YOU ARE NOT A WOODWORKER IF YOU USE CNC!!!!!1!
(I do not actually share that belief, but there are a lot of trolls out there that will say something similar.)
YOU ARE NOT A WOODWORKER IF YOU USE CNC!!!!!1!
(I do not actually share that belief, but there are a lot of trolls out there that will say something similar.)
Forbes: The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed
I think y'all wanna examine your budget priorities.The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday. “You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our ‘high end’ [fighter], we want to make sure we don’t use it all for the low-end fight.”
“I want to moderate how much we’re using those aircraft,” Brown said.
Hence the need for a new low-end fighter to pick up the slack in day-to-day operations. Today, the Air Force’s roughly 1,000 F-16s meet that need. But the flying branch hasn’t bought a new F-16 from Lockheed since 2001. The F-16s are old.
acket.
Oh. CNC = Computer Numerical Control.
Only a few other meanings, apparently.
Cost of developing new planes are just too high even for US government. So the idea of developing ONE plane that can suit the needs of many missions sounds great during the sales pitch, but of course not very practical.Originally Posted by FaultyMario
It's like instead of buying a sports car, a sedan, a truck and a cargo van... salesman convinced you to instead buy just super vehicle Ford F-35!
Ford F-35 could run on the track, but slower than a sports car... it could fit passengers comfortably as sedans, but will gobble up lots of fuel. F-35 could be used as a truck or a cargo van too... but just won't go off road as well nor will it fit more cargo. It may cost less than buying all 4 separate vehicles, but you end up with a vehicle that is still very expensive and does everything poorly.
I don't know which top dog in Pentagon authorized that plane, but suffice to say that we can't hold him accountable now.
Pretty sure decisions were not made based only US government's best interests, but on fattening the pockets of military contractors and getting some kick backs out of it.
So authorizing a new plane? Surely every congress person would want a piece of this action in their own state or else they probably won't authorize this expensive thing just to fly around during ball games or be shown in Top Gun3... So when all the law makers are happy with getting their pieces of action... this new plane will be another costly useless hardware just as the article predicted.
SpaceX had help solved this similar problem for NASA. Will there be a new aerospace company as passionate as SpaceX able to deliver? Probably not.
Fighters are obsolete, IMHO.
Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; February 24th, 2021 at 12:46 PM.
Your Ford analogy doesn't work, per the article.
acket.
Even better. If my analogy helped you understand the problem, great. If my analogy doesn't work, then it's working as well as the F-35. The whole point was that it doesn't work. I just can't lose no matter what.
Your analogy that you wrote was designed to help you understand the problem. And it failed.
To address the TRUE cause of the issue, it's that the F-35 program was driven into failure by your heroic government and US Military. Bloat and delays.
They really want a nimble canon fodder jet to swarm the skies with. They ended up with a hugely compromised white elephant that can be picked out of the sky by Russian-made jets without even needing to see them over the horizon.
And now overseas governments are forced to deal with that. We used to have the fast, long-range F-111, and all but one of them are now buried in a quarry west of Ipswich. Now the Australian Air Force can't even use its F-35s to bomb Jakarta without them running out of fuel, and the Russian-equipped Indonesian Air Force will keep any air tankers from being able to rendezvous, so they will just fall into the Timor Sea on their way home without a shot ever being fired.
The US government asked for it, and Lockheed Martin simply built what they wanted.
Bolded mine.
There was a fun* made for HBO movie about the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle ( "a troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance, and a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snowblower, but has enough ammo to take out half of D.C.") ~20 years ago called "The Pentagon Wars". It was based on a book which was apparently pretty accurate about the government procurement process.
Based on everything I've heard, the F35 process was even more effed up than usual due to the added complications of it theoretically going to every service branch short of the Coast Guard and some "optimization" for international sales.
*Haven't seen it since around then, and only remember it vaguely so I dunno if it was actually any good.
-Formerly Stabulator
It really does make you miss the skunkworks days, when they made highly-specialized bonkers shit like the SR-71. I doubt it was a good idea financially and likely a bad idea overall, but at least you end up with a finished product that is awe-inspiring in some way.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote