America's most expensive weapons clusterf***: The Lockheed F-35 Lightning II

[NFS4]

Ironically, the F-4 was in the same boat. There was an Israeli F-4E retrofitted with PW1120s that made it almost about as good as an F/A-18 in terms of general flight performance. The problem with older airframes is lack of decent internal weapons carriage for good stealth characteristics. With decent ingenuity it can be overcome to a small degree with conformal fuel tanks with weapons bays like on the new F-15SE Silent Eagle.

And I still think it's a shame the F-16XL never made it into production. The only reason to keep the standard F-16 around was for it's better dogfighting performance, but for everything else, the XL was just so much better.

But the XL lost out to the F-15E. There was no need in carrying the program any further.

 

[OverVolt]

For ten cookies can anyone guess what these two have in common?

Made by the same people who made the Cessna? :awe:

 

[The Boston Dangler]

And the idea of the F-35 replacing this just makes me LOL:

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/NFS4/A-10_Thunderbolt_II_In-flight-2.jpg

that platform is past its prime, and incapable of service against an enemy that can actually fight back. very low survivability, despite what the discovery channel tells you. the gun fires rounds made of depleted uranium, which is not only seriously out-of-step with the times, but may also face production shortages with little or no new nuclear weapons being built and an unfavorable view on nuclear power.

Seems like they keep making that same mistake of trying to have one airplane capable of all tasks, and it never really works.

not just the f-4, but the f-111 was 100x the lame duck. the navy pretty much said "if you're going to force these onto carriers, we'll push them off"

.

The USAF should've just received more F-22s for the air dominance and first-day-of-war enemy air defense network strikes, with B-1Bs, F-16XLs and FB-22s providing the real brunt of bombing.

The Navy should've received the F-14 'Tomcat 22' instead of the F/A-18E/F which would've been a just fine stop gap until the 6th gen F/A-XX arrives

the b-1 was another expensive lame duck, and president carter was right to cancel it (and its bespoke nuclear payload). it was incapable of performing its mission. it was rendered obsolete in 1960 when francis gary powers' u-2 was shot down over the ussr, 14 years before the b-1's first flight. the entire concept of a higher, faster bomber was, and always will be, dead. it was revived as a low-level sub-sonic conventional bomber as part of president reagan's spendathon while the b-2 was on the drawing board.

the f-14 (yet another drastically overpriced swing-wing) was adequate at its time, in its role as fleet defense fighter. however, it completely sucked at anything else, and the f/a-18 is capable of performing all of those things and more. a single, less expensive and more flexible platform to maintain, support and house aboard a ship - it's a no-brainer.

Ironically, the F-4 was in the same boat. There was an Israeli F-4E retrofitted with PW1120s that made it almost about as good as an F/A-18 in terms of general flight performance. The problem with older airframes is lack of decent internal weapons carriage for good stealth characteristics. With decent ingenuity it can be overcome to a small degree with conformal fuel tanks with weapons bays like on the new F-15SE Silent Eagle.

there is no way you can convince me the f-4 can be comparable in any way to the f/a-18

 

[Blitzvogel]

But the XL lost out to the F-15E. There was no need in carrying the program any further.

And the F-16 still got tasked with tactical air to ground in the wars that came after the competition. Basically I'm getting at the fact that the XL made a much better multirole fighter than the standard F-16 design. Almost double internal fuel carriage, 4x recessed AMRAAMs with little drag penalty, more flexible payload options and just about double range on internal fuel carriage as well.

The F-15E was probably much more expensive too.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

the real kicker with the f-35 is it's already been sold to customers, and there's no way the pentagon or the british are getting their money back. so, it simply must be a continuing fountain of taxpayer money into a black hole. thanks, marines.

 

[biostud]

And it looks like our government will order 30 of these to replace our aging F-16s....

Other planes they have considered are:

F-18 Super Hornet
Eurofighter
SAAB Gripen

Personally I favor the F18 based on cost and it's a proven technology.

 

[Blitzvogel]

that platform is past its prime, and incapable of service against an enemy that can actually fight back. very low survivability, despite what the discovery channel tells you. the gun fires rounds made of depleted uranium, which is not only seriously out-of-step with the times, but may also face production shortages with little or no new nuclear weapons being built and an unfavorable view on nuclear power.

You can't replicate the A-10's low and slow capabilities on any other platform. They are essential for an Afghanistan-like environment and even in western Europe, where it would've engaged Soviet Tanks, it had a better chance against ZSU-23s. It could be flown very low "in the mud", pop up, fire at a target with the gun or launch a Maverick, then make quicker retreating 180 degree turns than an F-16 therefore minimizing ZSU-23 engagement time. Versus SAMs, being low sure helps to prevent enemies having a proper sight picture, as well as having those high bypass turbofans partially shielded by the tail and elevators.

not just the f-4, but the f-111 was 100x the lame duck. the navy pretty much said "if you're going to force these onto carriers, we'll push them off"

But it was an amazing at low level penetration and interdiction as it was intended. Blame Macnamara for being such a dipshit.

the b-1 was another expensive lame duck, and president carter was right to cancel it (and its bespoke nuclear payload). it was incapable of performing its mission. it was rendered obsolete in 1960 when francis gary powers' u-2 was shot down over the ussr, 14 years before the b-1's first flight. the entire concept of a higher, faster bomber was, and always will be, dead. it was revived as a low-level sub-sonic conventional bomber as part of president reagan's spendathon while the b-2 was on the drawing board.

As a low level penetration bomber loaded up with SRAMs, it scared the hell out of the Soviets. It also can carry over twice the payload of a B-52.

the f-14 (yet another drastically overpriced swing-wing) was adequate at its time, in its role as fleet defense fighter. however, it completely sucked at anything else, and the f/a-18 is capable of performing all of those things and more. a single, less expensive and more flexible platform to maintain, support and house aboard a ship - it's a no-brainer.

The F-14 is still the only true long range interceptor the US military has ever had, and the Pheonix the only long range AAM. F/A-18E has a smaller fuel load and of course the F-14 had a huge speed advantage which matters when you're trying to impart energy into a missile to maximize it's range. It's other main problem was the TF-30 engine which was underpowered and tended to suffer from compressor stalls. Admittedly it was an expensive plane, but for the job it was a great aircraft and it's planform podded engine design was as revolutionary as the variable geometry wings. The Tomcat 21 development would've made the design much more capable in all aspects, including 27,000 lb thrust engines, expanded fuel capacity and all the A2G capabilities the F/A-18E has today, but with greater range and speed. F-14s also had larger, higher ranged radars thanks to a larger radome. The Tomcat 21 would have had a much more capable AESA probably in the same class as the F-22's.

there is no way you can convince me the f-4 can be comparable in any way to the f/a-18

So much of a fighter's flight and maneuver performance can be based on it's engines and thrust to weight ratio. The F-16 is the supreme example of a high thrust to weight ratio that provides the engine power to push the plane through constant 9G maneuvering, while still overcoming drag produced by the blended LERXed tailed delta wing design that maximizes vortex lift and deflection lift at medium alpha. It's an energy dogfighter to the extreme :biggrin:

The "Super Phantom" demonstrator flown by Israeli Aircraft Industries with PW1120's gave it a 1:1 air combat load thrust to weight ratio. I would still take the Hornet over the Phantom, but the Super Phantom was close enough in performance to make McDonnell Douglas against selling it or upgrades at the possible cost of Hornet purchases.

There were quite a few Phantom developments, including a serious F-4X reconaissance variant with Mach 3.0 dash capability thanks to water injection.

 

[Ns1]

And the idea of the F-35 replacing this just makes me LOL:

hotness.

 

[Saylick]

For ten cookies can anyone guess what these two have in common?

The Osprey and the sensor fuzed weapon clusterbomb were both featured on Future Weapons.

The Osprey's propellers are oriented horizontally during flight and rotate vertically during landing. The bomb travels horizontally during flight, but orients to a vertical position prior to deployment.

Both were used in Iraq.

 

[sdifox]

WTF, isn't Vanity Fair like a pop/fashion type of magazine? Not sure how much trust I'll put in their reporting on an issue like this, but could be an interesting read.

I'm really split on this, on the one hand, our military is way overblown and its gotten stupid and we're in danger of it doing to us what the USSR's did to them, but I also think the F-35 and F-22 are being demonized. Pretty much every major weapons system has big issues. The stuff we've used to get our military dominance suffered through similar setbacks, it takes a while to get kinks worked out, and yes it costs a shit ton. It, and the deaths and other setbacks are the costs of doing this. I guess it goes to that fine line we walk with our military industrial complex.

Look at it another way, even Vanity Fair picked up how fucked up this is.

 

[sdifox]

And it looks like our government will order 30 of these to replace our aging F-16s....

Other planes they have considered are:

F-18 Super Hornet
Eurofighter
SAAB Gripen

Personally I favor the F18 based on cost and it's a proven technology.

I don't know why Canada went with F35 when Super Hornet is better for us.

 

[davmat787]

And the idea of the F-35 replacing this just makes me LOL:

Long live the A-10!

 

[Fenixgoon]

part of the problem was the whole concept of the aircraft, and this is partly the fault of the DoD itself. Sure, the JSF was supposed to be a common platform, but there's no way an air force aircraft and a navy aircraft are going to share 80% of their parts and structure. One lands on a 10,000ft runway, the other on a 400ft flight deck.

 

[yllus]

WTF, isn't Vanity Fair like a pop/fashion type of magazine? Not sure how much trust I'll put in their reporting on an issue like this, but could be an interesting read.

Vanity Fair has an incredibly long history of serious investigative journalism. Other magazines you wouldn't expect to have the same include GQ and Rolling Stone.

 

[Vdubchaos]

These programs exist to siphon as much money as possible from the taxpayer.

Correct, so does war.

What wins wars is lots of cheap, but effective, stuff and good strategy.

You are assuming we have wars to win or even fight. We don't, we simply create reason to do so in order to support our military/defense sector. Extract future money from tax payer > give to buddies companies......

 

[JTsyo]

They both involve lots of spinning. That cluster bomb (don't remember the designation) is one hell of a clusterf*** for anyone on the receiving end, that's for damn sure.

Edit: CBU-97

Was this the one they used to chew up an Iraqi convey in the First Iraqi War?

 

[StrangerGuy]

UAVs killed the manned aircraft star, just like how carriers did to battleships.

 

[techs]

And the idea of the F-35 replacing this just makes me LOL:

It not only was to replace the A-10 but the F-16, the F-117, the F/A 18 and the Harrier.

Hmm. I am beginning to see the problem. I guess we learned nothing from the F-111.

 

[Vdubchaos]

F35 has always been and always will be an extreme Failure.

Yet we keep handing them money......

 

[NFS4]

We don't, we simply create reason to do so in order to support our military/defense sector. Extract future money from tax payer > give to buddies companies......

Sad but true. From the article:

The company employs a stable of in-house and outside lobbyists and spends some $15 million on lobbying each year. When it comes to the F-35, which accounts for one of its largest revenue streams, Lockheed takes every opportunity to remind politicians that the airplane is manufactured in 46 states and is responsible for more than 125,000 jobs and $16.8 billion in “economic impact” to the U.S. economy. Signing up eight allied countries as partners provides additional insurance. “It’s quite frankly a brilliant strategy,” said General Bogdan, acknowledging that it is effective even if it is not admirable. Political engineering has foiled any meaningful opposition on Capitol Hill, in the White House, or in the defense establishment.

It not only was to replace the A-10 but the F-16, the F-117, the F/A 18 and the Harrier.

Oh, I know that. The F-35 is a somewhat credible replacement for those airframes, but it's simply LAUGHABLE that it is supposed to replace the A-10. It'd be like saying a Prius is supposed to be a good replacement for a Jeep Wrangler.

 

[Vic Vega]

...

 

[OverVolt]

Supersonic stealth I'm sold here's a blank check.

 

[KMFJD]

It would have been a much better plane if the marines hadn't of insisted on vtol

 

[preslove]

Given how much money has been wasted on these things, we really need to stop making as many full aircraft carriers and start using amphibious assault ships with F-35s as carriers.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Only our government can waste Billions and get poor results YET no one is responsible or losses their job for this complete failure.

Must be nice.

If it was up to me, entire project would've been scrapped 10+ years ago at first signs of failure and Lockheed sued for the money spent.

But that would make sense, no place for that in our Politics/Business relationships.