grippen, which have as much lower IR profile and would likely shoot down an F35 and possibly even F22 before they even realised there was contact.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, the AF should get it over with and give the A10s to the fucking Marines, who actually know and could use a badass CAS airframe that's cheap, reliable, and deadly.

See also: C-130s. Best workhorse cargo plane for the kind of missions the Marines need to support (short takeoff, heavy load, etc).

I would also put in a recommendation for the kind of missions we fly against ISIS and the like a return to high loiter time support aircraft like Broncos, etc. ISIS knows jets can only fly around for 20-30 minutes before they have to heat to the base and then they can resume their asshole activities. It changes when you can put bullets in the sky for 4-5 hours, cheaply, and with multiples/shift changes...

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Keith Mickunas]

The Air Force still is flying the A-10 and has over 280 in service. Unfortunately many need new wings and may be grounded before that happens. The Air Force would like to kill it, but surprisingly enough Congress has seen through their b.s. and kept it alive so far.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Anonymous Coward]

The headline exists to prey upon the uninformed as to the nature of aircraft in general, but especially military aircraft.

At any given time roughly 25% of every air-fleet is unavailable. The more engines it has the more likely this is to be true. This is actually one of the reasons the F16 become so popular. A single engine, while lacking in engine redundancy required lower maintenance and better fleet availability.

Even the Army suffers with these issues with their heli-fleets. Right now, roughly 25% of the Apache fleet is unavailable. So on so on. Basically anything in the 15%-25% range, is normal for all aircraft fleets. The lower numbers are typically associated with single engine and/or less complicated aircraft.

In other words, the headline is lie. What it should say is that the F-35 has a fleet availability on par with the entire world's other military aircraft. But that doesn't bring in clicks nor does it get the ignorant excited in an uproar.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Aighearach]

Well, sure, they could also just buy a bunch of magic ponies on no-bid contracts if they really wanted.

What you seem to miss is that you're being a weird sort of sheep and just repeating anything negative that sounds vaguely cromulent.

This is one of the stupidest stories on this topic in awhile; production and maintenance happen in different places and are done by different people; why would being behind schedule building the maintenance facilities mean delaying production? That would only increase the costs, it is almost as if you, and the editor, think that there would somehow be cost savings?

By the way, "top of the line" fighters would be the F-22, which is way more expensive than the F-35. You drank so much Hateraide(TM) you started believing that the gossip writers know more about military procurement than the military!

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Aighearach]

The F-22 wasn't "scrapped," they built the number that they needed as the top end fighters, and used the lessons learned to design the F-35.

This was the plan all along; build two new stealth fighters, one super-high-tech, the other one cheaper and more suitable for mass production.

The main role of the F-22 is to intercept surface to air missiles (SAMs). The idea is that you have a bunch of F-35s and F-22s, and most air defenses can't see either one, but even when they can and they fire a SAM, or when they see the planes coming visually and launch infrared or similar missiles, then the missiles still have a much harder time finding the F-22s and they can shoot them down with air to air missiles. You only need a limited number in that role. Waste of money to have a lot of something that fancy when nobody else has it and they can't see the F-35 anyways.

A lot of people commenting on these stories don't realize that F-35 is already in use. Last month when some F-35s, B-1s, and an F-22s flew near to North Korea, there was no response at all; until the US announced that it had happened so that the North Koreans could freak out. They hadn't even seen them! Try that with an F-16. ;)

You can believe that the generals are all a bunch of buffoons out of a bad movie, but history says they're pretty good at understanding and using the technologies involved.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Aighearach]

The really funny part is how far the reality is from what the fanbois on the internet keep repeating to each other; the A-10 is primarily used as a missile platform. It does still do a little bit of close air support, duties it shares with the F-16, but it does it from high altitude as a generic missile launch platform.

People like to repeat that they're really reliable, and it is true they can survive a lot of AAA damage, but the threat in modern combat isn't AAA it is RPGs and MANPADs. And the A-10 is a sitting duck for those. Sure, the pilot is protected by armor, but the engines aren't; they're very vulnerable. They can't loiter at low altitude over infantry to do the type of close air support that the fanbois are picturing! They get shot down doing that. So yeah, they're still stuck using them, but they don't use them differently from the way they use an F-16 for that; flying in circles high overhead, dropping shit on coordinates.

Why do they need new wings? Because the enemy weapons can reach it more easily.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Aighearach]

Rumor has it that many of the infantry units have to have rest periods, too, but not everybody in the command structure agrees.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Anonymous Coward]

or even lower profile Grippen, which have as much lower IR profile and would likely shoot down an F35 and possibly even F22 before they even realised there was contact.

I find that unlikely.
Grippens advantage lies in that it is so much cheaper that you will have 2-3 times the planes for the same cost and that they can run back to back missions without downtime.
In a one to one fight between the F35 and Grippen the F35 is likely to win, but it's never going to be one to one since the opponent can afford more planes and doesn't need to keep them on the ground as much.

Considering the low cost it would probably be a good idea to get a couple of them. Not only would the pilots have something to fly but some competition would also put pressure on the F35-program to actually deliver.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[amiga3D]

The Army went to Congress to try to take over the A-10 program. The grunts love the flying beast that's an aircraft built around a 30mm Cannon that spits depleted uranium rounds that shred takes. Who can blame them? The Air Force is stuck with the A-10 until it's no longer supportable.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[amiga3D]

Some genius came up with the F-35 as a way to save money. It was supposed to be able to multipurpose and replace everything out there. What a fucking joke. Air superiority, ground support carrier and STOL all in on. Like all compromises it does none well.

Re: Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Anonymous Coward]

The F-35 is not a good fighter in a dogfight. The F-22 is better than the F-35 at that, and the Gripen C is even better than the F-22; the Gripen E is even better and the F-35s stealth capabilities are no match for modern radar.

The F-35 simply tries to do everything but fails at it. It was obsolete before it was completed. Just buy a license to produce Gripen E from Saab and save your defence budget.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[0123456]

Maybe the CIA could give some tanks to Afghan goat-herders, so there'd be a need for a plane that can shred them.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[blindseer]

Honestly, the AF should get it over with and give the A10s to the fucking Marines, who actually know and could use a badass CAS airframe that's cheap, reliable, and deadly.

I recall reading somewhere that the USAF tried giving the aircraft to the Army and Marines but neither of them wanted to take on the expense of supporting such an old air frame to fill a role that the Air Force is mandated to provide. The A-10 needs to be replaced and that replacement is not the F-35. I see a few options for a resolution.

The first, and perhaps most likely, option I see is the Air Force putting the A-10 in a kind of "semi-retirement" and send the remaining air frames to Guard and reserve units. The primary tank killer role would have to be filled by the "jack of all trades, master of none" F-35 until a proper CAS air frame is developed and procured. The Air Force simply needs to realize that the A-10 cannot be replaced by the F-35 and come up with something suitable. Sadly, this realization may not come until a lot of Marines come home in coffins.

Second, the US Army and USMC need to get together and find an air frame they can agree on that will fill the CAS role and bring that to the powers that be as a proper A-10 replacement. The USMC cannot do this alone as it does not have the budget, manpower, etc. due to it's comparatively small size, compared to the other branches of the US military not compared to the marine forces of other nations. If this is going to be an air frame that Marines will fly then that means getting the US Navy involved since every USMC air craft must fit on a Navy ship. Which gets to the third option.

Third, the US Navy will have to decide that CAS aircraft fit into their doctrine of naval operations and support of Marine forces. This might not require a new air frame but instead new weapons on existing air frames and/or launching existing CAS platforms from current aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. Even then this might not be a long lasting solution since it would involve things like trying to fit the MV-22 into a tank killer role, or returning to the experiments of launching C-130 variants from aircraft carriers.

Long term solutions means a new air frame, which might not be flown by the USAF. If the Marines, Navy, or Army fly these CAS aircraft then that means rearranging the operational doctrines of all military forces. If the Air Force wants to wash its hands of the CAS role, which it seems it does, then that needs to be picked up by someone else. Assuming that the USMC wants the A-10, and the Air Force is willing to hand them over, then there must still be agreement from the Army (as they will rely on this new Marine aviation support) and the Navy (since MARINES means "my assets ride on Navy equipment, SIR!").

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[blindseer]

I heard quite the opposite, that the Air Force tried to give the A-10 to the Army but the Army refused.

I suppose both can have some truth to it, the Army and Air Force are big organizations with little factions fighting with each other on doctrine and assets needed to meet that doctrine. I'm quite certain that the Army soldiers on the ground don't much care who is flying the A-10 over their heads so long as they have an American flag on the shoulder of their uniform.

There's been a long held doctrine that the Army is not to fly anything, that's for the Air Force. The Army obviously has aircraft but those are limited to rotary wing fighters and non-combat support fixed wing craft. The Marines and Navy also, obviously, have a lot of aircraft but those are launched from ships at sea. That was a compromise struck long ago when the Air Force was created after WWII. If the Air Force is truly willing to hand over fixed wing assets to the Army then I can see the Army being very reluctant, much like anyone might be in accepting a gift from a part time ally and part time (mostly friendly) adversary. This might be a real gift, like an expensive cigar to a friend, or an embarrassment, like a cheap cigar loaded to explode in one's face.

For the US Army to fly the A-10 would mean a large shift in the separation of duties among those DOD branches. I don't see that happening without some kind of reshuffling of a lot of other separation of duties. For example, the US Navy, USCG, and USAF all have air to air tankers to support their aircraft. Would not the Army also need their own air to air refueling aircraft too? What of other duties that go with this new fixed wing capability?

Re: Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of the f22 is to destroy any plane that could lead to a dogfight 20 miles before you get to it plus they will never know the f22 is there.

A single f22 could take down 5 jets, more depending on its missle configuration and the enemy would never know what hit them. There is no plane in the sky like it and I'm not conspiracy theorist but I wouldn't be shocked if the f22 program was humming along this entire time while we purposefully made the f35 program a public disaster.

Your enemy expects one plane and you give them another

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Lisandro]

By the way, "top of the line" fighters would be the F-22, which is way more expensive than the F-35.

Um, no. The F-35 program cost is estimated to be at least 7x the F-22, and it has already blown way over its initial budget. Per shipped aircraft the F-22 is cheaper.

Now, the F-22 is quite expensive to fly (about 2x the hourly cost of a F-35) but that mean very little if the alternative cannot take off or does it in a crippled capacity.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[blindseer]

A lot of people commenting on these stories don't realize that F-35 is already in use. Last month when some F-35s, B-1s, and an F-22s flew near to North Korea, there was no response at all; until the US announced that it had happened so that the North Koreans could freak out. They hadn't even seen them! Try that with an F-16. ;)

An F-16 might not be able to do that but a modern variant of the F-15 and F-18 might, and they are newer than the F-16 by only a couple years. The F-117 and B-2 were contemporary with the F-16 and are considered "stealth" aircraft. If you mean to compare these aircraft by age then this is not much to crow about. If you mean by something as inexpensive as the F-16 then you might have something. It seems to me that the expense of a lot of these stealth aircraft was in large part to many non-stealth aspects, such as size, and non-recurring costs not made up in volume of production.

I suspect that the US military could do quite well with some updated (and currently proposed BTW) F-18 and F-15 air frames with some of the electronics, new stealth technology proven on the F-22 and F-35, and whatever else we learned in the last 40 years since these air frames first came off the production line. Something is keeping these stealth variants of current air frames from being deployed, and I'm curious to know what that is.

I suspect that there would be a lot of people in the US military that would be overjoyed with updated stealth versions of currently operational air frames. Offer a new F-15 "Silent Eagle", F/A-18 "Shielded Hornet", and F-16 "Black Viper", and I suspect a lot of generals and admirals would jump at the chance to get them. There is already lot of investment in these older air frames and updating them would be, as far as I can tell, a much cheaper way to obtain stealthy and deadly aircraft than experimenting with an all new air frame. Granted, we only have this technology now because of the investment in the F-22 program, so we can't do without new air frame development completely.

You can believe that the generals are all a bunch of buffoons out of a bad movie, but history says they're pretty good at understanding and using the technologies involved.

I'm not going to call them buffoons. I'm reluctant to call them all geniuses either. I will say that the vast majority of them will do the best they can with what they have. I will, and have, trust them with my life. I would like to see more updating of existing technology to go along with the acquisition of the new and shiny... or is it new and stealthy now?

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[amiga3D]

We've got C-130 gun ships for those. Nice stable platform loaded with weapons that can circle for hours over a target and obliterate goat herders.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[amiga3D]

The Air Force did object to it. They are death on the Army flying fixed wing attack craft. The Army would of course treat the A-10 much as they do helicopters with Warrant Officers piloting them. The Army troops love things that save their lives and the close support of the A-10 in Iraq made it a legend to them.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Hognoxious]

He wasn't talking about the F22

Yeah. The fact that it says "Is the P-51 production line still up?" in the subject is a dead giveaway.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Daemonik]

The Army is not allowed to have fixed wing aircraft. That's why the Air Force exists. The Marines can't fly a plane that won't fit on a carrier. So if the Air Force did offer the A-10, they already knew neither service could field the plane anyway.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Daemonik]

If the Army starts flying fixed wing aircraft, the Air Force has no reason to exist. They started as the Army Air Corps and split off as their own service in 1947.

Re: Is the F-22 production line still up?

[arglebargle_xiv]

Or use the money to pay the other side to go back home. Or contract out the killing to the Russians, or Israel, or ISIS. Or... well, just about anything has got to be better value for money than this ongoing boondoggle.

A side benefit of outsource-to-ISIS is that that'll keep them busy doing other stuff, and hopefully a pile of them will get killed in the process.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[ShanghaiBill]

If the Army starts flying fixed wing aircraft, the Air Force has no reason to exist.

The Air Force would still have strategic bombers, ICBMs, and air superiority fighters. The Army would only take over close air support.

The Marines have their own fixed wing close air support, but the Navy still has their own aviation for fleet defense, etc.

Re: Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Gussington]

Or use the money to pay the other side to go back home.

This is something that doesn't get enough attention. At what point to weapons get so expensive that it is more economically effective to pay the other side to stop?
And I'm not talking straight cash that would only encourage more enemies, but clever application of funding for things like schools and hospitals, things that encourage the people to become educated and prosperous and not fight wars in the first place? eg 6 months of military spend is more then the GDP of Afghanistan and Iraq combined, yet we've been over there for 15 years with no end in sight.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Aighearach]

I didn't say it would be doing ground attack, I said the F-35s would be doing ground attack and the F-22 would be shooting down SAMs; which is air to air. Most fighters don't really enjoy engaging SAMs after they've been launched, they prefer to strike them on the ground. You need really high quality stealth to mess around with that mission so that you don't just blow up right away if you miss a shot.

F-35s are more useful for air superiority than F-22s because you can put more of them in the air and air superiority is about complete denial of access. It doesn't require everything to be stealth, or to be high quality stealth; just having some aircraft with a low signature is huge tactical problem for anybody trying to challenge the airspace.

When you see in the news the the US and Japan are flying a joint mission near Korean airspace, you'll notice there is typically one (1) F-22 in the group. On an air superiority mission, it would be serving as escort for the rest of the fighters!

Most missions utilizing fighters don't need a super-double-badass fighter to go with them as escort, and so you only want to buy a few of those. You only want to use them when there is real risk of incoming missiles you might want to shoot down. Air to air isn't just shooting at fighters.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Aighearach]

Something is keeping these stealth variants of current air frames from being deployed, and I'm curious to know what that is.

Because there is a huge amount of equipment packed into a bunch of small spaces. If you wanted to build a stealth trainer on an old airframe, sure. If you wanted to build a stealth version of the A-10 that is big and slow and uses a lot of fuel, you could do that too. If you want a high performance fighter aircraft, you're going to have to redesign it because what is good for aerodynamics is not the same as what is good for stealth and you just have to build the thing with a significantly different body type and balance. Even if it looks similar on the outside at the end.

Also, the blah-blah you read on the interwebs about the F-35, it is just a fad to be a hater. People in the military who listen to the BS hater stuff, they change their tune the first time they come out of a classified briefing on the program. Every time.

If you don't know enough about the technology to understand that all of it is late generation stuff that has undergone numerous iterations, then why ask for updating of existing technology? Not all types of machine have can have their fundamental design changed after construction, but that doesn't mean that building a new one isn't an act of updating the existing technology.

You can believe that the generals are all a bunch of buffoons out of a bad movie, but history says they're pretty good at understanding and using the technologies involved.

I'm not going to call them buffoons. I'm reluctant to call them all geniuses either. I will say that the vast majority of them will do the best they can with what they have. I will, and have, trust them with my life. I would like to see more updating of existing technology to go along with the acquisition of the new and shiny... or is it new and stealthy now?

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Luckyo]

Actually the main reason why everyone on the ground wants A-10s as support, is because they are slow enough to be able to get a good picture of what's going on on the ground. That enables pilots to provide air support even when belligerents are very close to friendlies. In this regard, it doesn't matter what weapons this aircraft carries. It can operate low enough and slow enough when needed, and that is what matters. In this role, it has no real fixed wing competitors other than AC-130. And that aircraft is actually severely vulnerable to ground fire, unlike A-10.

The rest of your points are exactly what you accuse "fanboys" of. Opinionated ignorance. A-10 like all low and slow aircraft is indeed threatened by shoulder launched guided missiles. It's also extremely resilient against such threats and more than capable to take multiple hits without suffering fatal damage, which is why it can and does operate as it does - low and slow. Its gun is an excellent tool to engage soft targets like technicals and supply trucks, conserving heavier missiles and bombs for hardened targets. It provides a unique niche just like Su-25 does. It's a faster and more resilient platform than an attack helicopter with greater payload and ability to loiter, mixed with greater survivability due to design than a gunship like AC-130. Yet it can and does operate "low and slow" when needed, able to accurately view the battlefield from close by and still have time to provide accurate fire support based on this information and not already have passed the target area like other fixed wing attack platforms.

And wings? They go because of metal fatigue as well as ground fire. The fact that they can easily take the ground fire and continue to operate needing just wing replacements every once in a while shows you just how well this particular platform is designed for its role.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Luckyo]

It is extremely vulnerable during day time operations to ground fire, because C-130 platform is not designed to take shots.

A-10 is.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[blindseer]

The Army is not allowed to have fixed wing aircraft.

The US Army has lots of fixed wing aircraft, more than 200 if my math and a few sources I found on the internet are correct. They have close to 200 just in fixed wing cargo planes. There's a few dozen jets for VIP transport, medical evacuation, and other roles. There are 100 or so aircraft for intelligence, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and similar roles. None with weapons though.

That's why the Air Force exists.

The Air Force exists for more things than flying over the Army and bringing them MREs and mail.

The Marines can't fly a plane that won't fit on a carrier.

They fly lots of things that won't fit on a carrier. Much like the Army they fly aircraft for cargo, transport (medical, troop, VIP), recon/e-warfare, and such. The C-130 variants (tankers, cargo, utility, and special operations) that the USMC flies did have some experiments with carrier operations but that is far from common practice. They even maintain some combat capable fighters that cannot land on a carrier, admittedly for training only.

So if the Air Force did offer the A-10, they already knew neither service could field the plane anyway.

There was an agreement long ago that the Army would have no aircraft at all, then the agreement was changed to allow non-combat airplanes and helicopters in all roles. There's nothing that really keeps this agreement from changing again to allow the Army to fly subsonic, short range, close air support, fixed wing aircraft. Such a transfer would no doubt have resistance but it appears the Air Force has been trying to rid itself of the A-10 for a long time now.

The USMC already maintains a fleet of fixed wing aircraft, including those that cannot fit on a carrier. They might be best equipped to take the aircraft if not for the size of the A-10 fleet. A quick Google search tells me over 700 A-10 air frames were built and somewhere between 150 and 300 remain in service (I got conflicting numbers but it's somewhere in there). The USMC flies about 1000 aircraft, as best I can tell, and adding another 300 to that would likely strain their budget and staffing. I'd assume a lot of Air Force people would transfer over with the aircraft but the budget would have to transfer too or it's not happening.

Reading some old news on this today from searching the internet and I saw some reports of the Army wanting to take the A-10 and some where it did not. No doubt this has a lot to do with who is in charge over time. It would be VERY interesting if the Army started to fly combat fixed wing aircraft. I suspect that in time it may just happen, though not necessarily any time soon or with the A-10. Only because air assets are becoming increasingly vital and the Air Force has been preoccupied with many things other than protecting Army tanks.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[blindseer]

Something is keeping these stealth variants of current air frames from being deployed, and I'm curious to know what that is.

Because there is a huge amount of equipment packed into a bunch of small spaces. If you wanted to build a stealth trainer on an old airframe, sure. If you wanted to build a stealth version of the A-10 that is big and slow and uses a lot of fuel, you could do that too. If you want a high performance fighter aircraft, you're going to have to redesign it because what is good for aerodynamics is not the same as what is good for stealth and you just have to build the thing with a significantly different body type and balance. Even if it looks similar on the outside at the end.

There's been development of stealth versions of the F-15 and F-18 already. It seems not all the components needed to make a stealth version of these planes have been all put together and tested as a unit yet because of costs. There's a short bit on the F-15 and F-18 stealth development on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Because the F-15 and F-18 were well designed from the start, and have large electronics bays for the technology of the time there is a lot of room for improvement with little effort compared to starting over. Considering the troubles that the F-35 has had, and the superb past performance of the F-15 and F-18, it would seem that one could get something very competitive with the F-35 out of updated versions of the F-15 and F-18. Claims of 50% reduction of frontal radar cross section from improved tail fins, radar absorbing materials, and conforming weapons bays, seem pretty amazing and achievable. New fuel efficient engines claim they can increase speed and maneuverability while also increasing range.

Also, the blah-blah you read on the interwebs about the F-35, it is just a fad to be a hater. People in the military who listen to the BS hater stuff, they change their tune the first time they come out of a classified briefing on the program. Every time.

It would be nice to have these people speak up then. I've heard from people in the industry that the claims of failure from the F-35 to be an actual improvement over previous generation fighters are true. The F-35 is trying to be all things to everyone and therefore looks like anything else designed by committee. It's a dog fighter that can't turn, a tank killer that lacks a punch, and just all kinds of fail. When put up against current fighters, some F-18 variant as I recall, it failed miserably. The excuse (for lack of a better word) for the failure was that the radar defeating paint, new electronics, and high output engine was not yet installed. To me that just says they forgot lessons learned long ago that a dogfighter aircraft needs to first be able to dogfight. We cannot rely on the fancy paint and electronics because the enemy might be able to defeat those in time and it will come down to being able to turn, climb, and shoot.

If you don't know enough about the technology to understand that all of it is late generation stuff that has undergone numerous iterations, then why ask for updating of existing technology? Not all types of machine have can have their fundamental design changed after construction, but that doesn't mean that building a new one isn't an act of updating the existing technology.

I simply cannot say everything I know, but I'm certain that the F-35 is a failure. Perhaps future variants might polish this turd. We've been able to keep many aircraft flying far beyond their intended life because we've figured out ways to improve what we have rather than starting over, but we need something good from the start to work with. We've also seen aircraft see a very short o

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[dywolf]

not at all a reflection of reality.
but hey, nice try pretending those threats didn't exist when the A10 first entered service.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[dwillden]

SAMs are not air to air, SAMS are surface to air. The F22 is an air superiority Fighter. Which means fighting other aircraft to control the skys, Once this is done then the 35's go in as wild weasel to take out the SAM emplacements and then the bombers go in. CAS is not about SAM's it's about other aircraft.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[dwillden]

Development cost is higher, but due to the numbers that will be ordered, it will be far cheaper. Stopping production of the 22's at 122 birds kept them from spending the development cost across more birds putting their per frame cost much higher.

The 35, now that it's in actual deployment and production with a planned purchase of well over 2000 frames will be much cheaper per frame.

Re: Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Noble713]

And I'm not talking straight cash that would only encourage more enemies, but clever application of funding for things like schools and hospitals, things that encourage the people to become educated and prosperous and not fight wars in the first place?

Because the only people who have ever started wars in human history were all poor and ignorant? As if "educated" and prosperous cultures were never home to toxic and close-minded ideologies?

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[amiga3D]

They don't use it against heavy targets. It's for goat herders.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Aighearach]

Right, right, that's what the derpers say on the internet. The problem is that if you look at actual missions, if you listen to commanders who are in charge of these missions in Iraq or elsewhere, what they will explain is that going slow and looking at the ground works in some situations, for example when you're trying to find armor on the ground in certain types of scenario. Basically, it used to be great until infantry had more MANPADs and even just RPGs. Once the enemy realized that if they practiced a lot they can hit not only helicopters but also A-10s, they started doing it. Again, go to the interviews with people from Iraq; not interviews with infantry, all they can testify to is the psychological benefit of having some hardware in physical proximity. Listen to the mission commanders; they don't fly the A-10s low like you imagine anymore, because they were getting shot down. Not because they're scared of getting shot down, but because they were getting direct engine hits from RPGs. The thing is a sitting duck against fairly light weapons once the enemy figures out which weapons to use and which parts of the plane are vulnerable; and the cat is out of the bag!

This isn't theory; they use it for close air support because they fly those missions from high altitude. The main aircraft flying those missions is the F-16, and they also use the A-10 for it because the A-10 can't really do anything else, but it can certainly fly in protected airspace and launch air to ground missiles. It doesn't matter if you think that it can fly up close and just be brave if the mission commanders say it gets shot down in that case.

Stop trying to theorize and be a smarty. This is knowable, researchable stuff.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Aighearach]

Large bays is a big problem in a highly aerodynamic aircraft that already has the wrong body shape.

You don't seem to understand the concept that the shape of the aircraft, the balance front to back, the balance point of the thrust, those are important things. And you have to change the shape for stealth, because you can't just put big bays in the places what was convenient for non-stealth craft.

I know you're a lot smarter than any of the aerospace engineers at Boeing or GE, but at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they have a lot of experience.

The changes you describe would result in a stealth trainer with very little combat capabilities, it is a well-understood problem even in the civilian military aerospace reporting. Janes Defense Weekly has been reporting on the exact issues for something like 20 years!

Generals don't come out of classified briefings on the F-35 saying, "It might be a success in the long run if we abandon our mission goals and save the program." Instead they come out saying, "Wow, hey, now I know how exciting the future is!"

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Aighearach]

Thank you, at least somebody can read around here!

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[david_thornley]

When put up against current fighters, some F-18 variant as I recall, it failed miserably. The excuse (for lack of a better word) for the failure was that the radar defeating paint, new electronics, and high output engine was not yet installed.

Okay, it didn't have the engine it was designed for, and it doesn't perform as well as desired? Isn't that what you'd expect?

To me that just says they forgot lessons learned long ago that a dogfighter aircraft needs to first be able to dogfight

That attitude got a lot of Allied fighter pilots killed against the Japanese fighters, which were designed for dogfighting and were very good at it. Chennault, with the Flying Tigers, came up with good tactics early: get an altitude advantage, dive through the formation shooting at a fighter, keep diving until disengaged, rinse and repeat.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[guacamole]

Everyone Who Wanted More F-22s Is Being Proven Right. Unfortunately, the production line was shut down a decade ago.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Lisandro]

Will it? The planned cost for the F-35 is bigger than the GDP of Australia... and it keeps going over budget.

The last batch of delivered F-22 were about $130 mil a pop, or roughly the same of what a F-35 costs today.

Re: Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Gussington]

As if "educated" and prosperous cultures were never home to toxic and close-minded ideologies?

Educated, free and democratic nations are much, much less likely to engage in war with each other. I'm struggling to think of any examples that have outside WW2 (even then Germany, Italy and Japan were all dictatorships).
If you have much, much less war, then you need much, much less military, and those funds can be spent on defence measures that actually work (health, education, anti-corruption etc).

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[ckatko]

Uhhh... by your logic doesn't that mean ALL HELICOPTERS ARE DEATHTRAPS?

Do we still fly helicopters? Yes.

So what's an A-10 got that's so extra dangerous, that on a helicopter is somehow acceptable?

And don't try and say "they're used for transport so they take that risk" because the Apache is still flying today.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[ckatko]

They're already in service... and putting black tar in pilots lungs.

https://www.wired.com/2013/02/...

Don't worry though. Even though the pilots refused to fly and were risking court marshals, the Air Force "grounded" the plans for a week to investigate and found "no issues" and resumed flights.

Black shit in your lungs is normal according to the fully respectable Air Force. Especially when the military-industrial-complex desires a larger budget.

Re: Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Noble713]

Educated, free and democratic nations are much, much less likely to engage in war with each other.

1. We have a very limited sample size to support this as a truism. During the Cold War, the world's democracies were too terrified of Communism to risk internecine strife. The First World has had barely 30 years outside the spectre of Warsaw Pact invasion, and much of it has enjoyed an integrated and bountiful economic dividend while plugged into the US's Petrodollar-backed financial system (which essentially taxes the global economy). We will see if the coming decades of stagnating economies, population migrations, and shifts in global financial systems lead to nation state conflicts in Europe rather than just internal upheavals.

2. Notice your caveat of "with each other", because the most powerful democracy of our age has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to engage in totally elective, expeditionary military campaigns racking up a butcher's bill in the hundreds of thousands of "collateral damage" civilian casualties over the past ~70 years.

3. The US has actually already tried this sort of "sell them prosperity to avoid conflict" theory, inadvertently. By outsourcing to China, we've essentially subsidized the education and infrastructure buildup of what will be our greatest adversary of the 21st century. So either we subsidize democracies and they become parasitic wastrels (Southern/Eastern Europe) or we subsidize non-democracies and essentially build up those who are likely to turn on us for religious/social/political reasons, or out of sheer ambition. Great plan.

Re: Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Gussington]

1. We have a very limited sample size to support this as a truism.

We have the cause and effect of every conflict that ever happened and we know the patterns. Temporary leaders and peaceful transition of power has the most successful record so far.

2. Notice your caveat of "with each other", because the most powerful democracy of our age has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to engage in totally elective, expeditionary military campaigns racking up a butcher's bill in the hundreds of thousands of "collateral damage" civilian casualties over the past ~70 years.

Because of the above. When your leader is a crackpot dictator and negotiations fail you are left with little options. This is why so much effort is spent in trying to spread freedom and democracy. It's a net gain for all.

3. The US has actually already tried this sort of "sell them prosperity to avoid conflict" theory,

We all do. Most developed nations fund foreign aid programs specifically for this purpose.

So either we subsidize democracies and they become parasitic wastrels (Southern/Eastern Europe)

Or they become self sufficient peaceful neighbours like Japan.

or we subsidize non-democracies and essentially build up those who are likely to turn on us for religious/social/political reasons, or out of sheer ambition. Great plan.

Or you could let them go and have them kill you sooner. There's no perfect scenario, but funding development has proven time and time again to be the least worse option. It certainly beats a war which merely perpetuates the cycle of conflict.

Re: Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Noble713]

We have the cause and effect of every conflict that ever happened and we know the patterns. Temporary leaders and peaceful transition of power has the most successful record so far.

Temporary leaders and peaceful transitions of power != democracy. Reference exhibit A: China. Semi-benevolent single-party authoritarian oligarchies may very well prove to be a viable alternative. We shall see how China goes at the end of Xi Jingping's second term, as well as Russia's stability whenever Putin retires/dies.

This is why so much effort is spent in trying to spread freedom and democracy. It's a net gain for all.

Be sure to walk into a hospital in Mosul or Aleppo and explain how the US spreading democracy was a "net gain" for them.

Or they become self sufficient peaceful neighbours like Japan.

Germany and Japan had no choice but to comply as they:
1. lost wars they arguably started
2. had their entire countries burnt to the ground
3. were occupied by the US military
4. the alternative was occupation/invasion by the Soviets who were guaranteed to treat them even worse

So like I said before, the Cold War distorts all conclusions that can be drawn regarding democracy on its own merits.

There's no perfect scenario, but funding development has proven time and time again to be the least worse option.

If there's no perfect scenario.....then we might as well maintain a credible and competent military for defense, just in case. Note: I'm not saying the bloat and largess that we have now is necessary, but a robust and well-trained military supported by a technically-proficient domestic defense industry should be mandatory for any nation-state with a decent level of development.

And if you recognize that there are no perfect scenarios, I'm not sure why your comments contain so many shallow and simple platitudes to significantly more nuanced problems.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Luckyo]

Indeed it is. And "derps" like you who swallow the LM's billion dollar PR effort to paint all the aircraft that outperform F-35 that it's "supposed" to replace as reality, in direct opposition to:

1. Reports from troops on the ground.
2. Reports from operation commanders.
3. Reports from GAO.

I hope you're paid well for your efforts, and you're not just a "derp", who's doing the job for free.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Luckyo]

And that's why every time it's deployed, attack craft have to go in first to actually clear the area of anything that looks like it can elevate its gun to around 80 degrees up, and pretty much anything that looks like a missile.

Which hilariously is in some cases A-10s.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Luckyo]

They do, but first various attack craft including A-10 go in to take out anything that looks like it has a calibre and elevation to actually be able to shoot at that low flying civilian transport with guns.

Re:Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Aighearach]

You can't even read any reports if you think it is was reported that the F-35 underperforms some other aircraft.

Do me a favor and give me a laugh and tell me which aircraft you think outperforms the F-35? This is going to be hilarious!

Re: Is the F-22 production line still up?

[Gussington]

I'm not saying the bloat and largess that we have now is necessary, but a robust and well-trained military supported by a technically-proficient domestic defense industry should be mandatory for any nation-state with a decent level of development.

So we're saying the same thing. We all have such a military except the US which spends 36% of the entire global military budget.

And if you recognize that there are no perfect scenarios, I'm not sure why your comments contain so many shallow and simple platitudes to significantly more nuanced problems.

I'm merely highlighting that not all defence issues are solved with bigger guns. eg If the US reduce spend from say $600B to $400B, then spent $200B on peaceful defence measures (the schools and hospital type things), would this be a net gain or loss in overall conflict? It would still be spending twice as much as the next biggest military, so we're not talking a no military option.

If you want the long version I'm happy to copy and paste an entire book from someone smarter than me that has already worked this out.

Maintenance? We don't need no steeking maintenance

[HangingChad]

Slashdot reader schwit1 writes, "This is akin to buying an exotic car you can barely afford, without also budgeting for insurance, repairs, and tuneups."

Actually it's like buying a new exotic car every three months so you don't have to do schedule maintenance on any of the others.

Thanks for the analogy..

[Junta]

I couldn't possibly relate to paying for uber expensive fighter jets that I couldn't budget repairs for..

Thanks for the far more relatable scenario of buying exotic cars I can't budget repairs for...

Re:Thanks for the analogy..

[DNS-and-BIND]

Just shows you how wealthy a lot of people are who aren't even aware of the fact, and their breathtakingly narrow comprehension of the universes inhabited by the rest of us.

Re:Thanks for the analogy..

[Ichijo]

Not budgeting for maintenance is how this country can "afford" nice things. It's a Ponzi scheme..

Then instead of repairing old bridges, we build new ones right next to the old ones and let the old ones crumble. Or we raid other budgets, or we raise massive infrastructure bonds, or we simply build new neighborhoods for the rich and let the poor live with potholes, broken sidewalks, and the occasional water main break. Because keeping the poor segregated from the wealthy is the American Way! (Try to build apartments in a middle- or upper-class neighborhood and you'll quickly see what I mean.)

Re:Thanks for the analogy..

[fahrbot-bot]

I couldn't possibly relate to paying for uber expensive fighter jets that I couldn't budget repairs for..

Thanks for the far more relatable scenario of buying exotic cars I can't budget repairs for...

I recently bought the Library of Congress. It was extremely expensive and now I find I don't have any extra money to repair and/or update it.

Happy now?

Re:Thanks for the analogy..

[Aighearach]

What if they did budget for maintenance, they just didn't explain their maintenance schedule to the public? What then?! lol durrrrrrr

Re:Thanks for the analogy..

[dwillden]

Or even what if some members of the media are making things up or refusing to report all the facts. Maintenance is going on at the designated Depot Hill Air Force base, which is also where the first full wing is almost deployed to. If maintenance is so bad how are they sending a squadron overseas for four months as was just announced by the wing in the local media? I haven't seen a 16 fly over in a few weeks, it's all 35's now, the local wing (388th TFW) doesn't seem to have problems keeping them in the air.

A lot of media seems hell bent on trashing these aircraft, and I was buying it. Until I started talking with the aircrews that maintain them and the pilots that fly them. The Air Force boots on the tarmac and pilots love these aircraft. Not that many in the media will admit that.

Re:Thanks for the analogy..

[Aighearach]

Exactly, only one side of the story has clickbait potential.

What saddens me about it is how awful the average slashdot oldtimer's data filter is, even after decades of information glut. They still just believe whatever stupid bullshit sounds like it would be vaguely truthy, or whichever asshole is willing to phrase things in a nasty way, with no consideration at all given to information theory, to the analysis of who actually even has the information that you want. If you can at least trim the horseshit down to the versions from people who would know, it helps a lot, but even that is too much to ask around here.

If they weren't ready for prime time, I don't think they'd be flying them in Korea right now, especially not in a bomber support role! When they fly some B-1s with a bunch of F-35s and a single F-22, obviously they trust it in combat even with current software. War could break out during those flights, it isn't just training. One F-22 isn't what you want protecting multiple B-1s.

It seems like a good idea.

[ls671]

It seems like a good idea not to upgrade/fix planes if they are going to be replaced, as long as the planes that need repairs can be fixed on short notice if needed and that a minimum number of planes are always kept available.

Anyone remember?

[Sniper98G]

Anyone remember when they were selling the F-35 as a better alternative to the F-22? Saying that it wouldn't be so costly and bogged down in final development with persistent issues.

Re:Anyone remember?

[cheesybagel]

It's supposed to cost half as much in the end. It only has one engine and it's much simpler at that. It has a lot less parts than an F-22.

Problem is the airplane design isn't actually finished get. The whole idea about concurrency (i.e. starting production before the airplane design was finished) was the problem. The DoD got like a hundred planes at least which can't be upgraded to a combat ready version without tremendous upgrade costs.

Re:Anyone remember?

[Aighearach]

No, I do remember them saying that the F-22 was going to be the super-awesome one that was really expensive and they'd only make a few, and that the F-35 would be the one that had all the fancy stealth combined with maximum mission flexibility for general use and would be manufactured in large numbers.

The role of the F-22 is actually to be an escort for F-35s, with the F-35s providing the mission flexibility and the F-22 suppressing SAMs.

Re:Anyone remember?

[Aighearach]

You can talk about it not being finished yet, but other people are talking about how it is in active deployment by multiple countries and flying important missions in Korea.

It makes no sense to talk about the costs of a production strategy without comparing the costs of the alternative, which you don't have. It may be that they saved more (because of scale) by starting the production line at a higher rate than they would have saved by starting slower. This plane has different modularity requirements than most planes, it may even be that the refit is actually part of the planned R&D cycle and isn't even a mistake or cost problem. I don't know that, and neither do you.

Re:Anyone remember?

[dwillden]

The design is finished, all four variants. And it is in active deployment. They've been flying overhead for over a year now, as the local TFW converted. Now I rarely see a 16 and most of those are probably coming in from other bases for scheduled landing gear maintenance.

The wing just announced their first overseas deployment to Japan for six months. Pretty brave taking an incomplete design across the ocean to Japan. Those birds are combat ready and fully mission capable.

Care to update your opinion by a few years?

Re:Anyone remember?

[guacamole]

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik....

Re:Anyone remember?

[cheesybagel]

Active deployment... Which important missions in Korea are those? That's BS. AFAIK the only F-35s in the region are in USAF bases in Japan. The F-35 has been used in ZERO combat missions so far. The ones that are available right now are being used for pilot training. Know why? While the latest Block 3i airplanes are "combat capable", i.e. they have weapons support, the fact is they have severe restrictions in the flight control authority software. Block 3i airplanes cannot do high-g maneuvers due to the software restrictions (they can't reach the 9g design limit). Nor can they fly at the top Mach speed in the design limit. Presently the F-35 is a POS for air combat. This will supposedly be resolved once the Block 3F software update is available. Whenever that happens.

The refit costs and what's involved in the refits, it's all described in publicly available documents. You just have to read about it.

Re:Anyone remember?

[cheesybagel]

I think you mean THREE variants. The A (Air Force), B (Marines), C (Navy). However, the Naval version, F-35C, hasn't even reached IOC yet. So you are doubly wrong. The USMC, much like they did for the V-22 Osprey, declared IOC quickly for an aircraft which wasn't combat ready yet. Just to claim the program was a success so it wouldn't get shitcanned. As for the rest, I'll just copy and paste my response from the other thread:

"Active deployment... Which important missions in Korea are those? That's BS. AFAIK the only F-35s in the region are in USAF bases in Japan. The F-35 has been used in ZERO combat missions so far. The ones that are available right now are being used for pilot training. Know why? While the latest Block 3i airplanes are "combat capable", i.e. they have weapons support, the fact is they have severe restrictions in the flight control authority software. Block 3i airplanes cannot do high-g maneuvers due to the software restrictions (they can't reach the 9g design limit). Nor can they fly at the top Mach speed in the design limit. Presently the F-35 is a POS for air combat. This will supposedly be resolved once the Block 3F software update is available. Whenever that happens.

The refit costs and what's involved in the refits, it's all described in publicly available documents. You just have to read about it."

Re:Anyone remember?

[Aighearach]

They're not engaged in combat in North Korea right now, but they're operating in a war zone with a dubious armistice in place and the very real threat of combat breaking out on daily basis.

If you don't know even about the F-35 missions that were prominently in the news, including what bases they departed from, then why keep talking?

Re:Anyone remember?

[cheesybagel]

Ah fuck off. I know there are F-35s stationed in Japan. I said that much. It's you who seem to be having a tone deaf problem. A coreographed display, like that one, is quite different from a real mission. The last reports I have claim VFMA-121 are using Block 2B, at best they could be using Block 3i. That means at best they have a G limit of 5.5. Nor can they even hit Mach 1.6. Less if they are loaded with fuel. This is documented. Do you even know what that means? The North Koreans may have a crap air force in the region, but if things really go to the shitter, like when the Korean War happened, when the Chinese and Soviet Union entered the war, you would have Chinese and Russian Over-The-Horizon radar stations to contend with and their air resources. The Russians could easily mobilize their air power resources in the Vladivostok area, and the Chinese in the Beijing area, over there. The Chinese will have more J-20's, alone, operational at the end of this year than that single F-35B squadron. If it wasn't for the F-22 and older fighter assets, the situation there would be quite grim.

F-35 program is just a smoke screen

[Exsam]

Most of the money is being funneled into the Stargate program to build more F-304s.

Re:F-35 program is just a smoke screen

[ls671]

I think they are BC-304. Anyway, here is what a F-304 seems to look like:
http://www.aesteiron.com/stain...

Re:F-35 program is just a smoke screen

[Gravis Zero]

Most of the money is being funneled into the Stargate program to build more F-304s.

Oh how I wish that was true because at least humanity would be getting something useful.

Re:F-35 program is just a smoke screen

[samwichse]

Yeah, I think he meant F-302s.

Slight correction....

[meglon]

Slashdot reader schwit1 writes, "This is akin to buying an exotic car that doesn't work, that you can barely afford, without also budgeting for insurance, repairs, and tuneups."

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Maintenance? We don't need no steeking maintena

[cellocgw]

Actually it's more like buying expensive exotic cars to keep your local dealer from going bankrupt... and paying for them with everyone else's money ... so you can be re-elected dogcatcher.

Full of Vintage Tech: Firewire 400, PowerPC G4s

[0100010001010011]

Er, "IEEE 1394 and Power ISA v.2.03".

Working in automotive I understand how "vintage" tech makes it into "current" production: Timelines, budgets, work with what is known to work. That said, it is entertaining to read press releases from last decade surrounding what is going into the F35.

The 'high speed data bus' is IEEE 1394b. It's running on Freescale/NXP/Qualcomm PowerPC embedded processors designed off of the PowerPC G4 (in triplicate) built by the GreenHills compiler. I haven't found any info on it but I'd hate to see what version of Matlab/Simulink they're stuck with as well. Likely 6.5 or R13.

The problem with that was it was pitched as a "COTS" system to save cost. None of those products are "commercial off the shelf" solutions anymore. The hayday of the G4 in mass quantities is gone. I wonder how much money Freescale is guaranteed to keep fab lines up and running for a chip designed in the 90s. I also want to know how the NXP acquisition went through.

End of the day the feds would have probably been better off just making their own CPU and fab lines.

Re:Full of Vintage Tech: Firewire 400, PowerPC G4s

[0100010001010011]

few crates of G4s in a couple warehouses.

These aren't *actual* G4s. They're not going to be scavenging old Macs to keep fighters flying. They're just the same architecture at the silicon level.

In the same way Intel really hasn't changed much of anything in their last N releases other than the socket.

Re:Full of Vintage Tech: Firewire 400, PowerPC G4s

[hey!]

The requirements for something like this is different from connecting your laptop to peripherals.

Firewire is a peer to peer bus that supports data transfer via DMA, minimizing interrupts. Since response time consistency isn't a big deal for your laptop, and it has CPU bandwidth sitting unused most of the time, something like USB 3 is just as good if not better.

Re:Full of Vintage Tech: Firewire 400, PowerPC G4s

[hey!]

Token ring is time division multiplexed and Ethernet is stastically multiplexed. Neither is fundamentally better than the other, it depends on your requirements.

It's not just marketing in that case; Ethernet really does perform better when overall network segment use is less than 30%. But it's moot now because everyone uses hubs.

Re:Full of Vintage Tech: Firewire 400, PowerPC G4s

[nicnet]

Hubs?
Switches.

Re:Full of Vintage Tech: Firewire 400, PowerPC G4s

[cheesybagel]

Freescale, much like Intel, keeps a lot of inventory and old product production up for these purposes. I don't expect that to be a problem. OTOH, I seem to remember the F-22 actually used DEC Alpha CPUs. Good luck getting those now.

Oh please

[sunking2]

The total plane contract is signed. They are going to be built. Bringing the cost of each plane down is dependent on production increasing. You want to slow that down and increase line costs so you can spend money on upgrades for planes that could be replaced by new planes coming off the production line? Look, I'm not saying the program isn't a mess at every level of the contractor. As a subcontractor for not only this but just about every major defense/NASA contractor I see it every day and its infuriating. But this is just a FUD hit piece.

Re:Oh please

[Ol Olsoc]

The total plane contract is signed. They are going to be built. Bringing the cost of each plane down is dependent on production increasing.

Shouldn't they also work on making the planes effective? This was a dubious one size fits all plane that turns out to be the fighter version of the Honda Ridgeline. Sucks as a truck, as a SUV.

If you want the best of anything, it has to be purpose built. The F-35 is often compared to the A-10. The A-10 is the very definition of purpose built, and old Brrrrrrrt! has become a legend in the process. The F-35 is a plane designed by a committee, and it shows it. I

Many good planes have had birthing issues. The F35 is going to come out with some hard to fix issues, and will almost be certainly turned into a plane shuttled into a safe niche other than it's one size fits all concept.

Re:Oh please

[gtall]

It isn't exactly one size fits all. The Navy has their carrier version, the Marines has theirs (it goes up and down as well as forward), and the Air Force has their version (probably more than one). If the Army was allowed planes of this calibre, they'd have their own version for their "special" circumstances.

The amt of time necessary to design, build prototypes, and test is so long now that it is guaranteed to be using out of date technology, which again increases costs because the older tech is no longer in production.

I would have told the Marines they are getting the A-10, great for what they need, and no you won't storming any beaches in the future. The Navy has demonstrated pilotless aircraft of fighter abilities. They'd get those instead of keeping a meat sack expensively supplied with oxygen and braincase helmets. The Air Force would have been kept on the F-22 until they get their own pilotless aircraft designed. And they can damn well shrink their ego-inflated pilot corps.

Re:Oh please

[hey!]

It depends on whether you goal is to have a certain number plains, or whether you want to be able to use them.

If having the plane in inventory is the only thing you care about, then you're right: the quickest and cheapest route is to concentrate on production rather than maintenance. If your goal is to have planes ready to use, your production rate cannot outstrip your repair capabilities, because something as complex as a modern fighter aircraft is constantly breaking down.

Re:Oh please

[thegarbz]

You want to slow that down and increase line costs so you can spend money on upgrades for planes that could be replaced by new planes coming off the production line?

Yes. The solution to buying 100 lemons that you only realised were lemons after the first 20 were delivered is not to try and get all 100 lemons as quickly as possible, but to stop and attempt to find out what needs to be done so you get at least the 80 oranges you originally wanted.

Contract management and production 101, if something is not as expected stop and think.

Re:Oh please

[im_thatoneguy]

Well, I"m not sure that they aren't doing both. For instance I'm uncertain of what a quote like this means: "The time to repair a part has averaged 172 days -- "twice the program's objective" -- the Government Accountability Office, Congress's watchdog agency, found."

Twice the program's objective... for now or for long term operations? It's a bit like Trump taking credit for cutting the unit cost of F-35s when all the contractor did was update their numbers to the latest ones which take into account the higher volume (lower unit cost) .

The F35 is still way over budget, but it's also still very early in production. The early units will of course cost more. And they might be over budget and repair rates might be under the targets, but if we're using costs and maintenance goals for a mature product not the initial production runs then we're getting a distorted picture of where they are.

It would be like complaining that a software product is requiring 10x more developer time during the beta than was budgeted for... during its maintenance phase. Of course the release candidate testing phase you will be way over the long term maintenance budget's estimates. I want to know where costs should be right now in the lifecycle.

Re:Oh please

[hey!]

Basically if you need a part of a plane that plane is grounded for half a year. If that's only *twice* the "program's objective" I have to believe they mean "the program's objective for this point in time."

Re:Oh please

[blindseer]

And they can damn well shrink their ego-inflated pilot corps.

First, whether the person is in a chair at 30,000 feet and going 0.9 mach, or in a chair on the ground going nowhere fast, if they are flying a plane then they are a pilot.

Second, I don't care how fancy of a communications infrastructure you have, the speed of light will dictate the response time of the pilot. If you want rapid response between neurons firing and weapons firing then you need the pilot inside the air frame. I want pilots in the air and I'm not going to blame the USAF for wanting them too.

Unmanned aircraft have their place but a very limited one. If something goes wrong with the "intelligence" on those aircraft then I want someone on board to be able to pull it's circuit breaker and fly it home. That's doubly and triply so with armed aircraft.

Re:Maintenance? We don't need no steeking maintena

[JaredOfEuropa]

Are downtime and maintenance as bad with the other countries who have bought the F35?

The public just has no idea how bad it is

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

The public wonders why we could get stuff done so effectively in the past. I can tell you why: the government didn't have the level of red tape it has today in the name of "accountability." Your "accountability" was "do the damn job effectively or go to the private sector." I have much older relatives who used to be in the federal civil service. They hate what they see it has become today. They hate the red tape that lets people shrug off responsibility for thinking and puts a committee of 10 people in charge of a $2M budget that is a rounding error in the agency's budget.

It is just rampant, out of control legalism at its worst. Laws and regulations choke everything and ensure no one just assumes authority and gets stuff done (because that would Fascist, since wanting the trains to run on time means you are a natural Fascist who doesn't respect dissent and demands submission to arbitrary authority).

Re:The public just has no idea how bad it is

[Lisandro]

Speaking of which, i always loved Kelly Johnson's 14 rules he enforced while running Skunk Works: https://www.lockheedmartin.com...

Re:The public just has no idea how bad it is

[Anonymous Coward]

It also helps to have a war on your doorstep to focus your thoughts into effectiveness rather than just raking in as much taxpayer money as you can get away with.

I read a rather nice analysis a few years ago (on el reg) on the British military plans to scrap the harrier (reasonably practical for the money) and keep the tornado (expensive hobby horse with little real-world value), and bet on the 35B (already obviously doubtful then) to provide them with planes to land on their one (the other got mothballed) carrier that they didn't get a ramp or something for so they left themselves with no fall-back should the 35B not work out.

The underlying cause was internal politics, and since having flown the tornado was the nicest to have on your CV, it won. Even though it's nigh useless for close air support, which is what the army needs most, in fact for the rest the air farce doesn't have a whole lot to do. Similar story with the navy, who already had to their name the boating around with missile frigates without missiles. Frigates that buggered off in the face of Somalian pirates because "too dangerous".

And of course nobody is to blame because "we've adhered to all applicable rules". But with nobody responsible, everyone gets to be as corrupt as they want. So maybe there are too many rules, but I sooner think the culture of slavishly following rules is what's to blame. Because that trick lets you get away with just about everything while being responsible for naught. And rotten culture in an organisation is a lack of suitable leadership.

I just hope that it doesn't take a war to shake the cobwebs out. Right now Mr. Putin would march over all of Europe before breakfast if he chooses to put his mind to it, leaving precious little time to do any cleanup at all.

Re:The public just has no idea how bad it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please, all this pining for the good "ole" days is just bullshit. They were full of cock-ups, shit-jobs, and pull overs just as much back then as they are now. They just buried the truth because it was more convenient, now that they're outside of it, they can pretend to take the higher ground.

Re:The public just has no idea how bad it is

[gtall]

Do not underestimate the complexity in modern fighter aircraft. These are not A-10s. And the red tape wasn't the driving force causing delays, it was complicated aircraft, the military always wanting the latest shiny gizmo, the length of time for production which only gave the military more time to consider the new gizmos the industry was offering in the meantime.

Re:The public just has no idea how bad it is

[petes_PoV]

The public wonders why we could get stuff done so effectively in the past.

The reason stuff (government stuff) costs what it does is because that is the amount of money available to spend on it.

The other factor is the extended time periods for development. The longer you spend designing something, the more scope-creep there is. The more opportunity for plans to get changed in the light of technological advancement or the obsolescence of what you were planning to use.

So with the F35 - the article says it will have a service life of 60 years. I kinda doubt that. I reckon that long before 2077 pretty much every aircraft - starting with military jets - will be pilotless. They will be smaller, cheaper, faster, more agile and will whip this thing's arse in any battle scenario. I doubt these will be used operationally for even half their planned service time.

Re:The public just has no idea how bad it is

[PoopJuggler]

Typical Trumpster. Wants regulations against drugs and abortions and brown people, doesn't want regulations when it affects their ability to make money.

Re:The public just has no idea how bad it is

[DogDude]

That's complete and total bullshit. We have fewer rules and regulations than ever, because we have companies that can simply purchase politicians. This problem is solved by corruption, pure and simple.

Re:The public just has no idea how bad it is

[jezwel]

The public wonders why we could get stuff done so effectively in the past. I can tell you why: the government didn't have the level of red tape it has today in the name of "accountability."

My experience is that red tape is created when someone does something so dodgy that bureaucratic oversight is needed to prevent it happening again. The more problems encountered, the more red tape.
Every once in a while a new government comes in and removes a swatch of it, only to have to reinstate some of it when those dodgy practices come to light again.

Re:The public just has no idea how bad it is

[cheesybagel]

Actually the Tornado is likely the best platform of all those you mentioned for close air support. Not only does it carry a lot of payload, it has a pretty low stall speed because of the variable geometry wings. The Tornado is a fighter-bomber made for low-level penetration of enemy airspace at high Mach speeds.

Re:The public just has no idea how bad it is

[cheesybagel]

Another example: the Tornado has a terrain following attack radar, and the Harrier doesn't. Also, the Harrier historically has had quite a high number of hull loss accidents and fatalities compared with other airplanes. It's basically a curiosity airplane with vertical takeoff and landing. I've never heard of one single instance where that feature was actually useful in combat and usually is deleterious to the payload.

How the mighty have fallen

[hyades1]

The same nation that built the SR-71, the A-10 and the F-15 serves up this lemon and tries to pretend it can still build great military aircraft?

The swamp that needs cleaning is the unholy triumvirate of US weapons manufacturers, government procurers and military brass, all sucking on the US taxpayer like a bunch of bloated leeches.

The rest of the country is going to hell while these parasites get fat providing garbage like this trailer queen. When I heard an F-35 completed a trans-Atlantic flight, I had to ask if they'd cut it up and sent it as luggage.

Re:How the mighty have fallen

[thegarbz]

But it does look great on a GDP point of view.

Re:How the mighty have fallen

[hyades1]

True. Sad, but true.

Re:How the mighty have fallen

[g01d4]

the unholy triumvirate of US weapons manufacturers, government procurers and military brass

This triumvirate has been around since Eisenhower. I think the issue is that (systems) management has not kept pace with complexity. A symptom is that there's a rush to build/sell hardware before adequate development and testing has been performed. We're also seeing this with GMD.

Re:How the mighty have fallen

[dywolf]

says someone completely unaware of the early teething problems of the SR71, F15, and A10.

Doesn't sound so bad

[Anonymous Coward]

A serviceability 78% rate is fairly high, AFAIK.

Re:Doesn't sound so bad

[ISoldat53]

I think you are correct. An audit of any military aircraft would find a similar rate. They are probably exceeding expectation considering the other problems it's having.

Re:Doesn't sound so bad

[dywolf]

especially for an airframe still training its first generation of maintainers, who are mostly crosstrains from other airframes. the best of whom will then be used to get the maintainer training school up and running.

the people writing these articles, as well are most of the people commenting here, have zero knowledge of what its like in a typical squadron, let alone one fielding a brand new airframe.

Oh America

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh America, a land where the government thinks a trillion dollars for a fighter jet it can't use much of the time is a good investment, but universal health care like the rest of the developed world has would be considered a waste of money.

Re:Oh America

[david_thornley]

The most honest solution would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly allow for health insurance

No need. Health insurance is part of the general welfare, and Congress is explicitly allowed to tax and spend for the general welfare.

Plan B

[petes_PoV]

Nearly half a trillion to build and buy. Over a trillion more to keep them flying.

At what point would it be cheaper to start being nice to all the other nations, so you don't need to spend more on defence than every other country combined?

Re:Plan B

[Opportunist]

For that money it should be trivial to buy the enemy away.

Re:Plan B

[phayes]

What a _novel_ idea, because buying your enemy off has worked _so_ well with North Korea...

Re:Plan B

[Opportunist]

It worked with East Germany. In the 80s, Franz Josef Strauss (a conservative Bavarian politician that makes the average Republican look like a Pinko Commie) negotiated a billion Marks loan to the communist GDR with the (eventually revealed to be correct) expectation that this would make the GDR fully dependent on western money "like an addict to heroin", in his words.

Then all that had to be done is say "nope" when they needed more.

Re:Plan B

[phayes]

You're (self?) delusional. The power that counted was not in East Berlin but in Moscow and any other USSR premier than Gorby would have made that bet a billion mark loss on his way to making 1989 1961 all over again by forcibly closing the iron curtain.

Chamberlain & Deladier were both as delusional in 1935 as you are now.

There is no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind that Putin would have sent in the tanks & THATS who we have to contend with today.

Re:Plan B

[Opportunist]

Putin might have, but Putin wasn't president in 1990.

Re:Plan B

[phayes]

Whoosh...

The remark on Putin was to reinforce that your example is clearly obsolete while Putin holds power. Surely even _you_ can admit that? Or are you _that_ delusional?

Re:Plan B

[Opportunist]

The example was to show that it is possible to make your enemy depend on your money and that creating a financial dependence leads to them being easy to topple. How does Putin come into play anyway, you are aware that the US is currently neither fighting Russia nor any country in the former East Bloc, yes?

Re:Plan B

[phayes]

Your claimed "economic dependency prevents war" has been shown to be insufficient in almost every important instance: WWI, WWII, etc.

Putin does not "depend" upon anyone's money. As for strife between Russia and the West, you appear ignorant of the sanctions imposed on Russia after their repeated annexations and continuing bald faced lies, patriotic little green men = overt russian support. War by proxy is still war.

None are so blind as those that refuse to see applies to your continued ignorance of Putin's actions and it's consequences.

Re:Plan B

[HornWumpus]

Clinton paid them off, in exchange they dropped their nuclear ambitions. Except they didn't.

Re:Maintenance? We don't need no steeking maintena

[Spamalope]

It sounds more like the Bradley fiasco.

India Times

[PPH]

I'm guessing that they are just stirring up FUD in the foreign markets in order to generate more interest in their domestic built Su-30.

Not that I think this is totally a bad idea. Someone needs to teach Lockheed that they didn't in fact lock up the foreign markets for fighters. They may have US markets tied up politically. But others can just wander over to the dealership across the street.

Re:Great Britain

[hey!]

The US Marines are screwed without the F35 too. They have 9 amphibious assault ships, each larger than a WW2 fleet carrier. Each of these ships are supposed to be able to debark highly mobile , self-contained "expeditionary units" of 2200 troops, each of which has a squadron of ground attack aircraft which have to operate from improvised air strips.

The thing is, the air component of that doesn't work against modern, mobile air defenses, like those possessed by Iraq unless you have a stealth aircraft that can take off and land vertically or nearly so. This will leave the Marine units tied to air support from carriers.

Working as designed

[Opportunist]

Let's be honest here. Nobody needs the F35 as a military plane. The F35 is a pork barrel project. We could just have pumped the relevant tax moneys into the states involved without anything in return and it would be just as fine. But harder to justify.

Look at the F35. Then look at the current military requirements, the theaters the US military is fighting in, the enemies it is fighting, the equipment of the US troops and that of their enemies, the theaters of war they're deployed to and the (stated and real) military goals they pursue. Then tell me with a straight face that this plane makes in ANY way sense.

Re:Working as designed

[Opportunist]

And you need a STOVL jet for what exactly?

May I remind you what the US is fighting right now?

Re:Working as designed

[phayes]

The Marines and the Royal Navy (among others like Spain) both need them.

If your argument is that both are irrelevant, I'd love to see a video of you walking into a bar with any number of same and expressing your opinion of such as your subsequent education would be edifying (and probably not even violent). But naah you'll just remain hiding behind your keyboard.

Re:Working as designed

[Gussington]

The Marines and the Royal Navy (among others like Spain) both need them.

What for? I don't know either way, but I find it odd you left this bit of useful info out...

Re:Working as designed

[Opportunist]

So... whoever can beat up whom is right?

Odd way of arguing.

Re:Working as designed

[dywolf]

Harriers and A10s are end of life.
upgrading the existing airframes to correct the fatigue issues while maintaining the older tech is just as expensive as developing and manufacturing new.

Re:Working as designed

[dywolf]

the backbone of US fast reaction is the USMC assault carriers a fully self containing air and ground force able to mobilize at a moments notice.
you obviously have no background in anything related to military or aircraft support, so sit down and be quiet.

Re:Working as designed

[Opportunist]

Come out of the 90s, will ya?

I bet you dollars for pennies, whenever an initial strike is to be called in the future, you'll see drones fly, not planes.

Re:Working as designed

[Opportunist]

The F35 as an A10 replacement? Care to elaborate how to pull that off?

Re:Working as designed

[phayes]

For once my sig is relevant. Go ask the Ukrainians and Georgians if they are content to have Putin forcibly annex those parts of their territory that he desires.

Ask the people in Taiwan if they will willingly live under Peking's rule.

Ask South Korea and Japan if they are happy with North Korea's saber rattling.

Ash Cubans if they are willing to fall under U.S rule for that matter (though you may get a different answer if you ask in the city with the largest Cuban population and the second largest - Miami & Havana respectively)

The only people that continue to push for universal peace by calling for _us_ to lay down all our means of defending ourselves from predators are the witting or unwitting tools of those predators.

Re:Working as designed

[Opportunist]

Where did I demand this? I only question whether the F35 is where money for military equipment should be spent. I didn't say disarm, I said buy stuff that you can actually use.

Re:Working as designed

[phayes]

You stated "Nobody needs the F35 as a military plane" which is quite clearly wrong as I have repeatedly pointed out. Were your master Putin's wishes in cancelling the F35 to bear fruit all 7 MEUs as well as the Royal fleet arms and Spanish naval forces would become toothless. But that and not any "savings" are what you really want, right Ivan?, (Vladimir? Pyotr?)

Go ahead and attempt to cover by moving the goalposts again. Seeing you squirm is amusing.

Re:Working as designed

[david_thornley]

Drones are great at some roles, bad at others. Having capable manned STOVL aircraft in addition to drones makes a lot of sense when you don't know what you're going to get into.

Re:Working as designed

[dywolf]

not saying i agree with it generally, or with the lack of a direct 1 for 1 replacement for what it can do, or its raw survivability.

but the A10s were slated for retirement, and only recently did the AF pulled back from retiring them and is looking at some options to extend their service life.
and their mission is slated to be taken over by the F35.

though obviously the F35 isnt going to be tank busting with a cannon. but on the other hand, the A10s came into service about 10 years before helos really came into their own as tank busters in their own right.

and A10 CAS was always somewhat redundant with the helos, its primary advantage being payload and loiter time. other hand, even as rough a field as the A10 can use, nothing beats the reaction time of a helo located at the FOB itself, whereas the A10 still has to fly in from elsewhere (we still havent seemed to max out using the A10s rough field ability, seeming saving it for a real SHTF scenario)

loiter time and bomb trucking is seemingly going to be taken over by drones. predators and reapers having done quite well.
general ground attack the F35.
and CAS can be done by helos. the new Cobra upgrades in the marines are truly spectacular. the army is looking for an apache replacement soon though.

Re:Working as designed

[Gussington]

Anyone sufficiently clueless/ignorant to not know why the Marines, Royal Navy etc, need STOVL needs more help than I can give.

I can only assume from this response that you have no reasonable argument. Thanks for making that clear.

Re:Working as designed

[phayes]

I've always wondered what makes some people think that they can expose their ignorance on the Internet without everyone else realizing that they are fools..

That the Marines, the Royal Navy, Spain and Italy all have warships that cannot host "conventional" planes like the F35A or even catapult versions like the F35C but _can_ host STOVL planes like the F35B is blindingly evident to anyone that can use even simple google searches like "F35 STOVL" or "F35 variants".

So junior, what exactly is it that prevented you from doing _any_ research on your own?
- Your lack of education? Oh, you're clearly ignorant on the subject or you wouldn't have written "What for? I don't know either way".
- Your overweening sense of entitlement that makes you think that _everyone_ who reads /. is at your service? Yes, clearly, you think that _your_ ignorance is something _everyone_else_ should be working to correct.
- Your lazyness. Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! He's too _lazy_ to spend 30 seconds googling and a minute or two reading.

Learn to correct your ignorance by yourself and stop wasting everyone else's time. It would have taken you 5 min to learn for yourself why Opportunist's "Nobody needs the F35 as a military plane" was both false and hyperbole. One can argue that the F35B is too expensive but not that it isn't needed.

Yeah, I'm a cranky old fart, but _you_ asked _me_.

Re:Working as designed

[Gussington]

Yeah, I'm a cranky old fart, but _you_ asked _me_.

Yeah that's how the internet works. People come and discuss things and ask each other questions. If you going to get angry every time someone asks a question then maybe the Internet isn't for you.

If you go back and read the thread, you still haven't really answered the original question. I know why the Marines think they need STOVL Jet, I'm interested in why you think that is. Then we can discuss pros and cons in an adult way and hopefully learn things from each other.
Or you can rage at every question and see where that takes you.

Re:Working as designed

[phayes]

It is indicative of your level of lazy self-entitled cluelessness that you write "you still haven't really answered the original question" replying to a post in which I wrote:

That the Marines, the Royal Navy, Spain and Italy all have warships that cannot host "conventional" planes like the F35A or even catapult versions like the F35C but _can_ host STOVL planes like the F35B is blindingly evident to anyone that can use even simple google searches like "F35 STOVL" or "F35 variants".

I don't rage at every question. I flame idiots so visibly ignorant that they cannot understand the _answer_ to questions that they ask.

And no, I will not do your homework for you.

Re:Working as designed

[Gussington]

which I wrote:

That the Marines, the Royal Navy, Spain and Italy all have warships that cannot host "conventional" planes

Right, so use a helicopter, just like they do now...

I flame idiots

Which only informs the entire Slashdot audience that you have the maturity of a 12 year old. Thanks for saving me the effort of having to prove that...

Re:Working as designed

[phayes]

Right, because with your level of ignorance there is no difference in mission between helicopters and F35s. They go up, they go down, same thing for you.

My flaming of the ignorant tells /. readers one thing about me: I do not suffer fools gladly. Now run off to your mommy so that she can tell you that your comments, no matter how inane, are just as valid as those of someone who knows what they are talking about. Because your mommy tells you that the important thing is that you feel good about yourself, she says nobody cares if you're an ignorant twit.

Re:Working as designed

[Gussington]

My flaming of the ignorant tells /. readers one thing about me:

Yes, that you have the maturity of a twelve year old. And like a twelve year old, you don't know when to stop digging...

Re:Working as designed

[phayes]

Oh look, the lazy self entitled ignoramus is back.

Still think everyone on the Internet is at your service? Yup .
Still to lazy to do any research by your own? Looks like it, as your ignorance hasn't changed.

Now run back and pester your mommy for an education, you ignorant git.

Re:Working as designed

[Gussington]

Oh look, the lazy self entitled ignoramus is back.

Still think everyone on the Internet is at your service? Yup . Still to lazy to do any research by your own? Looks like it, as your ignorance hasn't changed.

Now run back and pester your mommy for an education, you ignorant git.

This is gold. All I have to do is type and you react. Don't worry, you'll develop some self control when you turn 13...

Re:Working as designed

[phayes]

And this is just another of the lies your mommy told you to make you feel better: When you open your mouth and prove that you are a fool nobody cares what you say

Re:Working as designed

[Gussington]

Hook, catch, rinse, repeat. See you tomorrow sucker...

Re:Working as designed

[phayes]

Still don't understand the difference in mission or capabilities between helicopters and STOVL stealth jets junior?

Re:Working as designed

[Gussington]

Still don't understand the difference in mission or capabilities between helicopters and STOVL stealth jets junior?

Oh right, so after all that now you want to come back and play with the big kids?
If you want to back the original topic at hand, then answer the original question. Why do you think a STOVL Jet is useful today? Because they need them doesn't qualify an answer.

Re:Working as designed

[phayes]

Is counting beyond 10 hard for you unless you take off your shoes? Junior, _you_ have been the clueless one throughout the thread. I merely reposted the question that you never answered after you displayed an astounding level of ignorance by stating "Right, so use a helicopter".

So again, you still don't understand the difference in mission or capabilities between helicopters and STOVL stealth jets do you junior?

Re:Working as designed

[Gussington]

you still don't understand the difference in mission or capabilities between helicopters and STOVL stealth jets do you junior?

I see you avoided answering the question yet again. Let's me go waaaayyy back to the OP: "And you need a STOVL jet for what exactly?"
Let me spell that out: What scenario is playing out right now that requires an F35?
And I'll reiterate since you've had 10 attempts at this and still failed to figure it out: "Look at the F35. Then look at the current military requirements, the theaters the US military is fighting in, the enemies it is fighting, the equipment of the US troops and that of their enemies, the theaters of war they're deployed to and the (stated and real) military goals they pursue. Then tell me with a straight face that this plane makes in ANY way sense."

Preferably you can come up with an answer less infantile than "Because they need them" but I won't hold my breath....

Re:Working as designed

[phayes]

Ah, Mr clueless believes that because the USMC, the Royal Navy, The Spanish Navy, the Italian Navy etc, are not involved in active warfare _RIGHT_NOW_, that STOVL stealth jets are worthless. Because Mr clueless has never heard Si vis pacem, para bellum and is incapable of understanding it even if he had an education.

Because Mr clueless thinks that 11 carriers are sufficient for all needs and that having stealth jets on the 9 MEUs brings no advantages whatsoever -- because Mr clueless has already stated with all the authority he has (aka none) that "they'll just use helicopters like they do now". Because Mr clueless doesn't believe in self protection of the existing USMC, Royal Navy, etc platforms (thats's ships to you mr clueless, you know those things that float on the water) even though they are in desperate need of having a threat that cannot be trivially shot down with anyone using 50 year old fighter or SAMs. Because Mr Clueless doesn't believe that force projection by STOVL carriers could be useful by themselves or in concert with CTOL carriers.

Mr clueless is sufficiently ignorant to believe that because the USN & USMC are sufficiently redouble _today_ to halt actions by potential adversaries that this will continue to be the case for the next 40 years -- even _without_ leaving the USMC any weapons more potent than helicopters.

Mr clueless believes that threats & conflicts _today_ define the threats of _tomorrow_ -- because he never studied/understood history.

Straight face: Korea, should the rocket man step over the line. The straights of Formosa and the South China Sea should China decide that nothing credible is stopping them from seizing Taiwan or the Philippines. The Persian Gulf for any number of reasons. The Timor Sea should Indonesia's moderates lose to the hard-line Muslims and they decide that NW Australia looks soft and inviting. The eastern Med should Erdogan decide that he needs to focus opinion on foreign threats once his "rescue" of Cypress and a few other islands falters.

Now stop playing that choking game to pleasure yourself and go get an education you twit.

Re:Working as designed

[Gussington]

Now stop playing that choking game to pleasure yourself and go get an education you twit.

Yet here you are. Nothing you wrote explains how an F-35 helps in any of those cases. It was just an extended version of 'because they said they need them'.
You've made your point. You don't actually know. You've responded eleven times yet can't figure out how to answer the original question....

Re:Working as designed

[phayes]

That you think that Stealth jets & Helicopters have the same capabilities and missions says it all: Anyone with even a 10 year old girl's understanding of naval aviation would see that I have abundantly & repeatedly answered why the USMC, Royal Navy, etc, need STOVL F35Bs. That you fail to recognize that lives depend on being able to perform effective defensive and offensive operations in todays and tomorrows potential theaters from non-supercarrier ships just underscores how totally clueless you are on the subject.

But then you don't care about the 11 USMC MEU's & RN battlegroups becoming sinking coffins for the tens of thousands of Marines and Sailors that would die should they be needed in any real conflict. You've decided after extensive wargaming with your barbie & ken dolls that the U.S. will only be fighting insurgencies in Iraq/Syria for the next 40 years with cover provided by USN Supercarriers. Go back to choking yourself and your chicken ms clueless.

Re:Buy Grippens...

[Opportunist]

Now how does this employ people in the US and enable certain governors to get reelected for "attracting jobs"?

Time to investigate

[50000BTU_barbecue]

reviving the YF-23 program. That plane was the better machine.

Meanwhile Sukhoi Su-30

[Max_W]

Yesterday the Ministry of Defense published a short video https://youtu.be/hcP-6lHn3fQ where the SU-30 capabilities are demonstrated. I did not even know that a fixed-wing aircraft can perform such a maneuvers.

Beware of single number statistics.

[hey!]

How a number is constructed is more important than how good they sound.

So 78% of F35s were able to *fly*. Doesn't mean they're ready to actually *do* anything other than fly, like use their weapons systems, or appear as small on enemy radars as they're supposed to. So that 78% may include aircraft that *could* fly, but which would be pointless to fly.

We should take any statitics on a too-big-to-fail project with a large grain of salt, because they can easily be affected by tweaking your success criteria.

Consider: for FY16, the F35 had a 56% availability rate, which for a plane so early in its deployment is quite impressively good. But because of the program's unique concurrency strategy, in which deliveries of aircraft started years before the design was finalized, 187 of the aircraft will never be capable of combat operations -- not unless they're sent back to the factory and re-manufactured.

As of March of this year, 231 F35s have been delivered, so if "available" meant "capable of flying a combat mission", the highest the FY '16 availability figure could possibly have been is 19% 81% of the fleet were semi-functioning prototypes.

So clearly "available" means "capable of flying the mission you planned for them"; and you can adjust the rate of availability by planning your missions accordingly. Gun not working? Plan a mission with no shooting and the plane is still available.

Without repair capabilities, availability for actual combat is probably zero; but it's probably zero anyway until the software improves.

Re:Beware of single number statistics.

[blindseer]

But because of the program's unique concurrency strategy, in which deliveries of aircraft started years before the design was finalized, 187 of the aircraft will never be capable of combat operations -- not unless they're sent back to the factory and re-manufactured.

The Air Force needs pilots. They have a shortage of jet aircraft for training new pilots.The Air Force knows that even a airplane that is incapable of going to combat is useful for training. They've had enough delays in getting aircraft for training pilots and they cannot afford more.
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/1...

I doubt the Air Force cares all that much if these air frames cannot fight, they'll still need them to train pilots while the development continues. When new ones, that are able to fight, come out of the factory the Air Force knows that they'll have pilots that can fly them in combat. I'm certain these new F-35 pilots will need some "refresher" training with the new fully capable aircraft but that's going to be much better training they'd have than if they flew aging T-38 aircraft, or even the F-15, beforehand.

I tried looking up how many training fighters the USAF keeps on hand and I only got estimates. Best I can tell a fighter training wing has over 50 fighters to train with. Best I can tell the USAF has three fighter training wings, with only one that currently has F-35 aircraft. The other two train on the F-16 and F-15. So, if we assume that the USAF is going to transfer all three current training wings from F-16 and F-15 to F-35 in the coming years, and each needs 60 aircraft, then that's 180 training F-35 aircraft that they need. So, we see 187 non-combat ready air frames? I think I just found a place where the USAF can use those 187 F-35 air frames.

One article said something about a potential of many more F-35 air frames being not up to combat specifications, as many as 900. Well, that could be a problem. If the number of non-combat F-35 air frames is as much as 300 then that likely fills any needs the USAF needs for training and testing. Should it get much higher then the USAF will have to do something more than just hold them back for non-combat roles. But, I've noticed something about USAF air frames in the past. We'll see "blocks" of aircraft with slightly differing hardware and software that separate them from earlier aircraft. We'll also see aircraft get a new letter designation from being upgraded, such as F-14A variants getting upgrades to F-14B specifications. I can understand why the UASF might delay upgrading these air frames, they can fly them as trainers now and when new upgrades are developed they can bring them in to get what is new in 15 or 20 years, like the F-14, instead of what comes out today. Even if the numbers of non-combat F-35 air frames number in the hundreds, when the total number planned for production is in the thousands, there is still a lot of room to shuffle these non-combat air frames around as trainers, spares, testing, and so forth, for years before sending them back for upgrades to combat readiness. At that point they'd be upgraded to what's current then, not what's current now.

Seeing as any aircraft, military or not, will typically go back to the manufacturer periodically anyway for maintenance they can get the maintenance and any upgrades they deem necessary at the same time.

Oh, another thing I saw as a common practice in the USAF, is taking "totaled" air frames and using what parts they can as spares. In the unfortunate, but likely, event of a future F-35 crashes then the parts can be used to upgrade a current "trainer" F-35 to combat specifications.

Without repair capabilities, availability for actual combat is probably zero; but it's probably zero anyway until the software improves.

If they plan to have 3000+ flying by 2035 as I read elsewhere then that means they plan on making somethin

Problem Solved

[mschwanke97402]

Slashdot reader schwit1 writes, "This is akin to buying an exotic car you can barely afford, without also budgeting for insurance, repairs, and tuneups.

I just get the Apple Care+ with the iPhone I can just barely afford. Problem Solved.

Re: Maintenance? We don't need no steeking mainten

[LifesABeach]

Maybe it is time to start using 3D printing? I know it is not easy, we have bombs made to order, why not parts made to order?

60 years lifetime?

[swilver]

Am I the only one that thinks in 10 years time any fighter aircraft stupid enough to fly over a war zone will be shot done by fully automated drones?

Re:60 years lifetime?

[Anonymous Coward]

We had that scenario half a century ago. Any infantry stupid enough to march into a warzone would be killed by a fully automated land mine.

So we banned land mines.

Re:60 years lifetime?

[HornWumpus]

To be in combat in 10 years, it would be a working prototype today.

You likely not the only one that's wrong though.

Re: Maintenance? We don't need no steeking mainten

[TechNit]

Drones are a daily tool for our armed forces and will be taking on more complex roles. Hordes of low-cost drones sent into a combat zone using onboard AI and cross communication to identify, track and destroy targets both on the ground and in the air. This is not an if, it's a when and when is right around the corner. There will always be a role for manned combat aircraft but their drone counterparts will be taking on a larger and larger percentage of the mission.

The F-35 looks awesome on paper and when all the moons are in alignment it is amazing. But it is seriously suffering from ill-conceived complexity bloat.

Cherry picking FTW~

[DerekLyons]

The same nation that built the SR-71, the A-10 and the F-15 serves up this lemon and tries to pretend it can still build great military aircraft?

It's easy to "prove" something when you cherry pick on the winners as examples.

Re:Cherry picking FTW~

[hyades1]

You're missing the point.

Re:Cherry picking FTW~

[DerekLyons]

You can't possibly have a valid point if you have to cherry pick successes to "prove" it.

Re:Cherry picking FTW~

[hyades1]

Yes, actually I can. Not that I'm "cherry-picking", as you wrongly claim.

The F-35 was claimed to be the next untouchable American warplane...the air superiority fighter that would give the US unquestioned control of the skies over any battlefield. It's not "cherry-picking", regardless of simple-minded allegations, to demand that it live up to its billing. The US has built many aircraft that enjoyed great success in their appointed role. The ones I mentioned are examples of this. The F-35 is not.

Re:Cherry picking FTW~

[david_thornley]

The US has built aircraft that were very successful in their appointed roles. The US has also built aircraft that suck in their appointed roles, some of which were successfully switched to other roles. Cherry-picking successes and claiming that every US aircraft should therefore be a big success is pointless.

Obligatory Eisenhower warning

[cats-paw]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Remember it's the Military Industrial CONGRESSIONAL Complex.

Defense is a tremendous gravy train.
And it keeps America strong, fuck yeah.

in b4 Rei tells us how great this is for the publi

[Rujiel]

there couldn't be a blank check too big for the military industrial complex as far as that guy's concerned.

Re:F-35 program is actually a honeypot

[cheesybagel]

The Chinese already put the J-20 into service. Only problem they have is they have no decent engines for it yet. It's kinda like the F-14 when it came out. Nice plane, shame about the engines.

Re:Maintenance? We don't need no steeking maintena

[Mitreya]

Slashdot reader schwit1 writes, "This is akin to buying an exotic car you can barely afford, without also budgeting for insurance, repairs, and tuneups."

Actually it's like buying a new exotic car every three months so you don't have to do schedule maintenance on any of the others.

...at taxpayer expense, to keep your budget going and to continue requesting budget increases every year

Sorry, I ran out of analogies, but this if they were spending their own money (e.g., I hear Steve Jobs did something like that), that'd be ok.

Chop 'em in half

[thegreatbob]

and bolt them back together as half the number of higher-spec twin-engine planes. That would be kinda cool. This whole game has been one of the loveliest examples of 'sunk cost fallacy' as implemented by any entity, within the bounds of my own lifetime.

Re:Chop 'em in half

[thegreatbob]

Also, might see if Northrop could bang out a plan for a single-engine miniaturized form of the YF-23. I want to be able to trust our defense contractors to turn out projects on time and under budget, and Lockheed will likely forever be on the shitlist there.

Re:Maintenance? We don't need no steeking maintena

[Aighearach]

Slashdot reader schwit1 writes, "This is akin to buying an exotic car you can barely afford, without also budgeting for insurance, repairs, and tuneups."

Actually it's like buying a new exotic car every three months so you don't have to do schedule maintenance on any of the others.

(because you can afford it) ;)

Why are there people in the world that still don't know the US military really does have a big budget, they're not just talking themselves up?

Re:Unhappy failures, highest prices, longer repair

[Aighearach]

So buy Grippen, universally considered superior to F-35,

For values of "universal" that are equal to "people on the internet who don't have access to technical performance information of either aircraft," sure.

US military must deal with it

[steveha]

The US military has put all of its eggs into one basket. The military needs new planes and the only available new plane is the F-35. Therefore, there is only one reasonable course of action: deal with it. If the repair facilities are not up to snuff, then spend the money and do what needs to be done. There is no Plan B (or "Plane B" since we are talking about planes here).

I read both articles.

The first article makes the case that "concurrency" has been a disaster. "Concurrency" is the idea that the new plane was delivered in generations. The first F-35 planes delivered are much less capable than the final generation (the "Block 3F" plane, which is scheduled for release now, over a decade after the first F-35 flew). The first article's main outrage is that several hundred early-gen F-35 planes may never be upgraded to Block 3F; the military is seriously considering leaving them unfit for any other use than as trainers, and using the money thus freed up to just buy more newer-gen F35s.

I am not an expert on military stuff or on government procurement, so please take my opinions with a grain of salt. That said: I am not convinced that "concurrency" has been a disaster. The F-35 is truly a quantum leap in the state of the art of military aircraft; its "sensor fusion" features are dramatically more advanced than the F-22. We are just now getting the Block 3F features. Would we really have been better served by the plane remaining vaporware until 2017? Didn't the early flight hours with the F-35 give us useful information? Is there no value to having pilots training on the real aircraft? Hasn't it been useful to fly the F-35 in training exercises to see how well it actually does? I am not competent to put a price tag estimate on how much value there is in all of the above. But I did find a recent article from Forbes where someone makes the case that "concurrency" has been a net win for the F-35 program, so please read this and decide whether you buy his arguments:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2017/09/29/how-concurrency-in-building-the-f-35-fighter-has-proven-to-be-a-big-plus/#7cd2b7bc7147

By the way, I would not be in favor of a new fighter jet program being run the same way as the F-35 program was run... I think that now that the F-35 has (with great pain) demonstrated the quantum leap in fighter performance, a follow-on program should be able to be run as more of an incremental development, with less risk and drama.

The second article is about how several branches of the military are behind schedule on building maintenance facilities for the F-35, and how that is impacting readiness numbers. As I said above, my only comment on this: we have no choice but the F-35, so we just need to spend the money and fix the problem.

Also, one thing to keep in mind about the F-35: because of its unique combination of stealth, sensors, and flight range, it can do missions with fewer aircraft than 3rd-generation fighters:

One scenario called for a four-ship of F-35Bs to launch from an amphibious assault ship into a "double-digit" (examples might include S-300 or Buk-M1) surface-to-air missile and high-end fighter threat environment to hit a strategic target. While such a mission might be "marginally successful"--at best--when flown by a dozen or more aircraft like the Hornet, the four F-35Bs completed the scenario with near impunity. "It was like watching a pack of dogs going after something," Davis said.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/f-35b-stealth-fighter-how-the-us-marine-corps-could-dominate-17198

So even if it turns

Re:Maintenance? We don't need no steeking maintena

[tinkerton]

you're omitting the part where you commit to use the exotic car for everything, including getting a packet of sigarettes. Which means with its cost per driven mile(which includes maintenance) it becomes a very expensive way to get a packet of sigarettes.

The US is too rich for its own good

[HuguesT]

My opinion is that if the US military were obliged to work with 1/2 the budget they have now overnight, they would actually do better because these pork projects would cease immediately. The savings could be used to fund universal healthcare.

Re:Maintenance? We don't need no steeking maintena

[Hognoxious]

That sounds like an outcome of European insistence on European depots.

They must be almost as good at geography as you are, then.

US military expenditures

[manu0601]

I guess that helps understanding how US manages to spend 36% of worldwide military expenditures on its own (Russia, which is supposed to be a threat, spends 4%)

What's the problem again?

[blindseer]

We have the US military buying a few dozen, perhaps even a couple hundred, of aircraft that are hobbled with early development troubles because of concurrent testing and production. Let's assume what might be worst case situation of 300 early air frames crippled by being effectively prototypes of the final product.

A quick look at current plans for the F-35 and I see the USAF has ordered nearly 2000 on it's own. The Navy and Marines combined has ordered more than 500, and likely to order many more in the future. Then there are the many US allies buying them by the dozens, and perhaps hundreds. Just right now, today, there is an expectation of over 3000 being built. Taking my worst case of 300 early air frames being "very expensive trainers" since they would not meet combat specifications does not appear to be much of a problem.

A new fighter pilot will go through a number of air frames on their way to flying the operational fighters like the F-35. They'll start out on something real simple and cheap, like a common single engine Cessna. A more well funded air force might skip the Cessna and move directly to a single engine propeller trainer like a Texan II. Some pilots might even stop right there as the Texan II is a very nice light duty fighter and recon plane but we'll assume that the pilots still move on to something more advanced. This will almost always be a two seat jet, often a retired fighter or special purpose trainer. At this point the F-35 might even fill in if the powers that be want to do a trainer conversion for these "unworthy" air frames. Once the pilot is past the phase of needing someone in the back seat then they move on to the "real" planes they will be flying. This is where the early production F-35 air frames are likely to end up. This role alone could eat up all, or at least most, of these early F-35 air frames. The people in these aircraft don't need them to be combat worthy. If there are restrictions on the air frames, like weapon and fuel load, then the difference between this kind of trainer and combat worthy air frames will be a non-issue. Again, the USAF is buying up 2000 F-35 air frames, and the US Navy and Marines will buy another 500 or more. The training squadrons in the USAF and USN/USMC will need dozens of "very expensive trainers" for their pilots.

It's not like these aircraft are "worthless". They are likely to end up as trainers, test platforms, spare parts, and (if things really get bad) they can be quickly fitted out for combat with a reduced performance over main production F-35 air frames.

I'm old enough to remember the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The kind of fighting the airplanes flying over there don't need quality. I do remember quantity being an issue. These planes where flying often on bombing runs in uncontested air space. There was nothing, or next to nothing, to oppose them. The military got so used to these bomb runs on second and third tier air frames that they got to be called "bomb trucks". It was about as exciting as delivering the mail. It was always on time and to the correct address, much like any competent postal service, but it doesn't take anything real fancy to deliver the mail. They had to use these older air frames because maintaining such a pace became problematic for even the latest and greatest of aircraft. They didn't have the time to change the oil and pump up the tires so they pulled some older aircraft out of mothballs.

In the grand scheme of things even a few hundred out of the thousands of these F-35 air frames being non-combat capable does not appear to be a problem. While the testing and development continues on the F-35 we can see functional aircraft to train pilots with, and spare aircraft available if an all out war breaks out, among other advantages. If the F-35 meets it's promise of being the replacement for the F-16, F-18, A-10, and other aircraft then we'll need close to 10,000 of these. The few dozen or even a few hundred "worthless" air frames start to look like a non-issue at that point, especially since they are certainly not "worthless".

Sunk cost fallacy

[Martin S.]

It is gross misconception to assume that spending more money reduces the over all cost. It is a decision tainted by the emotional investment accumulated in the system making it harder. It is a failure to make rational decisions on the future spending based on historical spending. The more invested in something the harder it becomes to abandon this lemon.

Carriers with no Aircraft for five years

[Martin S.]

The UK has ordered this aircraft for our new Queen Elizabeth Carriers. The first was completed and 'in service' but has no aircraft. The second is due next year. The lack of aircraft will not be resolved until '2023 at the earliest' according to our Ministry of Defence. The avionics will not complete until at least 2022, given this software is already 5 years late, that seems like an optimistic prediction. The F35 is a lemon; with airframe cracking problems, engine reliability problems, leaking fuel systems and late avionics.

Re:Buy Grippens... (Uhhh.. not stealthy at all...)

[GESUS]

Learn to fly low...

Re:Buy Grippens...

[GESUS]

Make them under contract like most other nations that buy them.

Re:Unhappy failures, highest prices, longer repair

[Whibla]

I've long maintained that the US could have done much better buying an off-the-shelf aircraft (like the Rafale) and making it autonomous, a "drone" if you will.

Retro-fitting a piloted aircraft to make it into a UAV or a true drone is flat out retarded on every single aspect you can think of except, perhaps, short term cost.

I recently saw an 'advert' that suggested some agency was trying that with the Tornado over here and I practically choked on my cup of tea.

Without a pilot manoeuvres become limited by the resilience of the air frame, rather than fragile humanity. Existing air frames assume human fragility, with the smallest amount of extra tolerance the engineers and designers thought they could get away with. Hence a retro-fit doesn't magically gain you anything except a plane with virtually the same capabilities (and flaws).

My prediction is that the most effective drones will be those 'designed for purpose', not those 'designed for convenience' or those 'designed by politics'. In addition, for the most part, stealth will increasingly become an expensive and limiting irrelevance.

Re:Maintenance? We don't need no steeking maintena

[lexman098]

At first I thought it was an innocent mental mix-up. Then you did it again.

Re:Unhappy failures, highest prices, longer repair

[HornWumpus]

Name one nation that picked the Grippen vs the F-35.

A quick scan of wikipedia shows it regularly loses to the F-16.

Re:Buy Grippens...

[HornWumpus]

Grippens don't even win against F-16s. Just no.

Re:Unhappy failures, highest prices, longer repair

[HornWumpus]

Because nations like Norway are sure to pick worse American hardware over their neighbors superior product...OK not the best example, Swedes are assholes and all of Norway knows it.

Anything is possible.

Pentagon Wars nailed it

[Magius_AR]

The F-35 is just the nation's new "Bradley": https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's an attempt at an all-purpose jack-of-all-trades which ends up doing nothing particularly well. How sad that we learned nothing from our former mistakes.

Sell them to

[NewYork]

India or Pakistan

Jobs and re-election

[eric_harris_76]

Different people have different objectives.

The important objectives of the people who matter are met: re-election.

There is no such thing as "waste" if a pol can claim it "creates jobs".

If it weren't so conspicuously ludicrous, politicians would pay for people to dig holes and for other people to fill them in.

This aircraft problem is inconspicuously ludicrous. No problem -- for the people who matter.

And term limits for the members of the Congress would be treating a symptom.

But sometimes, that's enough, at least for the short term. Or very short term. (Internal bleeding, transfusion.)

And, as Michael Crichton reminds us in _The Andromeda Strain_, using the example of cholera, sometimes treating the symptoms long enough to for the patient to survive is about as good as a cure.

Re:Maintenance? We don't need no steeking maintena

[tinkerton]

I do plenty of repeat mental mixups. You'll have to be clearer or you'll just have to be funny. Is it the car metaphor? The spelling error in cigarettes? Language mixup.