1
4

[–] shill343 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Putting close air support, joint strike, air superiority, and carrier launch capabilities along with stealth tech all into one air place is not possible. Was doomed to fail from the start.

0
10

[–] 6343283? [S] 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

This plane is designed only to do one thing, and do it well. Make money.

0
2

[–] shill343 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Exactly.

0
4

[–] 6343225? [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Now we know that the simple action of opening the small door causes the plane to turn slightly because of the door’s drag, possibly enough to cause the cannon to miss. The DOT&E memo reports that these door-induced aiming errors “exceed accuracy specifications” which will make it quite difficult for pilots to hit targets. And since the Air Force’s F-35 only holds 181 rounds—as opposed to 511 for the F-16 and 1,100 for the A-10—every bullet will count.

1
3

[–] Mouse-Ball-Z 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

They will iron it out eventually.

What gets me is the threats that require this type of tool, what are they? Like, are we eventually going to use fusion powered stealth spacejets flown with super advanced AI to kill a guy in a tent that cant read? How 1 sided is necessary? How about you pay a guy to walk up to the other guy and talk to him, save the $90B for something that will matter, like oh I dont know, almost anything else?

0
5

[–] 6343494? [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I don't think it will ever be ironed out. How can you have a fucking air to ground cannon with only 181 total rounds and consider that close air support? The only thing ironed out will be how much more money we'll throw into this money pit of corporate welfare for the military industrial complex that literally denies our nation the weapons it needs.

http://www.defensetech.org/2015/01/02/a-tale-of-two-gatling-guns-f-35-vs-a-10/

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/test-pilot-f-35-vs-a-10-air-match-is-not-apples-to-apples

1
2

[–] AverageAmerica 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

0
2

[–] 6343695? [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That argument is valid even if the weapons purchased with the money were functional. It's so much worse when you realize that much of "defense spending" is for lining the pockets of politicians and their cronies, and the result is weaponry that doesn't even work.

0
1

[–] Butelczynski 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Ultimate "Jack of all trades,master of none". Maybe F-35 is taking so long and is so expensive because it includes AI or completely pilot-less version (aka drone)?

0
1

[–] Troll 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Fucking hell, that whole article got my brain full of fuck.

1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS

And it sucks ass in every aspect. Bravo Lockheed Martin! Bravo!

Give Russians 500 bux, two healthy whores and a bottle of vodka and they make the most dreaded airplanes in history. Give 1.5 FUCKING TRILLION dollars to Lockheed and I wish I had two more hands for a bigger facepalm.

0
2

[–] vurk 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Over 30 years, and amongst several companies.

Per airplane cost is less than current fighters.