1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

F-35 is such a turd.

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by lpbman, Feb 20, 2010.

  1. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,720
    Likes Received:
    3,475
    [​IMG]

    http://open.salon.com/blog/jlw1/2014/07/28/cheating_ourselves
     
    #141 Bandwagoner, Nov 5, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2014
  2. val_modus

    val_modus Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,792
    Likes Received:
    289
    Nice, you found 5 "points" that I used in my post that were found over social media as well. Not exactly, link worthy material :/

    Anyways, I hope you feel like you accomplished something with this side show, thanks for keeping the discussion alive.
     
  3. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,720
    Likes Received:
    3,475
    A plagiarist don't follow through on his bet? Unpossible!

    Post links when you copypasta in the future dimwit.
     
  4. val_modus

    val_modus Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,792
    Likes Received:
    289
    Perhaps you should read the bet once more Uncle Sam. Less than 1/5 of what I posted was from the link you were so kind to provide. Little points nonetheless to build on a thought I was providing

    Chime in with your thoughts on the discussion at hand instead of focusing on these little details next time moron ;)
     
  5. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,720
    Likes Received:
    3,475
    I have posts all through this thread. Illiterate?

    Clutch BBS Etiquette and Standards
     
  6. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,316
    Likes Received:
    5,087
    I hate wasted war spending as much as anybody but the fact is that 1.35 trillion spent on the F-35 doesn't just disappear. A lot of it cycles back through the economy as wages and taxed profits, it creates some wealth as rising stock prices and monies in the banking system. Now a lot of it does get lost as profits parked overseas, untaxed via accounting laws and in untaxed accounts of obscenely paid CEO's and Lobbyist. And, many technologies that are developed for military systems find their way into to private commercial applications that otherwise would have been too expensive to develop.For example the monies spent on putting a man on the moon were probably paid for by the taxes on profits from the developed technologies.

    Ok I'll get back on the left again now.
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,911
    Likes Received:
    47,617
    <iframe class="imgur-embed" width="100%" height="404" frameborder="0" src="http://i.imgur.com/rNa3shi.gifv#embed"></iframe>
     
  8. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,911
    Likes Received:
    47,617
    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FAFnhIIK7s4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
     
  9. Mr. Clutch

    Mr. Clutch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    46,550
    Likes Received:
    6,131
    F-35 = Kevin Martin
     
  10. ipaman

    ipaman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    13,020
    Likes Received:
    7,784
    one step closer to flying cars
     
  11. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912
    Neither does investing 1.35 trillion in education and infrastructure in the U.S.

    I think this plane was not a wise investment. Why is such a machine needed? Against whom? It's overkill. Who is even close to threatening our strategic advantage?
     
  12. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,720
    Likes Received:
    3,475
    Our current jets have fallen behind the times and have much usage. Plane only last so many years. Against anyone the Russians, french and chinese sell their jets too.


    Have you ever wanted the US to use air strikes or provide security for any fledgling country?
     
  13. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,720
    Likes Received:
    3,475
    Outside of r****ds, the only debate around the F-35 is was the program well managed. The answer is no it wasn't. That doesn't mean the military doesn't need fighter jets.
     
  14. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,911
    Likes Received:
    47,617
    [​IMG]
     
  15. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912
    This is just a stupid argument.

    We have the F-22 which we spent loads on and considered the best fighter jet in the world. I don't believe we need to spend 1.x trillion to make a better version of an F-15/16.

    I don't think we will recoup our 1.x trillion by selling them to other countries either.
     
  16. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,720
    Likes Received:
    3,475
    If you had a grasp of the basic facts (like what jet the F-35 is even replacing) a conversation might be possible. As it is you know nothing and a discussion is impossible.
     
  17. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912
    I know enough to know that 1.5 trillion is a ridiculous amount of money - that investment could have really made a difference in our economy and strengthening our national security in much smarter ways. I mean that is essentially 4,000 dollars per American. Think of how much we wasted on tax dollars to build a jet that can't climb turn or whatever. What a stupid toy.

    Probably could have developed a fusion reactor.
     
  18. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,316
    Likes Received:
    5,087
    I wasn't supporting the F-35, I was just saying the money the government spends on it doesn't go poof into thin air. Much of it cycles back through the economy in wages and taxes.

    I'm not privy to the science but I think I would have built a few more F-22's, Super Hornets and bought the Marines Harriers, skipped the F-35 and developed semi-autonomous drones. If you could put up 10 or 12 drones for every F-35 you'd be better off. The F-35 is essentially a flying sensor platform, I don't know why the pilot has to be in the plane, just give him the helmet and a link-up. (latency doesn't really seem to be that big of a hindrance)
     
  19. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    56,793
    Likes Received:
    39,077
    Want to afford all the things our military needs badly? It's quite a list, believe it or not. Stop building the Ford class aircraft carriers. Finish the Kennedy, the second in the series, and then stop the program. With the advance of ship killing missiles of various types, and their proliferation, they have become a huge floating target. You can't hide them, you can only hope to protect them, and while we have superb ships and submarines that can do a good job of that, the numbers are simply too small, and the missiles they can carry to defend a carrier would run out far sooner than the missles an enemy could toss at them. A carrier strike force would be overwhelmed by a savvy adversary. To strike back, we would have to place them hundreds of miles away from that enemy, and the range of the aircraft to use against that enemy is far less than needed to hit them where they are. Refueling while in air simply isn't a viable solution against a determined adversary, in my humble opinion.

    When was the last time a carrier strike group went toe to toe with an enemy? World War II, in the Leyte Gulf, I believe. Every use of these instruments of American power since WWII has been against an enemy on shore. That, and as power projection, a "presence" to deter someone thinking of causing mischief. They are wonderful when being used for those purposes, but they haven't had to contend with someone firing back in earnest with modern weapons. Ending the program would immediately free up tens of billions of dollars for other badly needed hulls for the US Navy. Arleigh Burke-class of guided missile destroyers of the latest type. Far more submarines, our best strike force, in my opinion. And we should add diesel subs to our inventory, which are far, far cheaper to build. Heck, the Swedes have a class of diesel submarines that made us look silly during exercises. We leased one from them for over a year to test how we would do against all the potential enemies that have similar submarines in their inventory. The results, from what I have read from different sources, were scary.

    We need to think more out of the box. Use ships and technology much different from what we are "locked into" today, including cheaper unmanned drones with a far longer range than an F-35, much less the current strike aircraft our carriers have today (which have a much shorter range without refueling). Ships we already have that wouldn't cost a bloody fortune, but could add hundreds of defensive and offensive missiles to the fleet. An example. Put vertical launch system (VLS) magazines on the many Marine amphibious ships for both offense and defense. The Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) that we are building have very few offensive weapons and no VLS. That's absurd. Stop the program until a real frigate can be constructed, either from the LCS baseline, or do a deal with some of our allies to purchase high tech frigates they already have and are building that are vastly more powerful, and useful, than the LCS. The Danes, the French and Italians, the Spanish - heck, the Norwegians and Dutch all have excellent modern frigates. We could pay to use their designs and have our own industry build them, while also letting them build some for us, which would be good for the relationships we have with our allies and get us the ships we need far more quickly.

    Too obvious? Why aren't we doing that already? The US defense industry doesn't want us to. The Congressmen representing the dozens of states that have had parts of our hideously expensive naval programs, contruction scattered across the country for a reason, don't want us to. So we're looking at having a navy with far too few ships, and many ships of the wrong type for modern warfare. We are busy cutting our own throats. Building not nearly enough ships, while building a few at a time for a sum vastly more than we need to spend, and taking years to do so. I could go on, but most of you won't read this. It's too "long."

    The F-35? A vastly more expensive aircraft than we should have gone with, and our potential allies are developing radars that can detect them (tech stolen from us, most likely). Doesn't mean they can't do a good job. They have other advanced tech that makes them useful. It doesn't change the fact, in my opinion, that they were a mistake, like our carrier program. Hugely expensive, taking forever to build and become operational, and as a result, far too few in number and becoming easier to "kill."

    KC, you need to reduce that freakin' image!
     
    1 person likes this.
  20. robbie380

    robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2002
    Messages:
    23,211
    Likes Received:
    9,529

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now