
U.S. military grounds F-35 Joint Strike Fighter after fire - cl8ton
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-f35-planes-grounded-20140627-story.html
======
noir_lord
$1 Trillion dollars to build a plane to give the US (and it's allies) a
_greater_ edge over it's "opponents" militaries (in theory).

I try to avoid been an armchair general but you have to wonder what you could
have done by giving NASA $400 billion (equivalent to 15 years of their
_current_ budget) and spending the other $600 billion evenly between
education, infrastructure and investing in new businesses/re-training.

Sometimes I suffer species embarrassment.

~~~
rayiner
In the state of nature, the smartest play is not to try and be Mark
Zuckerberg. It's to beat up Mark Zuckerberg and take all his stuff. Nations
live in a state of nature as to each other, and thus a strong defense is a
necessity in order to avoid colonization.[1]

In any case, the trillion dollar price tag is amortized over 55 years. Over
that time, at current levels of spending, we'll spend almost $8 trillion on
education just at the federal level, almost a trillion on NASA, $44 trillion
on social security, $42 trillion on Medicare, etc.

The F35 has been a bungled project, but it's not any basis for feeling
"species embarrassment."

[1] Europeans didn't manage to colonize or otherwise subjugate India, Asia,
the Americas, etc, because they were so much wealthier or more educated, but
because they had vastly superior military technology.

~~~
seanflyon
I don't think we want to colonize or otherwise subjugate anyone and our
military is vastly larger than it needs to be to prevent others from
subjugating us.

~~~
Bahamut
Correct - the strong military is a deterrant, and a political tool. It is
partly why the US has been able to successfully bully countries in the past
for favorable outcomes for its companies.

------
nabla9
This is just hardware problem. The biggest risk is in the software. The
potential for F-35 being the most expensive software project failure is still
there.

Lockheed is still writing the code for Block 2B software that provides enough
functionality for the initial operational capability (IOC). That might be
ready 2016 if the software gets ready. This would enable F-35 to fly limited
combat missions.

The real reason for F-35 is in the block 3F (full capability). Full sensor
integration, augmented reality helmet, data fusion between radars and IR.
Ability to share raw sensor data between fighters. It's incredibly complex
systems with millions of lines of code and it's safety critical code. Without
it, F-35 is failure.

Software Testing Problems Continue to Plague F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program
[http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aerospace/aviation/softw...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aerospace/aviation/software-
testing-problems-continue-to-plague-f35-joint-strike-fighter-program)

~~~
sillysaurus3
_That might be ready 2016 if the software gets ready. This would enable F-35
to fly limited combat missions._

When will the F-35 fulfill a role that couldn't have been fulfilled more
effectively by existing resources?

~~~
mjcohen
Depends what you consider its role to be. If its role is to provide work and
income to its builders and suppliers, then it is already a massive success.

------
Element_
The US military was planning to fly 5 f35's across the Atlantic for the
Farnborough airshow next week in an effort to shore up support for the UK
purchase. They were originally supposed to be there by June 29th so this is
another delay. Looks like they haven't made a final decision on the trip yet
(not sure if I would want to be one of the pilots flying these things across
the ocean, a trip that requires ~10 aerial refuelings)

[[http://aviationweek.com/defense/pentagon-
grounds-f-35-fleet-...](http://aviationweek.com/defense/pentagon-
grounds-f-35-fleet-uk-air-show-planning-continues)]

~~~
JabavuAdams
Does it really take 10 in-flight refuelling? How's that possible?

Canada to Greenland to Iceland to UK is only about 1000 nm.

~~~
rjsw
There was a comment elsewhere that they need to be within range of land at all
times in case a refuelling fails.

------
rkowalick
Whenever the F-35 is mentioned, I am reminded of this interview with the
designer of the F-16 about the concepts behind the design of the F-35:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw)

~~~
dmurdoch
I'd be interested to know what other people think of
[http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-
anti-f-35-dia...](http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-
anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665) , after watching that
video. I am no expert on planes but, but the counter arguments made to Mr.
Sprey's rant seem quite strong to me, and frankly quite viable, as a lot of
what Mr. Sprey says suggests he is indeed stuck in a past age of avionics.

~~~
astrodust
Stuck in the past? Or stuck in reality where magical planes that do everything
better than specialized planes can manage don't exist?

~~~
dmurdoch
I honestly don't know. I don't see it as being that far fetched to have a
single plane that can do what 2-3 30 yr-old planes were made to do, but again
I don't know anything.

It's probably just me being crazy but I feel like for Mr. Sprey has ulterior
motives and reasons beyond the ones he says for hating the F-35, like the fact
that he seems to exclusively compare it to planes that he had a hand in
creating, and like most people would, claims that his products are exclusively
better. I'd say he is quite biased.

~~~
mplewis
It can't hold enough fuel to maintain a position above a ground battle to
support troops effectively.

Its heavy jump jets make it slow and unmaneuverable, making it a terrible
fighter. They also destroy asphalt roads with their heat.

It's a terrible bomber because a) stealth dictates that it can't hold bombs on
the underside of the wing and b) the payload space in the center of the
aircraft is taken up by a massive jump jet.

This plane is the definition of "jack of all trades, master of none".

[https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-
alli...](https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-
stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5)

------
dang
Url changed from [http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-is-a-
disaster-2014-7](http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-is-a-
disaster-2014-7), which points to this.

Submitters: please peruse the stories you submit for links to more original
sources. HN prefers more original sources.

------
dm2
Was this because of the VTOL system or it's requirement?

If so, is VTOL really necessary for the Navy? I know they want smaller
carriers but they should have modified the plane afterwards rather than
potentially screw up the entire very important project by requiring this
feature. The US Navy already has a huge fleet of super-carriers, there is no
need for VTOL in my opinion.

Why can't this super expensive aircraft be remotely piloted or have a
sophisticated autopilot to automatically land at one of many predetermined
places in the event of an accident?

~~~
JabavuAdams
VTOL was a Marine requirement, not Navy.

~~~
dmurdoch
Indeed, and it isn't new either, having been introduced in 1971. It still
remains a mainstay of their combined arms doctrine (apparently). It will
continue to be demanded for a while, and for good reason.

------
mmaunder
We need the same kind of innovation in the jet fighter sector as we're seeing
by SpaceX in orbital launches.

The F-35 is a disaster because it was designed by committee and has ended up
being good for nothing. The body is wide because it had to accommodate the
vertical takeoff jet and nozzle and the wings had to be short. This makes it
horrible for dog-fights, a fuel consumption pig, unable to loiter over an
area, unable to provide close air support.

The fact that it's stealth is debatable too. There have been instances where
low frequency radar has been repurposed to detect stealth aircraft like the
F117 shot down over Serbia. Basically nothing can hide from L-band radar (1 to
2 Ghz).

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw&feature=youtu.be)

Pierre Sprey is the designer of the F16 and the A10.

~~~
ewillbefull
The other side of the debate on Sprey's comments:

[http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-
anti-f-35-dia...](http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-
anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665)

------
strictfp
Heh. They wrote $400 million again. I guess $400 billion simply sounds too
unreasonable to escape any editors spider sense.

~~~
n0rm
Maybe they are still in denial?

------
beloch
As a Canadian, I must say that the timing of this fire is _exquisite_ because
the government is due to release a decision on the acquisition of the F-35
within the next few weeks.

First of all, it's important to realize that the Canadian government is not
looking to acquire the F-35 to fill a specific niche in their air force.
They're looking for a single fighter that will fill _all_ roles in the
Canadian military, as the CF-18 has been doing. Operating a single model of
fighter is considered cheaper.

While the F-35 is probably going to be a good Harrier replacement, Canada
never has operated any Harriers. The biggest need for the Canadian military is
all-weather, long-range patrol and interdiction. Canada has vast, unpopulated
areas, especially in the arctic, and a slow (compared to competing fighters),
single-engine plane with small control surfaces is totally unsuitable for this
application. To make matters worse, the most likely threats in this
application are Russian jets that are vastly superior to the F-35 in air-to-
air combat. The potential safety offered by the F-35's stealth in combat pales
when compared to the certain danger that will accompany everyday domestic
patrols.

Almost the only compelling factor in favor of Canada acquiring the F-35 is
it's stealth technology. However, that stealth tech is of questionable value.
First, Canada routinely defends but rarely attacks. Second, the F-35's stealth
is questionable. China and Russia, and numerous countries that buy hardware
from them, likely have access to radar that can detect the F-35 easily [1].
Given that these planes will likely remain in service for two decades at the
very least, the probability of them remaining stealthy for that long is very
low.

If the F-35 is so unsuited for Canada's needs, why is it still the front-
runner versus much cheaper competition? Well, that's the thing. Nobody really
knows except the Canadian government, and they're not telling. We can only
speculate that it's more due to pressure from the U.S. and the certain
economic reprisals that will accompany backing out of the F-35 program. A lot
of Canadian companies are currently working on the F-35 project, and they will
almost certainly be cut off if Canada pulls out, which may cause some of them
to go under.

The F-35 isn't so much a plane, as an industry unto itself. The question is,
is the Canadian F-35 industry too big to be allowed to fail? The F-35's have
been grounded _again_ right when the government was expected to finally give
them the green light. This probably only delays the inevitable, but one can
always hope!

[1][http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/04/29/360578/us-
stealth-j...](http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/04/29/360578/us-stealth-jet-
cant-evade-russia-radars/)

