Slashdot Mirror
The US Grounds All F-35 Jets (bbc.com)
Thelasko tipped us off to this story. NBC News reports:
The U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marines -- as well as 11 international partners who participated in the program -- grounded all F-35 fighters on Thursday as part of an ongoing investigation into a jet that crashed in Beaufort, South Carolina, late last month.
"The pilot in that incident ejected safely but the aircraft was destroyed," reports the BBC, adding "the problem has already been identified as faulty fuel tubes. Once these are checked or replaced the aircraft will be back in the air."
The U.S. has spent more than $320 billion to build their fleet of 2,400-plus F-35 jets, according to a recent GAO report -- or roughly $130 million for each one of the planes. The BBC calls it "the largest and most expensive weapons program of its type in the world."
"The pilot in that incident ejected safely but the aircraft was destroyed," reports the BBC, adding "the problem has already been identified as faulty fuel tubes. Once these are checked or replaced the aircraft will be back in the air."
The U.S. has spent more than $320 billion to build their fleet of 2,400-plus F-35 jets, according to a recent GAO report -- or roughly $130 million for each one of the planes. The BBC calls it "the largest and most expensive weapons program of its type in the world."
its just faulty fuel lines nothing to see here. They will be replaced. some have already been replaced.
It's important that we get all the kinks out these planes before we ship the ones Saudi Arabia ordered. The customer comes first, especially when they're brutal dictators who own a lot of Manhattan real estate.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Remind me again. How much is it going to cost to get to Mars ?
With even a portion of that kind of money, we could be well on our way there by now. We humans really do have an amazing ability to squander our assets and resources.
$320 billion that could have been spent for well-baby programs for everyone born in the US, or for improved infrastructure, or for paying down the national debt. But no, it has to be spent for murder weapons that don't even work properly. America! YEAH!
now you have driving planes?
I'm not even from the US and I know there must be a company paying very good money for making sure any fault on these boys reaches widespread news. It's getting to a point those planes don't look so cool anymore to us common mortals.
Why "of it's type"? Surely it is the largest and most expensive weapons program anywhere.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
This jet is doing quite well. Over 320 units total among three different variants as of September, and they passed 100,000 combined flight hours a year ago so I don't know what they are up to now but I'm sure it is quite a lot. The fact that it has been this long before a crash is unprecedented in the development of fighter aircraft. Not to mention no, zip, zero deaths (knock on wood) by this point is unheard of. By the time F-16 had this many aircraft there had been a number of deaths, I think at least half a dozen, but I'd have to go back and check the timing vs. production numbers to be sure. F-18 Hornet had 3 deaths in 83-84 just after introduction which climbed to 6 by the end of 1986 (the year if first saw action). F-22 which has had a few deaths is only half the total number of aircraft.
The U.S. has spent more than $320 billion to build their fleet of 2,400-plus F-35 jets...
Will spend. Maybe. Fewer than 350 have been delivered to date. Current production is less than a hundred per year, predicted to reach a maximum of 160 per year by 2023. My own guess is that fewer than 1,600 will actually be built.
The largest and most expensive weapons program of its type in the world. THAT WE KNOW OF.
What, no one remembers the F-111? Swing-wing, twin-engine, single-tail, was supposed to do everything for everyone, and it ended up being a mediocre low-level bomber and a quite capable electronics warfare platform, but it didn't do anything the sales brochure said it'd do.
The navy rejected it.
The Air Force grudgingly kept it.
The F-35 is more of the same. Specialized missions require specialized aircraft, there is no jack-of-all-trades in fighters.
Interceptor / fighter - F-15, F-22. Expensive, rather rare, yet still the most unfair fighters ever produced, full-stop.
Low-cost fighter - F16. Cheap to buy, cheap to fly, but rather limited in what it can haul. But it does 95% of the jobs out there for fighters.
Close Air Support - A-10. This one needs no writeup. You know it, or you don't. If you know it, you love it.
Marines support - Harrier. Always a rube goldberg, the marines still love it because they can take it and base it pretty much anywhere.
And this last trio is what the F-35 tried to replace -- it was supposed to be the cheap fighter, and the CAS airplane, and the vertical-takeoff bird, and it can't do any of those things well. The Air Force, supposedly, privately, wants the A-10 fixed up for the next few decades because they already know the 35 is a loss.
My tax dollars at work. Fuck them. Build more F16s and come up with a new CAS airpane, a bespoke one like the A-10 was.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
According to Air Force Times: https://www.airforcetimes.com/...
You forgot perhaps the most appalling cases of them all.
The USAF and Navy are spending flighthours like crazy on their expensive high-performance jets on flying in low threat areas to drop a single bomb on or strafe a bunch of Taliban in a technical or similar. Something a much, much, much cheaper aircraft, like a Super Tucano could do just as well and a whole lot cheaper, while saving flighthours and maintenance on the expensive stuff.
The expensive F-35 is a cuckoo-bird which is already trying to displace better suited aircraft (A-10), and it will only serve to aggravate this problem with expensive aircraft being used for simple missions, while in the process shortening their life-spans and costing vast sums for maintenance. It's a move in completely the wrong direction to what is actually needed.
The Harriers are falling apart and becoming too dangerous to fly. The reason the F35B has become operational first, to replace those things.
Nazi faggots like you deserve INCREDIBLE violence, that's in the Constitution also, faggot Trump traitor.
Quote:
" The BBC calls it "the largest and most expensive weapons program of its type in the world."
They are wrong. It is without doubt the most expensive folly in the world. The whole concept is wrong, just wrong.
Disclaimer
I spent 5 years working on the Harrier VTOL aircraft. That worked and even exceeded its designed performance envelope. This this is nothing more than a heap of junk. too expensive, unreliable and far too heavy.
with a butter knife since you wouldn't even need violence to stop the dog. You could literally just ignore the critter. Like you do when a crazy homeless person accosts you on the street.
It's worth pointing out because there are people who actually argue that America needs to spend $600 billion a year to defend itself from Russia, Iran and North Korea. One state that drags it's tanks home by horse at the end of wars, one that can barely feed it's people and another that can't.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Stock price is based on the stock market rune casters and witch doctors. It is not based on the revenue, profitability, market cap, or any other metric (e.g. compare Tesla v. Ford). A disproportionate amount of the revenue go right to the C-level officers of the company (at least 100x times the salary of the "average working American"). So, considering the source of most of their income, it does fit the so-called "reverse Robin Hood" scenario quite well.
It is not surprising that the Harriers are falling apart. They first entered operations almost 50 years ago.
There should be nothing stopping BAE and Boeing from making new airframes and the rest.
They should take either the AV8B or the Sea Harrier airframe as the basis.
They work and are proven and a new build of Harriers won't cost anywhere near as much as this heap of junk.
Any post about grounding the F35 should end with "again". For example: "The US Grounds All F-35 Jets Again".
Here we go again! I love the A-10, but it sucks at close air support in modern conflicts. It is highly vulnerable compared to the F-16. Close air support is not done looking out the window, it is done by dropping precision ordinance from above the range of MANPADs.
Marines like the A-10 because they don't have anything else armored with a big cannon, and they're not convinced they won't ever have to face concealed armor anymore. In actual conflicts where the A-10 is used, the F-16 is the primary platform for close air support.
Neckbeards who played too many of the wrong video game become incapable of listening.
The need is to keep the sweet corruption money flowing in the politicians pockets. Everything else is bluff and lies. What better than to fly very, very expensive planes if your objective is to get money back from the constructors?
You don't know what you're talking about, and it's clear you never served a day.
Marines like the A-10 because they don't have anything else armored with a big cannon, and they're not convinced they won't ever have to face concealed armor anymore. In actual conflicts where the A-10 is used, the F-16 is the primary platform for close air support.
First of all, the Marines don't have the A-10, only the Air Force does.
Second of all, the A-10 was born as can opener, and it excels at that.
Third of all, yes, the F-16 is a wonderful pinpoint bombtruck. And if you didn't notice, the F-35 is supposed to replace it too.
Neckbeards who played too many of the wrong video game become incapable of listening.
When logic fails, ad hominem?
The whole point of the discussion is that the F-35 is a failure even before being put into service. It is trying to do too many roles.
Maybe it'll mature into a nice airplane. Maybe it'll be forever a dog, to be quickly replaced by other things better suited to the individual customer's needs. Marines' needs aren't the same as Army's needs aren't the same as Air Force needs, so why force one airplane on all? (Two, really, the Harrier-replacement is a fan-assisted... thing... )
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
https://medium.com/war-is-bori...
USAs relationship with the Saudis has always puzzled me. The Saudis were mostly responsible for 9/11 and funded much of the Islamic terrorism around the world. So why does the USA give them a free pass?
The most simple explanation, is Saudi Arabia promised to always sell oil in USD in return for protection. The Petro dollar is critical to the USD, and every country that has dared sell on the world stage in another currency has met with the wrath of either the CIA or US military.
This relationship is criminally sad.
46137
The USAF and Navy are spending flighthours like crazy on their expensive high-performance jets on flying in low threat areas to drop a single bomb on or strafe a bunch of Taliban in a technical or similar. Something a much, much, much cheaper aircraft, like a Super Tucano could do just as well and a whole lot cheaper, while saving flighthours and maintenance on the expensive stuff.
You have no idea.
First, you go to war with the army you have. The US Navy and USAF are a bit short of the aircraft you describe, so they use what they have.
Second, pilots need to keep flying or they are not as effective when they are needed. To maintain their skills these pilots will fly every couple weeks regardless. We can have them fly training missions over Missouri and Nebraska, shooting at wooden shapes in an open field or we can have them do something useful in defending national interests.
Third, a Super Tucano can't do what a F-22 can do but a F-22 can do most everything a Super Tucano can do. These forces will have to pick something to fly and so they chose the most capable aircraft that they could get. I'm guessing that the US military has or will obtain aircraft similar to the Super Tucano for situations like this in the future. Until then they fight with what they have, keep pilots trained for a "real" war while doing something useful, and procure the most capable aircraft they can.
The summary says they're only $130m per unit now. Guess they've made a lot more or Trump negotiated us a discount by asking to not include guns or something
Marginal cost to produce one unit is a great beginning of what it costs to order another unit (since you have ongoing costs too). It doesn't tell you what it actually cost you though, since you also had to pay for LOTS of R&D&pork.
You're implying that many of the wars the US goes into abroad are "useful." Also, better to have them shoot at wooden targets than actual human beings -- human beings are not target dummies, twerp.
F-36 is the solution to the problematic F-35.
F-35 was built by bad designers.
F-36 will be built by good engineers.
Europeans! Back to build eurofighters!
http://theconversation.com/wha...
Total and complete waste of money, but most on here probably already know this.
'Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “a marketing and publicity gimmick” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.'
'Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “inherently a terrible airplane” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21, a 1950s Soviet fighter design'
'Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. It’s that bad."'
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
...Mars sounds peaceful and lacking in corruption... until we humans arrive... but we won't be there long as Mars is about as fertile and life-friendly as the moon.
And you're an idiot who can't read, and can't understand what little you manage to parse.
The point is that if you go to war with the army you have and it's not suitable, maybe you have the wrong army (or airforce in this case)?
As for your comparing flying training missions with actual combat missions with combat loads would imply that it's you who are absolutely fucking clueless.
And here we have the ultimate proof of your idiocy. Nobody claimed a Super Tucano could do the job of an F-22. Absolutely nobody.
The point made was that a Super Tucano could easily do the jobs which the advanced fighter jets are currently being worn out doing in low threat airspace at the moment. The money saved on wear and tear, maintenance and replacement before due time of the advanced types could easily pay for the less advanced aircraft. You don't need a fucking F-22 to strafe a bunch of Talibans in a Toyota, you're wasting resources and the lifetime of the aircraft giving it such a menial task.
Apologies for using so many syllables. It must have given you a terrible headache.
Against any modern adversary, or even one armed with cold war technology, the A10 would be a a big flying target. And they're are irreplaceable - in a conflict where A10's are getting shot down, we'd either have to ground the fleet or soon not have any A10's. That's part of the reason why the Air Force doesn't like them (at least officially), because the brass are worried about what would happen if we going up against someone like Russia or China, and not a bunch of camel-jockeys cruising around in Toyotas armed with AK47's. However, since we are fighting against a bunch of camel-jockeys with no air force and virtually no anti-air capability, the A10 absolutely excels at raining death from above with impunity and at a fraction of the cost of other aircraft. Since those seem to be the kind of wars we're going to be fighting, it makes no sense to get rid of the A10's or to replace them with other aircraft that could do the job, but at a much higher cost.
I'd like to see Elon Musk and SpaceX design and produce the next fighter jet for the USAF. What could they do about cost, reliability, and maintainability? And could they produce a fighter within a reasonable number of years?
You derped up on your shirt again.
Yeah, it is a failure, that's why all the countries that can, buy it.
Politicians who run for office saying bad things about it and promising to cancel their country's orders get into office, get their classified briefing, and maintain or increase their orders.
You were credulous of silly internet rumors, they were wrong. But you're still repeating it. Even after years of evidence, even after it is operational, you still don't get it. When the US and Japan flew a bunch of them right next to the North Korean border to piss them off, they never saw them and we had to announce the route that was taken in the press just to get the North Koreans to issue an angry statement.
Your mental hygiene is awful, and your regurgitated derp stinks. Whine about the ad hominem, and don't bother to grow a brain cell, or figure out the difference between analysis and repetition.
http://www.unesco.org/educatio...
so instead of fixing real world issue so to reduce the motivation for war, let's go kill more civilians than enemies....Why? cause if we don't do it someone else will and that would put us at a disadvantage = Military Industrial Complex Mindset.
Second Amendment does not use the word Gun or Guns but Arms as in Armaments and this includes tanks, missiles, and killer drones https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . Do you have your personal personnel killer drone yet? It'd be cheaper than sponsoring some child in another country, i.e. https://www.childfund.org/ and we can test them via the israeli occupation gaza open weapons range. You know for morale, not morals.
Sure, any complex system will have it's problems. However, this expensive polished turd of a system has already had too many problems. Not to mention that it has been proven to be inferior to many of the systems it is supposed to replace.
This information seems to be absent in nearly all the articles about this:
“If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced. If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status. Inspections are expected to be completed within the next 24 to 48 hours.”
That means any of them that donn't have the suspect fuel tubes, then the aircraft should have been back in operation for a day or two already, since it was grounded 3 days ago.
No idea what the number of planes with the suspect fuel tubes will be, but if it's a dozen, this is an awful lot of publicity for the fleet to be grounded for a couple of days for inspection. If it were a combat situation, these could have been done on a rolling basis. Since no one who uses them are in the middle of a massive war at the moment, unless this affects over 50% of the aircraft, a one or two day grounding isn't that critical.
Think of all the people who could be helped by this massive tax payer boondoggle. Fuck the US military!
The title says it all. A single engine battle aircraft for that price? Who is kidding who?
Because if the guy that did the research for this assessment is even close to being correct https://www.youtube.com/watch?... The last time anybody managed to shoot down one plane from another plane with a canon was in 1989 in the Iran/Iraq war. If that's how things are going currently then maybe you need a canon for ground attack but air to air? Not so much.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
When your targets are dudes in man-dresses with RPGs and machine guns with possibly some junky Toyotas, and friendlies are on foot, looking out the canopy with binoculars from low altitude can be the best way to fight so everyone has the same landmarks in mind. Wasting $100-250k precision munitions vs $3k unguided rockets or cannon shells is a no-brainer.