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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!