Why The Pentagon Is Spending So Unbelievably Much On The F-35

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/lockheed-martin-f-35-guide-2014-4?op=1

Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive acquisition in military history and one of the most controversial. Currently seven years behind schedule and $167 billion over budget, the F-35 program could cost over $1 trillion over its lifetime.
There are also concerns that the F-35 is vulnerable to being hacked, that its hull could crack, and that its design specifications have been stolen.

Despite that, the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy are sticking by the F-35 program, partially because the Air Force and Marine Corps have no alternatives, but also because of the great promise that the F-35 shows.

The F-35 evolved out of the Joint Strike Fighter competition, which was aimed at building a next-generation aircraft that could replace a range of fighter, strike, and ground-attack aircraft, in 1996.

The design of the F-35 was based partially on Lockheed Martin's F-22, a fifth-generation stealth supersonic supermaneuverable fighter aircraft. The F-35 has more advanced stealth as well as a broader range of capabilities.


Recent increases in Russian radar technology could render the F-35's stealth outdated, however, due to the plane's tail. The tail fins scatter particles in the very high frequency electromagnetic spectrum that could be detected by certain radar technologies. The VHF spectrum is commonly used for FM radio transmissions and air traffic control communications.


The F-35 does come with a radar jammer, but the jamming capability is isolated to the X-band of the electromagnetic spectrum, rendering it useless against radar detectors that work in other wavelengths.


Boeing has pounced upon this failure of its competitor to urge the Navy to buy more Boeing EA-18G Growlers, which are the undisputed champion of radar jamming.

[GeorgeGist]

1. I'm guessing ...

Greed?

[OLDMDDEM]

6. Yes

Last edited Tue May 20, 2014, 08:44 AM - Edit history (1)

What a waste of taxpayer dollars. A TRILLION DOLLARS!!!!! Then we wonder why the Defense Department cannot find Trillions dating back to the Bush years and the Iraq war. Why isn't the company held accountable? Having these aircraft around only gives whomever incentive to invade another country, like we did in Iraq. Look what it got us. Absolutely nothing and yet we were able to play war games and ruin several thousand people's lives in the process. 4,000+ killed and how many injured. How many Iraqi people killed and injured. And for what? To show off our new toys? President Eisenhower said to be wary of the military industrial complex. We haven't and look what has happened. We have a defense budget that crowds out dollars for infrastructure, the homeless, education, medical care for those who can't afford it, and more.

We should be ashamed of ourselves. We are a greedy, corrupt (in Congress), embarassing country to the rest of the world. We need to get our priorities straight.

[seabeckind]

15. company held accountable?

All they're doing is following the directions of some clown admin who works for US.

Why isn't HE held accountable?

Or at least until he takes his job as a lobbyist for that company.

[bemildred]

2. Because it's all they've got to fend off the cheap unmanned drones. nt

[xchrom]

3. yeah there is that. nt

[Laelth]

4. I find the article lacking.

It doesn't really answer the question its title poses. Why?

The only answer we are given is that two branches of our armed services feel they have have no alternative. Is that the real reason we continue to pour money down this bottomless pit? I doubt it.

-Laelth

[Scuba]

5. Nah, it's 'cause some rich fuckers bought our government and are running it to get richer.

[Laelth]

9. Precisely.

My issue with the article is that it did not explore that possibility at all.

-Laelth

[Scuba]

7. Funny, I don't feel safer.

Now if we had Medicare for All I would feel safer. Also if our bridges and highway overpasses weren't crumbling.

But expensive military toys? Not so much.

[xchrom]

8. +1

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. Because they don't need a toll Booth?

Do I win?

[xchrom]

11. ...

[seabeckind]

12. That's it? All it does?

"aimed at building a next-generation aircraft that could replace a range of fighter, strike, and ground-attack aircraft, in 1996"

What? No VTOL? No hovering? No being able to haul an Abrams to a far off Ukrainian field?

That's it?

</sarcasm>

Typically designed system by a bean counter who looks at one or two factors, draws a parallel, then finds a contractor who will pay attention to him (his wallet actually, well, maybe not "his" exactly) and then proudly takes command. That'll teach them engineers and military guys that they don't know anything. (Afterall, the top politicos gave him the purse strings, didn't they? Must mean he's the smartest in the group.)

Pretty much an example of everything that's been going on in our society for the last 30 years, isn't it?

The engineers and scientists lost their chair at the round table. All that matters is the bottom line -- this quarter. Roads falling apart and bridges falling down but that shiney new convention center and connected 5 star hotel is awesome, isn't it?

</more sarcasm>

[seabeckind]

14. As I thought about it...

an objective analysis of the actual requirements, ie, fighter, strike, and ground-attack aircraft, it's obvious to anyone (except the MBA who is a mile wide and an inch deep) that these functions are in total opposition.

And they can never be satisfied without compromising quality.

Which is why my phone barely does phone, shows lousy movies, takes mediocre pictures, and I have to fake it out to attach it to my PC.

[oldhippie]

13. "The tail fins scatter particles in the very high frequency electromagnetic spectrum"

????? Does anyone get what this means? Maybe it's an engineer thing, but wtf are particles in the VHF spectrum? I am not aware of any particle theory in the radio spectrum.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. The late-Victorian physicist

The late-Victorian physicist Lord Rayleigh gave his name to the way that electromagnetic radiation is scattered by objects that are smaller than its wavelength. This applies to the particles in the air that scatter sunlight, and aircraft stabilizers and wingtips that are about the same meter-class size as VHF waves.

[oldhippie]

17. Thanks ....

yes, I am familiar with Rayleigh scattering. I guess the article author just got his words mis-arranged. It sounded like he was talking about "particles" of RF spectrum, rather than the tail fin as a "particle." I still don't see his point in the article how the tail fin affects VHF waves any differently than usual.

Anyway, you made me go to Wikipedia and refresh my memory about Rayleigh scattering, which I hadn't done in a LONG time. So thanks again for that.

[tammywammy]

19. The article doesn't discuss the cost issue

It reads like they took the press releases from Lockheed Martin and the helpful counterpoints from Boeing to "write" an article.

[MisterP]

20. presumably it's to soak up anything that WOULD help americans--real healthcare (not "Medicaid plus

a Craigslist for insurance, plus people shrilling that it's the most important law in 220 years), HSR (70 years after Japan got it), bridges, schools, regular ol' railcars, a new Xerox PARC or two--or even just taxing the rich or postal banking

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. We need this overpriced bit of tinware to protect us....from what?

Some guy in a hut in Yemen planning a wedding?

[Rex]

22. But but but...toll roads on freeways! Erp...burp...fart...

The MIC makes SURE that we Americans have less and less...so they can dole out billions to their favorite corporate sponsors.

[Blue_Tires]

23. Somewhere in the next life Howard Hughes is having a chuckle...