
Pentagon halts F-35 deliveries over contractual dispute - farseer
http://www.janes.com/article/79216/pentagon-halts-f-35-deliveries-over-contractual-dispute
======
sschueller
Yet foreign governments are buying this turd [1].

Thankfully the F35 is so overpriced it is probably not in the final list for
the next Swiss fighter plane purchase. [2]

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba63OVl1MHw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba63OVl1MHw)
[2] [https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/fuenf-kampfjet-typen-in-der-
ueber...](https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/fuenf-kampfjet-typen-in-der-uebersicht-
ld.1327181)

~~~
varjag
It's a great plane. The best multirole fighter any airforce can procure, by
far.

~~~
fsloth
"It's a great plane. The best multirole fighter any airforce can procure, by
far."

I think for national armies which are funded by tax payer money the total cost
of ownership should be a significant factor when considering what to buy. And
should factor in the definition of "best".

I don't know much about aerial warfare. Aren't fighter jets just glorified
missile launching platforms nowadays, especially for defensive purposes? What
does the extra cost buy for the end user in terms of actual features they are
going to use? I suppose the keyfactor of a multirole aircraft is radar that
allows tracking and fire control for both aerial and ground targets and a
selection of air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles that go with it. What am I
missing?

~~~
varjag
If cost is the core objective, consider having no military expenditures at
all. All military gear is expensive, depreciating assets not contributing to
productivity and tying up resources that can be used elsewhere.

Ukraine did just that prior to 2014.

Otherwise, your weapons should be a practical deterrent to an aggressor.

~~~
fsloth
I wholly agree on requiring a deterrent, but the total operative capability of
the defensive force is much more important than individual hardware
components.

I wasn't claiming a modern fighter is not a critical part of this equation. I
was merely asking what does actually "best" mean in this case. If I get you on
my fire control radar and you get me on yours and we both fire missiles, it
seems to me the missile and the radar is far more important part of this
equation than the avionics platform where they are.

So, practical tactical features...

~~~
varjag
> If I get you on my fire control radar and you get me on yours and we both
> fire missiles

What happens is F-35 lets you fire missiles a lot earlier than your opponent.
If they see you at all.

The 'lock on radar' part is what all Russian missiles struggle with currently,
a situation they hastily attempt to remedy.

~~~
thesz
>The 'lock on radar' part is what all Russian missiles struggle with
currently, a situation they hastily attempt to remedy.

Can I humbly ask you for citation?

~~~
varjag
[http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-
buzz/russias-s-300-s-40...](http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-
buzz/russias-s-300-s-400-s-500-vs-americas-f-35-f-22-who-wins-20095)

------
bhouston
Why hasn't there been a focus on multi-role fighter drones? Is there a
responsiveness problem or a contextual awareness issue?

I would think that most of the cost of this F-35 is dealing with the problems
caused by putting human in the middle.

Having multirole drones would lower the cost a lot, and it would actually
likely increase its theoretical effectiveness because you wouldn't have a
pilot scared for their life in it.

It would be so scary to go up against a drone multirole fighter, it could pull
off the craziest multi-G moves, and it would be fearless.

There must be some technological reason we have moved to this yet.

~~~
greydius
Drones have a very real weakness: they rely on a radio signal.

But that aside, the F-35 program was never really about building a fighter
jet. It was designed from the beginning as a way to funnel 100s of billions of
dollars into the defense industry and to keep that money flowing for decades.

~~~
ptero
> F-35 program was never really about building a fighter jet.

This. It was primarily about international collaboration, not military
capability (F-22 is a more capable fighter). Best military technology (with
most capable pieces likely highly classified) can never be built as a multi-
national project. And there are cheaper ways of boosting international
goodwill than funneling hundreds of billions into favored defense contractors.
Government :(. My 2c.

------
jfoutz
A little longer and less paywalled version
[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
lockheed-f35-exclusive/ex...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
lockheed-f35-exclusive/exclusive-pentagon-stops-accepting-lockheed-f-35-jets-
over-repair-cost-dispute-idUSKBN1HI304)

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Yes, quite a bit more informative. Seems Lockheed made an error, but the
government didn't detect that error and accepted the planes. I can see why
that would lead to a dispute...

