Do your military forces have those kinds of fuck ups as well ?
>pic very related
>That will make 5mrd euro and you get extra problems
>>29813419
A 400M?
>>29813467
Yes
>pic
>electronic problems
>shitty transmission
>rusty driveshaft
>emissions cause cancer
Should've get the blackhawk.
I hope Trudeau smarten up this time and pressure his pot-smoking government into buying merlin
>Drone
>doesn't even have the permission to fly
>>29813553
German navy wanted a Sikorsky but politicians started a prestige bird instead
>>29813419
What's wrong with it?
>>29813600
The airframe itself is good. It's the avionics that needs ironing out.
This is multinational project, of course someone isn't pulling his weight
>>29813600
Everything, they forgot that it had no armor on the bottom, the engine overheats too fast which causes an exorbitant consumption of material, one even crashed in Spain
>>29813629
just throw it into the trash bucket
>>29813419
Multinational programs always go down the shitter unless it's only two nations with very similar requirements.
>>29813645
>they forgot that it had no armor on the bottom
You think cargo aircraft have armoured bellies?
>>29813677
>military aircraft
>non armoured underside
sounds like a good idea
>>29813457
>that door mounted Mg3
anon my dick
>>29813807
Sounds like the norm for basically every military aircraft you fucking ignorant asshole.
Mine has the biggest fuck up in history
>>29813419
A400M at least produced a decent product in the end, albeit it took its sweet fucking time.
NH90 and Tiger on the other hand, sweet jesus those things are complete abortions. So glad we went with Apache's long ago to avoid at least one of them.
>tfw our NH90's in Netherlands rusted to pieces and couldn't support fully laden soldiers on their ramps and are barely serviceable.
>>29813839
No, anon. I'm sure a multi-role aircraft that's incapable of performing any of its roles and that will cost more than any aircraft in history will totally pay for itself over the many, many years of expensive maintenance.
Seriously, though. The F-35 is like an emblem of US beltway contracting. You remember healthcare.gov? Same fucking deal. Every time the US needs a job done, they turn to an entrenched good ol' boy who donates to the campaigns and they wind up with some kind of bloated, mismanaged trash heap that can't meet 10% of its specs.
What really blows my mind is other countries still want to buy this thing. Who's still in, anyway? Australia, I think. Who else?
>>29813839
>>29813419
>Trying to redesign a 50 year old plane
Heres an idea. Design a new fucking plane.
>>29813988
the f-35 is fine retard
Mabye it could be cheaper, maybe not, but it WILL be cheaper than any other 4.5th gen fighter.
No other 5th gen fighter exists yet, nor will exist for yearsnor does china/russia/europe even have 5th gen fighters under development.
>>29813989
>Final plane expected to be delivered in 2040 based on current schedule and budget fuck-ups
>Bait
No, it's fair to say this plane has been a MASSIVE fuck up. It's caused so many shortfalls and problems in so many ways. The US air force is shrinking due to planning on getting these planes this year and retiring older planes, and they're finding over and over that the F-35 is worse at every job it's going to be taking on while costing more.
But here's another fun one.
Osprey. Originally projected to cost $2 million overall, but blew up to $30 million invested in an unsafe, unreliable aircraft.
>>29813988
UK, Australia, norway, the Netherlands, Italy, japan, turkey all have active orders. Korea is planning on ordering.
>>29814083
Are the PAK-FA and Chengdu J-20 not considered 5th generation projects? They are actively developing those right now. China and Russia are currently developing 5th generation fighter craft, and they're expected to have dedicated roles so they're likely going to outperform the F-35.
>>29814138
>Originally projected to cost $2 million overall, but blew up to $30 million invested in an unsafe, unreliable aircraft.
Except its the safest helicopter in the USMC, and had a great saftey record overall. You been reading too much gawker.
Go be ignorant elsewhere.
>>29814138
>It's caused so many shortfalls and problems in so many ways
Name one
The V-22 was a marine fuckup
Only the marines do shit as stupid as the V-22
>>29814167
Neither are stealth
ergo
not 5th gen
>>29814053
the problems were pretty much all engine problems. and that's a new design
>>29814187
I`d argue sensor capabilities are what determines if X plane is 5th gen or not.
As for stealth - it appears that the Russians purposefully went with semi-stealth airframe design while also thinking about range, manueverability and such.
Explains the lack of S ducts, framed canopy and exposed metallic engine nozzles.
The Chinks however decided to go with more pro-stealth approach but I guess that`s because they managed to get their little, dirty, yellow paws on some classificed information.
>>29814187
>Neither the J-20 nor the PAK-FA are stealth
They're both planned to be stealth.
>>29814172
Helmets don't fit, fuel doesn't function at elevated storage temperatures, costs are exploding, they've delivered less than 200 aircraft when the military was expecting 1000 causing massive readiness shortfalls, can't dogfight, can't provide CAS, software failures are a problem. Oh, sorry, you only wanted one shortfall?
>>29814169
The Osprey got a lot of shit from several sources, and it's safer than other helicopters as long as it's traveling at higher elevations since it's capable of gliding as a plane. But having a few specific safety advantages doesn't justify it being monstrously more expensive than its alternatives. Plus its actual performance records are a mess for a variety of reasons from incompetence to wilful doctoring.
>>29814286
>can't dogfight
Nice meme.
https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/
They`re just now learning about F-35 and it`s strengths. And how to downplay it`s weaknesses (which even the F-22 has).
>>29814319
You have to assume the F-35 is going to be fighting the PAK-FA or the J-20. Sure, maybe the F-35 is always going to be able to stealthily kill its targets and older jets aren't going to be able to get close enough to engage with them, but they're seriously trying to say this thing will be able to replace both the A-10 and the F-18 by relying exclusively on stealth performance.
The last of these aircraft is expected to be delivered in 2040, so supposedly there won't be any advances in radar detection by then?
The criticism are completely valid and there's a reason the F-35 gets constantly dumped on by so many analysts.
>>29814392
>The last of these aircraft is expected to be delivered in 2040, so supposedly there won't be any advances in radar detection by then?
And given the advancements of things like SACM and laser-based systems, it`s silly imply that current generations of aircraft that will be flying for 20 more years will rely only on stealth, flares and chaff.
A2/AD systems are not the silver bullets the Russians and Chinese would have you think.
Are they dangerous? Absolutely.
Are they letal? Yes.
Can they be countered? Yes.
>>29814392
>A-10 F-18
A-10 won`t be retired until it`s true replacement is in production. Which might be a decade away.
Besides ''A-10 the King of CAS'' is a meme.
> F-18
F-35C has better range, better avionics and similiar payload when using pylons. Not to mention the stealth mode which you can`t possibly get on Hornet.
Problem is the costs - but under President Clinton, I expect defense spending to get significant boosts.
>>29814392
What do you think the A-10 does that couldn't be done by literally every other plane in existance?
It's not replacing the F-18, but it could do everything the F-18 does
>>29814286
The problem here is that you don't seem to understand logical implications of things.
Many of the issues you list aren't permanent, and will quickly be fixed. They are also to be expected with such a project. The software is a perfect example of this, because it's modular and meant to be changed.
Now something like a highly under powered engine or a badly designed air frame would in fact be relevant issues to point out. So what's the point of going on about issues that will probably be solved within a year. From what I heard the helmet one already has been solved too.
>>29814286
>can't dogfight
Shame that that's a) unsubstantiated and b) not a problem given the nature of air combat
>can't provide CAS
Can it carry accurate guided munitions? Yes.
It can therefore do CAS.
>>29814459
It`s replacing the older generation of Hornets.
Besides I think they`ll cut down C variant orders and get more Super Hornets just to keep the Boeing in the business.
>>29814479
And forgot the add that USN sees F-35C as basically one big flying sensor platform - which makes perfect sense, given the poor performance of F-18 radar and the limitations of it`s sensors in the networked battlespace concept.
>>29814228
>went with semi-stealth airframe design while also thinking about range, manueverability and such.
>Explains the lack of S ducts, framed canopy and exposed metallic engine nozzles.
Doesn't explain that whatsoever.
Its "semi-stealth" as much as a Eurofighter is.
>>29814450
>President Clinton
Man, I'd laugh if there were anything to laugh about.
She's obviously pro-Wallstreeet, but has she actually stated anything about expanding military spending? That tends to be a thing the Democrats rail against in public.
>>29814475
It can't even take off currently because of its substantial software problems. It really feels like the entire program is being justified by a ton of hand waving and assurance that the F-35 is going to change the way we think about air operations.
>>29814538
It`s not as much as she`ll want to do it as she`ll have to - besides nothing indicates the disgusting Obama tactic ''i want 1 dollar for social shit for every dollar you spend on defense'' that held the last budgets back.
The procurement curve is bound to grow in the next few years, it`ll have to be increased.
Don`t think that calls for F-22 being restartered is a coincidence - everyone is gearing for Obama getting the fuck out of White House. The fight is on.
>>29814479
>Besides I think they`ll cut down C variant orders and get more Super Hornets just to keep the Boeing in the business.
No.
>>29814516
>>29814479
If anything they will probably buy more F-35's as costs continue to reduce and the A-10 is scrapped
>>29814625
>F-35
>Costs reduce
I'm not sure you've been following the F-35 project. It doesn't look like it's going to get cheaper any time in the next few years, and the air force is short on craft this year.
>>29814690
In LRIP-8 the F-35A cost 43% of what it cost in LRIP-1.
Literally almost halved in price, and it hasn't even entered full production.
>>29813988
>What really blows my mind is other countries still want to buy this thing.
Because countries like the UK invested a LOT of money into the project. They need something out of it.
Also, it's one of the few stealth fighters on the market that isn't a complete fuckup. The F-35 has a pretty baller EW set.
>>29814601
>nothing indicates the disgusting Obama tactic ''i want 1 dollar for social shit for every dollar you spend on defense'' that held the last budgets back.
The US spends way more on social security than it does on defence. 1:1 dollar spending on both would increase the budget.
>>29813557
>>29813514
explain
>>29814538
>It can't even take off currently because of its substantial software problems.
Why lie?
>>29813988
there must be something about it (maybe still classified) that we dont know if countries are trying to buy them up.
>>29814286
>The Osprey got a lot of shit from several sources,
Gawker, war is boreing, and Slate?
Yes.
> and it's safer than other helicopters as long as it's traveling at higher elevations since it's capable of gliding as a plane
No, you idiot, its actual safety record is better than every other helicopter in the USMC.
>to wilful doctoring.
This is an excuse you fucks use to explain away its steller safety record. There was no willful doctoring.
>>29814858
>its actual safety record is better than every other helicopter in the USMC.
Because they hide accidents & lie
>>29814795
In order of spending, it goes:
1. Social Security
2. Healthcare
3. Military
Military is about half of social security costs, but the military is classified under discretionary spending and is therefore more flexible to increase or decrease on a more regular basis. Mandatory spending involves cutting benefits. Or reforming healthcare, but the healthcare industry spends more on lobbying than the military industrial complex so that's never going to happen for real.
>>29814911
>Because they hide accidents & lie
No, they dont.
You are a faggot who cant admit he is wrong.
>>29814911
Where is the proofs?
>>29814927
>>29814925
Dozens of Ospreys have been scrapped or permanently grounded, often after unreported accidents
It is not a safe aircraft
>>29815202
>Dozens of Ospreys have been scrapped or permanently grounded, often after unreported accidents
Again, you saying it happening does not make it true.
You are a faggot who invested years into hating a plane and cant cognitively reconcile with the fact that you were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
You are wrong.
>>29815202
do you realize how hard it is to doctor reports of crashed or airframe loss aircraft...eventually someone will look at the numbers and come up short, then they'll want blood as to why they only have 10 helicopters as opposed to 20
>>29815228
You tell me why a production aircraft would need factory rebuilds, get scrapped, or turned into a ground trainer without a Class A mishap?
The marines demand a FOIA request to give information on accidents. They have been caught lying about the V-22 many times before...
Amos and Conway joined the boards of V-22 contractors
>>29815363
>They have been caught lying about the V-22 many times before...
When?
What aircraft?
I mean, you're incredibly sure of this, must be even a shred of evidence to any of it
>>29813807
The amount of armor necessary to make a meaningful difference against modern AA weaponry would make it too heavy to fly. Same reason they don't armor warships anymore. You use avoidance and countermeasures, you don't try to tank hits from missiles or high velocity guns.
>>29815363
Put the tinfoil down
>>29813988
Ah, there's the 'I know more than people actually involved in the program' person.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/01/norwegian-f-35-pilot-counters-controversial-dogfighting-report/81170580/
>>29815453
>>29815347
http://www.g2mil.com/062309-Hearing-Briefing-Memo%20%284%29.pdf
>The Committee staff encountered major difficulties in attempting to determine the answer towhat might ordinarily seem like an obvious question: How many Ospreys does the Marine Corpshave and what is their flight status? The Defense Department seemed to have serious difficulty inassembling this information. However, the staff was finally able to confirm that the Marine Corpshas bought 105 Ospreys since 1988. Following is the current flight status of those aircraft:
>Not usable for troops: 29 (includes experimental and damaged,destroyed, or otherwise unflyable)
>Not combat deployable;usable for training only: 27
>Combat deployable: 47
>Paid for, but undelivered: 2
>Total: 105
The big joke is that 145 had been procured to that date, where did they all go? These were working aircraft, that they paid for, then they disappeared, sit in hangars, were scrapped for parts, or whatever
No other aircraft has these issues.
>>29815586
>The big joke is that 145 had been procured to that date
Literally from your source
"However, the staff was finally able to confirm that the Marine Corps has bought 105 Ospreys since 1988"
the
staff
was
finally
able
to
confirm
that
the
Marine
Corps
has
bought
105
Ospreys
since
1988"
>>29814538
>Has she actually stated anything about expanding military spending
>Politicians stating something they'll do in office
Do you see the problem here?
>>29815616
The marine corps lied as 155 had been procured through FY2009
And yet, they had only had 105 total delivered, as of june 2009?
Does the F-35 program have 40+ aircraft unaccounted for?
>>29813419
It's like it has roller skates.
>Pierre Sprey general
>>29815699
Anyways, the Osprey might finally be in a flyable state today, its still mechanically unsafe & twice as expensive as a helicopter would be, but the generals responsible for this shit now work for V-22 contractors
>>29813629
Let me guess;
France?
>>29813825
They got upgraded to miniguns.
>>29815783
The engine alone is a clusterfuck as all 4 partner nations are responsbile for something.
AFAIR it had problems with the gears (France's responsibility), the high pressure compressor (Britain's responsibility) and the FADEC (Germany's responsibility). I'm certain, somewhere a fuckup by the Spaniards got missed by me, though they might be clean as they're arguably the only junior partner here.
>people are unironically defending the Osprey
Look the F35 doesn't deserve the flack it gets but the Osprey is a pile of dogshit that the marines have been trying very hard to hide all it's faults.
>>29815699
>The marine corps lied as 155 had been procured through FY2009
Looks as if they were wrong, yes. It has been confirmed that only 105 has been bought.
>>29815727
> its still mechanically unsafe
No, you are wrong, you have been wrong for years, and will keep being wrong, factually.
>>29816022
No, you cannot reconcile years of cognitive bias.
Factually, it is the safest rotary bird in the USMC inventory.
>>29815727
Its expensive, but theres a reason for that. Its filling a niche that a normal rotor wing cannot.
>>29814450
what your nice sortie pie graphs don't seem to include what % of the fleet the a-10s represent or any performance data from the sorties
I don't really disagree that you do not need an a-10 in particular for CAS, but I would bet money that A) they are represented more relative to their numbers against other planes for CAS and B) they are useful for more than just CAS alone
>>29813419
everybody's does. high technology manufacturing is hard and companies mislead in order to get contracts. shit happens.
it takes ten years to design and build a new corolla people. adjust your expectations accordingly.
>>29816196
>Factually, it is the safest rotary bird in the USMC inventory.
Only after they fail to report every class A incident that isn't caught on video by civilians
Or misreport them as "ground mishaps"
By it's very nature there is a period during landing or takeoff where a power loss will cause the thing to crash & kill everyone on board.
They managed to hide the V-22's flaws in iraq/afghanistan by doing makework missions for it, since the army choppers would do medevac, CH-46's were still around, etc
What will happen in the next war when the V-22 will actually have to do real combat missions? Will be disaster
>>29814821
German bureaucracy
>buy combat proven drones
>the law says that these drones lack a security extra or something
> drone isn´t allowed to fly
> build own drone, according to said law, it´s getting more and more expensive
> as the price rises, politicans chicken out and force the ministry to drop the project
in the end germany bought drones that aren´t allowed to fly, created some really expensive blueprints, is now going to buy drones from Israel
>>29817346
Why don't they just change the laws and use the drones they already bought???
>>29817207
No, they report the v-22 the same as every other airframe.
You have no proof of this, yet you cling to it because mentally its the only way your mind can reconcile being wrong for years and years.
Thats the only explanation for you to go full tinfoil as you are.
>>29813419
fucking jumped out of those
goddamn
>It's a thinly-veiled F-35 thread episode
>>29815363
It looks like you have insider information that I don't have.
However, I have insider information that you don't have, from career Osprey mechanics. AAAAAAAAAAND while it was a suicide party in early development, it is fine now. Eventually you are going to have to be open-minded and change your outdated views.
It is no longer a suicide party. And now everything is okay.
>>29814450
Why the fuck would anyone even want to replace the A-10? It works perfectly. Anything it's not already perfect for, there are attack helicopters.
>>29819105
Wow, it's like a post from 2005
>>29813988
>You remember healthcare.gov?
healthcare.gov was a fucking masterpiece compared to most of the state exchanges.
Should have cut their damn subsidies, at least the states that didn't make their own sites knew what they were doing.
>>29819221
Name one reason to replace it. The only "it's old" related reason I can think of is the air frames being serviceable and new ones not being built.
But then my only question is why are new ones not being built.
Looking through all this, the impression I'm getting is that pretty much every aircraft developed after 1975 (if not earlier) was a waste of money. Where did it all go wrong?
>>29819288
Same thing that went wrong with the battleship race in early 1900s. They kept building bigger and more complicated battleships until everyone was on the verge of bankruptcy, where a single battleship was worth more than the entire navy had been some 15 years earlier.
And I might just be exaggerating a little bit, but the point is that everyone keeps designing more powerful weapons that try to do everything, even things they don't need to do and you end up with out of control costs on often unreliable and unusable equipment that is obsoleted the next day by some new invention
Cronyism doesn't help..
>>29819278
you realize it's payload isn't great and it provides cas from medium altitude like every other aircraft that does cas these days don't you?
when they upped the altitude envelope during gulf 1 it stopped having any reason for existing.
>>29819528
I don't see the problem with the payload. It's rather substantial. Are you even taking economic considerations into account? A weapon of war must be cheap to produce and a loss of it must not be crippling. If you build a new fancy aircraft that does everything but costs so much that 10 losses a month will cripple you, then you have a shitty weapon.
What's wrong with OPs pic it's just a Spartan they're pretty good and useful.
>>29813419
> do your military forces have these?
> military forces
>iceland
kill me pls
>>29819669
>Are you even taking economic considerations into account?
they're expensive to maintain and they don't make parts for them anymore. and they don't do anything that the current strike fighters in the current numbers can't do, but the a-10 can't replace the strike fighters. so you're maintaining a fleet of duplicate aircraft, that only exist because they became obsolete they had already been produced and no one was going to get rid of that many nearly new airframes.
they're not nearly new any more.
there's your economics.
>>29817445
That would be too easy
>>29814927
they are hidden, of course.
Only anon-chan has access to them.
>>29815712
Wasn't the first one tho. An-124 and AN-225 also have roughly similar wheel confign
>>29813988
>stealth for super sneaky missions
>600lb shy of the fucking F-4 Phantom as a bomb/missile truck when external hardpoints can be used
>gets all the nice avionics toys, bugtesting of which is causing all the "le F-35 sux" meming from retards who know nothing about software development
Gee that sure sounds like a failure to me.
>>29814172
I lived in Arizona about 15 years ago when a bunch of V-22s were crashing during test flights. I guess that's what he was thinking of.
Shame, OP, I thought you meant personnel fuckups as well.
Partially off topic, but
>workan inna hazmat storage because skate rink
>get call from SNCO of C-130 squadron
>guy's freaking the fuck out, ask why
>some dude oil serviced eight of their engines entirely with preservation oil
>one of the aircraft were supposed to fly an hour later
I almost feel bad for the guy that did that, never found out what happened to him.
>>29822760
had a guy fill 200 liters of water into the 900 liter fuel tank on a CV90 once. He was so sleep deprived that he could not differentiate between fuel cans and water cans. Do you know what happens to a fuel system when you fill it with water and leave it overnight during a -30 celsius snowstorm? I do.
>>29822812
Sheeeeeeit
>>29822812
Did something spectacular happen anon? Or just a CV90's fuel system an hero'd? tell us tell us.
>>29813553
We do have Merlins but only a small handfull for SAR, we did get new Chinooks though..
>>29817445
Because that would mean someone not getting paid off.
>>29822812
>CV90
>Swedistani APC
>Private Borkfucker exploded their APC's fuel tank in a -30°C snow storm
How much trouble was that guy in?
>>29822829
>>29822837
If you take a look at a CV90, the fuel tank is located in the hull on left side of the turret. It has 3 plates on top that can be removed, showing the fuel cell. Now, when you put 200 liters of water in, it settles on the bottom, freezes and expands, building up pressure in the tank. All 3 plates were bulged and broken of( treads on the bolts were pulled out of the hull). A nice fountain of fuel is coming out of each opening. We are talking about armor plating here, btw.
All the fuel lines are at the bottom of the fuel system, so of course, water goes down there as well. Into the filters, everywhere. Both main-filters have had their bottoms blown of by the pressure(not sure why they didnt just crack desu). Most of the piping had to be replaced due to cracks and bending.
Also, at the driver station, at the drivers feet, there is a tank-selector handle/thingy with a hand-valve. The valve is now gone, and the drivers floor-area is now covered with about 10cm of ice.
I'd give it credit though, after replacing the filters, the engine worked like a charm. Everything else needed replacing though. It should be a simple thing to handle a few, maybe 10 liters of water(condensation is common), but 200 liters killed pretty much the whole fuel system.
Also, the commander was in the turret at the time, half asleep/half observing on thermals. He had been deployed a few times, experienced RPG's and shit like that. When the fuel tank covers popped, the sound apparently gave him a bit of a flashback, and he started yelling "contact RPG" on the company coms before waking up completely
>>29822905
Norwegistan, actually. And not that much desu, we have quite a big "ok you fucked up, now we will just mock you for the rest of the year"-attitude for those things, unless you do something that might hurt someone. I dont think we had a single year without someone driving into a ditch filled with too much water and killing the engine with hydrostatic shock. Costs about 2 mill NOK for a new powerpack, but thats mainly due to our service contracts being completely fucked up and overpaying for shit. One guy had to wear one of the broken piston rods as a pimp-chain for the Battalion's yearly party and so on. Not much more punishment than a sore ego and constant torment.
>>29815586
Hey, dumbass, you know SOCOM has a bunch of Ospreys too, right?
>>29819527
Hi, Pierre.
>>29822906
Yeah, water is a bitch, at least they didn't try to start it and get water in the engine, too.
>>29813807
You have utterly no idea what you're talking about
>>29817445
>change the laws
anon pls
seriously though, nobody ever seems to think of that as a possibility.
