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."
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.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- as a former general, guy knew of what he spoke.
Blah, blah, blah ... remember the General Welfare Clause?
Also, why not use the $320 billion to pay down the national debt or lower Federal taxes further. No one can argue that that's out DC's scope. If blue states didn't have to send as much money to Washington to pay for military parasites, they'd have enough money to create their own social programs, independently of DC.
F-35 was money thrown down the toilet. You're Portuguese -- when your government does corrupt and wasteful things, people turn out into the streets and shut things down. It's a shame that Americans aren't as proactive when seeing government waste and graft.
You mean the largest and most expensive welfare program for defense-contractor parasites. FTFY. :D
It's a reverse Robin Hood -- stealing from the average working American and giving to Lockheed-Martin stockholders.
That's an excellent quote, and it's a sad testament to the poor state of education of this day that anyone saying anything similar presently no doubt would be harassed and heckled beyond belief for being a "socialist" or "commie".
Same for Roosevelt btw. "People who are hungry, people who are out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made." No wonder the right is so keen on creating jobless and hungry people.
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.
$320 billion over 18+ years. Depending on whether we count development time or not.
So, less than $18B per year. If we'd spent all of that on paying down the national debt, the national debt would have grown slightly slower (note that in 2014 alone, the federal deficit was larger than the entire cost of the F35 program from inception to present).
Your hypothetical well baby programs might be possible under the Constitution. Or not, there's a good argument that that's a State level issue. Note that using the General Welfare clause to justify it essentially means that General Welfare can be used for ANYTHING. Which is really a bad idea, in the long run.
Or do you really like the Fed's take on Net Neutrality? Because it could also be justified under the General Welfare clause, and thus supersede any State laws that might disagree....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Shame the Republican party now worships a senile actor who consulted astrologers.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Personally I prefer Dogbert.
"I've been thinking about how wonderful it would be if all people renounced violence forever. If nobody else was violent I could conquer the whole stupid planet with a butter knife."
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.
Any post about grounding the F35 should end with "again". For example: "The US Grounds All F-35 Jets Again".
Except that a lot of military spending is paid for by "emergency funding" that's outside the official US budget. Most of the spending on the Iraqi and Afghan wars wasn't counted as part of the official US budget.
I'm not sure you could land humans on Mars for $320 billion. The Apollo program cost about 124 billion in current dollars, but leap from the Moon to Mars is likely much tougher than the leap from Earth orbit to the Moon. There are complexity discontinuities you cross given the greater mission duration, and then there's landing a man-rated vehicle of sufficient size to support astronauts for extended periods on Mars, something that is greatly complicated by Mars' atmosphere.
But even if it could be feasibly done for $320 billion, the US current military-industrial complex is incapable of succeeding at a task of that scale. The consolidation of defense and aerospace contractors has made them too politically powerful to be held to account for any promise they make.
That's how Lockheed has managed to repeatedly scale back on deliverables and scale up on costs in the F35 program, with no actual political consequences aside from a little griping. A recent inspector general's report has revealed that Boeing has been consistently receiving performance bonuses on the Space Launch System (SLS), despite gross mismanagement, missing project milestones, and runaway costs.
A political system in which contractors are powerful enough to buy politicians and administrators is simply incapable of placing a man on Mars for any fixed amount of money. It's just too big and complicated for a corrupt system to take on successfully.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You just really love the phrase "murder weapons" don't ya? And I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would be really really grateful if you got rid of all your fighter jets, especially as resources become more scarce in the coming decades, why they might even send you a cookie and a thank you card!
The problem isn't that the USA is building a new fighter jet, especially since the bulk of our fighters are from the 1970s and anybody who lived through the age of wood paneled everything can tell ya electronics back then? Yeah not the greatest. Nope the problem is we are falling for the same dumb shit that screwed the Nazis in WWII while the countries we would most likely face? Yeah they are copying the USA from that period.
For those that do not remember their history the Nazis bet everything on "Wunderwaffe" or "wonder weapons" that to be fair was ahead of their time...and also completely unreliable, spent more time busted than functional, and when they did wok they were so full of bugs, glitches, and could just as easily kill the poor bastard stuck trying to fly the turkey than the enemy. Meanwhile the USA cranked out weapons that were built on proven tech, reliable, easy to maintain,tough as nails, and able to be cranked out en masse for a quite affordable price which meant that not only could the USA supply its own military but was able to become "arms supplier to the free world" and supply her allies with everything from trucks and cargo ships to fleets of bombers and tanks to help them keep up the offensive.
Sadly the USA doesn't appear to have taken those lessons from WWII to heart because now they are working on Wunderwaffe and just like the original Wunderwaffe they are insanely expensive, don't work most of the time, require absurd amounts of maintenance, and are just as likely to kill the poor bastard stuck trying to fly the turkey than the enemy. Meanwhile Russia, China, and India are building gear that is built on proven tech, reliable, easy to maintain,...see the problem? Just as the Nazis found out in WWII it doesn't help if you have a super powered techno turkey if the enemy can spam 50 of theirs for every 1 of yours and your 1 spends most of its time busted on the ground while they have several hundred more to spam while the original 50 get rearmed.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
Taxation is useful. However, the money garnered should serve the needs of all citizens, not just a few select companies or people who profiteer on government contracts.
I think it could be done for 320 billion. Just not by the US.
Not by the US government. A private enterprise can do it for far less.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
This is handwaving bullshit. There is one currency in the US, not 51. Dollars spent on unnecessary expansions of our "defensive" capabilities are dollars not being spent on healthcare, or education. You claim implies that if the Federal government cannot spent it on healthcare, the money has to be spent on the military. The Feds can reduce their taxes, and the states can raise taxes in response.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Sure, the question is, why would they? A private enterprise is looking for profit, and you have to evaluate a return on an investment by the risk involved. When you factor that in it's just as economically impossible for the private sector to do as it is for the US government.
Mass rules cost in space travel. A cube of gold one meter on a side would weigh about 19 metric tons. If such a cube were sitting on the surface of Mars at a known position, it wouldn't be worth anyone's while to go and retrieve it.
The lightest commodities there are are things like knowledge and prestige. These are things which mainly governments are interested in. We are just reaching the point where the richest men in the world are worth about a hundred billion. A reduction in spacefaring costs of a factor of two or three might put a manned Mars mission within their grasp, if they don't have other uses for that amount of money. Bezos may be your man.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
How?
A government has a simple goal, the stated one. I.e. putting a man on Mars.
A private enterprise somehow has to make profit from that on top of it all. Why anyone thinks that this would be cheaper is simply something I don't get. How should it be cheaper to get goal + profit instead of goal?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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 US Grounds All F-35 Jets
That's kind of wrong. The F-35 ground themselves.
aaaaaaa
Yep, the guy was a fratboy arsehole -- this crap continued through college and probably later. But the real stinker about his entitled arse were his policies and ideals. Anti-choice, against separation of church and state, against enforcing Amendments 4, 5, and 6 properly. Hope the stress of his confirmation hearings has started him on the path to severe alcoholism...
A good deterrence is one where you can hurt the opponent and allow the opponent to be able to hurt you. If you don't allow the opponent to be able to hurt you you break the symmetry and are going for dominance.
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s... says the military spending for 2018 is $874.4 billion. I think that's a very conservative estimate because the militarization of the US runs much deeper than these numbers suggest, but let's accept them. Then how much would the US need for defense? The spending has increased more this year than the total defense budget of Russia. What is the risk the US is going to be invaded? The US being free from invasion is a pretty natural state since it's main competitors are overseas. How many nukes does the US need as deterrence? Very few. 10 should be enough . Or 1 should be enough provided you have the ability to deliver it. North Korea thinks 10 should be enough.
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!
The big value of the space program of the 60s wasn't even in engineering. It was in process management. What people tend to overlook here is that this was when process management took off and became a key element of production streamlining, efficiency skyrocketed in pretty much all industries after the 60s. The US managed to take that lead in efficiency well into the 80s, that's how long it took the rest of the world to catch on.
It's easily overlooked, I grant you that, but if you look at the way corporations in every sector changed during that decade it's really day and night.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
While there is a correlation between poverty and homelessness, the two are not the same. Many poor aren't homeless, and some people with decent income are migratory and without a home. And a very few live outside the monetary system, and qualify as poor by statistical measures, despite owning homes and land and living quite well.
You miss much of the point of Eisenhower's argument. While he did rail against the military-industrial complex, his statement was more a condemnation of armed conflict than arms spending. As a former general, Eisenhower knew quite well that pacifism is a dangerous fantasy. It's just as hard to feed the hungry when they're being crushed under the heel of a conqueror because their country couldn't defend them.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
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.
"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong." - Ronald Reagan
Weakness invites challenge. Any student of history knows this. Britain and the US tried this after WWI and the world reaped tens of millions of dead as a result. That is but one example of many throughout thousands of years of human history. The surest way to avoid war is to have such overwhelming might that no other state in its right mind would ever consider taking up arms against you.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
The space program was a boost to technology much like a war was, just without so many people dying. If you look at WW2 and the leaps technology has taken in that 6 years, the space race had some quite similar effect. It was a bit slower, granted, but no less impressive and certainly with fewer lives wasted.
You'll notice that the time between the 60s and the 80s were the time when the US were the pinnacle of technology and scientific advancement, there was not a single country that could hold a candle to it. And I dare say that much of that is due to the space program. It boosted prosperity and was in many ways a driver for the economy. If anything, something like that would really help today, too.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, never criticize those above you. Great credo for those who yearn to live in a dictatorship.