Post: #1

It's examples like this that make me boil with anger when tax day arrives. But hey, maybe I can write to my Congressman and he'll put a stop to it... lol!

Do you want to see a perfect example of how American tax dollars are lost into the black hole of the Military Industrial Complex? Do you need yet another example of how politicians are bought and paid for by lobbyists? Watch the following video.





The f-35 fighter jet, supposedly the next generation in air superiority, is an unmitigated failure. Over 1.5 TRILLION will be spent and it isn't close to being ready for service.

Post: #2

I'm sure there are lots of problems with the F-35 but that video only shows it doing cool shit and never tells me what any of the problems actually are.

Post: #3

Wasteful spending? Pfffttt...

Our govt spent 500K on PICKLE RESEARCH in the 80's.

Wasteful spending is the only thing keeping our economy afloat.

Post: #4

Given that the current fighters, the F-15, F-16, and F-18, were introduced between 1972 and 1978, I'm inclined to withhold judgment.

When they work out the bugs and get the production lines going and some foreign sales, the unit cost will go down. If the current model holds, the F-35 will still be flying in the USAF in 2050.

Post: #5

Worst part is that after wasting hundreds of billions of US taxpayer money---the Chinese steal the technology on the cheap for pennies. Priceless. Your government at work.

Post: #6

Probably the fatal flaw was the idea that one plane could service 3 different branches, with all of their different needs. I suspect there were moving goals and design benchmarks, that required constant re-design, as well as infighting between the services as to what features should get priority. Add to that usual gov contractor BS, and you have this debacle.

Post: #7

(02-13-2014 04:39 PM)Agent 47 Wrote:  Wasteful spending? Pfffttt...

Our govt spent 500K on PICKLE RESEARCH in the 80's.

Wasteful spending is the only thing keeping our economy afloat.

Imagine if we as consumers bought only what we needed to survive? Everything would crumble.

Post: #8

(02-13-2014 04:39 PM)Agent 47 Wrote:  Wasteful spending? Pfffttt...

Our govt spent 500K on PICKLE RESEARCH in the 80's.

Wasteful spending is the only thing keeping our economy afloat.

This kills me about these fiscal discussions. Somebody always brings up some congressman's pet project. Let's talk numbers:

1,500,000,000,000 = 500,000 X 3,000,000

Put another way, they could've done 3 million pickle research projects for the price of the F-35. People talk all the time about earmarks because they're sleazy and scandalous, but you're talking pennies vs $100 bills.

Post: #9

One of the many bullshit policies is to spread out production of military equipment over as many Congressional districts as possible. That way no one will vote against a spending reduction that will effect their district.

Post: #10

(02-13-2014 05:11 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  Given that the current fighters, the F-15, F-16, and F-18, were introduced between 1972 and 1978, I'm inclined to withhold judgment.

When they work out the bugs and get the production lines going and some foreign sales, the unit cost will go down. If the current model holds, the F-35 will still be flying in the USAF in 2050.

At least the F-16 had a low price tag. In the late 70s it costs roughly 9 million per aircraft, way less than the F-14 which was closer to 20 million. It was a move away from the bulky aircraft like the F-4 and F-14.

Post: #11

I was really into military aircraft and planes in general when I was a kid so, I know it's kind of dumb, but I can't be too upset because at least all that government spending is going towards something cool and "real" versus all the taxpayer money that dissapears with nothing to show for it.

Post: #12

(02-13-2014 04:36 PM)Ensam Wrote:  I'm sure there are lots of problems with the F-35 but that video only shows it doing cool shit and never tells me what any of the problems actually are.

In that case you are falling for it, because the logic spoken is not what keeps the project afloat, its the emotion. And the resulting tax extortion.

Post: #13

(02-13-2014 07:02 PM)darklightdispatch Wrote:  I was really into military aircraft and planes in general when I was a kid so, I know it's kind of dumb, but I can't be too upset because at least all that government spending is going towards something cool and "real" versus all the taxpayer money that dissapears with nothing to show for it.

You should get upset. The thing is worthless.

As a fighter aircraft, it needs to do one thing: fight. So to be 397 billion into the project, and it has never been combat tested, means its value is worthless.

I bet lockheed guarantees it can do all sorts of nifty shit. Pretend i offer to build you a fighter that can guaranteed shoot down 500 other fighters before losing one. Which would you pick?

So lets throw the thing in the ring with a Su27 and be realistic. And not get our panties in a knot when we lose fighters at an equal rate with a jet that cost 1/100 of the price.

Post: #14

I don't think you understand all this shit is by design.

The kids of Lockheed executives go to the same schools as the kids of the Congresspeople.

You are all pawns.

Post: #15

(02-13-2014 07:28 PM)Grit Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 04:36 PM)Ensam Wrote:  I'm sure there are lots of problems with the F-35 but that video only shows it doing cool shit and never tells me what any of the problems actually are.

In that case you are falling for it, because the logic spoken is not what keeps the project afloat, its the emotion. And the resulting tax extortion.

So why didn't the video tell me a single problem it had? The F-22 took it's first flight in 1997 and wasn't introduced until 2005. The F-35, arguably a more complex piece of engineering, took it's first flight in 2006 and has planned introduction in late 2015. That's only a year or so longer for a much more complicated airplane. I'm not saying it doesn't have problems. I'm not saying it's a total boondoggle of a project and a waste of tax payers money. I'm saying that video just asserted those things as facts without providing a single piece of evidence. It's playing to emotion as much as people who are blindly for it.

I'm neither for it or against it, but that video is just mental masturbation for people already against it for their own agendas.

Post: #16

Of course all the naysayers would flip their shit if they found it that the F-35 was based off a Russian prototype.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-141

Quote:Following the announcement by the CIS on September 1991 that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program. Lockheed Corporation, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the US Joint Strike Fighter program, stepped forward, and with their assistance 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed until June 1994.[1]

Post: #17

(02-13-2014 07:41 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  I don't think you understand all this shit is by design.

The kids of Lockheed executives go to the same schools as the kids of the Congresspeople.

You are all pawns.

I'm sure this is true but do you have proof of this?

Post: #18

In my day job, I oversee a number of volunteer staff. One of them has been unable to serve in his normal duties because he has been "on lock down" working "out the kinks" on the F-35 project in for the last few weeks. Can't take calls, emails, nothing. I figured that's a pretty important job, no worries.

And then I see this.

Tax dollars at work.

Honestly no matter how you slice it- on a macro scale, the military-industrial complex is the biggest problem there is in America.

Post: #19

You guys really think that whole 1.5 trillion will be spent on this ? I got news for you, probably over half that money has been stolen and is going into far more advanced shit we could ever dream of.... This is just window dressing for the congress and the american people.

Do you guys really believe the fastest plane on record is from 1976 ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record

Im pretty sure in 1976 computers still took up whole rooms if not whole buildings... Now they fit in the palm of your hand and can follow you to the ends of the earth... But the military industrial complex cant build anything faster than a plane designed in the 60's

Post: #20

^^ yeah and that thing only got out to the public because the president accidentally mentioned it in a speech. They used to set records the same day they retired planes.

Post: #21

Only the F-35B version has the VTOL thrust vectoring of the Yak-41. The "A" version is a straight out CTOL plane, and the "C" is for CATOBAR.

There is a lot of umm'ing and err'ing over the cost, but BigInJapan made a good point, it's the biggest tech project in the west since the Nuclear Bomb, a lot of 'collateral technology' is probably being funnelled through this project, and if off the books, it means it stays in the Pentagon, and for the U.S. government to use against poor saps, including its own civilistions, at a further date.

Post: #22

(02-13-2014 11:10 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  You guys really think that whole 1.5 trillion will be spent on this ? I got news for you, probably over half that money has been stolen and is going into far more advanced shit we could ever dream of.... This is just window dressing for the congress and the american people.

Do you guys really believe the fastest plane on record is from 1976 ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record

Im pretty sure in 1976 computers still took up whole rooms if not whole buildings... Now they fit in the palm of your hand and can follow you to the ends of the earth... But the military industrial complex cant build anything faster than a plane designed in the 60's

While the argument that money goes elsewhere is valid, I is not implausible that 1976 aircraft is still the fastest. If you know the laws of physics then you should know that speed is not a similar dimension to weight, height, density or anything else, because there is a rather close maximum finite limit to speed, closer then to any other of those . Any linear increase in speed requires exponential times exponential increase in energy and costs.
Today's military technology is probably not evolving like WW2 tech by making vehicles faster, armor thicker, cannons shoot further and produce explosions larger. Today everything is about being tiny, compact, light, about surveillance, control and automation. There sure is horrible stuff that general public is not aware of, but it is the little nano-spy/assasin stuff things that are even more scarier and more threatening to human liberty then the big loud guns on big fast machines, imho.

Post: #23

(02-13-2014 11:10 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  You guys really think that whole 1.5 trillion will be spent on this ? I got news for you, probably over half that money has been stolen and is going into far more advanced shit we could ever dream of.... This is just window dressing for the congress and the american people.

Do you guys really believe the fastest plane on record is from 1976 ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record

Im pretty sure in 1976 computers still took up whole rooms if not whole buildings... Now they fit in the palm of your hand and can follow you to the ends of the earth... But the military industrial complex cant build anything faster than a plane designed in the 60's

Maybe this is where it's going

Quote:Dr. Ben R. Rich former Lockheed Skunk Works director confirmed:


1. There are 2 types of UFOs -- the ones we build and ones 'they' build. We learned from both crash retrievals and actual "hand-me-downs." The Government knew and until 1969 took an active hand in the administration of that information. After a 1969 Nixon "purge", administration was handled by an international board of directors in the private sector…

2. Nearly all "biomorphic" aerospace designs were inspired by the Roswell spacecraft -- from Kelly's SR-71 Blackbird onward to today's drones, UCAVs, and aerospace craft…

3. It was Ben Rich's opinion that the public should not be told [about UFOs and extraterrestrials] . He believed they could not handle the truth -- ever. Only in the last months of his decline did he begin to feel that the "international corporate board of directors" dealing with the "Subject" could represent a bigger problem to citizens' personal freedoms under the United States Constitution than the presence of off-world visitors themselves.”



Lindemann added that “Bill McDonald received the above information from Andrews from 1994 until their last phone call near Christmas in 1998.” Lindemann also noted “It should also be known that Dr. Ben R. Rich attended a public aerospace designers and engineers conference in 1993 before his illness overwhelmed him in which he stated -- in the presence of MUFON Orange County Section Director Jan Harzan and many others that – ‘We’ (i.e., the U.S. aerospace community/military industrial complex) had in it's possession the technology to "take us to the stars".

http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2010/08/ufo-a...skunk.html

Post: #24

The current US National Debt is over 17 trillion dollars. The F-35 is now at 1.5 trillion dollars and it's still full of problems.

This project is close to 1/10 of the US National Debt. Think about that, especially you Americans, when April 15th arrives. But hey, at least it looks cool!

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2...35-Fighter

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Perhaps Big in Japan is right. The money is being stolen and funneled elsewhere.

Post: #25

Here are the various problems I see with the F35 project:

1. Not combat tested. This is like learning Game but never approaching.

2. Increased pilot accountability, in three manners: first, he is going to be immensely pressured not to destroy his own jet, due to the excruciating cost of the individual unit. Second, he is going to be immensely pressured to agree that all the bells and whistles are absolutely necessary, due to the excruciating cost of the program. Third, he is going to be immensely pressured not to destroy his own jet, due to the whim of politics- the public might use the fate of one jet to make inferences about the entire program. I remind you that this burden is on the pilot, and he isn't even thinking about shooting down the enemy yet.

3. "If its stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid." If the thing is really so damn awesome in combat, the enemy will blow up fuel trucks, and you will have to ground either the superadvanced jet, or the helicopters that rescue wounded men from battle. Or they will suicide bomb the mechanics, so you can't fix the thing.

4. Pretend the avionics gets hit by one stray .50 round. With older aircraft, slap a band aid on it and get back in the fight. With this jet? Who knows. In war, things have to be either simple to fix, or modular. I get the feeling every part on this thing is specialized.

5. Expectation to use 'air superiority' fighters implies expectation of an air battle. Expectation of an air battle should imply an expectation for surface to air missiles, antiaircraft flak, enemy fighters, anti aircraft guns, etc.

6. All the technology in the world will never invalidate Murphy's Laws of combat.

I could go on but you get the idea.