Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#811

Post by thorwasdfasdf »

CoffeeDregs wrote: post #725

Putting aside the good-plane/bad-plane discussion, this program is the poster child for one of my pet wishes: that the costs of government programs would be expressed in $/tax-payer. There are about 100M tax payers in the US; this program is expected to cost about $1,500,000M; so the F35 program is expected to cost about $15,000 per tax payer. True: that's over 50 years; still, un-discounted, that's $300/year/tax-pay…

but why in the world does it need to cost that much?

what's wrong with just using the jets we already have. I mean we have like a gazillion of those things. what percentage of the military/armed forces is currently being used or has been used over the last 10 years. I'm guessing it's a very small percentage.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#812

Post by e_y_ »

sebmellen wrote: post #737
CoffeeDregs wrote: post #725

Putting aside the good-plane/bad-plane discussion, this program is the poster child for one of my pet wishes: that the costs of government programs would be expressed in $/tax-payer. There are about 100M tax payers in the US; this program is expected to cost about $1,500,000M; so the F35 program is expected to cost about $15,000 per tax payer. True: that's over 50 years; still, un-discounted, that's $300/year/tax-pay…

I've always wished for (and wanted to develop) a calculator which would take in your taxes paid, and calculate exactly how many dollars and cents of your tax bill went to which programs. I'm sure the results would shock most Americans.

The Obama White House did this, at least at a high level (basically as a education tool, not a detailed invoice): https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/2014-taxreceipt

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#813

Post by thorwasdfasdf »

sebmellen wrote: post #737
CoffeeDregs wrote: post #725

Putting aside the good-plane/bad-plane discussion, this program is the poster child for one of my pet wishes: that the costs of government programs would be expressed in $/tax-payer. There are about 100M tax payers in the US; this program is expected to cost about $1,500,000M; so the F35 program is expected to cost about $15,000 per tax payer. True: that's over 50 years; still, un-discounted, that's $300/year/tax-pay…

I've always wished for (and wanted to develop) a calculator which would take in your taxes paid, and calculate exactly how many dollars and cents of your tax bill went to which programs. I'm sure the results would shock most Americans.

I think most people might be shocked that Government uses nearly a whopping 40% of GDP, at least in the US.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#814

Post by Kranar »

thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #811
CoffeeDregs wrote: post #725

Putting aside the good-plane/bad-plane discussion, this program is the poster child for one of my pet wishes: that the costs of government programs would be expressed in $/tax-payer. There are about 100M tax payers in the US; this program is expected to cost about $1,500,000M; so the F35 program is expected to cost about $15,000 per tax payer. True: that's over 50 years; still, un-discounted, that's $300/year/tax-pay…

but why in the world does it need to cost that much? what's wrong with just using the jets we already have. I mean we have like a gazillion of those things. what percentage of the military/armed forces is currently being used or has been used over the last 10 years. I'm guessing it's a very small percentage.

Because the U.S. military basically runs a massive socialized jobs program and every politician works to get a piece of it for their state.

No politician wants to be the one to make the case to shut down the factories that produce these things, even when the military has advised Congress to do so [1].

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-t...

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#815

Post by neurotech1 »

jki275 wrote: post #699
Judgmentality wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The aircraft itself is apparently excellent at what it does I have heard the opposite from a test pilot who has flown it. He fucking hates it.

A lot of highly qualified people who have flown it say otherwise. https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/f-35-faces-mos... Chip Berke is an F22 and F35 test pilot, and the first F35 Squadron commander. He's probably the most qualified person on the planet to talk about fifth gen aircraft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0&t=203s

One of the stupidest criticisms of the F-35 was from J. Michael Gilmore[0] former DoD Director of Operational Test & Evaluation. OT&E has a role, and is intended to be critical in their evaluation, but his reports were typically out of date, and didn't seem to reflect the consensus of the pilots and others actually operating the jet.

What made his criticisms ironically stupid was he'd never even SEEN the jet up close, or spoken to an actual pilot, only reviewed documents and read memos, until the very end of his tenure as Director of OT&E. He was not retained when Gen. Mattis took over as SecDef.

I've heard nothing but praise for LtCol. Chip Berke. He is a great fighter pilot, although now retired from the USMC.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Gilmore

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#816

Post by frotak »

CoffeeDregs wrote: post #725

Putting aside the good-plane/bad-plane discussion, this program is the poster child for one of my pet wishes: that the costs of government programs would be expressed in $/tax-payer. There are about 100M tax payers in the US; this program is expected to cost about $1,500,000M; so the F35 program is expected to cost about $15,000 per tax payer. True: that's over 50 years; still, un-discounted, that's $300/year/tax-pay…

> Do you expect to receive $15,000 of value from the F35 program? I'm not sure I won't: perhaps it'll keep oil/energy prices stable and I spent well more than $300/year on energy...

But from the article

> The Air Force alone wanted nearly 1,800 F-35s to replace aging F-16s and A-10s and constitute the low end of a low-high fighter mix, with 180 twin-engine F-22s making up the high end.

> Fifteen years after the F-35’s first flight, the Air Force has just 250 of the jets.

I'd say it's just as valid of an argument to make in this case that I'm not sure I won't see more than $60,000 of value out of efforts to prevent the economic infrastructure of the U.S. from crumbling, especially amortized over 50 years ($1,200/yr in preserved income or purchasing power).

I don't disagree that it's a decent frame of reference to use when looking at government programs...but it's important to apply the same level of rigor to measuring output value.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#817

Post by AtlasBarfed »

misiti3780 wrote: post #86

The saddest thing about all of this IMO is they have been working on this for 14 years, and how much money was spent/wasted? Now, read about Skunkworks - they were able to build the SR71 (without supercomputers) in less than half that time and for a fraction of the cost. This isn't just planes, this seems to be everything nowadays. Fission was discovered in 1938/1939 and we dropped two bombs on Japan in 1945. No chan…

Well, IMO what you're really advocating for is massive government-initiated research and development that ISN'T outsourced as pork to contractors.

The lobbyists destroyed those types of programs.

We used to have a pipeline for PhD candidates to these government programs, but that doesn't seem to exist anymore.

Speaking of unpopular guys, Musk's Tesla and SpaceX are very much "skunkworks" companies. Maybe the US could, say, incubate more companies like that? The irrational hate of Musk reflects America's deep and strong anti-intellectual anti-nerd anti-engineering popular culture bias. Sure Musk isn't a boy scout, but the list of evil noxious business executive that are objectively worse than Musk in the last 50 years is probably about 10,000 to 20,000 longer than anything Musk has done. Possibly 100,000. Huge numbers of healthcare insurance, petroleum, defense, mining, and manufacturing executives. Microsoft and Intel's run of market manipulation and monopoly. Cable/Telephone companies sitting on their monopolies.

The 50s and 60s still had the overarching group achievement and patriotism from WWII. But our modern era has steadily fallen more and more to greed, apathy, laziness, and especially narcissism.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#818

Post by [deleted] »

relaxing wrote: post #606
freeopinion wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grid infrastructure and rail lines jump to my mind often in these discussions. I am reminded how we got existing rail line through much of the U.S. 19th century land acquisition for private parties who built that infrastructure is easy to spin as a travesty. In many cases it was blatant corruption. And the legacy lasts to this day. All of that land and infrastructure is still privately owned. Fast forward to today. I…

Re: USPS, I’m still waiting to hear the interesting part. The USPS is legally obligated to deliver mail to every household, 6 days a week. The private carriers don’t come anywhere close to meeting that level of service. Most of the US is incredibly sparsely populated. There won’t be bicycle contractors lining up to deliver mail up the Adirondacks or across the Great Plains. How would a network of private interests ha…

[deleted]

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#819

Post by Aperocky »

CoffeeDregs wrote: post #725

Putting aside the good-plane/bad-plane discussion, this program is the poster child for one of my pet wishes: that the costs of government programs would be expressed in $/tax-payer. There are about 100M tax payers in the US; this program is expected to cost about $1,500,000M; so the F35 program is expected to cost about $15,000 per tax payer. True: that's over 50 years; still, un-discounted, that's $300/year/tax-pay…

For the COVID bailout one, depends on how much 401k you have.

If you have a decent amount, then yeah, the asset price inflation came from a fire hose none other.

Re: The U.S. Air Force just admitted the F-35 stealth fighter has failed

#820

Post by sneak »

christoph wrote: post #295
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing people say this. Maybe flying cars just don’t make sense? Wheels work really well when your engine dies. Have you seen people drive in 2d space? You want to add a z axis? What’s the efficiency of a small plane? Surely not better than a Prius. Edit: I looked it up and a Cessna gets ~15 mpg.

The average person does virtually no regular maintenance / checking of their car, even basics like tyre pressures and oil levels not being checked regularly, happy to leave as much as they possibly can for an annual check at the garage. There’s a shocking amount of people also happy to drive around ignoring warning lights flashing. Imagine that scenario with tons of metal that could fall out of the sky when something…

Very soon, cars won't really let you do anything without ID/phone number/paired phone/key serial number, gps lock, a full working complement of vehicle sensors, and a network connection to report all of the above in realtime to people you don't know (who are of course obligated to provide all of that data to military intelligence at any time, without a warrant or probable cause).

There isn't really an issue with that sort of lack-of-maintenance stuff where we're headed. It won't be long until cars either totally refuse to operate in extreme circumstances (due to manufacturer liability), or fall back to some impossible-to-ignore state like Tesla's "limp mode". Tire pressure/oil life being good examples of easily-detectable liability issues that no sane manufacturer would let slide.

The current state of affairs is simply because remote monitoring was expensive/infeasible. Most vehicles today ship with an always-on cellular modem in them.

Even my little 4K pocket gimbal camera won't operate without phoning home to "activate", same for all the drones sold by the same company. Flying cars would be sending telemetry from all local sensor measurements to HQ at pretty much all times.

Post reply on HN