If there are so many problems with the new F-35, why is the Defense Department pushing so hard?

Sgt David G Duchesneau — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:03:35 -0400

"Another expensive F-35 glitch won't be fixed anytime soon. Earlier this month Defense News reported the Pentagon had learned the fifth-generation airplane’s ejection seat could cause fatal whiplash for pilots weighing under 136, despite the fact that the seat was designed to handle any pilot weighing between 103 and 245 pounds." Now come on, what is up with this picture? I mean, are all our US pilots in that weight category? And with a price tag of around $400 billion, the F-35 is the costliest weapon in U.S. history. WTF-Over?

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2015 3:04 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:04:27 -0400

Is money .... money said it all ...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2015 3:05 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:05:37 -0400

Kick backs perhaps? and the agony of trying to save political face?

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 22 at 2015 3:06 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:06:08 -0400

There's politics involved...

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2015 3:14 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:14:01 -0400

I think we are too far in. At this point it is cheaper to keep pushing.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2015 3:20 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:20:28 -0400

Hi, Sergeant Duchesneau.

Too many moving parts, I would assume. That large of a project with so many contractors and subcontractors, with too many deliverables and too many stakeholders. The F35 program is trying to be the one vehicle that does everything for too many customers.

But it's entrenched now. It's either make it work, or scrap it and flush $400B.

Response by Sgt David G Duchesneau made Oct 22 at 2015 3:22 PM

Sgt David G Duchesneau — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:22:16 -0400

Makes you wonder what the hell these guys are thinking. I mean if the F-16 is a multi-role aircraft, capable of attacking air and ground targets.

The F-16 has been produced in large numbers and participated in numerous conflicts. Over 4 500 aircraft have been built. It has been widely exported and is currently operational with 26 countries around the world. The F-16 is battle proven.

This aircraft is small, but highly maneuverable. The F-16 has a bubble single-piece canopy for excellent pilot visibility, which becomes during close combat.

And what about the F-22 Raptor ? It is an air superiority fighter is almost invisible to radars. This aircraft carries a powerful array of weaponry. It is the most advanced and most expensive production fighter aircraft to date. Many of sensors and avionics of this plane remain classified.
What happened to that old saying, "if it aint broken-why fix it?"

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Oct 22 at 2015 3:32 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:32:54 -0400

Because there is no way they can re-coup the losses financially at this point. It would be more cost effective to continue fixing the POS's than to scrap the entire program... The good news is? About 20 years and many fix's,/updates, this actually might be a pretty decent aircraft just in time for the 6th generation fighter... then we start all over again... smdh...

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Oct 22 at 2015 4:28 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:28:53 -0400

The purpose is not to produce weapons. The purpose is to spend money.

Walt

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2015 4:57 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:57:48 -0400

To big to fail is why.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Oct 22 at 2015 5:55 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:55:16 -0400

Let me draw a parallel between this mon$ter and the V-22: There are too many politician$ who, for the economic welfare of their constituent$, that are deeply invested in the $ucce$$ of thi$ program. It cannot fail --e$pecially in an election year.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 22 at 2015 8:22 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:22:38 -0400

When I buy a new vehicle, I kick the tires an take it for a test drive.

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Oct 22 at 2015 9:01 PM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:01:31 -0400

We should honestly be ditching the "manned fighter" role anyway. We can make drones that can do things that no person could handle (G-forces, extreme altitudes, etc) and we can make them faster and more agile because of it. We could develop human-assisted AI (to begin with) that would far and away defeat any human-flown aircraft. Then, we could mass produce them and have swarms of highly-capable drones to defeat numerous enemies at a fraction of the cost - and also have zero loss of life during the development and testing of the systems.

If we don't start down that path now, we will be far behind when our enemies bring them to the battlefield.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2015 10:25 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 22:25:44 -0400

To borrow a term from another government issue, the F-35 is "too big to fail"

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Oct 23 at 2015 2:54 AM

SrA Matthew Knight — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 02:54:10 -0400

At this point I think there are two primary reasons they are still pushing forward.

1. They still have the hope that they can work out the kinks and put out a decent fighter jet. I would agree with that to some extent, I don't think it will ever be as great as fighters like the F-15, F-16 and F-18 were in their heydays but it could still be a half decent fighter.

2. Simply put they have already invested billions of dollars and it would be horrific if after all of that spending, research and testing they decided to end the program. A good example would be the B2 Spirit. The Air Force originally intended to produce over one hundred B2s spending money to prepare workers and the assembly line to do it. In the end, the program was cut down to only 21 aircraft but the money had already been committed, as a result the individual costs for each plane skyrocketed to accommodate. Once you are in, you may as well be in for the long haul because your going to spend the money either way. For the F35 it's either spend the money trying to iron it out and produce a functional plane or stop working on it and have spent all of that money on nothing. Much as I am against the F35, at this point they are better off trying to finish it.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 23 at 2015 2:03 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:03:28 -0400

Its like a person who did wrong, but won't admit the truth.

Response by SGT John Rauch made Oct 23 at 2015 2:59 PM

SGT John Rauch — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:59:10 -0400

because it looks freaking sweet! duh!

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 28 at 2015 3:05 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 03:05:18 -0400

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Oct 28 at 2015 10:56 AM

MAJ Jim Woods — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:56:44 -0400

Some of the Air Force's top brass and supporters in Congress will have egg on their faces if it doesn't Fly (pun intended)......... A-10's rule anyway.....