The F-35 - Will It Fly? [Vanity Fair Magazine]

[lookieloo]

For some reason this warning comes up every time you try to download a pdf via a direct link. It is an absurd overkill.

Not unlike Gilmore's predictions of doom.

[arkadyrenko]

I hate to be the bringer of doom, but the Vanity Fair article will have far more legs then whatever the "Why the F-35" website says.

And, the fact of the matter is, the F-35 still hasn't hit IOC and it is a decade into the program. That will look bad unless you're grading on the extremely favorable curve of defense contracting.

[hobo]

Vanity Fair

[SpudmanWP]

the fact of the matter is, the F-35 still hasn't hit IOC and it is a decade into the program.

Neither did the F-22, Eurofighter, or Rafale.

[spazsinbad]

It is all over - we have been found out (whomever we are) and it is time to wrap it up. Hand back the money and go on vacation in a non-extraditable country (Oh NO - NORKland!). Gottliebsen has the inside gen. - we gotta get outta this place, if its the last thing we ever do....

There is a new Oz Federal Govmnt - change from Labor Party to Liberal led (conservative) two weeks ago....

A trap is being set for Abbott 23 Sep 2013 Robert Gottliebsen

"...Over the weekend the new defence minister, Senator David Johnston, will have been bombarded with an enormous bureaucratic smokescreen following the “deep throat” revelations about the joint strike fighter from inside the US top brass. There are some people in the US military prepared to act in the nation’s interest (US 'Deep Throat' [FanityVair] destroys a JSF cover-up, September 20).

But when the most expensive defence weapon ever constructed is shown to be a failure by a person who is intimately involved, bureaucratic smokescreens are merely delaying tactics.

In good faith, in opposition, current defence minister David Johnston spoke in the Senate in favour of the JSF and it is possible that prior to taking up a ministerial position his legal firm did work for JSF suppliers.

Both actions are perfectly legitimate and the minister is in no way compromised. But that potential conflicting situation will change if he does nothing and succumbs to the cover up.

When the disaster is made public, Johnston will cop the wrath of the Australian people if he was seen to be compromised when dealing with the cover up.

At some point Tony Abbott is going to have to tell the Australian parliament that previous defence ministers (including one in the Howard years) took advice from the defence people involved and mislead the parliament on the cost of the aircraft (at one time the JSF was costed at just $40 million by using a figure that left the engine out). The parliament has still not been told the extent of the all-embracing cost. But if it were just a cost problem, it could be managed. Unfortunately the JSF has simply been a monumental developmental failure. Unless a new path is taken we will lose control over our country’s air defence because the Indonesian, Indian and Chinese aircraft will be stronger than the US/Australia. I keep writing about this because I believe it is by far the biggest issue facing our nation. The horror will be revealed during the term of the current Abbott government and the prime minister needs to be able to say that when the current defence minister saw the danger he took the following actions… ..."

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/art ... set-abbott

[XanderCrews]

I hate to be the bringer of doom, but the Vanity Fair article will have far more legs then whatever the "Why the F-35" website says.
contracting.

"Bringer of doom" comparing the credibility of a lady's magazine who's big stick is a nobody vs someone's internet blog? An internet blog that has SNAFU! on his bloglist? Yeah, instant credibility alright. yes its the apocalypse. More credibility than an internet blog that posts news clippings you say!?

Just for the record I don't bother with why the F-35? blogsight, nor with vanity fair and the viability of the F-35s success does not rest with either of them. If they were to disappear tomorrow from the earth, not a thing about the F-35 program would change.

Has it occurred to you that they both have little knowledge of what is going on other than what has been made available to the public? It looks like vanity fair has a middle man "Charlie" who just regurgatates what is already public knowledge with a heavy dose of his own opinion (I hope vanity fair paid him handsomely, for basic public information-- fools and their money and all)

And, the fact of the matter is, the F-35 still hasn't hit IOC and it is a decade into the program. That will look bad unless you're grading on the extremely favorable curve of defense contracting.

In other words it only looks bad unless you actually don't compare it to other defense contracts? in which case compared to F-22, Rafale, Typhoon, it looks average?

as for deep throat:

I would say some anonymous source who seems heavy on opinion "Why marines need stealth plane!? warburgarble" and is heavy on grinding the old axe and pretty light on insider info. "more legs" is not the phrase I would use to describe it. It just sounds like any biased and bitter interservice squabble I can find any Field grade officer spewing while quoting his own master's thesis, and someone got suckered into paying him for it.

You could make the case that some "news" sources are so desperate for JSF bad news that they will pay whoever for anything, but that sure would be desperate wouldn't it? I'm glad they aren't falling into that trap.

Both actions are perfectly legitimate and the minister is in no way compromised.

This is a problem for some reason. Someone needs to show you Aussies how to have a good time. Your political scandals are even more boring than Canada.

I'm sorry but the word of an anonymous source with no evidence is not enough for a scandal. Thats called an opinion. In order for something to be a scandal, crimes must be committed or rules broken, then a cover up ensues, the scandal is then revealed using witnesses and evidence. As someone once astutely told me "its not a scandal, until its a scandal"

call me old fashioned but I think facts and evidence and the right to face your accuser are important parts of the equation. Deep throat has none of this. Its not enough to have someone in a smoke filled room pitching you a conspiracy theory about what happened in some other smoke filled room.

Lastly if "Deep Throat"/"Chris" actually believes his own hype he has moral obligation to blow the whistle OPENLY on the entire thing. What kind of moral coward thinks a system is a "kamikaze" that would fail in combat and would decide to talk to vanity fair. Thats a very suspicious kind of whistle blowing. If what he says is true, how does he sleep at night?

[spazsinbad]

The F-35's History Of Costly Problems 29 Sep 2013 RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:

http://pd.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/wesu ... 3.mp3?dl=1 (2Mb)

"MARTIN: In the midst of all these budget battles, debt ceiling fights and the sequester that has forced the government to cut billions of dollars in programs, the Pentagon is going forward with the most expensive weapons system ever.

ADAM CIRALSKY: (Reading) It is plagued by design flaws and cost overruns. It flies only in good weather. The computers that run it lack the software they need for combat. Until recently, the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, was operating with a free hand, paid handsomely for its own mistakes. Looking back, even the general now in charge of the program can't believe how we got to this point. In sum: all systems go.

MARTIN: That's Adam Ciralsky reading from his recent Vanity Fair article about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Plane. It's a cutting-edge stealth, single-engine aircraft that can take off on a short runway or a carrier, and when needed it can land vertically, like a helicopter. In fact, the F-35 is designed to replace most of the fighters currently flown by the Air Force, Navy and Marines. The problem: the aircraft is at least seven years behind schedule and has been plagued by technical problems. I began our interview by asking Adam Ciralsky about something that sounded simple: the pilot's helmet.

CIRALSKY: Ah, the helmet. So, for years and years, the Pentagon has relied on what they call a heads-up display. Instead of looking down at your instruments while driving a car, you could be looking through your windshield and see the necessary data displayed on your windshield. That's what a heads-up display is. When it came to build the F-35, however, Lockheed Martin and others decided to go with what they call a helmet-mounted display system, which is a more complicated version. And it would be like having all the data in your car projected right onto your eyeglasses or your sunglasses.

MARTIN: Well, wasn't there an element of this that was akin to something like X-ray vision?
CIRALSKY: Yes. When the plane was built, they decided to embed six cameras. The plane doesn't have the same kind of cockpit or cockpit visibility as, say, an F-16. So, the idea was a computer would take all the disparate camera feeds and put them right in front of the pilot's eyes. So, in effect, when you put on a helmet, you can, let's say, you're looking at your left wing. You actually see right through the wing. If you're looking at your legs, you see through the floor of the plane. It's amazing.

MARTIN: And that hasn't happened.
CIRALSKY: Well, it's happened, but there is so much data and there's so much video being displayed only inches from their eyes that it creates problems. In some cases, spatial disorientation, which is a severe problem with flight.

MARTIN: You also write about some really basic flaws with the plane. The F-35, at this point, you can't fly it in inclement weather.
CIRALSKY: That's correct. It's one of the great ironies of the plane, which a formal name for the F-35 is the F-35 Lightning 2, and it can't fly in lightning.

MARTIN: This is said to be the most expensive weapon system ever. What's the price tag so far?
CIRALSKY: Well, when you factor in the cost of actually procuring the plane and the cost of operation and maintenance, by many estimates it runs right about $1.5 trillion.

MARTIN: What has kept the program going? I mean, presumably, the Pentagon is well aware of the cost overruns and the missed deadlines. Has there been any kind of internal efforts to perhaps reevaluate the program?
CIRALSKY: If you talk to people inside the Pentagon, it's one of these things that people whisper in the corridors. They would very much like a serious sober reevaluation. That won't happen. The reason is pretty simple. It has to do with something called political engineering. When this program as put together by Lockheed Martin, they sought out 1,400 separate contractors in 46 states. That's a heck of a lot of congressional districts. The program's essentially immune from termination.

MARTIN: Journalist Adam Ciralsky. His article on the troubled history of the F-35 appears in the current issue of Vanity Fair. Thanks so much for talking with us.
CIRALSKY: Thanks, Rachel.

(SOUNDBITE OF SONG) ["Are You MOFO Ready For the NEW sh*t?" Marilyn Manson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdpclKpIbi4 ]

MARTIN: You're listening to NPR News." [And a bloody great song - deal with it. ]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... 76&ft=1&f=

[count_to_10]

MARTIN: You're listening to NPR News.

Which is pretty much all you need to know to disregard everything in the interview.

[smsgtmac]

I am shocked, SHOCKED! I say, that National Proletariat Radio made a 4 minute puff piece interviewing an 'investigative journalist' (re: a 'hack') over HIS puff piece in a lefty-run fashonista rag, AND allowed him to repeat mischaracterizations of the F-35's development history and current status.
Oh... wait a minute, I guess I'm not shocked at all.
IMHO this is all part of an attempt to Astroturf a faux grass-roots movement among the low-to-no information voters and create the appearance of a ground swell of public opinion against the designated 'evil weapon-o'-the-day'.

Best George C. Scott "Patton" voice: "CIRALSKY! You ignorant B*stard! I read your article!"

[spazsinbad]

Another LOONEY TOONS Headline. YEP DNR Online - Do Not Resucitate this Online news headline eh.

Congress Should Fully Fund The F-25 Strike Fighter 30 Sep 2013

"Military leaders and Defense officials have spoken in support of the F-35 Strike Fighter to ensure that the United States and its allies have the tools they need to keep the world a safer place...."

http://www.dnronline.com/article/congre ... ke_fighter

So DO NOT Bother subscribing nor reading further but hey - it is a free country - no?

[SpudmanWP]

DNROnline should fully proofread their stuff before posting

[madrat]

The PLA could never wage a direct war unless they reach parity with their enemy. Raising the proles in America against the man costs far less than building J-20's or J-31's. They have plenty of stooges to do the dirty work.