Air Force Grounds F-35 Joint Strike Fighters Due To Cooling Line Flaw

[ColHomer]

The source is the only one I am aware of, and I follow the God Emperor Trump (praise be His name, in KEK we trust) religiously. It is very unlikely I have missed a speech or interview, and that is the only one where MSM opponents created a headline that was not supported by their actual interview, hoping that some people would be too lazy to actually hear what he said and just read the headline and get outraged... which is what I bet you did, and you won't find a mythical source you insist exists.

And yes, I am intimately familiar with Trump university, and there is no wrongdoing found. The timing of the litigation was very suspect, and the background proves its a nonsensical case:

Trump University had a generous full refund policy, and an over 98% positive feedback rating on surveys, which is above the industry average. Here are the facts: Home Page

Any more FUD inventions you want to spread, or are you done now?

Wow just wow, I looked into Trump University way back in 2006 just because I couldn't believe it existed and it was an obvious scam back then. But sure go ahead continue defending the indefensible...

 

[NKD]

The source is the only one I am aware of, and I follow the God Emperor Trump (praise be His name, in KEK we trust) religiously. It is very unlikely I have missed a speech or interview, and that is the only one where MSM opponents created a headline that was not supported by their actual interview, hoping that some people would be too lazy to actually hear what he said and just read the headline and get outraged... which is what I bet you did, and you won't find a mythical source you insist exists.

And yes, I am intimately familiar with Trump university, and there is no wrongdoing found. The timing of the litigation was very suspect, and the background proves its a nonsensical case:

Trump University had a generous full refund policy, and an over 98% positive feedback rating on surveys, which is above the industry average. Here are the facts: Home Page

Any more FUD inventions you want to spread, or are you done now?

lol man we know you like trump so its okay. But to discard all the others who didn't get their refund what do you say to them? lol. Generous full refund policy then why are there so many people who had no refund policy. I understand you like trump all power to you but come to the middle a little. I got no love for hillary but I got no blind love for trump either.

LOL you are like really unreal. its funny though cracking me up.

 

[Ducman69]

But to discard all the others who didn't get their refund what do you say to them? lol. Generous full refund policy then why are there so many people who had no refund policy.

The refund policy was for days after the event, you don't get a refund years later. The plaintiffs, as shown, all had also given rave reviews of the course and had no complaints upon completion. The complaint came long after the fact, when Trump was running for political office, and coincidentally the primary plaintiff in the case is directly involved with the Hillary campaign. That makes it obvious to me that this is a politically motivated smear attempt.

lol man we know you like trump so its okay.

That's a blatant lie again. I never said I liked Trump. I said I love Trump. If I were born a woman, I would line up to bare his children. Trump is love. Trump is life.

MAGA!

 

[Gorankar]

Trump is, at best, the lesser of two rather substantial evils, but everyone is welcome to their own opinion.

 

[RottenMutt]

The A10's and AC130's are definitely much more effective at local air to ground bombardment, which is most of what we do these days.

If you ever have to approach from a distance - however - having faster capabilities to cover a long distance, get in, strike, and get out before the target moves is important though.

You could steadily envision a circumstance where a tiff with countries in the region means we lose access to an airbase and have to approach from a more distant air Base or carrier group.

That, and unless you have effectively taken out any real surface to air defenses and have already established air superiority, the likes of A10's or an AC130's are sitting ducks.

AC130's were only allowed to opporate in Afghanistan at night! If any ground to air missiles are around these relics are sitting ducks.

As far as the PAO quality escape, Lockheed has accepted responsibility and will pay for all repairs.

 

[Uvaman2]

I think the bigger elephant in the room, is the fact that other countries are developing their military on the cheap.
We seem to have intrinsic, systemic corruption, making us less efficient.
Yes we kick ass.. but slowy but surely, any meaningful potential enemy, is making any potential war too destroctive to be had (conventional weapons only I mean).
That is all they need to do, to cancel out a lot of our influence.
China is doing it quite well.
Russia more or less.
The window of our massive influence is closing, I think most know it; the other countries are doing it on the cheap too.

 

[RottenMutt]

I think the bigger elephant in the room, is the fact that other countries are developing their military on the cheap.

What about Japan, England, ltaly, Norway, Israel, Netherlands, Turkey, Denmark, and Australia.

 

[Extra-Titanian]

The biggest problem that we have in this "war" is that we're using $xxx,xxx weapons to destroy $xx,xxx targets. Moving to "drones" or uber-advanced stealth aircraft 3000 isn't going to make any difference because, in this situation, ammunition is our limiting factor to "victory". There is no head of the snake to cut off, we're purely in a war of attrition. And we're not deploying our most cost effective (ground) forces.

 

[NExUS1g]

lol, then conservatives should stop complaining about taxes and big government. Because that's exactly what this is, I mean a fucking trillion dollars...for real. It's a grade A fuck up of epic proportions. Reality we don't need these aircraft, just like we have hundreds of tanks we don't need because of bullshit political give aways. Not to mention the asshats in charge of "science" in congress on the right who are barely able to read.

The failure of concurrency
The F-35’s problems are at least partially the result of allowing Lockheed Martin to pursue concurrent flight design and active deployment. The idea behind concurrency was that Lockheed Martin could begin building an aircraft while still fine-tuning various aspects of its design. In theory, applied to much simpler vehicles, it might have worked, especially if the F-35 had been a modest evolution of an existing aircraft.

Applied to the F-35, concurrency has been a disaster. Right now, every single F-35 already built will need to be extensively overhauled to meet its minimum performance targets. It’s one thing to overhaul a ship or aircraft to improve its baseline capabilities, and something else entirely when the aircraft as delivered can’t execute its mission.

It's the government maintaining a standing military as the US Constitution gives it power to do.

 

[Shintai]

Now they caught fire with tailwind.

High rear end winds cause F-35A ground engine fire

 

[File]

The Future .... is not rocket science.

A fleet of unmanned Fighter/Bombers, which can out perform anything with a human pilot, go where ever because we made plenty, they are cheaper, and we don't give a shit if it ends up shot down.

Especially if you make smaller ones, where 500-1000 fit on an Aircraft carrier, and 780's can be built to act as Airborne Aircraft Carriers, packing 50 unmanned fighters to reach into any country on Earth.

And even smaller ones, brought along with the Armored and Infantry divisions that take off from Trucks on the battle field. Smaller cheaper and unmanned is the Future ... not F35's

But we can shoot down smaller and cheaper, with smaller and cheaper and faster missiles.

 

[NExUS1g]

I think the bigger elephant in the room, is the fact that other countries are developing their military on the cheap.
We seem to have intrinsic, systemic corruption, making us less efficient.
Yes we kick ass.. but slowy but surely, any meaningful potential enemy, is making any potential war too destroctive to be had (conventional weapons only I mean).
That is all they need to do, to cancel out a lot of our influence.
China is doing it quite well.
Russia more or less.
The window of our massive influence is closing, I think most know it; the other countries are doing it on the cheap too.

Russia's just trying to take us back to the USSR days of the proxy war policy.
China is the most likely that we'd end up in a direct war with, over either North Korea or the South China Sea. If that did happen, China couldn't feed its army for a prolonged war. It would be a siege more than a war. They have destroyed their soil with mismanagement. They will depend on external sources importing goods to feed its army.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I think the bigger elephant in the room, is the fact that other countries are developing their military on the cheap.
We seem to have intrinsic, systemic corruption, making us less efficient.
Yes we kick ass.. but slowy but surely, any meaningful potential enemy, is making any potential war too destroctive to be had (conventional weapons only I mean).
That is all they need to do, to cancel out a lot of our influence.
China is doing it quite well.
Russia more or less.
The window of our massive influence is closing, I think most know it; the other countries are doing it on the cheap too.

The more advanced you get you always start hitting diminishing returns.

The F35 is an amazingly kick ass jet. One on one it is predicted to beat anything else out there.

The problem is one on one (or 10 on 10) isn't necessarily the best comparison.

The Air Force is on record stating the F35 is 400% as effective as anything else out there it is likely to face. This is probably exhaggerated somewhat (just like you can't trust AMD's performance expectations on its own GPU's and CPU's, you can't trust the US Air Force's assessment of its own planes.)

What we do know for sure - however - is that for the price of one F35, you could buy four JAS 39 Gripen's.

Think of it like buying a Pascal Titan vs buying 5 RX480's for the same price. The Pascal Titan is certainly faster, but not 5 times as fast.

The F35 is clearly superior on its own, but would you rather have one F35 or four slightly less capable Swedish multirole jets?


I think the answer to this question is "It Depends".

A recent report I vaguely remember seeing in headlines is that the US Air force is suffering from an extreme pilot shortage. They are short some 700-1000 pilots depending on the article. Military recruiting isn't exactly up either. If this is the problem you have, it makes sense to make the most out of every pilot. To use another computing analogy, your pilots are your bottleneck, and you want to make sure each one counts asuch as possible. The F35 becomes a force multiplier of sorts, letting you make more out of a limited pilot supply.

Now if you happen to be a lower cost nation, pilots are easier and cheaper to come by, but the cost of expensive planes is more of a problem, so you are probably going to go with the cheaper planes.

Again, the F35 is more effective, but is it 16x F35's vs 64x JAS 39 Gripen's more effective?

My guess is probably not.