Comments

  • With a sticker price of around $100 million per plane, including the engine, the F-35 is expensive.

    Glad they include the engine, seems like an important piece of equipment...
  • How about instead of one plane that does everything, we go back to specializing the planes and see if that makes them less expensive and lighter.
  • Bootleg: How about instead of one plane that does everything, we go back to specializing the planes and see if that makes them less expensive and lighter.


    But...then the air force generals won't have the fanciest and most expensive toys. God help them, some of them might not even be supersonic.

    No I'm sorry but your plan just won't work
  • The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday.

    Apparently the F stands for Ferrari.

    Why are we buying Ferraris when Corvettes get the job done? I swear, if someone gives me the line of "We do it so we can invest in the next generation fighter and be ready for..."

    So, we basically pour unlimited amounts of money to produce a useless piece of sh*t? That's the Uncle Sugar I know and love.

    Seriously, we've got to fix this kind of procurement nightmare.
  • The Pentagon and Lockheed could fark up a lunch order.

    Pratt & Whitney would blow off the engine.

    Then Boeing would make it nose dive into the salad bar.
  • Wait this was supposed to be an inexpensive plane??

    Hold on while I go look up how to  say epic fail in 23 languages.
  • NewportBarGuy: The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday.

    Apparently the F stands for Ferrari.

    Why are we buying Ferraris when Corvettes get the job done? I swear, if someone gives me the line of "We do it so we can invest in the next generation fighter and be ready for..."

    So, we basically pour unlimited amounts of money to produce a useless piece of sh*t? That's the Uncle Sugar I know and love.

    Seriously, we've got to fix this kind of procurement nightmare.


    That's easy. Have the military design and manufacture their own equipment instead of buying it from private corporations.
  • I think the fleet size for the F-35 was way to big, and it still has a role, and there is obviously going to be a benefit of derivative technologies and just general learning that occurred in the program, and its stupid to consider all of that wasted cost. Its also important not to fall into sunk cost.

    Its the internet though so everyone will shiat all over the f-35.

    Oh and hopefully this is in before some idiot says we should keep building more a-10s because they are cool and brrrrt and whatever.

    I think it makes sense to consider reducing what we procure. Navy and Marines do need something like the f-35. Air Force not so much, at least in its numbers, for its intended role.
  • Saab Gripen E...at least that is what I hope Canada goes for to replace the F-18s.

    F-18s are awesome but expensive to maintain then rekit. F-16's were great for what they were intended for but longevity wasn't part of that build.

    US unfortunately will by another experimental plane as a job's program at 10 times the production cost. Then blame social programs for the debt.
  • cdn.nextgov.comView Full Size


    Each one filled with high explosives.

    That's your future. That's your nightmare.
  • NewportBarGuy: The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday.

    Apparently the F stands for Ferrari.

    Why are we buying Ferraris when Corvettes get the job done? I swear, if someone gives me the line of "We do it so we can invest in the next generation fighter and be ready for..."

    So, we basically pour unlimited amounts of money to produce a useless piece of sh*t? That's the Uncle Sugar I know and love.

    Seriously, we've got to fix this kind of procurement nightmare.


    I think the question should instead be "Why are we letting the defense contractors tell us there's a job to be done?"
  • Is that the plane  that can't fly in rain?  It if were made in Texas it couldn't fly in snow or wind.
  • NewportBarGuy: Apparently the F stands for Ferrari.


    The cost of a Ferrari and the reliability of a Tesla.
  • So what will they do now to waste tax dollars?
  • "Yes, we're talking about the F-35. The 25-ton stealth warplane has become the very problem it was supposed to solve"

    Because it was the plan all along, to fleece the taxpayers. Meanwhile, the same scumbags who allowed that have a problem with legislating a living wage and student loan forgiveness. Both would do more to.protect the future of the country than that stupid toy.
  • xanadian: NewportBarGuy: Apparently the F stands for Ferrari.

    The cost of a Ferrari and the reliability of a Tesla.


    A Ferresla
  • I frown on these shenanigans.

    i.pinimg.comView Full Size
  • Nope, just push out more F35 airframes, even an F16 derived "low end" plane would end up costing more than additional F35s on a per-frame basis when you amortize the R&D and support train costs over the number of airframes. Basically the F35 is about as cheap as you are going to get on a modern military jet on a flyaway cost (at under $80M each) so any theoretical margin for a slightly less expensive airframe is going to be eaten 20x over on the program costs. That's before you even get to the inevitable avionics upgrades which would then have to be duplicated across 2 programs instead of just being developed for the F35. Nope, there is no way an actual accounting analysis would ever show a "cheaper" plane program would actually lead to any savings for the taxpayer.
  • Might as well just dust off the farking Tigershark which those fools should have bought in the first place.
  • wantingout: So what will they do now to waste tax dollars?


    B-21.  B-21 please pick up the white courtesy phone.


    Won't someone thing about the jerbs?  All the poor jerbs?  Yes.  My company makes boxes but the company that makes the struts for the F-35 buys one box a month from me to ship those struts.  My company depends on the F-35/
  • wantingout: So what will they do now to waste tax dollars?


    Flying aircraft carriers. Like they had in "Avengers"
    Hail Hydra
  • upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size

    Sounds like the perfect time for a sequel.
  • robodog: Nope, just push out more F35 airframes, even an F16 derived "low end" plane would end up costing more than additional F35s on a per-frame basis when you amortize the R&D and support train costs over the number of airframes. Basically the F35 is about as cheap as you are going to get on a modern military jet on a flyaway cost (at under $80M each) so any theoretical margin for a slightly less expensive airframe is going to be eaten 20x over on the program costs. That's before you even get to the inevitable avionics upgrades which would then have to be duplicated across 2 programs instead of just being developed for the F35. Nope, there is no way an actual accounting analysis would ever show a "cheaper" plane program would actually lead to any savings for the taxpayer.


    Thank you kind Boeing spokesperson.
  • Who is this supposed to fight again?  A machine gun mounted on a toyota truck somewhere in Africa?  A mud hut?
  • It seems to me, an average internet idiot, that the vast majority of "low-end" use cases can be fulfilled with a mix of Reaper-style drones complimented by an AWACS and maybe a rotation of A-10s. Iterate +1 generation and I could see a heavy loitering bomber/mothership platform like a B-1 (or B-21 variant) being necessary to stay above MANPAD range.

    For "high-end" fights, it seems like any sort of zippy tactical jets become a lot less important when state-backed cyberattacks and nuclear weapons become part of the threat model.
  • Load 25 of 185 newer comments
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.