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

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Not a darn thing. I'll admit, I strayed of subject.

Edit: Other than the fact that we don't need it.


Edit again: Other than it's just another pork barrell project to pay off the lobbyists..

a reply to: Zaphod58

That, or getting you more in terms of a useful takeoff weight in STOVL-mode, something that will be of an absolute premium for the USMC -B's on the ski jump-less LHA/LHD's, though less so on the british carriers

a reply to: CharlesT

Why we need it was already explained. You seem to have made up your mind facts be damned.

The Harrier fleet as used in the Falklands conflict were mostly CAP operations so fuel was rationed.The duration of the patrol ended when fuel was low and a turnover of aircraft commenced.Missile load was restricted to Aim9 sidewinders to protect the landing fleet from Argi bombing attacks.
I can see the F35C doing virtually the same.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Zap, I just don't buy this argument. The B-52 has been flying since Heck was a pup and it's still going. I was in the AF during Vietnam and I know every airframe goes through periodic checks where the entire airframe is X-rayed for airworthiness. Yes, accidents do happen, but they they are usually few and far between. We had 2 C-130 crashes at a base where I was stationed but one was found to be pilot error during landing, but yes planes do go down. All I'm saying is that the F-35 is turning out to be a bottomless pit that is not affordable and not needed but because the military industrial complex insist that we need it and their lobbyists have spent so much payola to Congress convincing them that we do need it, it got built. Just look at the B-2 series. We spent billions, maybe trillions on that project and what are we depending on even today, the B-52. C-130's, although upgraded are still flying as well as various other airframes but our proven fighter airframes can not be upgraded to fulfill our mission objectives? I think they probably could, at a far less cost, especially when we just can not afford this F-35 monstrosity. Man, this nation is BROKE!!!! Infrastructure is crumbling, social programs are bankrupt and we are in hock up to and well above our eyeballs. We don't need to worry about Russia or China. We are destroying ourselves from within. We are our own worst enemies. All we know is war and conflict. We have been doing this crap since the mid 1800's That's all I'm saying.

"And you think that if we stop building military equipment then everyone else will too?"

Do you think other nations would rather spend their money on "WAR" or other projects that would benefit their populations. It's for damn sure we are not spending for populous benefit. Man, we are fighting this endless conflict for the 1%. Haven't you figured this out yet? If we keep this war monger attitude, we will be in a continuous war and it will eventually end in Armageddon. The 1% don't give a crap about you and me. We are just cannon fodder.

Do we need the F-35? No we don't.

a reply to: CharlesT

Since we don't need the F-35, please tell me what's going to happen when all of the US's 4th gen assets go up against a modern threat environment.

Upgrading legacy fighters to 5th gen capabilities is not possible given the amount of work it would take and the amounts of power that would be necessary to run the 5th gen systems on a 4th gen aircraft. Sure, we are upgrading platforms like the B-52 and C-130 but they are on relatively short leashes at the first hint of a capable threat picture.

a reply to: justwanttofly

Didn't you hear, as soon as the US gets rid of it's military everyone else on Earth will too because no government wants to spend money on their military.

a reply to: justwanttofly

Do you even realize why other nations are upgrading their capabilities? It's because they "KNOW" the United States has set their sights on world domination at any cost. Russia "KNOWS" we are out to destroy them as a sovereign nation. China "KNOWS" they are next. Why is North Korea developing nuclear capability? Because they "KNOW" there has never been an armistice agreement and a state of war still exists between them and the US. Would they invade S. Korea? Probably but would that endanger our national sovereignty? "NO"! I say it's none of our buisness and we need to get out of that arena.

Face the facts guy, we are war mongers. We wont stop until we have it all. The United States is an insatiable predator.

a reply to: CharlesT

We won't stop until we have it all .. that is why when we had the power to conquer the world with ease we did not and instead let our enemies start catching up to us.

Makes sense.

It's not like there is a long history of war predating the US by thousands of years or anything ...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Man, since shortly after the birth of this nation we have been invading sovereign nations. If you can't see this fact you just don't want to. Do a little research on US conflicts since 1750-1800 or so later. We have been doing this crap forever.

Just at what point do you think we had the opportunity to take over the world? World war 2? I hate to burst your bubble but the United States didn't defeat Germany, Russia did. Our western front was nothing more than a diversion to pull German troops away from the eastern front. Russia kicked Germany's ass and we took the credit. Russia suffered greatly, costing millions of Russian lives and destroying most of their society to defeat Germany. That's why the Allied forces on the western front didn't invade Berlin. They gave that prize to Russia because they deserved to be the triumphant victors to enter Berlin. So where did we have the opportunity to conquer the world? Please tell me.

Why will we never defeat Russia? Because they have a deeply ingrained national pride because of the many attempts to defeat them that they will defend their nation against any aggression to the very last man and they will never relent.......

Just ask Napoleon.

a reply to: CharlesT

In the 1990s we could have taken over the world, Russia had collapsed, China wasn't modernized yet. We still probably could if we truly wanted to.

Germany would have been defeated without US assistance, that has nothing to do with the fact that the US would have defeated Germany anyways. US involvement is meaningful not because it defeated Germany, but because it did so before Russia could exert it's influence into Western Europe. Russia could have pushed through to the Atlantic and "liberated" Europe under communist rule.

Unless you think War started in 1750 then you have no point. There always was war and nations would spend money on their military with or without the US existing.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

In the 1990s we could have taken over the world, Russia had collapsed, China wasn't modernized yet. We still probably could if we truly wanted to.


Get real! Probably could have? "AT WHAT COST"! Do you really think we had the capacity? I don't think so. Hell we are tired of war right now and we haven't even tried to defeat the entire world, just a few Arabs in the desert.

"Germany would have been defeated without US assistance, that has nothing to do with the fact that the US would have defeated Germany anyways."

We did help but we would have defeated Germany all by ourselves,

"AT WHAT COST"? Can you imagine the horrific cost associated with our sole effort to defeat Germany? Our casualties would have been in the millions and our nation would have been bankrupted not only monetarily but in human sacrifice.....

" but because it did so before Russia could exert it's influence into Western Europe"

I don't think Russia had the resources, manpower or intestinal fortitude to continue beyond Berlin. They had accomplished their goal and that is where they stopped. They had no intention of pursuing further west. All of the captured east European area was enough buffer and they were satisfied. I do not know all of Russia's military campaigns through the centuries but I truly do not see Russia as a truly aggressive invasive nation at this point. They have been invaded more times than being the invader. Their population is in decline and I think they just want to live in peace, "if the US will let them". Hell, that's all I won't.

"Unless you think War started in 1750 then you have no point"

Our foreign wars did start in the 1800's. I can't remember the port city and state down in Central America but we blew the hell out of some port city because they were charging unreasonable tariffs to, I think it was a Vanderbilt to transport his wares across the isthmus.

General Smedly Butler, "War is a Racket." It's all for money! We are peons and cannon fodder........

"We are just an aggressor nation, guy, that's all!"

originally posted by: CharlesT
Get real! Probably could have? "AT WHAT COST"! Do you really think we had the capacity? I don't think so. Hell we are tired of war right now and we haven't even tried to defeat the entire world, just a few Arabs in the desert.

At great cost, but we could have.

So what is it .. we want to control the world or we fought a few Arabs and are tired of war? You need to make up your mind.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Guy, I'm just saying there is a better way than waging war on every nation on this planet. That's all!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.

I hope you are right and some good can come from these industries reliant on death. You sent my mind spinning with your reply.....Thanks for that.

a reply to: CharlesT

Which is why it's not happening. We do however have to be ready in case others want war. Right now we have fusion technology being developed for the military. Eventually it may power all of our homes.

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: Zaphod58

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.

True...but its still one ugly ass plane.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Zaphod58

All I'm saying is that the F-35 is turning out to be a bottomless pit that is not affordable and not needed but because the military industrial complex insist that we need it and their lobbyists have spent so much payola to Congress convincing them that we do need it, it got built.

So your saying that the military industrial complex is the ones who said we needed a jet to replace our fourth gen fleet thats falling out of the sky everytime we turn on the news? Come on man. I hate the complex as much as the next guy, but that decision had nothing to do with just fattening the pockets of LM or any other company. That decision came later on in the development process. Bottom line is we absolutely need this jet because we simply cannot upgrade our legacy fighters to do what the fifth gen fighters can do.

Just look at the B-2 series. We spent billions, maybe trillions on that project and what are we depending on even today, the B-52.

We didnt spend trillions on it, billions yes. 40-50 of them. And the B-2 wasn't designed to do what the B-52 can do. It was designed to invade enemy territory undetected and drop a nuclear bomb on the kremlin. Only later was it used to drop conventional bombs. So yes we rely on the B-52 as our bomb truck, but not because of the B-2.

C-130's, although upgraded are still flying as well as various other airframes but our proven fighter airframes can not be upgraded to fulfill our mission objectives? I think they probably could, at a far less cost, especially when we just can not afford this F-35 monstrosity.

First off, the reason that C-130s, B-52's, KC-135's etc are flown for perhaps a hundred years when all is said and done is because they are not stressed like a fighter is, even on a normal training sortie. Thats the main reason fighters dont last as long as other aircraft do. A tanker takes off, circles, offloads gas, and lands. Look at all the crap a fighter has to do and how many g's are put on the airframe.

And no they couldnt be upgraded to fullfil the mission because our legacy fighters wouldnt last one day against a peer or near peer state. Chinese and Russian radar and sam sites would have a field day on our legacy fighters. Even if somehow we could upgrade them to make them survivable, it would probably end up costing more money than the F-35 would anyway. Remember, F-15's are falling apart in the sky at a record pace because of various things that cannot be fixed with a simple patch.

Man, this nation is BROKE!!!! Infrastructure is crumbling, social programs are bankrupt and we are in hock up to and well above our eyeballs. We don't need to worry about Russia or China. We are destroying ourselves from within. We are our own worst enemies. All we know is war and conflict. We have been doing this crap since the mid 1800's That's all I'm saying.

Here's some numbers for you: 4.5 trillion and 860 billion. The first number is the amount of money in the presidential budget this year, not just the military budget, but the entire budget. The second number is the cost of the F-35 program including research and development, procurement, training, and maintenence FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS!!! So you tell me, should we consider this program a bottomless pit or maybe we could go after something else in this country thats in that budget?

Really you make alot of good points about what we are doing as a nation and what we could be doing. But we need this aircraft. If we dont have it we could lose the air dominance we've always had during every modern conflict weve participated in.

Also, can we get back on topic and stop talking about the history of the United States? lol

a reply to: CharlesT

The B-52 also doesn't undergo the stress that the fighters do. An F-15 last year appears to have just broken apart in midair on a routine ferry flight overt Virginia. He was straight and level and suddenly vanished from radar after declaring an emergency.

China isn't building their forces primarily to fight us, they're building up their forces for regional conflicts. They want the islands in the South China Sea and all their resources. So they're building forces to push us back, but primarily to take on Japan and Korea, who are building their forces to take on China.

Not everything is because of us.

a reply to: SubTruth

A lot of good has come from the military. A lot of the products that we take for granted in every day use are because of the military. That trend is continuing.