F-35's Gun That Can't Shoot Straight Adds To Its Roster of Flaws (bloomberg.com) 171
Add a gun that can't shoot straight to the problems that dog Lockheed Martin's $428 billion F-35 program, including more than 800 software flaws. From a report: The 25mm gun on Air Force models of the Joint Strike Fighter has "unacceptable" accuracy in hitting ground targets and is mounted in housing that's cracking, the Pentagon's test office said in its latest assessment of the costliest U.S. weapons system. The annual assessment by Robert Behler, the Defense Department's director of operational test and evaluation, doesn't disclose any major new failings in the plane's flying capabilities. But it flags a long list of issues that his office said should be resolved -- including 13 described as Category 1 "must-fix" items that affect safety or combat capability -- before the F-35's upcoming $22 billion Block 4 phase.
The number of software deficiencies totaled 873 as of November, according to the report obtained by Bloomberg News in advance of its release as soon as Friday. That's down from 917 in September 2018, when the jet entered the intense combat testing required before full production, including 15 Category 1 items. What was to be a year of testing has now been extended another year until at least October. "Although the program office is working to fix deficiencies, new discoveries are still being made, resulting in only a minor decrease in the overall number" and leaving "many significant" ones to address, the assessment said.
The number of software deficiencies totaled 873 as of November, according to the report obtained by Bloomberg News in advance of its release as soon as Friday. That's down from 917 in September 2018, when the jet entered the intense combat testing required before full production, including 15 Category 1 items. What was to be a year of testing has now been extended another year until at least October. "Although the program office is working to fix deficiencies, new discoveries are still being made, resulting in only a minor decrease in the overall number" and leaving "many significant" ones to address, the assessment said.
The F-35 is a corporate welfare program (Score:5, Insightful)
It's performance is irrelevant to the politicians who okay the spending, since that spending goes to their states. The military industrial complex has ensured that all states get some of the money. Nobody in politics or military contracting cares if service members die in combat, they just care about the cash they get and the revolving door between politics and lucrative consulting positions.
Re:The F-35 is a corporate welfare program (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody in politics or military contracting cares if service members die in combat, they just care about the cash they get and the revolving door between politics and lucrative consulting positions.
No, they care, because it means that we need to spend even more money on even bigger contracts to get "better" technology and equipment, driving even more money their way.
Re: (Score:2)
...just apply some Kentucky windage when they shoot?
I think they stopped doing that after WWII, when they would train bomber gunners by having them shoot skeet from the back of a moving truck.
Re: (Score:2)
So happy that my Congressperson spends most of his time complaining about how government, by its nature, is inefficient and should be eliminated. At the same time he is downright giddy at the idea of throwing away as much money as possible on the most inefficient parts such as DOD and TSA.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Their constituents are are stupid.
Oh, sweet irony....
Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
The F-35 makes perfect sense when you realize it's not a fighter plane, and never was. It's a forty+ year rent-seeking scheme from Lockheed. It was built from the ground up to be politically un-killable, by sourcing it's production in so many states. It's a Lockheed Martin full-employment program. Not a weapon.
The F-16 had a name, the Fighting Falcon. The F-35's should be Ponzi Scheme.
Re:Indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
It was built from the ground up to be politically un-killable, by sourcing it's production in so many states. It's a Lockheed Martin full-employment program. Not a weapon.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. If the citizenry of the US keeps electing politicians on the ability to bring pork back to their districts then that is the kind of behavior you are going to get. Corporations work for their stock holders, it is the politicians that are supposed to represent the people. When rumors circulate about a potential plant closure, folks like Chuck Schumer call up CEOs and make back room deals to keep the jobs local. What are the politicians giving in return (See Lockheed Syracuse facility a few years ago)? When Lockheed pays Bill Clinton a quarter of a million to give a speech, and a week later the state department (under Hillary Clinton) grants export licenses to Lockheed to sell weapons to middle eastern countries, what's that about? When Trump meets with the CEO of Lockheed and announces a price reduction is the purchase price of the aircraft, don't you think part of the deal is to make it up to Lockheed another way? Those are just examples, many or even most of the long term players in Washington DC do this. Corporations work around political contribution limits by creating an "employee PAC" which is run by corporate executives. The employees are given the option to name a charity they want to support, then any money the employee puts into the PAC is matched by a corporate contribution to the charity. The charity gets the money anyway, and the corporation gets to control PAC cash.
Re:Indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be fine with politicians bringing pork back to my district if it were useful, like a nation wide infrastructure program that actually benefits citizens. This is just the broken window fallacy in action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
This message brought to you by the players.
Hate both, no excuses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Count your blessings. My country bought this POS as well but we're getting none of that sweet pork...
The American tax-payers thank you. Please buy more.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's corporate welfare you can't see... (Score:3, Informative)
Cause it's invisible!
Dumpeacho the assclown sure thinks so. [msnbc.com]
And he should know!
After all, he has personally reduced the price of F-35s [archive.org] by... Hold on...
"Hundreds of millions of dollars!!!"
Only you can't really see that.
Cause it's an invisible plane.
"With the Air Force, we're ordering a lot of planes, in particular the F-35 fighter jet, which is, you know, almost like an invisible fighter," he said. "I was asking the Air Force guys, I said, 'How good is this plane?' They said, 'Well, sir, you can't see it.' I said, yeah, but in a fight - you know, a fight, like I watch in the movies - they fight, they're fighting. How good is this? They say, 'Well, it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it. Even if it's right next to it, it can't see it.' I said, 'That helps. That's a good thing.'"
What they tell him, what he understands and what he believes are things which are NOT equally grounded in reality. Cause he's an illiterate, incompetent, senile moron with a brain-bo-bo.
And he keeps repeating that shit in
Re: The F-35 is a corporate welfare program (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree, and I say that as someone who used to work in aircraft acquisition for the USAF.
From an operational perspective, the attempt to make one plane fulfill every kind of mission makes it too complex, too fragile, and too expensive to actually risk in combat with a serious foe. Plus being not very good at most of those missions.
Produce unicorns on demand (Score:2)
I agree, and I say that as someone who used to work in aircraft acquisition for the USAF.
From an operational perspective, the attempt to make one plane fulfill every kind of mission makes it too complex, too fragile, and too expensive to actually risk in combat with a serious foe. Plus being not very good at most of those missions.
And its not like we haven't been down this path before either regarding multi-mission and/or common aircraft across the services. Navy / Marine Corp sure, commonality has some rational arguments, although there should be some exceptions (Marines should have been allowed the A-10 back in the day). But Navy / Air Force, that's too much, again with rare exceptions for land based aircraft fulfilling very similar roles (Ex C-130). But when you get to the more high performance aircraft you generally have too much
Re: (Score:2)
But who the hell needs VTOL if we have helicopters?
And why do we need bombers when we have cruise missiles?
The money-wasting ways of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about is absurd but not dangerous. But building useless weapons (we still use B-52s because the B-1 and B-2 bombers don't work) is v
Re: (Score:2)
But who the hell needs VTOL if we have helicopters?
The AV-8 Harrier and F-35 have more payload, greater speed and greater range than the attack helicopters.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus the vector thrust gives them a manoeuvrability advantage in a dogfight.
Which an inaccurate gun might be useful for, as it'll create a partial shotgun effect allowing a hit with only approximate aim.
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't learn their lesson from the F-111 and instead they doubled down. Imagine if the F-111 had been required to have STOVL capabilities?
The one shining positive outcome of the F-35 program is that the Marines now have by far the world's most advanced STOVL fighter, friendly countries around the world can now equip their mini-carriers with something nice, and the UK got to save a few quid up front by not installing catapults (though the added cost of extra sorties and maintenance to make up for low ra
Re: The F-35 is a corporate welfare program (Score:5, Informative)
The Top Gun aircraft for dealing with Iraqi armour during the 2003 war was the much-maligned F111. The aircraft flew at night at 30,000 feet well out of range of light anti-aircraft guns and MANPADs. The weapons officer would identify lagered-up Iraqi tanks, BMPs and trucks using the plane's FLIR cameras, often registering the IR signature from their still-hot engines and then designate them with a laser before dropping laser-guided bombs onto them with pinpoint attacks. IIRC they were credited with something like 1600 kills, and they usually brought back video of their hits to back up the claims.
As for the STOV/RL version of the F35 being deployed on the new RN carriers, it's worth pointing out that STOV/RL takeoffs and landings don't stress the airframes the way that CATOBAR operations do. A catapult-launched fighter is basically wrecked after 10,000 flight hours -- the new EMALS will hopefully reduce some of the stresses and rivet-loosening shocks of conventional carrier operations but not all of them.
STOV/RL is easier to learn and cheaper to train for -- an F-35B pilot can land, taxi across the deck and take off again in a few minutes, doing several "circuits" before having to stop to refuel. Catching a fighter on cables then getting it back onto a catapult for a relaunch is a much more arduous task. It's one reason the USN has to dedicate a nuclear carrier to pilot training 24/7 since the deck time needed per launch and recovery is much greater.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the "JOAT" meme.
Read this, [tumblr.com] then never ever post again, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, obviously. Also obviously, if it gets this extreme, it is a sign of a society in decline. Not the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Defense industry jobs make up ten percent of US manufacturing jobs which themselves make up eight percent of the total number of jobs in the US. Therefore, a complete and totally instantaneous shut down of the defense industry would put 0.8% of US workers out of work. Sorry if you work in defense, but I'm just not that concerned. Of course we should have jobs retraining programs, but I really must ask, has the US ever been that concerned about layoffs? The attitude seems to be "Suck it up and find another
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can fucking promise superiority for half a century. I'd be lying of course. Just like any promises made about the F-35. How hard is it to make a gun that shoots where you point it? Don't ask Dickhead Martin, because they don't fucking know.
Re: The F-35 is a corporate welfare program (Score:2)
Not on slashdot.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They should just give the pilot a rifle and let him stand up in his seat to shoot.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be stupid, it's the observer who should get the rifle. The pilot needs all his attention to keep the plane flying.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the observer often got a machine gun. The pilot would have a rifle or a pistol.
They even used flechettes, to try and shred an aircraft (or attack an enemy position) below them.
Waste of money (Score:4, Informative)
Would have been much cheaper to keep the F-22 production lines running and create updated blocks of A-10s and F-16s. But hey, it made a lot of money for Lockheed Martin and probably guaranteed some good post-retirement careers for several officers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The pilots /really/ like the F-22. They weren't asking for a replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Waste of money (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The A10 is great for murdering the Taliban and 80s era soviet forces, but it's not really sufficient for fighting, say, modern Russia. It stands no chance against modern SAMs for example.
That's why, if you were fighting, say, modern Russia, you wouldn't just send in a flight of A-10s. You would use F-16/18s armed with AGM-88s to take out stationary/pre-sited batteries, and use ground forces to deal with potential mobile launchers(if attacking battle lines and not using the A-10s against tank laagers or rearward supply lines). And jamming systems are available for MANPADs. You'll still lose some aircraft, sure (ground attack/CAS/Wild Weasel roles are dangerous and risky) but I would hardl
Re: Waste of money (Score:2)
They were doing just about everything could to get rid of the A-10
Re: (Score:2)
Not to say it's worth it or anything but the A10 is fairly old. It is a good idea to modernize dated, albeit good, weapon systems.
Re: (Score:2)
So replace the A-10 with a better modernized CAS aircraft. Something that can fly low, slow, loiter for a long time, survive hits from 20mm rounds and small missiles and keep flying with most of a wing missing, and carry a whole crapton of ordinance. It doesn't have to be the A-10. It doesn't have to even look like the A-10 (the Su-25 is also pretty good at this role).
The F-35, however, is not such an aircraft. It's designed to sneak in, drop a couple of bombs, and sneak out, like a faster more maneuverable
Re: (Score:2)
I'm from a country that's never had the A10 and I just don't understand the hatred it so often receives.
Sure, it's slow, it's ugly, it's now old, it lacks all of the improvements that modern military aircraft enjoy.
Not a single fucking one of them can do what it does anywhere near as well as it does it. Why doesn't someone design a 4 inch chobham sheet with a pilot and engine on top, a big arse gun dangling below and give it enough fuel to stroll around over a battlefield for a few hours? Is it really that
Air Force *never wanted* the A-10 (Score:2)
They were doing just about everything could to get rid of the A-10
And have been doing so since the day the A-10 first flew. The Air Force *never wanted* the A-10, it was virtually forced upon them by Congress. The Army and Marine Corps were fine with the idea of the Air Force not having a real close air support aircraft, that gives the Army justification for their attack helicopters and for the Marine Corps' their air wings.
Yes kids, once upon a time we had a Congress that took the occasional break from political posturing and grandstanding and did their job.
opportunity (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps they could go into business making blasters for the empire's stormtrooper army...
Re:opportunity (Score:4, Funny)
Enough with the F-35 bashing (Score:2)
Yes, the F-35 is ridiculously overpriced with the delays that go with it, looking more like a government welfare program than anything else. But it is still very complex, state-of-the-art piece of tech. And because it is a military program, you are limited when it comes to working with the outside world.
So of course, there are going to be problems. And people are going to fix them. I've seen many big programs where issues like these in the thousands, and people losing hope. And in the end, after years of no
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One use case for a modern fighter like the F-35 would be to control a fleet of drones. And I think that with the F-35 focus on stealth and electronics, it makes a lot of sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what would do that job better?
A drone.
Re: (Score:2)
The UAVs would have made manned fighter aircraft irrelevant by now if it weren't for the Air Force and their fighter pilot chorus insisting on manned fighters. The Navy has already tested bot aircraft landing on carriers. And it isn't clear how far into the future the carriers make sense. I suppose they work for small countries but sooner or later places like Iran will have the missile capability to take them out.
873? (Score:4, Insightful)
That isn't very many software defects. Firefox has many tens of thousands of open bugs.
Re: (Score:2)
"That isn't very many software defects. Firefox has many tens of thousands of open bugs."
No, Clint Eastwood fixed them all.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0... [imdb.com]
how does this compare to other fighter programs? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to be flippant, I'm really asking. There's been a LOT of press about the F-35 problems these last few years. I'm wondering how the actual number of flaws compares to previous fighter programs. We've heard of several problems with the F22, introduced in 2005. I don't recall serious difficulties with the FA-18, but that was a long time ago.
I guess I'm asking, is the F-35 program unusually rife with issues, or are we just not remembering the issues the F-16 had (introduced in 1974, still flying missions) or the f-14 (also introduced in 1974)? Are the issues of the F-35 being over-reported? Or does it just seem like it because of the complexity of the aircraft (more things to go wrong) and because our memory of previous fighter programs is fading?
Re:how does this compare to other fighter programs (Score:5, Informative)
I guess I'm asking, is the F-35 program unusually rife with issues, or are we just not remembering the issues the F-16 had (introduced in 1974, still flying missions) or the f-14 (also introduced in 1974)? Are the issues of the F-35 being over-reported? Or does it just seem like it because of the complexity of the aircraft (more things to go wrong) and because our memory of previous fighter programs is fading?
The first F-16 prototype test flight occurred by accident when the aircraft developed an instability during a high speed taxi test and the test pilot decided to lift off rather than smash the prototype after a wingtip hit the ground. Right before a 1975 air show, one of the main landing gears jammed during practice of a 9-g maneuver, requiring the pilot to land the plane on its belly.
The F-16 did have a flight computer of sorts, being fly-by-wire since its inception, with no mechanical linkage at all between stick or rudder pedals and control surfaces. But the original flight "computer" was an analog system. When it was converted to a digital system, 80% of the new electronics could be destroyed via static discharge. In friggin' 1988.
US military contractors building weapon systems pretty much always bumble their way to completion, rather than actually plan ahead successfully. The addition of complex software to the F-35 has definitely increased their opportunities for screwups, which they're taking full advantage of, so overall defect rates are definitely higher. But there were plenty of screwups in the '70s and earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And there is the problem. Complexity kills. In this case, your own side. Any good engineer knows that the absolute essential thing is to get complexity down to acceptable levels or you do not even need to finish the project.
Re: (Score:3)
And there is the problem. Complexity kills. In this case, your own side. Any good engineer knows that the absolute essential thing is to get complexity down to acceptable levels or you do not even need to finish the project.
Apparently not, if as reported elsewhere, there hasn't been a single F35 crash in the 10 years it was under development. That's actually rather remarkable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The F-35 development program went from flight development to operational status over a period of about 10 years or so with zero airframe losses -- there were three ground-damaged airframes, one of which was perhaps too badly damaged to be worth repairing after an engine fire -- but no holes in the ground and/or dead pilots. That's quite impressive given the record of previous high-performance aircraft development programs.
Re: how does this compare to other fighter program (Score:5, Insightful)
The F35 is a perfect example of a compromise. By trying to make everyone happy, you make NOBODY happy. The F35 variants try to be:
An air superiority interceptor (F15, F16)
A stealth air superiority interceptor (F22)
A ground CAS platform (A10, F/A-18)
A STOL/VTOL airframe (Marine Harrier)
And as a result it performs all of these roles worse than a dedicated platform.
There is definitely value in being a Jack-of-all-trades in many situations, but in a life-and-death fight is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand it handles vertical flight much better than the Harrier. Can handle more weigh, longer range, and is more stable in landing.
F-16 was forced upon Air Force (Score:2)
The F35 is a perfect example of a compromise. By trying to make everyone happy, you make NOBODY happy. The F35 variants try to be:
An air superiority interceptor (F15, F16) A stealth air superiority interceptor (F22) A ground CAS platform (A10, F/A-18) A STOL/VTOL airframe (Marine Harrier)
And as a result it performs all of these roles worse than a dedicated platform. There is definitely value in being a Jack-of-all-trades in many situations, but in a life-and-death fight is not one of them.
The F-16 is not a legacy air superiority fighter, that is solely the F-15's territory. The F-16 was the supplement, much like the F-35 today. The F-16 was actually done by a "guerrilla" design group outside the normal Pentagon procurement process. A "fighter pilot mafia" working with corporate money wanted to keep it simple and make no compromises on air-to-air. Like the A-10, the F-16 was kind of forced upon the Air Force. Both planes were so damn good at their respective roles that Congress stepped in.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, boomer. [tumblr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A stealth air superiority interceptor can do the role of an air superiority interceptor. I'm not sure why you feel the need for both.
Adding STOL/VTOL doesn't prevent it fulfilling that combined role, and actually makes it better.
So basically you're arguing that a stealthy fighter shouldn't be able to do ground CAS. Which'll be news to, well, every fucking fighter and fighter pilot since the French first created a machine gun that could shoot through the propeller.
Maybe we should just call it the F/A-35?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your very informative answers. IANAFP, but from what I've read, I agree that abandoning the F22 was a mistake. Although, isn't the F35 loadout greater than the F22? And it does do multirole better, and we probably couldn't afford two multi-billion fighter projects.
The F22 was a cool plane.
Re: (Score:2)
The F22 was a cool plane.
The F22 got its ass handed to it in a bucket in EVERY movie it ever appeared in.
Has anyone seen one of these fly? (Score:2)
up in the air (Score:3)
Once they get all this worked out, it might become a workhorse aircraft platform that sticks around for decades and finds lots of uses. If human-piloted flight remains at the core of air-wars, this is probably what's going to happen.
Drones are the wild card. If some manufacturer comes up with a high-performing drone that does 80% of what an F-35 can do, and manages to do this in 2025, the costs of the F-35 will never pay off.
Damn, You're Dumb (Score:2, Insightful)
You clowns really think all that money is going to build a fighter jet?
The F-35 is a cover project that exists only to funnel funds to secret projects that won't see the light of day until the next actual war.
Re: Damn, You're Dumb (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they are building UFOs. It's all over the TV. Everyone knows that, we all get the secret memos like sexconker.
Re: (Score:2)
You clowns really think all that money is going to build a fighter jet?
The F-35 is a cover project that exists only to funnel funds to secret projects that won't see the light of day until the next actual war.
I wish I could believe you, because if that were true then the spending would be worth every penny. I find this hard to believe because that would require the kind of foresight and planning that governments are terrible at doing.
What the article fails to mention.. (Score:4)
So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
...when are we going to treat defense contractors who take $billions and provide a non-functional product as the simple thieves that they are?
Note: I've always favored capital punishment for crimes >$1 million, on the principle that people who are working in those numbers are (one would assume) the best educated, best able to recognize right from wrong* members of our society.
*that they don't give a shit about the difference is the issue, of course.
Re: So... no one is going to jail. (Score:2)
The problem isn't just with the supplier. I've worked DoD projects. The requirements were vague, and the priorities were always shifting. Teams from different companies had plenty of reasons to dislike each other, but people tried to put that aside because they wanted to program to succeed.
Why is defense budget is so big and why is it so hard to cut? Why are these defense programs infamously inefficient? Have you considered the possibility that exorbitant defense spending is a socialist-style jobs program?
Re: (Score:2)
You are pointing the finger at the wrong spectrum if you think it is the defense contractor who is at fault when the government is the one demanding that a single jet replace all the others in the entire arsenal, meaning it needs to have the s
I want my money (Score:2)
Planes, automobiles, and technology. (Score:2)
This tells me it is time for the human race to move out into the stars, we need new challenges instead of over refactoring everything we already have since we can't seem to do that right.
Re: (Score:2)
I like where you're going with this, but moving out to the stars is extremely complicated.
Maybe what we need is, instead of over-complicated AI directed machines that do stuff, maybe a few AI directed machines that fix other machines.
Wait wait (Score:2)
So the gun doesn't shoot straight, what do you expect for only $100 million per plane?
You're lucky it shoots at all and doesn't just blow up when you press the trigger.
That explains it (Score:2)
I was wondering why they kept missing Iron Man in that second movie.
But we can't afford too... (Score:2)
Just think about all the programs that are getting cut bit by bit, while this 1.5 trillion dollar contract keeps lumbering to nowhere good. Meanwhile, everybody insists we have to spend more than twice what China does to stay safe. Frankly, I think we could figure out how to make an effective defense force for 250 billion a year, and take the 350+ billion savings and use it for providing universal health care, affordable college, expanding budges of all major research agencies as well as grants to research
This isn't a very big deal (Score:2)
I've been following the F-35 saga for years, and it's hard to tell how well or poorly it's actually doing. I've seen multiple articles that simply contradict each other, and I'm not any kind of military expert so it's hard for me to sift through the fog and see what's what.
But here's what I think I've figured out: overall the F-35 is a success, and the best thing to do is to keep developing it.
Yes, it's over deadlines and over budget. Not a shock, this is a government program.
When I read interviews with p [airspacemag.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The 25mm cannon on an F-35 isn't as awesome as the 30mm cannon on an A-10 but it should do some damage and you can fire it a lot more than 4 times
Not if it only carries 220 rounds of ammunition, which is the amount I last heard was planned.
Ok, I guess you could get 9 bursts if you limit them to half a second each, or 11 if you're using software to limit each burst to 20 rounds.
Didn't the A-10 usually do multiple passes with 2-3 second bursts to assure suppression of its targets?
Re: Millennials (Score:2, Troll)
They were probably offended by only straight guns being in the requirements.
Re: Millennials (Score:2)
I hear they are going to try âoeConversionâ therapy to straighten those guns right out.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong... The f35 started well before millennials could even be a factor in the development.
Nice try tho.
Re: (Score:3)
Eisenhower warned us about this decades ago. The military complex has taken over the US. If you show anything but 100% support for the military, you are branded a traitor. Suggest shrinking the military budget, you must love terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might be more low tech with most of them being taken out by rocks or kitchen knives or the like, but more enduringly effective than a few F-35's.
I'm actually not even sure if this is satire.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have to define "efficient", because I'm not sure that the politicians bringing home the pork would agree with what you're proposing. Also, who votes for those politicians if they don't bring home the pork? (On a previous job that had ties to the military industrial complex, a co-workers was openly pining for more war spending. :-(
Re: (Score:2)
You joke but when you look at the ever-expanding use of military contractors I wonder. There seams to be plenty supply in the market place to cover the security needs of our unending Mideast imperial adventures. Its cheaper than keeping equivalent pentagon personnel on the scene.
If we are not going actually step back from playing Team America World Police, and refuse to let go of this 70's era notion that "nation building" can work, maybe would should at least double down contractors rather than regulars t
North Korea = Atlanta (Score:2)
That's funny.
It reminds of something. The GDP of North Korea is similar to Atlanta, Georgia. If someone were to buy North Korea, a fair price for 100% ownership would be about $200 billion. Is there not some way we can get some significant influence there economically?
Re: (Score:3)
Adding a gun to this contraption is silly to begin with. They are still suffering from the Phantom over Vietnam when they decided not putting a gun on it was a mistake, so they went back and retrofit a gun for them. Right now, the only thing that gun can do is fire what amounts to buck shot at rebels. It's weight and the weight of the ammo is not worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Drones--Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are all the rage. American pilots and the generals who support them can keep our antiquated and very expensive approach to war going for quite a while, but other countries can easily become superpowers.
You ever read about kids who put 100 ants and one spider in a terrarium and let them duke it out? How about one $10 million airplane and 1,000 hundred-dollar drones in a swarm?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing but the finest quality.
...from the "lowest" bidder.