The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35

a reply to: CharlesT

So you are saying a brand new aircraft that does not have it's full capabilities installed can't do everything an older plane that has been fully tested and updated multiple times can do?

Say it ain't so. You do realize it doesn't matter what it is, anytime you build something new it will never be as refined as something that is finished right? Why are you comparing an incomplete F-35 to a complete plane?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well, maybe not because I truly do not even try to keep up with all of the military technology advancements. That's just not my cup of tea. The problem I have is that even though we currently already have tactical air superiority, they just keep pouring trillions of dollars into ever increasingly advanced systems that would not be needed if the US would quit instigating conflicts and wars around the entire globe. Hell, the US hasn't seen a country anywhere on this planet that is not determined to be in their view of defending the US national interest. If the jerks would just try a little diplomacy and negotiate actual business transactions with other foreign nations instead of invading and taking, most of this senseless killing we are guilty of wouldn't be necessary.. No, we have to usurp democratically elected governments or invade sovereign nations if they don't agree to be dominated by us. Think about this, who are our allies in the middle east? Mostly dictators and monarchs, that's who. Ukraine had a democratically elected government until we undermined and overthrew it. Rant, Rant, Rant.

originally posted by: CharlesTUkraine had a democratically elected government until we undermined and overthrew it. Rant, Rant, Rant.

Not to mess with your rant, but Ukraine had a government that was not serving the people and the people protested, and then they ELECTED someone who would go in the direction the people wanted, rather than the direction Putin wanted.

Which has nothing to do with the fact the F-35 is an amazing aircraft and all the negativity comes from people with no knowledge. If the people who were actually flying it came out saying it was horrible I'd take that seriously. The ones flying it LOVE IT, armchair experts with no hands on experience don't.

Who are you putting your trust in?

a reply to: CharlesT

And you think that if we stop building military equipment then everyone else will too? Russia, China, and just about every other nation you care to name is building new advanced equipment. And some of the situations they're building up for don't have anything to do with the US.

The US fleet is currently as old as or older than the crews that fly them. Some of them are in danger of coming apart in flight, and have, resulting in dead crews. The only way around that is to build new equipment. That means spending money and taking time to develop.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: boomer135

Boomer remember the plasma emitters i posted before? They are in the patent office on guess what looks like a black triangle. ALso a few people here have seen them up close. Their capabilities might be off but they do exist. They arent anti gravity though. As i understood it its just lighter than air when powered suppossedly.

Well thats what it all comes down to, capabilities. If it really has the capabilities that most people claim, then i would say that its not of this world, rather than some military technology. I actually have a much easier time saying they are extra-terrestrial than american made.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I truly had no intention of getting into a drawn out debate but I think I did read an article a while back about pilots refusing to fly it because of some bugs with the pilot oxygen system but I really don't care if it even flies or not. Yes I'm sure we need to stay one step ahead but I can't help but believe that our aggressive posture does more to inflame international relations than any other 1 issue. Man, we have been invading sovereign nations for monetary profit since the mid 1800's. We have been doing this throughout our entire history. With nuclear capacity, this trend needs to stop. The risks are just too great.

Occams,

Call up Victoria Nuland and ask her how much it cost the United States to instigate and over through the Ukrainian government. It has been proven that paid snipers were shooting at both sides of the conflict just to instigate violence. Don't even try to tell me we didn't have a hand in that crap. Who is now in charge of the oil industry in Ukrain? A Bush, that's who and George Sorros has blood all over his hands in that affair. Their can of worms goes to the depths of depravity. Guilt is rampant in Washington DC.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I have a ton of respect for your well though out answers and replies....I have a serious question. What happens when we run out of external enemies for our military industrial complex to fight. Large scale conflicts are on the decline and WW3 I believe is just not going to happen.



The men who control this are not going to just give it up or retool into other industries. This juggernaut could eventually turn inward.

a reply to: CharlesT

That was the F-22. That issue was resolved.

There are conflicts in danger of starting that have nothing to do with our policies, that are driving advances with other countries.

a reply to: CharlesT

The oxygen problem you refer to is probably the F-22.

As far as Ukraine us having a hand or not is a red herring, as the people were ALREADY protesting at that point, because they wanted closer ties to Europe and their "leader" was refusing to do so. They had enough of his crap and wanted their leader to actually do what was best for the people, not his bank account.

a reply to: SubTruth

China and Russia are not going anywhere, whether a war starts or not, we have to be ready for one.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Zaphod58

I truly had no intention of getting into a drawn out debate but I think I did read an article a while back about pilots refusing to fly it because of some bugs with the pilot oxygen system but I really don't care if it even flies or not. Yes I'm sure we need to stay one step ahead but I can't help but believe that our aggressive posture does more to inflame international relations than any other 1 issue. Man, we have been invading sovereign nations for monetary profit since the mid 1800's. We have been doing this throughout our entire history. With nuclear capacity, this trend needs to stop. The risks are just too great.

Occams,

Call up Victoria Nuland and ask her how much it cost the United States to instigate and over through the Ukrainian government. It has been proven that paid snipers were shooting at both sides of the conflict just to instigate violence. Don't even try to tell me we didn't have a hand in that crap. Who is now in charge of the oil industry in Ukrain? A Bush, that's who and George Sorros has blood all over his hands in that affair. Their can of worms goes to the depths of depravity. Guilt is rampant in Washington DC.

That was the F-22 with the oxygen issue and its been fixed.


Edit: beat me to it!

a reply to: SubTruth

Until Russia and China are close allies with the US there will be an external threat.

I've said most of my life that I didn't think that a large scale war, on the order of WWIII wouldn't happen. Eventually, our technology is going to head off planet. We're moving in that direction, just slowly. The companies that produce the aerospace component of the military are going to be the ones that take us off planet.

originally posted by: Clairaudience
One should look into its electronic warfare capabilities.

a reply to: SubTruth

It already is!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is all well and good if you wont to believe that but just what does that have to do with US national security? Not a damn thing. The US wants to do what Russia tried to do by putting nukes in Cuba during the Kennedy administration. Now we are Russia and Russia is us. Same difference. Tell me it's not!

a reply to: Zaphod58

Put me in the "cautiously optimistic" camp when it comes to the F-35, especially when it comes to the -B variant, which if used right could become an absolute game-changer and the final realization of what all of those cool Hawker post-harrier concepts could have and should have been had the white papers not killed them all.

That said, here's some food for thought:

Imagine if the X-32 had instead been selected, with it's all-jet powered lifting system. Unlike the F-35, which is more or less limited in terms of how useful extra takeoff power is, due to its engine+fan system, the X-32's system would have been able to take full advantage of a bigger, badder engine in the future.

Now imagine the X-32 design, but with a modern ADVENT-type variable cycle engine, which could potentially bring extreme STOL or even VTOL capabilities into play, not to mention supercruise, while preserving a useful combat radius.

a reply to: boomer135

I WANT TO BELIEVE

a reply to: Barnalby

VTOL is great for airshows, but unless you put a huge engine in place it's pretty useless for real world uses. The landing portion is useful, but you can't take off with any kind of useful weight on board.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is all well and good if you wont to believe that but just what does that have to do with US national security? Not a damn thing. The US wants to do what Russia tried to do by putting nukes in Cuba during the Kennedy administration. Now we are Russia and Russia is us. Same difference. Tell me it's not!

Wwhhaattt? We are not putting nukes anywhere like the Cuba situation. I have no idea what nukes have to do with the F-35 either.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It was. My mistake. But, but, but!