The JSF debate

Open discussion about any topic, as long as you abide by the rules of course!
Ryoki
Posts: 13460
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 7:00 am

The JSF debate

Post by Ryoki »

So they recently ran a computer simulation pitching the new JSF against the newest Sukhoi planes and surprise surprise the JSF's lost so comprehensively one Australian observor likened it to 'clubbing baby seals'. The final conclusion of an Australian think tank:
The only manner in which the Joint Strike Fighter can compete against the Flanker is if it is pitted against legacy Flanker variants with 1980s generation analogue radars, missiles, warning systems, defensive jammers, and engagements are biased toward Beyond Visual Range rather than real air combat, where opponents inevitably end up in close combat. To achieve a favourable exchange rate in combat, a 2015 Joint Strike Fighter with its supporting systems must be pitted against a 1980s threat without its supporting systems.
Jesus, that's not just a goddamn horrible waste of money at a time where we can't really throw away money like that, it's also acutely embarrassing.

This whole thing is beginning to smell like another classic Military Industrial Complex built, brilliantly marketed, overpriced, utterly underwhelming piece of equipment that is perfect to fight the last war. Kind of like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I dearly hope dutcheeland and Australia and whatever other countries signed up for this get out of this clearly doomed project and have a good long hard look at the alternatives. I mean ffs, what's wrong with F16's and drones, considering we generally prefer to fight countries that have no airforce?

Thoughts..?
[size=85][color=#0080BF]io chiamo pinguini![/color][/size]
r3t
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:58 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by r3t »

what good does a billion dollar airplane do against a guy with a bomb strapped to his back? *shrug*
Ryoki
Posts: 13460
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 7:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Ryoki »

Exactly...

It's the blatant lies that get to me. Notice how the arguments of the pro crowd in dutcho politics mostly sound like 'but it's the best there is and it's the cheapest' and 'but it creates jobs' for instance.

The price estimate is typical Pentagon bullshit and will only go up. Anyone taking those numbers seriously is either so naive they shouldn't be in a position to have anything to say about anything or an evil swine with an agenda. And the jobs, they said the same thing about the F16 back in the day - and most of those jobs ended up in Germany because we just don't have that kind of an industry.

I swear, this kind of thing pisses me off enough to consider going into politics for a few minutes... just to be able to scream at these shitheads up close maybe.
[size=85][color=#0080BF]io chiamo pinguini![/color][/size]
Grudge
Posts: 8587
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 8:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Grudge »

Sounds like the same crap our government keep peddling about our JAS 39 Gripen. It's just a big black hole that they keep throwing money into. Stupid nationalist grandstanding more fit for the 19th century than the 21st.
^misantropia^
Posts: 4022
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:24 pm

Re: The JSF debate

Post by ^misantropia^ »

Ryoki wrote:'but it creates jobs'
Not a complete lie. There are probably one or more JSF evaluation committees in The Hague, making good money off this.
^misantropia^
Posts: 4022
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:24 pm

Re: The JSF debate

Post by ^misantropia^ »

And now that the PvdA has given in* - one of their key campaigning points - you can bet your candy ass that untold more billions are going to be squandered on this.

* Not that they really put up much of a fight. By which I mean they bent over and took it like pros.
Peenyuh
Posts: 3783
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:46 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Peenyuh »

Ryoki wrote:...what's wrong with F16's and drones...
Absolutely nothing. The bureaucrats know this, but they want the money. The JCS know this, but they want all of Americas "allies" to have one of these. I'm sure that, if it's ever completed, America will keep a token force of these. We will continue to rely on a better, proven strike fighter... along with Maverick and Iceman. :smirk:
[color=#00FF00][b]"How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?" Asked of a Scottish driving instructor in 1995.[/b][/color]
User avatar
Transient
Posts: 11357
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 8:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Transient »

Link?
[quote="YourGrandpa"]I'm satisfied with voicing my opinion and moving on.[/quote]
User avatar
Eraser
Posts: 19177
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Eraser »

The dutch ministry of defense has been weaseling itself through this all along.
Years ago they had to make technical comparisons between various planes to see which would best suit the needs of the Dutch airforce. While they said they did an honest evaluation, they never seriously considered any plane but the JSF. It's all one big lie.
Ryoki
Posts: 13460
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 7:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Ryoki »

Transient wrote:Link?
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/u ... -figh.html

For a more comprehensive little read of the F35's flaws:
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm ... =index.cfm
Last edited by Ryoki on Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
[size=85][color=#0080BF]io chiamo pinguini![/color][/size]
Peenyuh
Posts: 3783
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:46 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Peenyuh »

Transient wrote:Link?
There's no "link" to common sense, my friend. :(
[color=#00FF00][b]"How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?" Asked of a Scottish driving instructor in 1995.[/b][/color]
User avatar
Transient
Posts: 11357
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 8:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Transient »

I wasn't referring to your post.
[quote="YourGrandpa"]I'm satisfied with voicing my opinion and moving on.[/quote]
Peenyuh
Posts: 3783
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:46 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Peenyuh »

I know. It was just an off hand remark. Just keeping it light. :)
[color=#00FF00][b]"How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?" Asked of a Scottish driving instructor in 1995.[/b][/color]
Ryoki
Posts: 13460
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 7:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Ryoki »

Bump

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... e_pentagon
The F-35 will actually cost multiples of the $395.7 billion cited above. That is the current estimate only to acquire it, not the full life-cycle cost to operate it. The current appraisal for operations and support is $1.1 trillion -- making for a grand total of $1.5 trillion, or more than the annual GDP of Spain.

....

A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat. Worse yet, it won't be able to get into the air as often to perform any mission -- or just as importantly, to train pilots -- because its complexity prolongs maintenance and limits availability. The aircraft most like the F-35, the F-22, was able to get into the air on average for only 15 hours per month in 2010 when it was fully operational. (In 2011, the F-22 was grounded for almost five months and flew even less.)
It'd be pretty funny if it weren't so infuriatingly stupid :up:
[size=85][color=#0080BF]io chiamo pinguini![/color][/size]
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Posts: 14375
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by HM-PuFFNSTuFF »

Our corrupt federal government lied to the public about the cost of procurement of these ill-suited jets.
User avatar
GONNAFISTYA
Posts: 13369
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm

Re: The JSF debate

Post by GONNAFISTYA »

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Our corrupt federal government lied to the public about the cost of procurement of these ill-suited jets.
And yet they were the same people complaining that the long gun registry and the CBC cost too much. :dork:

BTW...the F-35 and the F-22 (which was supposed to have been cancelled but wasn't...which means LOADS of politicians have their dirty fingers in that particular pie) are prime examples of useless things being forced onto taxpayers. You can prove over and over again why a government shouldn't spend billions upon billions of dollars on them and they'll end up spending billions upon billions of dollars on them anyways.

But don't you fucking dare give $200 a month to a single parent for food stamps...that's a waste of government money.
User avatar
seremtan
Posts: 36013
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by seremtan »

now the USAF will never win those dogfights that it only has these days in hollywood's fervid imagination
Ryoki
Posts: 13460
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 7:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Ryoki »

GONNAFISTYA wrote:BTW...the F-35 and the F-22 (which was supposed to have been cancelled but wasn't...which means LOADS of politicians have their dirty fingers in that particular pie) are prime examples of useless things being forced onto taxpayers.
True dat. But at least the F-22 is supposed to be a technological marvel, a high powered machine dedicated to airsuperiority.* Mostly useless of course, but at least good at what it's supposed to do. The F-35 however is a design compromised to death, a jack of all trades and master of none, which apparently makes it shit in any role you care to give it. Too slow for dogfights, too little space for bombs, the choice between stealth and carrying fuel, turn cycle of an imperial death destroyer, the list goes on and on. From what i've been reading it really is astonishingly bad, and it's the most expensive plane ever built.

And we're all gonna buy it anyway with our tax money, yay. It's the same logic as the type of logic being used not to get out of a war you started, something along the lines of 'all effort would be wasted if we stop now', which is such bullshit that it makes my brain hurt.

*the F-22 has of course been nearly killing it's pilots due to not giving them oxygen under certain circumstances, a problem they've somehow been unable to find and fix for something like two years now. The entire fleet was grounded for a while in 2011, then it was decided that it looked bad to have your best jets sitting uselessly on the ground and they ungrounded the fleet without having fixed the problem. Which immediately led to a crashed plane and a dead pilot.

I love these type of military industrial complex fuckups, they're always so much fun.
Last edited by Ryoki on Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
[size=85][color=#0080BF]io chiamo pinguini![/color][/size]
User avatar
Eraser
Posts: 19177
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Eraser »

USAF pilots have even been refusing to fly the F-22 due to the oxygen problem.
User avatar
Eraser
Posts: 19177
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Eraser »

Ryoki wrote:I love these type of military industrial complex fuckups, they're always so much fun.
It's a government thing it seems and that doesn't go just for combat hardware. For some reason, pride and prestige are things that seem to drive politicians in decision making for grand projects where lots of moneys are involved. Failure never appears to be an option, so instead they sink even more money in their pet projects in hopes that something good will come out of it and they'll get away with it. They'd rather blow millions of dollars at something that has a low chance of success than that they say "ok, this is crap. Lets quit". I guess they probably think it's easier to justify millions of dollars spent at some result than spending slightly less millions of dollars at something that's yielded no result at all.

In any sane commercial company, a project like the JSF would've been cancelled outright. It would be unsellable. But now that there's government money and politicians involved, suddenly it keeps getting the green light.
Ryoki
Posts: 13460
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 7:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Ryoki »

It's certainly that for a large part. I also think there's a lot of corruption going on when it comes to things like this. Maybe not the type of curruption where suitcases of money are secretively handed over, but rather promises of employment to do with the projects in certain countries and states, or perhaps comfortable positions in companies are offered to politicians when they retire from public life.
[size=85][color=#0080BF]io chiamo pinguini![/color][/size]
Nightshade
Posts: 17020
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Nightshade »

Ben Rich forecast this sort of idiocy a while back. He does a great job of clearly showing the progression from the "handshake -> contract -> some money -> VERY LITTLE oversight -> awesome fighter plane ahead of schedule" days of Kelly Johnson's Skunkworks to the current "78,000 page bid/contract -> billions of dollars -> massive oversight/micromanagement -> 500 design changes -> billions more dollars -> huge project delays -> hire more managers -> billions more dollars -> more changes -> more billions -> more delays -> here's your mediocre piece of shit immediately outdated plane/tank/electric tuba" quagmire that is weapon systems procurement/development.

In this respect, the government does nothing but fuck things up.
obsidian
Posts: 10970
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2002 8:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by obsidian »

Ryoki wrote:I also think there's a lot of corruption going on
No kidding. Any other person in the world would be able to see this as a bad deal since any other person in the world isn't getting the under-the-table handshake. War profiteering is good money as long as you don't mind accepting stolen cash stained with a little bit of blood. It'll probably wash out, right?
[size=85][url=http://gtkradiant.com]GtkRadiant[/url] | [url=http://q3map2.robotrenegade.com]Q3Map2[/url] | [url=http://q3map2.robotrenegade.com/docs/shader_manual/]Shader Manual[/url][/size]
User avatar
Eraser
Posts: 19177
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Eraser »

Hans Hillen, our minister of defense has spewed some more bullshit rhetoric and fear mongering about the JSF. Here's some translated quotes.

About the Dutch government doubting whether or not it should buy F35's:
If we continue to hesitate, others will take the loot.
But of course, we should really do this because... well... others are doing it as well.
The Netherlands is a leading, rich, developed country. If such a country abandons the international community you will pay the price for it in the economy.

You will get less production orders and less employment. Then we have the image of a beggar who is only in for it if we can get something out of it.
He's also convinced we really need a plane like this, because, oh shit, the Russians are coming!
Almost monthly an F16 chases away a russian plane. The world is in such an unbalanced state that if we just give a signal that we don't protect ourselves anymore, we draw the enemy towards us

If we think we can win a war with antiquated hardware or even be threatening to an enemy, we make a big mistake
What a fucking tool. But apparently it's people like him, who still think we're in the middle of the cold war, that decide about shit like this.
User avatar
Eraser
Posts: 19177
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Re: The JSF debate

Post by Eraser »

Oh I almost forgot, I had a discussion about this with a colleague who said we did need a good strong army. When I asked him why he said we should be prepared for a country like China who had the biggest army in the world now, or North Korea who, according to him, have nuclear missiles (Uh, yes indeed).

Anyway, I said that he shouldn't be afraid of China's army. They don't need to shoot. In 15 years from now, they just buy whatever they want.
Post Reply