Money

Maybe if it had more funding we could make it.

yeah well neither can the F-35

**demcomments rolled a random image posted in comment #818321 at Friendly **

laughed out loud, thanks buddy.

Well....maybe....

yes, a fleet of planes that don't even have a freaking targeting or a HUD system, pretty much all of their software is still on the drawing board. All they can do after getting airborne is exchange greetings with the enemy aircraft and get their asses shot down. Not to mention the manufacturing defects that they have. The F-35 was supposed to be in complete service last year. The first variant, the VTOL one, was supposed to be in service 3 years ago. Its also over budget, all of Lockheed's accounting records were either burned or never recorded, and countries are aborting on it like a fetus with downs syndrome (for each country that bails, the cost per unit goes up). Canada bailed, Turkey is probably next. Britain has no other choice to stay because they need the VTOL variant to replace their harriers.

Also its VTOL is only available for use by test pilots (the ones on lockheed's payroll), which causes me to believe that it isn't quite complete yet, so actually, OP was correct.

Shortened version- The F-35 is a multi trillion dollar, multi-national clusterfuck, that, at best, will produce an aircraft that has worst performance, range, cost, and unit number then the F-16 and the F/A-18Fs that it was meant to replace (if it even gets off the ground with the sequester). The only benefit is its stealth, however, its looking like China is close to using the data it stole from the US to make radars that can detect it, and probably export them. My guess, within the decade. And also, because its so costly, our airforce is going to be much smaller then it should be. oh yea, and it doesn't have a gun, because missiles are so reliable now. We learned that lesson in Vietnam and the Pentagon is determined to repeat history.

Sources
www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/business/new-troubles-for-pentagons-f-35-fight er.html?_r=0

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136312-1,00.html

Saints row the Third.

That's how i learned about the Vtol.

I learnt about Vtol from funnyjunk

ilearned about vtol from ghost in the shell like 5 years ago. the thing they get around in resembles an osprey

Still, at the end of the day:
Pay less money to save lives, or pay more money to take lives?

That's great and all, but is it really necesary? Just look at how long that number is.

That number is wrong. In the competition to build americas next gen fighter one of the requirements was to be cheap. The F-35 was more expensive than Boeings X-38, but out performed the X-38 in every way.

TL;DR it does more than an F-22 (currently most advanced active duty US fighter)for less.

Inb4 bad grammer.

I read your comment as "Human G' Nome project"
Who's the faggot now?

I gave you a thumb because you were the only funny comment in the whole page

But I'm a brown person, and I like not being blown up.

The F-35 can barely do that right though

The A-10 warthog though......

Excuse me, sirs, but do you have a minute to talk about BBBBBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... ?

biological warfare could kill a lot more brown people, and a lot more painfully

For the record we only spend around 20% max on the military.

Plus selling arms makes money, man, we canadians bought a whole bunch of US aircraft not too long ago

So 10 planes cost as much as the genome project? That makes it ok then.

That would be great. I never said anything about disarming though.

The price of the F-18(A-G), F-15(A-E) and F-16(A-F) all have comparable costs, should we get rid of them?
The cost of defending our interests abroad has no price to it?

We have ICBMs, I doubt we'll need those planes. We could wage a war while sitting in a pool in our backyard if we wanted.

No, it isn't. As I said below, it's simply a tool to deliver a warhead. The warhead could be nuclear, or it could just release confetti.
It's like a plane, it could carry nuclear bombs, or just a regular bomb.

I'd prefer to use a weapon that doesn't end the human race.

An ICBM isn't nuclear.
It's simply a tool to deliver a warhead.

Tell me, what are ICBMs supposed to target? How many of them do we have?
What is their true purpose? What do we do once we run out of ICBM's and the enemy launches air attacks?

Sorry buddy, but you don't know shit.

ICBM's don't mean shit if the enemy has ways of disabling them in a similar method.

So take that super special stealth technology the plane has, and put it on the ICBM.

that's called does not work... Now I'm no rocket scientists but that's like the idea of "hey let's cloak an entire fucking house" except it's also a flying house... a flying house of badassery

program cost- about 500 billion, not including money lockheed has hidden
Unit cost- a shit ton more then expected. At this rate, its going to be over 200m each, a little more than double the Rafale and a little less than double the EU Typhoon, which both have better performance in every single aspect except for steath,

so you would rather have this thing than have the ability to live longer, and help prevent diseases? wow. that is CRAZY@@@@@!!@!@!#4!$$$

Both have the ability to prolong my life. Both are forms of defense, both are equally as important. Although a war is a much more deadly situation to more people than anything else.

so this aircraaft is more important than medical science? when we already have many other defence aircraft, more than capable than defending our country, and yet you still say this is important? no, no, no.

Having the latest technology is just as important as training and supplies in war. Anyway war is the mother of invention.

you don't seem to understand that the US spends a lot of money on military, we have mostly 80's based military tech, with some latest tech, we have WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY more than enough to defend our country, by far. Plus our country does not defend, it invades, it invades other countries and uses force of arms to take resources from that country, that is unethical, I would rather invest in medical science than waste money on military equiptment when we already have more than enough of.

You have no real idea what goes on in the US military do you?

I ask you the same question.

it flies you idiot, but it isnt very efficient at getting off the ground like a helicopter

Sure thing.

that one is landing by the way

He didn't say it was _ inefficient _, you blithering moron, he said it wasn't available

However, the harrier has a few flaws compared to the F-35:
> They burn UNGODLY amounts of fuel
> The VTOL capabilities were sometimes less than optimal - it ended up more of a STOL plane
> Isn't really a fighter - far to slow and low mobility. More of an intruder than anything else.
> The gadgets aren't near as advanced. They have a really old radar system. As in - 30-40 years ago old. The proposed bill to upgrade them to more recent systems when another plane retired and had available parts was shot down. They don't have stealth systems either.

But at what point does the military spending become superfluous? I mean we should have a military strictly for defensive purposes, we have military bases across the planet that literally have nothing to do with the defense of the United States, military spending has become extraordinarily superfluous. If we are going to talk about needing the military to defend and protect our rights, freedoms, culture, etc. then let's actually talk about the defense of America and not the insane amount of money spent in the maintenance of a global military presence. A global military presence IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES, and I don't agree with the notion that military spending is more important than that on social and scientific research and programs, especially in this highly globalized economy. I highly doubt that any of the industrial or post industrial nations of Earth want to go to war with one another because it will hurt them as much as their supposed enemy. Trade has become too interconnected amongst the countries that actually spend this kind of money on new fighter jets, war in the future isn't going to be amongst the industrialized nations for economic gain but by by the industrialized nations suppressing the autonomy of the more economically exploited or under-developed nations, and in that respect the stuff we already have will certainly suffice.

But let's actually discuss this interesting topic.

I'm sorry, but the only reason we haven't had multiple 9/11's is because we have a strong global presence. Everywhere. The only thing stopping countries like Iran and North Korea is the fact that we have the capability to crush any threat at any time, anywhere. I'm not saying that every military action the US has taken has always been right, because it hasn't. But trying to deny that our military serves a vital purpose to the world is completely asinine.

Of course it serves a purpose in providing support and intimidating our rivals, the reason we haven't had multiple 9/11s is not because of a global military presence but rather our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and putting significant pressure on terrorist groups operating there, having military bases in Europe and Asia doesn't deter terrorist groups because if it did 9/11 wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Well, that's trying to apply logic to an extremist group, which is a lost cause. I won't try to analyze how or why Al-Qaeda or the Taliban or what have you have or haven't attacked us. But even nations that aren't full of terrorist groups still back off because they know that an invasion of another nation won't be taken lightly by the US, or the rest of the friends at NATO. The US military has reached a point where people don't really see or sometimes understand its current job. Yes, it's a powerful war machine and always will be. But aside from that it serves as a deterrent to potential aggressors of other nations. It is costly to maintain the presence, but ultimately the monetary aspect doesn't even begin to amount to avoiding a potential WWIII. We learned just what happens when you let an aggressive country cut loose back in the 30's, and WWII happened. History has shown that someone has to keep things in check, and the job has landed on the shoulders of the US.

I will concede the fact you have a good point there, but like I said before I am very skeptical of war between nations that actually have that kind of capacity for war to jeopardize the security of the planet. North Korea is a weak little bastard child, and so is Iran, if we crushed all MILITARY resistance in Iraq in a couple weeks then I would argue that we do not need such an extensive military force and presence. But if a WW3 scenario is what we're talking about I suspect nuclear weapons will be involved, and if that's the case I agree with the idea of mutually assured destruction, if a war in these times got that big that is the inevitable result. P.S. i gave you a thumb for your good point.

Well, the constant dilemma is that it is favorable to cut back some so that the budget (Which is a laughable term) is slackened a bit, but then you run the risk of countries doing like Germany did and biding their time until they have a threatening force. It's an ongoing struggle between many hypothetical scenarios. Honestly, I'm rather scared of China more than North Korea or Iran or whatever extremist country. Not because they're crazy, but because they're allies with people who might instigate a war. And China's military might not have the resources we do, but they have manpower. And they have so much money sitting around that they could easily acquire large masses of military assets. If North Korea attacks South Korea- that becomes a problem. If for some reason Japan and China come to blows, I see that as an even bigger problem. Luckily, the people in China are smart enough to know the potential of such a war, and the negative implications it would have for all involved.

That is very true, but China is, in my opinion, only allies with North Korea because of their "communist" ties. China stopped being a communist country when they opened up their borders to international trade, because that is not what Mao Zedong wanted. I think, like you said, the Chinese are too pragmatic to support North Korea if they went to war but I do agree with your sentiments about war between Japanese and the Chinese especially since China claims the South China sea which is of course debatable, because as far as I know a country can claim the sea forty miles out from their land but beyond that it is international waters.

It's really hard to tell how it would play out. So far, China is the only one who I think could hold off the US, but there's no telling what could set them off. Though, they do seem to be waiting for the right moment to go for a land grab, which worries me because that's how things start going downhill.

Yes because your freedom to research is under soooo much threat right now.

It's not under threat because all of the top scientific countries have constitutions (or equivalents) and a strong military. Countries like Iran and North Korea want to cause damage to us specifically because we're more technologically advanced than them (and in the case of many middle eastern countries, because our research aims to disprove their religion).

Not to mention we never would have gained that freedom in the first place without a military. Do you think King George would have let a colonist publish a paper disproving the roman catholic church and suggesting we evolvd from Apes?

So you need 1.9 trillion dollar jets?

no, we need 2000ish jets each costing 200 millionish dollars delivered over a period of 50 years...weren't you listening? Nobody said anything about a 2 trillion dollar jet.

You're a fucking moron.

Good argument

I'm sorry... The full name for the F-35 is 'F-35 Joint Strike Fighter' there are three variations of this jet in addition to the one trying to be developed, and all three have a one seat cockpit. Who in the fuck has told you that this piece of hundred million dollar machinery is going to EVER give aid to a hospital?

mynameisgeorge is clearly retarded, that's not the F-35B's purpose at all.
The true purpose of the F-35 is to assist in controlling the airspace over your own troops (so they don't get the shit bombed out of them by enemy aircraft) and penetrate heavily defended air defense systems and bring those systems down with the F-35 (and its pilot) in one piece.

Yes, because a stealth fighter jet with the ability to carry ONE pilot and very limited cargo (VTOL won't work if it's too heavy) is REALLY going to be useful in transporting people to hospitals or in disaster relief. What's it going to do, VTOL all the way to the hospital?

The jet's normal speeds would be impractical for airlifting any person to help, if the stealth "fighter", which costs more than the fucking F-22 raptor, which they cancelled because it was too expensive, is operated by idiots who think it's cool to use a quarter-billion dollar plane to airlift someone to a hospital or drop a tiny bit of supplies to a devastated area. And don't say the fucking VTOL would work because you're directing thrust directly downwards, it's a waste of fuel running the damn thing, and it's too slow

Try a helicopter or a cargo plane like the C-130

That said, the problems with the F-35 mostly lie in the software

and the 2 missiles

bitch shut the fuxk up

thats a war machine, it takes lives, not save them

Oh that changes absolutely everything about the post rendering its point invalid.

Says no one

The F-35 is a single seat, single engine fighter.

oh yeah, since the max. 2 places in there are great for carying people in need

Yeah

Like a president or other head of state

After an earthquake...or a bombing

But you're right

Fuck diplomatic ties

the chance that that happens is so small in the whole projects liftime that may happen once .. maximum twice, that isn't worth the money and time, even though you can't value human life one could have spend the money better

You know what else might help? Earthquake resistant genes. It even sounds retarded when I type it but it looks like we're closer to that than some two passenger plane...

How the fuck is that going to work? Will we levitate slightly off the ground to avoid shaking? Will we build buildings out of earthquake-resistant people so they don't break when the fucking earth moves around underneath them?

All of the above!

Briliant!

If we were immortal, can't we live on the moon with no oxygen?

or any other planet out our solar system..

it would take us a bajillion years to get there but hey.. we immortal

Yeah we could when we have the technology to go there and have it sustain life. But we can still die, just not by age. And by the time we had that tech we'd probably be overcrowded so.

Oh yeah.. so if we can still die while being immortal,

why not bring back the gladiator games?

Test out new martial arts, no guns just hand to hand combat
Or battle it out with non gunpowdered supported weapons.

Overpopulation? I know of a certain helicopter plane that can take care of that

Oh god those are fun.....

Yeah I thought that too, destroyed so many Gang Ops with the Vtol

reminded me of this.