Forum Thread

F-35 computer software delay

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 17 1 2 Next
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Daily Beast, December 31, 2014: New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Fire Its Gun Until 2019

    "The Pentagon’s newest stealth jet, the nearly $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter, won’t be able to fire its gun during operational missions until 2019, three to four years after it becomes operational. Even though the Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is supposed to join frontline U.S. Marine Corps fighter squadrons next year [2015] and Air Force units in 2016, the jet’s software does not yet have the ability to shoot its 25mm cannon. But even when the jet will be able to shoot its gun, the F-35 barely carries enough ammunition to make the weapon useful."

    “There will be no gun until [the Joint Strike Fighter’s Block] 3F [software], there is no software to support it now or for the next four-ish years,” said one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program. “Block 3F is slated for release in 2019, but who knows how much that will slip?”


    I know Dutch and others have discussed the F-35 often in this website. I didn't feel like digging through old threads to find those discussions, but Dutch's concerns are duly noted. For the F-35 fans eagerly awaiting the roll-out in combat missions, it may be a while yet. I suppose until then it might be able to do ceremonial fly-overs at Air Force football games here in Colorado Springs.

    Notice I found this report in the Daily Beast. Mainstream US media seemed to have missed it. There is much more in the article, which can be read at the above link. Happy reading!
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Daily Beast, December 31, 2014: New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Fire Its Gun Until 2019

    "The Pentagon’s newest stealth jet, the nearly $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter, won’t be able to fire its gun during operational missions until 2019, three to four years after it becomes operational. Even though the Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is supposed to join frontline U.S. Marine Corps fighter squadrons next year [2015] and Air Force units in 2016, the jet’s software does not yet have the ability to shoot its 25mm cannon. But even when the jet will be able to shoot its gun, the F-35 barely carries enough ammunition to make the weapon useful."

    “There will be no gun until [the Joint Strike Fighter’s Block] 3F [software], there is no software to support it now or for the next four-ish years,” said one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program. “Block 3F is slated for release in 2019, but who knows how much that will slip?”


    I know Dutch and others have discussed the F-35 often in this website. I didn't feel like digging through old threads to find those discussions, but Dutch's concerns are duly noted. For the F-35 fans eagerly awaiting the roll-out in combat missions, it may be a while yet. I suppose until then it might be able to do ceremonial fly-overs at Air Force football games here in Colorado Springs.

    Notice I found this report in the Daily Beast. Mainstream US media seemed to have missed it. There is much more in the article, which can be read at the above link. Happy reading!
    Thanks Schmidt; I keep repeating this is the biggest wasteful project ever; I doubt you can use this $400 milion a piece" iron" other than in WWIII. I guess too cosly to get one terrorist; an F16 does a much better job at a tenth of the price. Can you imagine the "billions", if they would have been used to built infrastructure here, how many jobs would have been created. I am convinced that over 10 years they all are parked in the desert; so AMC can play hide and seek in them.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, please indulge yourself into the reality of the New Sixth Generation Fighter, currently under development by Boeing. Pushing our military hardware is more about politics and jobs. The never ending pursuit of maintaining the edge in world dominance will keep developers, such as, Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, and Fairchild in business for a long time. Developing commercial aircraft is fine, but as he dollar stretches, there's gold in those military contracts for new military hardware. The F-35 will someday be worthy of an suitable mission, but at the moment it appears to have severe cost over-run and major development issues. Until the New Sixth Generation Fighter gets the go-ahead for major manufacture, America and other countries will play with the F-35 for sometime. The New Sixth Generation Fighter is planned for 2025, but that could be pushed for an earlier date and will depend where the politics and the jobs need to play. Russia and China is already pursuing their versions of the New Sixth Generation Fighter, so it's just like the space race. First one on board......wins. There is more development into new jet fighters having "NO" Pilot on board. Now that is scary..........ROBO-COP in the sky!
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Thanks Schmidt; I keep repeating this is the biggest wasteful project ever; I doubt you can use this $400 milion a piece" iron" other than in WWIII. I guess too cosly to get one terrorist; an F16 does a much better job at a tenth of the price. Can you imagine the "billions", if they would have been used to built infrastructure here, how many jobs would have been created. I am convinced that over 10 years they all are parked in the desert; so AMC can play hide and seek in them.
    I fully agree that this is a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars. This one jet is projected to cost the American taxpayer more than the entire Afghanistan conflict, at a projected $1.45 TRILLION dollars. I had to re-read that number more than a few times to make sure my eyes weren't playing tricks with me. The craziest thing is that the Pentagon made this projection in 2012. One can only assume this number has undoubtedly increased after the countless delays this jet has had.

    Think of what we could do with $1.45 trillion dollars. We could buy a home for every single homeless person in America, fix our crumbling bridges and highways, and rid the nation of food insecurity for each and every citizen. Instead, our Government thinks spending a trillion and a half dollars on a weapon of war is more important.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It's not just a "weapon of war", it's what makes the global market economy go around and promotes interests in investments, new discoveries, new products, and jobs, jobs, and more jobs. I will admit though, I would rather see those funds spent fixing our infrastructure and providing jobs to industry and construction, but these jobs are low-paying as compared to the jobs in weapon development and manufacturing of our war based economies. Than there is the other white elephant in the discussion...........politics. There's more bang for the buck in promoting aircraft, fighter jets, tanks, missiles and weapons of war for all those politicians who desire to stay in office. Take away the funds of weapons and you will see many, many politicians loose their voter base.

    It would be a better world if all could get along with each others country, but it isn't. We live in a war culture and differing degrees of disputes. Heck, we can't even get past the whole argumentative play on religion.

    During the Vietnam War, I remember watching one of many TV channels on board aircraft carriers launching Phantom's (F4). The cameras were focused on landing as well as takeoff, so if we wanted to see real-time action instead of Andy of Mayberry, we could watch the performance of fighter aircraft loaded with missiles and bombs takeoff. I surmise that over twenty of those F4's are still lying on the bottom of ocean floor off the coast of Vietnam. We observed immediately after the F4 was launched and the afterburners were on, these afterburners and the F4's engines, just flamed-out or quit. That F4 hit the water and sank before the carrier steamed over it. Most cases the pilots ejected or escaped, but the F4 was lost forever. Whoops there goes another several million dollars. The F4's were deployed before all the bugs were engineered out of it. Than came the Tom-Cat's and guess what same thing, Whoops there goes another several millions down the drink. Industry always deploys these aircraft long before the bugs are out. Sounds just like the automobile industry. Got one of those GM vehicles on recall?

    All the weapons designed, developed and manufactured are tied directly to a global economy. Someone you know works with these companies and are dependent on their job to survive. Since industry is meshed together with may companies dependent on each other, that weapon production relates directly to building roads, bridges, buildings, hospitals, communities, cities, states, and whole countries. A fine example is in Oklahoma, Machallister, where when driving through the main street you come to a large sign of their only big industrial plant and largest employer of the "Mother-of-all Bombs" (MOAB). This little community is proud of their weapon plant and produces the most used bunker buster bomb used in the Afghanistan, IRAQ, Syria and who knows where else. Yes, America, with flag waving in the air, we're here in Oklahoma and during our part for the war effort, please keep sending them dollars for our jobs. That is weapon industry creating a community.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote: It's not just a "weapon of war", it's what makes the global market economy go around and promotes interests in investments, new discoveries, new products, and jobs, jobs, and more jobs.
    Are you honestly trying to say that the entire global economy is dependent on spending one and a half trillion dollars on a singular weapon of war? Or that the entire world economy would just collapse if we actually cut back on our out of control military spending?

    It is true that many jobs are dependent on the military industrial complex. That was a very deliberate move by these companies. They set up shop in small towns throughout America; have that singular shop specialize in making one small part of one machine; and spread the building process to as many districts and states as they possibly can. It is not about jobs for them, it's about forcing the Governments hand. Unfortunately, our wonderful leaders fall for it time and time again.

    Instead of spending billions of dollars on weapons of war, why don't we spend billions of dollars developing clean energy programs so we aren't dependent on the foreign oil these conflicts are fought over? Those small town American people would still have their manufacturing job, but instead of building bombs that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, they would be building something that would bring energy independence to America.
  • Liberal
    Other Party
    Llos Angeles, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Rember Reagan and his "Star wars" debacle..... It never worked.. But who cares? they made billions in the eighties.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I'm not saying the global economy is dependent on a "single" weapon of war, the F-35 and it's 1.5 trillion price tag or so. I am saying that the entire military industrial complex makes the global economy and markets hum like a well oiled machine. Sure the F-35 has it's minor roll and there are thousands dependent on it's continued development and success for a job. Although marketing some energy source to radically improve our world will always need a strong military to protect and serve a nations interests in profiting and/or distributing a new world energy source. Why? Because if no one can protect that industry, than you will be dependent on the world power who dominates it's use.

    I've visited Russia and I do not like the toilet paper (like card board), the hand/body soap (like Lava) and scarcity of pleasantries I enjoy in America. Although, Russia is a great country to visit, I choose to limit my vacation time in such a rustic and hard country. Think on the optioning a taking away funding on the military complex, including the F-35, and provide it to energy developing industry. America's strength would decrease and allow a country like Russia to step in and command the entire country on what it will do will that new energy resource or just steal it. Again, I don't like someone telling me what kind of underwear, toilet paper, or hand soap I can use, nor do I want anybody telling me what beer I can drink. That's removing America from the world power dominance will give you with someone else telling you what you can do or what you cannot do.

    Having a commanding lead in power in the world is difficult to achieve and manage, but it does build industry and jobs for all Americans. McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing in Oregon and Washington, just look at all those supportive business round these complexes. Yes, military hardware does promote the market and it is global business as usual. I'm looking forward to the F-35 success, but in accordance to Schmidt's original posting it has many problems. So, I can see the F-35 my not be error free by the time the new Sixth Generation Aircraft gets it's deployment. What' next in the military arsenal is very interesting.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote: That's removing America from the world power dominance will give you with someone else telling you what you can do or what you cannot do.
    We're not talking about your dislike of Russian toilet paper. We are talking about the American military spending a trillion and a half dollars on a plane that doesn't work.

    Let's break the numbers down here by the amount of money America spends on its military each year versus the rest of the world:
    (In US dollars)

    Defense Budget by Country
    America: $612 billion
    China: $126 billion
    Russia: $76.6 billion
    Saudi Arabia: $56.7 billion
    United Kingdom: $53.6 billion
    Japan: $49 billion
    India: $46 billion
    Germany: $45 billion
    France: $43 billion
    Italy: $34 billion

    Let's hypothesize that we halved our military budget. We would still be spending well over twice as much as China is on their military expenditures and three, four, five, six, seven, etc. times as much as every other country in the world. And we all know that we would never halve our military budget.

    So, are you honestly trying to say that if we just cut our military budget by even a little bit that we would just fall off the world stage? Come on now. Your argument doesn't hold up once you take the time to understand the numbers.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Your not considering the tangibles, which tie directly to the military development industry. Again as I indicated previously, it is "NOT" about a single war plane. It is about the entire military weapon and hardware industry. I realize it may be too complex to comprehend, because it is very broad across the stage of development from our commercial products, support industries and the Burger King down the street that caters to the weapons plant employees. Military industries and research employs hundreds of thousands of people across America. The product spinoffs in our life styles are enormous benefitting everything from microwave ovens and appliances, energy efficient construction products, clothing, plastics and than there is all that electronics. One developing product I have been watching closely because of potential future investment opportunities is Graphene. It's a by-product of nano-tech, and borne out of military research for something light, tougher than steel and can be strung into current handling capabilities that go way beyond copper and aluminum. Imagine an automobile that you drive and is over a thousand pounds lighter..............this if the future for Graphene. NANO-tech is funded big time through military and government grants. The first products are usually always military missioned as it is tested and toughened for battle. Before anybody chastises the military, first consider all the ramifications of the industrial revolutions in military hardware promoting an enormous bounty for all of us.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Post Removed by Moderators
    The decision was made to remove this post (but not delete it) from this thread by a moderator -- but we still allow members to see it if they wish. Please note that some members may have replied to this post later in this discussion thread before moderators decided to remove it. You can choose to see what was removed here: View Removed Post
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: Thanks Schmidt; I keep repeating this is the biggest wasteful project ever; I doubt you can use this $400 milion a piece" iron" other than in WWIII. I guess too cosly to get one terrorist; an F16 does a much better job at a tenth of the price. Can you imagine the "billions", if they would have been used to built infrastructure here, how many jobs would have been created. I am convinced that over 10 years they all are parked in the desert; so AMC can play hide and seek in them.
    I fully agree that this is a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars. This one jet is projected to cost the American taxpayer more than the entire Afghanistan conflict, at a projected $1.45 TRILLION dollars. I had to re-read that number more than a few times to make sure my eyes weren't playing tricks with me. The craziest thing is that the Pentagon made this projection in 2012. One can only assume this number has undoubtedly increased after the countless delays this jet has had.

    Think of what we could do with $1.45 trillion dollars. We could buy a home for every single homeless person in America, fix our crumbling bridges and highways, and rid the nation of food insecurity for each and every citizen. Instead, our Government thinks spending a trillion and a half dollars on a weapon of war is more important.
    Jared, I'm glad you got it right; yes it is a total waste; it has nothing to do with a feasible project. They liked the Harrier from Britain and modified it into the AV8; but Britain held the patents; but of course the "arrogant" military/Pentagon wanted a "true" American product instead; otherwise AMC would not want to touch an un-patriotic product. A very sick country indeed.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes there are a lot of military technology spin-offs that are now aiding private enterprise. The same could be said for NASA, NASCAR (car safety), sports stadiums, the One World Trade Center in New York, and more. We advance technologically by doing things...building the better mouse trap and learning by our mistakes. Heck one might say the science of understanding the brain and brain injuries has been advanced remarkably by the injuries to our soldiers in our war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that military hardware and know how handed down to police departments sure comes in handy when dealing with protest movements here in the USA.

    When I was canvassing for Obama in Colorado Springs, home to many military contractors, one individual confided in me that he could not support Obama because his military contractor employer told him that if Obama was elected the defense budget would be cut and he could lose his job. I commented on the huge size of the military budget asked if it didn't need to be cut back? His reply was that he didn't care if the defense budget took 75 percent of the budget. It was his job on the line and furthermore it was an important job as he was keeping America safe.

    These are the cards that military contractors play...jobs and keeping America safe. Both are based on fear. Their lobbyists spend billions selling that line to our elected officials. However, a jobs program based on rebuilding our bridges and highways and schools, etc could also advance us technologically as we sought to incorporate current day safety, conservation and environmental concerns into the engineering.

    I am painfully aware that the F-35 will soon be one day on the scrap heap, superseded by a Sixth Generation and a Seventh Generation and an Eight Generation plane. As long as defense contractors are selling it as jobs and keeping America safe, every Congress will continue to approve funds, whether it's an unneeded fighter jet, an unneeded tank, or some other gizmo. With that, one day maybe our military budget will consume 75 percent of our federal budget. And us taxpayers will not be able to afford soft toilet paper. So on that point we'll agree. I too traveled in the old Soviet Union, and the one thing I remember is their toilet paper...not very user friendly to the ass. We should all be so lucky for that experience.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Yes there are a lot of military technology spin-offs that are now aiding private enterprise. The same could be said for NASA, NASCAR (car safety), sports stadiums, the One World Trade Center in New York, and more. We advance technologically by doing things...building the better mouse trap and learning by our mistakes. Heck one might say the science of understanding the brain and brain injuries has been advanced remarkably by the injuries to our soldiers in our war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that military hardware and know how handed down to police departments sure comes in handy when dealing with protest movements here in the USA.

    When I was canvassing for Obama in Colorado Springs, home to many military contractors, one individual confided in me that he could not support Obama because his military contractor employer told him that if Obama was elected the defense budget would be cut and he could lose his job. I commented on the huge size of the military budget asked if it didn't need to be cut back? His reply was that he didn't care if the defense budget took 75 percent of the budget. It was his job on the line and furthermore it was an important job as he was keeping America safe.

    These are the cards that military contractors play...jobs and keeping America safe. Both are based on fear. Their lobbyists spend billions selling that line to our elected officials. However, a jobs program based on rebuilding our bridges and highways and schools, etc could also advance us technologically as we sought to incorporate current day safety, conservation and environmental concerns into the engineering.

    I am painfully aware that the F-35 will soon be one day on the scrap heap, superseded by a Sixth Generation and a Seventh Generation and an Eight Generation plane. As long as defense contractors are selling it as jobs and keeping America safe, every Congress will continue to approve funds, whether it's an unneeded fighter jet, an unneeded tank, or some other gizmo. With that, one day maybe our military budget will consume 75 percent of our federal budget. And us taxpayers will not be able to afford soft toilet paper. So on that point we'll agree. I too traveled in the old Soviet Union, and the one thing I remember is their toilet paper...not very user friendly to the ass. We should all be so lucky for that experience.
    Schmidt; exactly ; the slogan "this keeps America safe" is as bad as this is "god's will" I guess people do not realize that they are taken for a ride by the real government which is actually the Pentagon; they always get what they want, including "soft" toilet paper costing the tax payer $25 per thin roll!!! They also need a lot of those because the Army is full of shit.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    So if Obama (or any other President) was acting like a corporate CEO and Congress was acting like a corporate Board of Directors, the F-35 would have been scrapped a long time ago...along with those who drained the corporate coffers on the project. In the corporate world, bad decisions have accountability. It is funny how Republicans hate BIG Government and social programs, but when it comes to feeding an enormous pet pork project like this, they act like true government loving socialists. I guess there is a difference when it comes to the welfare of the people and the welfare of corporations. Isn't there a name for that? It begins with "f"?