ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, February 04, 2020

Hey, at least it FLIES!

Given all the other problems with the F-35, I wouldn't have been surprised if it turned out that the overdesigned grand compromise didn't even stay in the sky:
The latest news about the F-35 isn't just bad - it's CATASTROPHIC. It turns out that this utter turkey of a plane is so badly built and designed that its gun can't even shoot straight:

Add a gun that can’t shoot straight to the problems that dog Lockheed Martin Corp.’s $428 billion F-35 program, including more than 800 software flaws.

The 25mm gun on Air Force models of the Joint Strike Fighter has “unacceptable” accuracy in hitting ground targets and is mounted in housing that’s cracking, the Pentagon’s test office said in its latest assessment of the costliest U.S. weapons system.

The annual assessment by Robert Behler, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation, doesn’t disclose any major new failings in the plane’s flying capabilities. But it flags a long list of issues that his office said should be resolved -- including 13 described as Category 1 “must-fix” items that affect safety or combat capability -- before the F-35’s upcoming $22 billion Block 4 phase.

The number of software deficiencies totaled 873 as of November, according to the report obtained by Bloomberg News in advance of its release as soon as Friday. That’s down from 917 in September 2018, when the jet entered the intense combat testing required before full production, including 15 Category 1 items. What was to be a year of testing has now been extended another year until at least October.

“Although the program office is working to fix deficiencies, new discoveries are still being made, resulting in only a minor decrease in the overall number” and leaving “many significant‘’ ones to address, the assessment said.

Settle in with a stiff drink, chaps, because carving up this turkey is going to take a while.
Here's to hoping the empire goes out with a whimper and not a bang.

Labels: ,

110 Comments:

Blogger Geir Balderson February 04, 2020 3:22 PM  

The F-35 is mainly a weapons 'system' to enrich the build contractors. If the Military wanted a reasonably priced, sturdy and workable airplane they need to hire Russian designers. They do great things with a limited budget. Our Military is all about, "Hey let's spend some bucks!".

Quite a few dollars was spent designing and manufacturing a 'space pen' for our Astronauts. The Russians used pencils.

Blogger #7139 February 04, 2020 3:25 PM  

...Lockheed Martin Corp.’s $428 billion F-35 program ...

Is that all? I thought it was more than that. If the DOD had spent more money instead of doing it on the cheap the F-35 would be perfect.

...“unacceptable” accuracy in hitting ground targets...

That is good to know. If an F-35 strafes you, just stand there. The 25 mm shells will miss you completely.

Blogger MATT February 04, 2020 3:30 PM  

I'd settle for a loud fart.

Blogger Long Live The West February 04, 2020 3:37 PM  

From 917 to 873 in a year? Not bad. Only another 25 years or so and it'll be running just fine.

Blogger Dos Voltz February 04, 2020 3:39 PM  

At least our design teams, engineers, mathematicians, and HR departments are DIVERSE you racist scum!

Blogger Kraemer February 04, 2020 3:43 PM  

I really hope it flies. Single-engine systems have a tendency to not do that for particularly long, especially once fired upon

Blogger L'Aristokrato February 04, 2020 3:44 PM  

Clearly, an indication of the evident lack of trans-women of colour in the design team.

Blogger carnaby February 04, 2020 3:49 PM  

Meh, pretty much par for the course. Software defects in new modern systems are extremely common and difficult to overcome quickly. I'd like to see the software process used in development and to actually see where the deficiencies exist. Are the problems with in-house software, vendor components software, or both?

None of this is even a little bit surprising. I personally preferred the Boeing JSF plane that everyone else thought was ugly. I think it is beautiful in its original delta wing form.

Blogger Salt February 04, 2020 3:49 PM  

The days of The Skunk Works and such as the Blackbird are long gone.

Blogger Poster Child February 04, 2020 3:51 PM  

Literally everyone involved with the F-35 has known it to be a non-starter for years. So the question is, how has it gimped it's way to this point and who has allowed it?

Blogger Doctor Mayhem February 04, 2020 3:51 PM  

Plus, there's not a damn thing wrong with our arsenal as is. Better idea: instead of wasting money on the F-35, start making A-10s again.

Blogger carnaby February 04, 2020 3:52 PM  

If the Military wanted a reasonably priced, sturdy and workable airplane they need to hire Russian designers.

Uh-huh, yeah, that's the ticket. :P

Blogger Noah B. February 04, 2020 3:55 PM  

TFW you're about to lock a missile and suddenly it's all Viagra popups

Blogger John Best. February 04, 2020 4:00 PM  

Spend more money to get more faults.

Blogger Stilicho February 04, 2020 4:03 PM  

The problems with the F-4 should have made it clear, even to the Perfumed Princes, that a one size fits all airframe is not going to meet the disparate needs of the services. Too many compromises have to be made.

Add in a healthy dose of govt contractor diversity quotas and an attitude that just ok is good enough (at a perfection level price tag!) And here we are. Again.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 04, 2020 4:08 PM  

Please, let this circus close with Yeltsin, not Pol Pot.

Blogger Silly but True February 04, 2020 4:14 PM  

In two years, the Pentagon at least managed to get 50 severe flaws fixed, apparently including correcting its helmet which obscured pilots’ vision, the plane’s ability to turn from straight line, and its stealth system that melted off at flight speeds.

I’m not sure to be happy or sad.

Blogger Eduardo February 04, 2020 4:14 PM  

But... BUT... It was so good in F-35 Lightining II by Novalogic!!!

Damn it. It's RAH-66 Comanche all over again...

Blogger Wadly February 04, 2020 4:19 PM  

Those responsible for killing the F-22 Raptor should be executed for treason. The finest jet fighter ever, already in the production phase. Can' imagine it losing a fight with an F-35.

Blogger TheMaleRei February 04, 2020 4:20 PM  

Things like this make me wonder if it's on purpose to produce poor weapon systems for the U.S. military, not simply to make truckloads of money, but so that the U.S. will be defeated if / when the bullets start flying against a near peer foe.

But, yes, our everything is die-verse. We get what we deserve, it seems.

Blogger Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi February 04, 2020 4:24 PM  

Nothing works anymore.

Blogger OneWingedShark February 04, 2020 4:30 PM  

Dos Voltz wrote:At least our design teams, engineers, mathematicians, and HR departments are DIVERSE you racist scum!
To be fair, some of those HR-women are as big as a 500lb bomb…

MATT wrote:I'd settle for a loud fart.
Do you mean a BRRRRRRT?

Geir Balderson wrote:The F-35 is mainly a weapons 'system' to enrich the build contractors.
I believe this is true.
It's a "too big to fail" project, and if I could, I'd kill the project and prosecute the perpetrators for fraud, and Treason.

Blogger carnaby February 04, 2020 4:36 PM  

At least our design teams, engineers, mathematicians, and HR departments...

If by diverse you mean white and Asian.

Blogger One Deplorable DT February 04, 2020 4:42 PM  

I may be far too optimistic, but I actually think the F-35 can be turned into a decent fighter. That's not to say I approve of the program which has been a cluster #@!* of mistakes and cost overruns from day one. But we're in it now. And considering what we've spent a debugged F-35 is better than scrap metal.

Mistake #1: thinking a single airframe could satisfy every role not just for the U.S. armed forces, but for our allies as well.

Blogger NO GOOGLES February 04, 2020 4:48 PM  

F-35 is a compromise for sure but all new weapons systems of this level of complexity have a huge number of teething problems. The M16 (a MUCH simpler weapon) was plagued with problems for years and now service members love it.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 February 04, 2020 5:02 PM  

Why is there any kind of digital interface in a fighter jet? That just leaves it open to be hacked, especially the more complex the requirements for the aircraft.

Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex. I don't think he predicted it would fail so miserably at basic system design.

Blogger NewTunesForOldLogos February 04, 2020 5:10 PM  

At this point we may lose to opponents with non-electronic planes, flying by the seat of their pants, shooting EMP weapons and standard rifle cartridges by line-of-sight.

Blogger Newscaper312 February 04, 2020 5:13 PM  

@18 Eduardo

It was so good in F-35 Lightning II by Novalogic!!!

I'll always remember that, first semi-realistic flight sim that let you fdrop a tactical nuke!

Blogger carnaby February 04, 2020 5:18 PM  

Those responsible for killing the F-22 Raptor should be executed for treason. The finest jet fighter ever, already in the production phase.

Truth! Anyone disagrees and we'll have words and it may come to blows.

The M16 (a MUCH simpler weapon) was plagued with problems for years and now service members love it.

+1000. Nobody better say nothin' bad about the M16 platform or else!

Blogger Dos Voltz February 04, 2020 5:24 PM  

Sorry, I don't care how "badass" boomers in the military think this turd CAN BE. Half a trillion dollars for any ONE unit in a military arsenal is beyond stupid.

The only possible explanation is that the program was approved in order to funnel cash to...ahem...certain people connected to the Pentagon and Tel Aviv.

I'd rather we just invest a paltry million $$ to construct an automated gallows. Crack treasonous necks on an assembly line like the Colonel's "mechanical separation" chicken machine.

Blogger Newscaper312 February 04, 2020 5:27 PM  

FYI -- Re F-22 being cut short, Boeing actually has an interesting idea in its upgraded F-15X to supplement the F-22 for air defense somewhat better cheaper than F-35 could.

Blogger Ingot9455 February 04, 2020 5:30 PM  

I recall something in the recent THERE WILL BE WAR about how lasers were going to put an end to air combat and that this would be the last generation of combat aircraft.

Promise fulfilled!

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 04, 2020 5:33 PM  

One Deplorable DT wrote:And considering what we've spent a debugged F-35 is better than scrap metal.
Sunk costs are sunk. If we could get a real, working fighter for less than the cost of a debugged F35, that would be the way to go.

Unfortunately, the military procurement system will not deliver a real, working anything, because a working weapon has no scope for boondoggle.
NO GOOGLES wrote:The M16 (a MUCH simpler weapon) was plagued with problems for years and now service members love it.
Service members who have never known anything else think it's better than all the things they don't know about. In 30 years, people who have never seen a working fighter will think the F35 is great.

Blogger Randomatos February 04, 2020 5:38 PM  

Are you familiar with the sunk-cost fallacy, commonly stated as "throwing good money after bad"?

Blogger xavier February 04, 2020 5:41 PM  

NO Goggles

In the case of the M16 it was the constant tinkering by private companies and gunsmiths that finally made the rifle very good.
The F35 perhaps could benefit from the same approach.

Blogger Newscaper312 February 04, 2020 5:45 PM  

@18 Eduardo

I checked and that game was actually *F-22* Lightning. It was before the F-22 program got far enough along to get it official name of Raptor. They just guessed wrong, muddying the waters of memory.

Blogger Pathfinderlight February 04, 2020 5:46 PM  

Lead computing gun sights have only been around since the 1940's. New fangled tech like that is bound to have a few bugs.

Blogger Azimus February 04, 2020 5:49 PM  

The F-35 will be ready for combat at just about the time that manned air superiority platforms are obsolete.

Blogger Azimus February 04, 2020 5:51 PM  

I think SDL is on a "nothing works anymore" kick in the wake of the Iowa Caucus debacle.

Blogger Azimus February 04, 2020 6:06 PM  

25. NO GOOGLESFebruary 04, 2020 4:48 PM
F-35 is a compromise for sure but all new weapons systems of this level of complexity have a huge number of teething problems. The M16 (a MUCH simpler weapon) was plagued with problems for years and now service members love it.


You really must consider the implications of what you're saying. A stamped metal selective fire rifle, comprised of what - 100 parts? Took years to perfect. What was the development cost for Armalite? $10 million? Maybe $30 million with upgrades based on field data? Now extrapolate that to the 300,000 individual parts in an F-35, the tens of billions...

It is certainly POSSIBLE that the F-35 will be a bug-free consistently lethal killing machine. It just seems like they tried to do too much all at once, and with the F-22 already deployed, at some point it will be more cost-effective to rebuild the Lockheed Martin plants...

Blogger Heian-kyo Dreams February 04, 2020 6:22 PM  

They should have hired more womwn engineers and coders.

Blogger Boaty Bear February 04, 2020 6:36 PM  

They have only spent $150bn on this afterall.




Yes I know they SAY $428bn.

This is simply cabal money, just like NASA.

Blogger ZhukovG February 04, 2020 6:45 PM  

I understand that we are building F-15s again with upgraded electronics. Great plane...back in the 1980s.

Blogger Unknown February 04, 2020 7:05 PM  

Mainly because graphite dust floating around in 0G plays havoc with circuits.

Blogger Shane Bradman February 04, 2020 7:13 PM  

Pencils in space are dangerous. When graphite snaps it can create a spark. This can lead to some unwanted and unnecessary consequences.

Blogger RedJack February 04, 2020 7:33 PM  

F22 had some faults too. Mow for a real screw up, the new destroyers are starting to crack.

Blogger Doktor Jeep February 04, 2020 7:34 PM  

From the looks of it, with all those gammas infesting everything, the empire is going to end with a snark or a sneer.

Blogger John Regan February 04, 2020 7:49 PM  

Both the F-14 and F-18 had plenty of problems at the beginning, but the worked out fairly well. The F-35 does appear far more problematic tho.

Blogger Hammerli 280 February 04, 2020 7:50 PM  

OK, folks. I've spent the last 40 years in military flight test, and can decode the statements.

The F-35 flies fine. The air vehicle and engine had the usual teething problems, but nothing that hasn't been sorted out. The radar and EO/IR hardware work OK. It's the software that has been the main headache. On a modern military aircraft (aside from cargo and some trainers), the software is around 80% of the headaches.

The gun on the A-model? Mounting issues, apparently. The same gun on the B and C is mounted in a pod, and reportedly is more accurate. The gun itself is a BK-27 by Mauser, a proven design.

Now, as to deficiencies...Any tester knows that if you don't smack the program management as hard as possible, they'll let things slide. So critical safety-of-operations or mission-failure deficiencies (what the Navy terms Part I deficiencies) get written up post-haste. And software can generate a LOT of those.

I'm not a big supporter of F-35. The idea of making one all-singing, all-dancing airframe was a BAD mistake. Especially since the Navy's requirements weren't really addressed. The original USAF desirement for Joint Strike Fighter was an F-16 that was stealthy. The USMC/UK desirement was for an F-18 that was STOVL. The USN...needed a HIGH end strike fighter to replace the F-14, and didn't get it. But the F-35 should be judged by its own failings.

Blogger Rex Leroy King February 04, 2020 7:51 PM  

Effect signals intent.

Blogger Voracious Reader February 04, 2020 8:00 PM  

@10 Unknown

Usually these boondoggle weapons systems are kept alive by certain Congressional offices whose district has a heavy economic presence of said useless system.

But more particularly, since I spent time in the limestone halls of Congress, it is rarely the elected official who is to blame. They are usually witless about technical details, and led around by those staffers who do know enough to be dangerous.

It is either a senior staffer in that certain Hill office, or many times more likely, a committee professional staff member (PSM) who has program knowledge but generally knows nothing at all about how these systems, both simple and sophisticated, actually operate in the field. "Degenerate ego supplanting brains" is the standard culprit.

If they were in the military, it was usually at an officer level, and because of their education (political science) never dirtied their hands in infantry or combat arms. MI usually spews these kinds out for post-military political work.

Start your investigation in the either Armed Services Committees, and you'll find your idiot staffer responsible (usually by a lucrative job offer with that defense contractor after they finish their Hill career) without too much difficulty.

I remember one idiot in the early '00s who wanted to mount a .50cal Gatling-like system in a surplus Huey given to a S. American country seeking drug interdiction equipment. He couldn't understand why that 1960s-era aircraft could not handle something that powerful without shaking itself apart, or unable to handle the ammo load needed. I suggested mounting a standard M2 Browning for the mission parameters he described, but he turned it down because it wasn't the latest and greatest system available.

I just shook my head and let someone else sort out this committee staffer's ignorance, and couldn't believe someone would actually hire him for the work he did.

Blogger Andrew Jackson February 04, 2020 8:03 PM  

Meanwhile the dumb Israeli's are bombing the daylights out of the Iranian's with the crappy F-35's that don't work! Israel is going to buy more of them .what dopes .lol!!! The dumb Pollacks are buying 42 ,what stupidity! Japan has already deployed F=35's and are getting more. Norway has them. UK has them .Singapore is buying them,I guess the Singapore guys are stupid.

Blogger carnaby February 04, 2020 8:06 PM  

A stamped metal selective fire rifle, comprised of what - 100 parts? Took years to perfect.

Say what? Stamped metal? Where? Which parts? There ain't no stinkin' stamped metal in the M16. You're thinking of the AK-47.

Blogger bodenlose Schweinerei February 04, 2020 8:51 PM  

Still my favorite quote about the F-35: "Bogdan remarked on the improvement in the program ever since Lockheed Martin was forced to assume some of the financial risks."

I guess the "improvement" didn't stick.

Blogger Emmanuel February 04, 2020 9:08 PM  

And there are STILL dirt-bags who not only defend this flying jalopy but have the gall to call the A-10 Thunderbolt outdated and worthless... when it has literally saved more lives and done its job better and been more useful than this weird not-even-jack-of-all trade and master of none idea the airforce is sinking so much cash into could ever hope to be. I mean, how do you even get away with saying the Fail-35 could do a ground support roll even adequately enough compared to the A-10 when the gun and its bullets are not only smaller and less powerful, but can only fire 180 or so rounds! 180! That's hardly enough for a dogfight let alone the amount of bullets dropped in CAS! It's so bad it literally can't even say that at least it's gun's more accurate for CAS as the article states!

Blogger Chief_Tuscaloosa February 04, 2020 9:54 PM  

@Ominous Cowherd,
"Unfortunately, the military procurement system will not deliver a real, working anything, because a working weapon has no scope for boondoggle."

This. THIS!!! O.C. has identified the problem which cannot be solved while we have an easily-bribed, low n 435 member Congress.

Blogger Didact February 04, 2020 10:19 PM  

Supreme Dark Lord, many thanks indeed for the props and linkage.

Blogger Didact February 04, 2020 10:27 PM  

ZhukovG wrote:I understand that we are building F-15s again with upgraded electronics. Great plane...back in the 1980s.



@ZhukovG,

Yes, it's called the F-15X Silent Eagle. The idea is to build a plane with completely upgraded avionics and digital systems that can serve as, basically, a weapons platform. The theory is that the F-35 will penetrate enemy airspace, wipe out the enemy's vanguard fighter and interceptor forces without being seen using its two (or four) internally carried AAMs, and then stick around in the area sending digital intelligence to conventional platforms like the F-15E, F-16, and F/A-18 Super Hornets that will still be in use at that point.

Great theory - assuming that the enemy doesn't know anyone is coming, and that long-wave radars don't detect every single F-35 in the area immediately, and that enemy laser technology designed to blind incoming hostile pilots doesn't exist, and that the F-35's digital signals and encryption codes cannot be jammed/hacked, and that the F-35 is actually reliable enough in the first place to make a massed strike of that kind.

If any single ONE of these assumptions falls apart, the entire theory falls apart. And that STILL leaves the USAF, USN, and USMC with what is effectively a trillion-dollar AWACS.

None of this obviates the utility or power of something like the F-15X. It's a great idea built on a proven, battle-tested, exceptionally good platform.

Blogger Unknownsailor February 04, 2020 11:39 PM  

That guys obviously has a gigantic battleaxe to grind about the F-35. The AF is already sending it to Red Flag, and it is cleaning up against the best the AF can send against it.

My only concern is about the sea going F-35C version, particularly the HAZMAT needed to maintain it. I used to run the office on the carrier that everyone goes to get their HAZMAT from, and I know how much refrigerated/frozen HAZMAT storage a carrier has. If there are any exotic acrylics required to maintain the new jet, particularly stuff that has to be frozen, there is going to be a HUGE storage issue.

Losses in routine operations are going to be higher, too, because there is only one engine. Super Hornets come in single engine roughly 1-2 times a month during a deployment, and if the F-35 has engine issues that often that is going to mean more crashed air frames.

Blogger Yukichi Sensei February 04, 2020 11:45 PM  

We forget how hard it is to build this tech, and we should focus on function and simplicity, not this over-designed tripe.

Mitsubishi in Japan tried to relearn passenger jets and failed. Hopefully the US can get back to basics and remember how to build something decent.

More likely, the multi-polar world will return.

Blogger Bernard Korzeniewicz February 05, 2020 12:26 AM  

1/ F22 and F35 were in concept phase 30 years ago.
2/ They are using technology 10 years younger.

That means there is no old engineer who took part in building real fighters any more.

Too much time has been wasted. So now the future belongs to drones lazers and HV rockets not because they are better but because we can not build anything else any more.
Yes, there are small teams projecting toy Mach2 airplanes for the rich... Building a working fighter plane us a bit more complicated.

Blogger tublecane February 05, 2020 12:43 AM  

At least they got the Ruminant Procurement office got the right sheep specs this time:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4f2XbOY9kcg

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 1:14 AM  

"Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex. I don't think he predicted it would fail so miserably at basic system design."

In that same speech, Eisenhower ALSO warned against the Academia-Media Complex.

Strange how Academia and the Media always omit that part.

Blogger Rakshasa February 05, 2020 2:07 AM  

IIRC the intention was for the F-35 to not have any guns, relying solely on missiles and bombs, which means they just put the guns anywhere they'd fit.

A stupid decision, if you design around a concept stick to it.

Blogger Eduardo February 05, 2020 4:22 AM  

@Newscaper

Oh damn... Yeah you are right. It was the F-22, no wonder it was fuzzy in my mind. There goes the horrible joke.

Well both look alike from a 90's graphics perspective.

Blogger Daniele Grech Pereira February 05, 2020 5:13 AM  

In the Canadian artillery, we trained using US designed howitzers from the 1930's. Now I am starting to understand why.

Blogger Paul M February 05, 2020 5:42 AM  

I bet that part of the blame is down to the "Sir, yes sir!" culture in the military. Even if *everyone* knows it's a turkey, no-one will say "Fuck no, no fucking way will this thing fly". I worked as a civilian contractor in defence, many, many years ago. A stupid EOFY budget-justifying project. Some dude with gold braid asked me if it was going to work and I - not knowing any better - told him "Naaah". The poor guy was shocked. No-one had said "no" to him for years.

Blogger Attila is my bro February 05, 2020 6:02 AM  

>>Mainly because graphite dust floating around in 0G plays havoc with circuits.<<

Is it? Or is it just another excuse to rape the taxpayer? You may be right, but the corruption is so widespread you can never tell.

By the way, those space pens leak and get stuck. Designed by the same people as the F-35.

Blogger D E K February 05, 2020 6:06 AM  

Countries like Poland still signing contracts to buy this crap, shows the cloud the US still has. Might be somewhat of an indicator when foreign governments stop buying this plane or cancel their orders.

Blogger Section 8A February 05, 2020 6:15 AM  

If only they had more money then it would work. ..... right?

Blogger Clay February 05, 2020 6:58 AM  

I believe they will "iron-out" the problems with the F-35. It may take a while, though. This ain't a Schwinn bicycle we're building here. We'e had losts of issues with military equipment in the past. I can remember when the Apache was considered a failed turd. The Osprey, too. The Blackhawk.

I see where the Pentagon expects to sell about 3500 of them. Mostly to the US taxpayer, but a sizeable amount to some rather, what I would consider, intelligent countries. At almost 100 million per pop, I'm liking my Lockheed and Raytheon stocks. I wish them the best of luck.

I don't really understand how you can have a 25 MM gun that can't hit it's target with accuracy, but I read it's the Air Force variant that has this particular issue. Don't really get that.

I just don't think you can throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Too much investment. Eventually, they will get it right. Just in time for the NEXT generation..which I already expect is well into development. The unmanned dawn is looming.

Blogger Dole February 05, 2020 7:03 AM  

Billions evaporating in the air while we can not even secure our border. Madness...

Blogger Doktor Jeep February 05, 2020 7:41 AM  

F15 was 1970s tech.
And that was the height of tech.
But...but.... Muh smart phones and GPUs!
Still 1970s tech. Consumer crap is always a generation or two behind. And you don't need this stuff for a gun targeting system anyway. Maybe at of 70s tech was advanced concept in the 60s. I'm convinced the peak of our civilization was in 1964.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 05, 2020 9:26 AM  

It's hilarious to read people ranting about this White Elephant, as if they're blissfully unaware that it's simply a brick in a Great Wall of indicators showing that the Empire is in Mutual-Backstab Phase.

Diversity + Complacency + PRIOR Success leads to a complete breakdown in honor and morality. DUH! Open borders replacement, Drag Queen Story Hour, teaching public school kids about the equality of sodomy with marital (heterosexual) intercourse, and robbing the public treasury blind, deaf and dumb to pay for Homeless Shelters, SNAP, WIC, F-35's, attack submarines the Navy doesn't want....

It's ALL the same thing. Humans have become Resources, legally and socially. We're all the same (equality.) We're all NPCs (to those who control the megaphone.) Life is just a vast game of Grand Theft Auto, where you get "health points" for banging the hooker (before you kick her out of the car and RUN HER OVER.)

The F-35? It's a jobs program for white collar workers, same as building unneeded attack subs in Newport News is a jobs program. And bondholders are desperate to buy more IOUs, so the more the FedGov spends (much of it borrowed, of course), everyone gets richer.

We're losing money on each unit, but making it up on volume.

Everywhere I look I see perverse incentives. I also see gambling emporiums on every street corner, a new local pot dispensary feted by state government (yes, the state is now both casino operator and drug dealer...and I wait with bated breath for legalized prostitution so the state can be pimp as well.)

The F-35 is just one bit of evidence that our system is the reincarnation of Sodom and Gomorrah, and when the denouement of this farce arrives it will be a Biblical Tragedy.

Blogger Avalanche February 05, 2020 9:27 AM  

@39 "I think SDL is on a "nothing works anymore" kick in the wake of the Iowa Caucus debacle."

So, do you mean, the Dark Lord continues educating his Reprehensibles by continuing to speak and write the truth for us?

Don't think it's a kick, think it's his fundamental principle.

Blogger Ryan G February 05, 2020 9:34 AM  

This is probably the most publicly facing example of a phenomena I noticed while I was in. There has been a marked declined in the quality and efficacy of military equipment over the years.

On the submarine I was on, all the old 80s (and earlier) era tech worked as designed. They were also easy to fix, had complete documentation that greatly helped in troubleshooting, and almost never had any problems.

The late 90s and 00s era tech, on the other hand, was generally awful. The only way to repair them was to just throw out the whole unit, documentation was either nonexistent or irrelevant, and there was ALWAYS something wrong with them. Mind you, this was inside of a submarine, in a controlled environment. This equipment wasn't even exposed to sand, dirt, or any of the other stuff GIs have to go through.

If I never had seen a computer before going into the Navy, I'd have concluded that they were mercurial contraptions that required constant supervision and at least semi-annual replacement. Not only is that obviously wasteful, it's also a potential logistical bottleneck in any realistic, wartime scenario. I've no doubt this a problem for things like the F-35 as well.

The 'software deficiencies' in particular stand out to me. I know from experience that the "acceptance testing" period is largely a rubber stamp. Some low ranking officer sits in a power point briefing where the project manager goes over what was done, at least on paper, gives maybe a 30 minute product demonstration, and then the officer gives his blessing. The actual developers are on hand to answer any technical questions, but aside from a handful of softball ones, I can't recall ever being asked anything salient like, "Is there anything we should watch out for?" or "How much have you tested this?" I know for an absolute fact that we've shipped products with at least twenty deficiencies. I don't know whether those were disclosed or not, but I doubt it.

Blogger Azimus February 05, 2020 9:57 AM  

I thought I saw somewhere that Israel was flying these things into combat? Do they just have a lower thresh-hold for combat readiness or do they have a dumbed-down export version?

Blogger OneWingedShark February 05, 2020 10:06 AM  

Hammerli 280 wrote:It's the software that has been the main headache. On a modern military aircraft (aside from cargo and some trainers), the software is around 80% of the headaches.
Absolutely unsurprising.
They chose to use C++ for the project, and C++ has a LOT of issues when it comes to producing ultra-high reliability (AKA "bug-free") software. Much of this is inherited from C, where there is something known as "undefined behavior" which means the compiler can do *ANYTHING* — delete the hard-drive, that's A-OK according to spec! — and in C there's a LOT of ridiculous things that lead to undefined behavior… with the most "WTF!?" being that if your source-file does not end with a newline-character the whole program is undefined behavior.

Now, a lot of people tangentially familiar with programming will be asking "If they shouldn't use C and C++, what should they use, since C and C++ are everywhere?" — And to that, I would answer Ada, which was commissioned by the DoD precisely for maintainability, correctness and the "human factor" and has been used in things like the Apache helicopter, the F-22, the Paladin, Air-Traffic Control, medical-devices, and satellites… and seen in that light, it seems really odd that they would choose C++ for the F-35 given in-industry knowledge and resources.

Now, as to deficiencies… Any tester knows that if you don't smack the program management as hard as possible, they'll let things slide. So critical safety-of-operations or mission-failure deficiencies (what the Navy terms Part I deficiencies) get written up post-haste. And software can generate a LOT of those.
Certainly; there's been a lot of development in automatic theorem-provers. To the point that it's now practical to have some model and check it for soundness and then check against the implementation. Ada has a subset [+ provers] called SPARK that do this, and in the latest versions (Ada 2012 & SPARK 2014) they use the same code as opposed to comment annotations common in other systems, which means that there's no possibility of the actual-code and the annotation-comments becoming out-of-sync. — The TL;DR here is that with SPARK you can do things like prove the security-properties of the codebase. (See the Ironsides DNS for an example there.)

Blogger Captain Atom February 05, 2020 10:51 AM  

The F-35B (USMC) and C (USN) do not have a gun built in for stealth purposes, USAF insisted on an internal gun that was not part of the original design. The B and C use an external pod that works just fine.

The big problem with the software was the original build was compromised by a Chinese national working for a subcontractor, as well as the physical design. Bet you never saw that coming.

This whole boondoggle might be the one time the USMC comes out ahead in equipment, the B model is light years ahead of the Harrier in capability, and is already deployed and seems to work. A relation was on the USS Wasp on the first deployment and said the jarhead pilots were over the moon about their F-35Bs. The A and C models are pointless, however.

Blogger Hammerli 280 February 05, 2020 10:56 AM  

@78: While I'm not a software expert (I had a FORTRAN class in college...and came away deeply disgusted), I'd bet they went with C++ because they could hire programmers.

One of the biggest issues with software is finding people who actually CAN write good code. Aviation and military software MUST work. Most people writing software are accustomed to selling bug-ridden product to early adopters and using paying customers as late beta testers. Aerospace and Defense applications can't operate like that - the software has to work.

It's a real headache for the flight test community, because you wind up being delivered beta test software not yet ready for flight testing...and are expected to use the planes and people you hired for flight testing to do the software development team's work for them. Meaning a steady diet of overtime...in positions that don't get overtime pay.

Blogger Andy in San Diego and Elsewhere February 05, 2020 11:14 AM  

https://www.duffelblog.com/2015/08/f-35-loses-dogfight-to-red-baron/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=DuffelBlog&utm_content=Lockheed%20Upbeat%20Despite%20F-35%20Losing%20Dogfight%20To%20Red%20Baron

Blogger Newscaper312 February 05, 2020 11:19 AM  

FWIW I just saw where Singapore has placed an order in last few days. I don't think of them as being US lackeys.

Blogger Newscaper312 February 05, 2020 11:26 AM  

@78 When I was going back for a Masters in late 90s degree we had a programming languages course that surveyed various families of programming languages so we had exposure to ones other than what our main courses used.
ADA was supposedly just about to take off for all Dod, having a fully formally validated compiler, when about the only other thing that had one at the time was COBOL IIRC.

But ADA faded, or never got out of the ghetto. Not sure why. I don't recall if it was ever suited to more real time systems or embedded.

Blogger Johnny February 05, 2020 11:40 AM  

Azimus wrote:I thought I saw somewhere that Israel was flying these things into combat? Do they just have a lower thresh-hold for combat readiness or do they have a dumbed-down export version?
During WW2 we had a plane called the B 26 Marauder. It was a tough, fast hard to fly medium bomber. Some pilots nicknamed it the "widow maker" owing to the hazard involved in fling one and it got grounded at least for a while stateside. Meanwhile in the South Pacific it became one of the favored airplanes. Seems that if you were flying into a hardened target and taking of flack, a little instability during takeoff didn't seem like that big a deal.

Blogger Johnny February 05, 2020 11:56 AM  

Maybe they can get the F-35 working properly, but even if they do it is not that good a plane. The thing is an overpriced jack of all trades but master of none.

My favorite stupid idea is thinking it can replace the F-10 Warthog. Ground strafing of any defended target will cause the airplane to take hits and that can't be avoided. The two big criteria for a ground strafer are toughness and being able to dump a lot of munitions quickly. The Iron Mike Tyson of an airplane is what you should want, namely the Warthog, and that is not even remotely the F-35.

Blogger JohnofAustria February 05, 2020 12:43 PM  

>Mistake #1: thinking a single airframe could satisfy every role not just for the U.S. armed forces

Yes, that is the key mental mistake. We know specificity wins, especially when sorties per hour of maintenance decrease with every new generation of aircraft. Relying on something more complex is foolish.

Blogger JohnofAustria February 05, 2020 12:46 PM  

>The idea of making one all-singing, all-dancing airframe was a BAD mistake.

Yes, this was the real mental flaw. The real world does not allow you to design one thing to do everything well.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 05, 2020 12:51 PM  

Andy in San Diego and Elsewhere wrote:https://www.duffelblog.com/2015/08/f-35-loses-dogfight-to-red-baron/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=DuffelBlog&utm_content=Lockheed%20Upbeat%20Despite%20F-35%20Losing%20Dogfight%20To%20Red%20Baron
Duffleblog=satire, but good satire makes a point.

I think every jet has lost that matchup, so this isn't really a criticism of the Failure-35. The WWI planes can turn inside the jet and keep it in its sights, while the jet tries to get far enough out to make a turn. If the Red Baron could actually carry a 20mm Gatling gun or an air-to-air missile and a passive radar, he could win every dogfight.

Blogger JohnofAustria February 05, 2020 12:52 PM  

Not to mention that the A-10 has something 5 times the time on station of the F-35, and a lot more ammo to use strafing.

Blogger Captain Atom February 05, 2020 3:23 PM  

The A-10 is great against enemies armed with a 20mm slammed into a Toyota pickup, it is incredibly vulnerable to modern air defenses like the S-400. It also is not carrier capable and is dependent having nearby safe airfields. In point of fact, the A-1D Skyraider was better at everything that the A-10 does when fighting low tech enemies.

The point of the F-35 was to be a stealth strike aircraft, which does not exist outside of the F-117.

Particularly for the USN, which had it's strike capabilities crippled when the Bush I administration cancelled the A-12 program which was the follow on to the aging A-6 Intruder. This effectively put Grumman, the nation's premier naval aircraft manufacturer out of business. The Navy knows and has always known that the F-18 and "Super" Hornet are hot garbage compared to the two airframes it replaced (Tomcat and Intruder). It was Mr Burning in Hell himself, John McCain, who championed the Super Hornet even when it only existed on paper and still couldn't match the existing F-14, let alone a proposed Super Tomcat or even the Tomcat-21 (and the "Super" Hornet never even lived up to that design). I'm sure there were no hefty Boeing kickbacks involved. The Hornet's dick is so limp it couldn't even lift the radar for the greatest interceptor missile system ever designed, the AWG-9 / APG-71 Phoenix system.

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 5:34 PM  

"The M16 (a MUCH simpler weapon) was plagued with problems for years and now service members love it.

+1000. Nobody better say nothin' bad about the M16 platform or else!"

It's been known since DURING the Vietnam war that the 5.56mm round is too small. While it can penetrate even brick and concrete walls, it is too easily deflected from the point of aim by brush and light trees.

It also lacks sufficient range when fighting outside of cities in relatively tree-less terrain. This has been VERY well understood as a minus since Desert Storm, where the assumption that "all modern combat takes place within 300m" was proven wrong, and again in Afghanistan, and yet again in Iraq.

Now, 25 years after getting NATO to standardize on this undersized round (before then, most NATO countries were using something in the 6~7 mm range for their service rifles), we finally saw the light, and the US Army has a call for submissions for service rifle candidates chambered in 6.5mm.

Interestingly, in the article I read about this, someone commented that "it would be neat if someone produced an automatic fire version of the civilian AR-10", obviously completely ignorant of the fact that the original AR-10 was exactly that.

So, here is a brief history of NATO rifle and pistol ammo standardization.
1957: US Army adopts service rifle (M-14) with same 7.62x51mm cartridge as the M-60, its new general purpose machine gun, and insists that NATO designate this cartridge as the standard small arms cartridge. European allies disagree due to additional weight and size, compared to their various cartridges in the 6mm~7mm range, reduces the number of cartridges a
soldier can carry with him into and during a fight.

1957 – 7.62mm ammunition STANAG 2310 ratified

1962 – 9mm ammunition STANAG 4090 ratified. Because the US insisted on the retarded choice of a general purpose machine gun round as the standard rifle round, the European NATO members insist on choosing the pistol round, and choose the equally retarded, underpowered 9mmx19 cartridge, because Europeans see the modern pistol not as a combat weapon, but as merely a fashion accessory for commissioned officers, and a quick and humane way for battlefield medics to end the suffering of the mortally wounded.

1963: M-16, chambered for the 5.56x45mm M193 round is adopted into service by order of SecDef Robert McNamara, as M-14 production could not meet the needs of the entire US Military.

1965: M-16 first used by regular "line" units in combat as US Marine and Army units are sent to assist S. Vietnam's defense against N. Vietnam's aggression.
Although the M-16 has teething problems, the 5.56mm round is praised by troops for the wounds it produces, it is criticized by same for being easily deflected off target by heavy brush and light tree branches.

1968: US finally obtains a better powder that doesn't foul and jam the M-16 so quickly. Also introduces M16A1, which includes a "bolt forward assist" a push-rod which, if the bolt's forward motion is impeded by fouling, allows the firer to use thumb pressure to forward bolt forward until it locks, allowing the soldier to fire the round already stripped out of the magazine. Procures a less-dirty-burning ball powder from Olin to replace the dirty Olin-manufactured ball powder which was contracted for after DuPont reported that they could not produce their Armalite-specified clean-burning extruded propellant in sufficient quantities required by the US military.
Carbine version (CAR-15) reports of stoppages ("jamming") occur 4x as often as with M-16 rifle. Cause determined to be the shorter distance from chamber to gas-port near muzzle back to bolt-carrier causing more violent operation of bolt and bolt-carrier, plus overheating and excessive wear in these components.

1/2

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 5:34 PM  

2/2

1981 – 5.56mm ammunition STANAG 4172 ratified. At the insistence of the US, NATO adopts Standards Agreement STANAG 4172, designating 5.56x45mm as the standard service rifle cartridge. Most allies are reluctant, on the grounds that the 5.56mm bullet is too small but eventually cave in, because they all would rather have a service rifle chambered in something smaller, lighter and with less recoil than 7.62x51mm.

1980's: US Army looks to improve M16A1. Heavier bullet using the same cartridge, Range improved from single-setting 0-300m to 0-300m + elevations out to 800m. Trigger group changed: auto replaced with 3-round burst. Result is M-16A2. Civilian equivalent is AR-15A2. SS109 bullet (69 grains as opposed to the original 55 grain .223 bullet) is designated as the reference standard for ballistic flight path for all 5.56mm NATO ammunition.


1990: Desert Shield. US Marine Corp requests permission to put M-16A1 trigger groups in M-16A2 lower receivers. This variant is designated M-16A3.

1991 – 40mm x 53 High Velocity Grenade Ammunition efforts initiated (Same ammo as used by belt-fed US Mk-19 grenade machine gun)

Mid 1990's. Civilian experimentation

1997: STANAG 4383 defines standard 12.7mm (.50 cal) round. M2 .50 Cal machine gun reworked to M2A2 with a new, quick-change barrel to accomodate accomodate the ammunition conforming to this STANAG.

2001 – 40mm x 46 Low Velocity Grenade Ammunition efforts initiated (Same ammunition as used in US M-79 and M-203 grenade launchers)

Early 2000s. Piccatiny Arsenal develops an upper receiver by removing carrying handle and replacing it with a slight modification to the Weaver scope mounting rail, called the Piccatiny Rail. Iron Sights, Scopes, Red Dot sights, and night vision equipment soon manufactured to mount on this rail. Can soon mount Iron Sight+Red Dot sight/Red Dot scope+Night vision simultanously, and front handguards are manufactured featuring additional Piccatiny rails for various barrel-mounted accessories. This new variant, colloquilly called a "flattop" is dubbed M-16A4. Civilian equivalent is AR-15A3. Most civilians mistakenly believe a "flattop" M-16 is an M-16A3.


2019: US puts out a call for test rifles chambered in 6.5mm, which is what should have been the NATO standard service rifle cartridge from the beginning.
To date 97 ammunition designs have been NATO
Qualified submitted by 13 different NATO nations
 5.56mm – 22 Designs
 7.62mm – 47 Designs
 12.7mm – 4 Designs
 9mm – 22 Designs
 25mm – 2 Designs

What NATO standards SHOULD be:
7.62x51mm
General Purpose Machine Gun
~6.5mm
Light Machine Gun (squad and/or fireteam levels)
6.5mm Grendel
Standard Service Rifle

Blogger carnaby February 05, 2020 5:59 PM  

Akulkis, The 6.5 Grendel is retarded and not even as good as the 6.8 SPC. To be honest, there's nothing wrong with the 5.56 NATO when loaded with 75+ grain projectiles such as the XM262. The expense of switching to the 6.5 Grendel is not justified.

Blogger Johnny February 05, 2020 7:25 PM  

>>Most allies are reluctant, on the grounds that the 5.56mm bullet is too small but eventually cave in, because they all would rather have a service rifle chambered in something smaller, lighter and with less recoil than 7.62x51mm.

I used to think they should try boring out the M16 to around 6.35 (.25 cal.) Plus lower the chamber pressure a little. The goal would be a gun that is less fussy with about the same hitting power.

The current M60 machine gun does seem to be a first rate weapon.

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 9:05 PM  

"Lead computing gun sights have only been around since the 1940's. New fangled tech like that is bound to have a few bugs."

Such a sight is generally involves a gimbal-mounted mirror positioned by servos (essentially hinges) controlled by a gyroscope and finely adjusted springs to change the position of the indicated aimpoint in a reflector gun sight (technology which was developed by Irish telescope and optical designer Howard Grubb in 1900, and first applied in fighter aircraft during WW1).

The first lead-computing gunsight was first fielded by the British in the late 1930s on Hawker Hurricanes and classified as secret technology, some bonehead left it installed in a static display at an international air show, where members of a group of civilian-clothed Germans took significant interest in the sight.

RAF fighter pilots were absolutely incensed to find out that the German Luftwaffe had developed a copy of it and installed them in Me 109's shot down over France.

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 9:18 PM  

"Mainly because graphite dust floating around in 0G plays havoc with circuits."

We're talking about 1960's circuits here.

What pencil do you know of that will produce enough graphite dust in even a month of use to bridge the 1/4" or more between conductors of the state-of-the-art in miniaturized circuitry of that time? And with the existence of such a pencil, why not just produce another one.

The "graphite dust" problem (if it ever existed) is solved by just mixing a small proportion of wax into the binding agent used to hold it all together. China markers (grease pencils) work very, underwater as well as in 0G space, and come in all the colors which you can find pigments to make them with (see oil paints).

The "space pen" was about nothing other than "we can do it" (just don't ask us if it makes any sense to do so), just like nanny Angela Merkle hectoring Germany's citizens with her "we can do it" lecture to Germans that they had better figure out a way to cram millions of non-assimilatable 85 IQ Africans with low impulse control, Moslem beliefs about the acceptability of rape, and zero marketable skills into their cities, towns, villages and hamlet across the country [Just as long as they aren't in her neighborhood]. Here's hoping a gang of them rape her to death.

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 9:21 PM  

"Pencils in space are dangerous. When graphite snaps it can create a spark. This can lead to some unwanted and unnecessary consequences."

Only if the vapor pressure of the oxygen in your spacecraft is excessively high.

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 9:29 PM  

"F22 had some faults too. Mow for a real screw up, the new destroyers are starting to crack."

Not surprising, given that some idiot decided that the hulls should be made of aluminum (just like the British which was hit by an Exocet in the Falklands Island war, and the metal of HULL ITSELF started to burn (burning temp of aluminum is lower than the melting temp of aluminum).

Aluminum is prone to cracking from vibration, which is why it's rarely used as a structural material in vehicles, except in niche cases (aircraft strucural components), and even then, you need to use an aircraft grade alloy such as Duralumin is necessary if you don't want catastrophic failures. It's also significantly more expensive than plain old aluminum. Worst of all, it's only in applications such as aircraft where you get any real weight savings. For example, Aluminum is 1/3 the density of steel, so it turns out that for the same armor effect, you need 3x the thickness of aluminum to keep the same level of protection. There goes ALL of your weight savings. The only advantage in using it in light armored vehicles is that it takes less energy to melt it to pour into a casting. Not sure about the differences in how repairable the two materials are if punctured by a projectile.

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 9:34 PM  

"The F-35 does appear far more problematic tho."

I can't believe you just used that Academia nonsense word* as if it's actually a legitimate concept. Either something is a problem or it isn't. Eradicate this mealy-mouthed quasi-problem BS from your vocabulary and your mind.

Use of "problematic" is a reliable (over 90%) indicator that the author/speaker is dishonest.

* Invented to be use to avoid naming any alleged problem which the author/speaker wants you to take as established fact when the only time they use this word is when said problem is, in fact, NOT established fact).

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 9:41 PM  

"I'm not a big supporter of F-35. The idea of making one all-singing, all-dancing airframe was a BAD mistake."

Yeah, this has been known since even before the debut of the McNamara Fighter* which, while still in service, has never flown even one sortie to perform the mission it was purchased to perform -- air superiority. For those who don't know what the McNamara Fighter is... it's the F-111. The only 2-seat "fighter" plane ever produced with side-by-side seating instead of pilot-front, navigator/electronics/ordnance officer rear. Seriously, with that seating arrangement, it could NEVER win a dogfight with even a mediocre fighter. USAF wisely put it into ground-strike, recon, and electronic warfare support squadrons.

* is there anything that man was involved with that was ever really a success

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 9:48 PM  

@52

"Meanwhile the dumb Israeli's are bombing the daylights out of the Iranian's with the crappy F-35's that don't work! Israel is going to buy more of them .what dopes .lol!!! The dumb Pollacks are buying 42 ,what stupidity! Japan has already deployed F=35's and are getting more. Norway has them. UK has them .Singapore is buying them,I guess the Singapore guys are stupid."

You seem to be under the impression that all of these countries are using their own money to buy these F-35 aircraft.

Nothing could be further from the truth. All of these "purchases" are part of the "foreign aid" budgets delegated to those nations. The money is deposited by the executive branch in an account for that country. The money is pre-earmarked for specific equipment (which is always chosen on the basis of increasing the production runs of particular pieces of equipment, NOT on the basis of what the recipient country wants, needs, or even would purchase if they were free to buy whatever they want from U.S. defense manufacturers).

TL;DR: Free equipment is free.

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 10:00 PM  

@69

"Countries like Poland still signing contracts to buy this crap, shows the cloud the US still has. Might be somewhat of an indicator when foreign governments stop buying this plane or cancel their orders."

These contracts are paid for in foreign aid line items specifically tied to the equipment being purchased.

Of course Poland is going to accept free air-frames, because it isn't going to cost them a cent, and if maintenance gets too expensive, THEN they'll go out and purchase other airframes with their own zlotys.

The only countries paying for F-35s are the US and the UK. Every single other F-35 is being paid for by the US taxpayer, and then given to the country signing for them.

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 10:10 PM  

@69

"The Osprey, too. "

The Osprey is still exceptionally dangerous to its pilots, its passengers, and anybody in the vacinity of its take-off and landing points when ascending or descending vertically. It's only real advantage over a regular helicopter is better fuel efficiency once it has transitioned to level flight.

"I see where the Pentagon expects to sell about 3500 of them [F-35]. Mostly to the US taxpayer, but a sizeable amount to some rather, what I would consider, intelligent countries."

The only country paying for them is the UK. The other countries have been selected to receive them as part of their foreign military aid packages, being paid for line-items in the budget which are deposited in U.S. banks contingent on those countries signing agreements to accept those aircraft with the money specifically alloted for those aircraft. If the aircraft are not accepted, then that portion of the aid-package isn't deposited in their foreign aid accounts.

So, where is the money coming from to purchase those airframes? The US taxpayer.

If those countries chose to not "purchase" the F-35s, can they use those same dollars to purchase other U.S.-made equipment instead? No.

That's all you need to understand about these foreign countries and the F-35.

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 10:13 PM  

"Life is just a vast game of Grand Theft Auto, where you get "health points" for banging the hooker (before you kick her out of the car and RUN HER OVER.)"

Please don't repeat, let alone give credence to Anita Sarkeesian's (Literally Who Two) baldfaced lie.

Blogger Akulkis February 05, 2020 10:28 PM  

@81

Re: Duffelblog URL about F-35 vs Red Baron

Dude, everything after the "?" character in that URL is unnecessary garbage.

On top of that, the post-? portion of the URL gives credit to twitter, which means the that full URL directs some of duffelblog's ad revenues to Twitter (notice those arguments which begin with utm_).

Many URLs these days are anywhere from 2x to 100x longer than they need to be for you to indicate a page with the desired information.

And NEVER post a link obtained from "copy URL" from a google search result. Go to the page, and then copy the URL out of the address bar. The search result link is encrypted garbage, and at the very least, 20x longer than it needs to be. It's encrypted because that random-looking stuff has all sorts of extraneous data packed into it, such as, for example, the time of the search, your IP address, your name if google was able to determine that through data-mining and where your phone was at the time you conducted the search (if from a non-phone device), etc.

Blogger John Regan February 06, 2020 8:36 AM  

@99 I admit, it's a weasel word. I just don't know that much about the subject compared to a lot of the commenters here, and don't have a lot to say.

Blogger Akulkis February 06, 2020 12:14 PM  

Honest language brings clarity to your thinking.
Problematic is a dishonest word.

Banning it from your vocabulary isn't so much for my benefit as for yours.

Blogger carnaby February 06, 2020 2:27 PM  

The Osprey is still exceptionally dangerous to its pilots, its passengers, and anybody in the vacinity of its take-off and landing points when ascending or descending vertically.

7 accidents resulting in 12 fatalities since becoming operational in 2007 doesn't seem so bad. And it's not just fuel efficiency but speed and troop carrying capability that are some of its advantages over conventional helicopters. From InfoGalactic:

The failure of the Iran hostage rescue mission in 1980 demonstrated to the United States military a need for "a new type of aircraft, that could not only take off and land vertically but also could carry combat troops, and do so at speed."

Blogger MrNiceguy February 06, 2020 9:00 PM  

Speaking of the A-10, anyone know of a decent combat flight sim for the Warthog?

Blogger Akulkis February 07, 2020 1:06 PM  

MrNiceGuy

Any sim that allows ground attack missions, and in which you can put yourself into indestructible "god mode"

only half sarcastic there.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts