يستخدم موقع الويب هذا ملفات تعريف الارتباط. باستخدام موقع الويب هذا وعمل المزيد من عمليات التنقل خلاله، يعني هذا قبولك لملفات تعريف الارتباط.
استبعد
هل علمت بأن خاصية تتبع الرحلة التابعة لـFlightAware مدعومة بواسطة الإعلانات؟
يمكنك مساعدتنا بالإبقاء على موقع FlightAware مجاني بدون مقابل من خلال السماح بالإعلانات من موقع FlightAware.com. نحن نعمل بكل كد لجعل إعلاناتنا ملائمة ومناسبة وأن تكون هذه الإعلانات غير ملحوظة من أجل إنشاء تجربة رائعة. يمكن بكل سرعة وسهولة السماح لـإعلانات القائمة البيضاء الموجودة على FlightAware، أو الرجاء مراجعة الحسابات المميزة الخاصة بنا.
استبعد
Back to Squawk list
  • 17

The F-35 Could Explode In Midair If Struck By Lightning

تم الإرسال
 
The F-35 is unable to fly within 25 miles of a thunderstorm because engineers believe it could explode if struck by lightning. The storm restriction will not be lifted until an oxygen gauge in the fuel tank is redesigned in all F-35s. What a bargain. (www.businessinsider.com) المزيد...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


joelwiley
joel wiley 4
Does that mean the photoshopped Irani fighter has a higher reliability quotient? Thunderstorms don't bother it.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
BluegrassFlyer
Randy Michel 4
I recall then SoD Dick Cheney calling the F-14 a jobs program and an inefficient platform based on 60's technology as his reason for going with the Rhino over the AST-21 project in the early 90's. In the 90's the ATF was supposed to be unrivaled in the air but due to cost cuts, and budget overruns that ensued anyway, you're about 15 years late from initial projected EIS and now the JSF is going down the same path. An updated F-14 might have been more inefficient, but with updated engines, computers, etc, I still would have taken that over the two white elephants buzzing the sky now. Plus, NG might have still been in the fighter business which would mean keeping another competitor in the industry. Heck even the F-15SE might have been a better platform to go with in lieu of the F-22 and at a fraction of the cost. China and Russia developed theirs after the F-22, so I give the advantage to them especially in numbers. I'd say LM is a jobs program. The hypocritical Pentagon needs to get its act together.
preacher1
preacher1 3
Well, unfortunately, they need some common sense monitoring. The F14 was one of the best platforms that we've ever had as far as I'm concerned. The JSF was a good idea in theory, to have one platform for all branches, but by the time all branches got done with their little quirks, it was almost 3 independent planes. At any rate it is still one big jobs program, $ be damned. We got to keep those people working. Even if they eventually bring it to a usable standard, it will be too expensive to fly. That is evident by some of the original countries either backing out completley or cutting way back on the orders.
BluegrassFlyer
Randy Michel 1
Yeah we're pretty much committed to them now. The JSF and even the F/A-18 programs go back to the same theory of one type of aircraft, to do all missions. In the F-14's infancy, the Marine Corp and Air Force went so far as to send pilots and rio's to training on it, so that idea was going on back then. Originally going with two engines for the 14 and 18 for redundancy and over the water ops, and now one for efficiency with the F-35 and the A-7's before her. The only thing I can suggest is better contract enforcement from the Pentagon.
preacher1
preacher1 1
It will be interesting to see what happens on the sequester.
BluegrassFlyer
Randy Michel 1
Yeah, in light of what I've read so far, its looking a little gloomy.
preacher1
preacher1 1
As bad as most cuts are needed, I think it will be a bad mistake to do it all at once and just crash this brittle economy again. Same thing as defense though, a little common sense and housewife budgeting needs to go into the larger programs as I think that is where they are getting a big drain. I see they just busted the SCOOTER STORE. They need to do a bunch more the same way, welfare being one, but that is a whole nuther story for another place.lol
jdriskell
James Driskell 1
Remember the FTX? The Edsel of aircraft!
BluegrassFlyer
Randy Michel 1
You mean TFX? Back during the McNamara days when they were trying to take an F-111 and configure it for Carrier operations and it didn't work too well? That's what the F-14 evolved from when they figured the F-111 wouldn't work and they needed a new cleansheet design.
jdriskell
James Driskell 1
Your right, TFX. It's been so long that I couldn't remember, but the problem is the same. It's like buying one size of shoe and expecting everybody to wear them.
preacher1
preacher1 1
It's like I said above, after each branch gets done with their quirks, it ain't nowhere near the same airplane.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Just be glad they weren't trying to implement the wheel. (Theirs is round, ours must be an improvement over 'round')
preacher1
preacher1 2
May be Wes, but Lockheed is the one doing the producing right now so you got to lay it at their feet.
genethemarine
Gene spanos 2
I agree Phil.
RVN
Class of 68'
Mud Marines
DMZ
stvotw
John Smith 2
Seems like quality control is lacking big time.
upchucked
C. WESLEY GRADY -3
What did you expect? It has Boeing written all over it...
preacher1
preacher1 4
Don't blame it on Boeing. They were there on the proposal but this one belongs to LOCKHEED.
frankfurt982
andy streit 2
I missed the news story where in the next 30 years the US will be in dog fights and needing stealth fighters in another war. The next "war" will be entirely cyber based. These jets are a severe waste of money. We already spend more money on defense than the next 10 countries COMBINED. Who are we afraid of?
avnational
Phil Carson 5
Hmmmmm-And in Vietnam, we thought it would be a hugh waste of money putting guns on our Fighters. In Korea we thought it would be a hugh waste of money to put jet aircraft on Carriers. If we dump our Military edge, why would the next war be a "cyber war"? Wars are for overthrowing governments and taking of land and resources. That can't be done with a computer. You must kill your opponent in a war-that's life. (and history).
preacher1
preacher1 5
I can remember that. The F4's were the best thing since bubble gum until the missles proved defective and 1/2 missed or didn't fire and then the migs started tearing hell out of them with their guns. The only good thing about them was that you could turn them South and those twin J79's would outrun anything in the sky. As far as Korea, we had poo pooed jet aircraft totally and then those pesky migs showed up.
btweston
btweston 1
Well, the reason the Phantom didn't have guns was because some fancy arms manufacturer came along and said, "Hey! Look at these really cool missiles! You don't even have to aim them! Sure, they're expensive... But they're so cool!" So we them. And they didn't work.

Aaaaand we've got that same problem right now, but exponentially larger. And since these babies haven't even seen action yet (after a decade, like the F-22) they look like an even bigger pile of lost time and resources. I mean the news media's discussion about the budget fight and questions about what we need to cut makes me want to pull my hair out every time I read about these jets.
preacher1
preacher1 1
It's gonna be a catch 22. I can remember the Carter years, how pitifully poor down the military was drawn; we couldn't even mount a decent hostage rescue in the desert. Then Regan got lambasted for having to spend so much just to bring it all back to standard. Hopefully sombody will come in next term with some gonads big enough to do the same thing cause if we ain't speaking Arabic by then, we'll be close, BUT, I wouldn't think about getting off topic here.
stoneyend
stoneyend 3
Much of our defense money goes to defend those next 10 contries when they can't handle it, plus everyone else that gets into a bind.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 0
You don't think the Chinese aren't spending like drunken sailors (no offense to drunken sailors intended) on building up their military? What rock you been under?
tracer1
Chris Harvey 1
Lightning's can't even take Lightning. How Ironic.
avnational
Phil Carson 1
The F-111 AArdvark was a total failure in it's beginnings. Some just disappeared without a trace in Nam. But we kept after the problems, kept faith in it's future, and it became the world's premier tip of the spear. It saw much front line duty for years after that, and still does. I feel the F-22 will follow that course-
btweston
btweston 1
Well our two favorite flying boondoggles have been in development about four times as long as the Aardvark took to become operational. There is no end in sight. Plus they cost a lot more in general. And they were overkill when they were first designed and they will be approaching obsolescence by the time they take to the skys in earnest.
avnational
Phil Carson 1
Not exactly-The F-111 was stamped "operational" years before it actually was. When it reached actual operational status it was in trouble because it was nearing end-of-life operation and considered obsolete. The aircraft was also designed way "overkill" because of it's ability to laser a target, before laser guided bombs existed. All things like that have a way of working themselves out. It's better to have it and not need it-than to need it and not have it.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, they are saying the same for the 787. It will all be interesting.
btweston
btweston 1
I feel differently when it's a private company rather than taxpayers. As a voter I'd like to think that we were spending our money effectively and investing according to what will make our country work better. I could care less if Boeing's CEO feels uncomfortable.
upchucked
C. WESLEY GRADY 1
I'm pretty sure that it was a Boeing design, at least with regards to the O2 system.... if you recall, this isn't the first problem with that system and the last time they put the blame squarely on Boeing....at least that is my recollection and given all the negatives that B has experienced lately, I could be mistakenly attributing this to them as well.
99NY
99NY 2
Nope, Boeing built the X-32 for the JSF project, which lost to the Lockheed X-35
btweston
btweston 0
I'm more inclined to say that this mess (as well as the F-22) has corporate welfare written all over it.

Our military edge isn't going anywhere, even without spending a couple trillion dollars on broken airplanes.

Just as long as we don't feed poor people and improve out educational system, right?
bishops90
Brian Bishop -2
Military spending is at an all time low in terms of % of budget (if we had one) and GDP. While "education" and welfare are at an all time high.
That dog don't hunt.
Cannikin
Cannikin 2
Even at all time lows, we are buying equipment the military doesn't even want and has to park in the desert. In the meantime, we complain about spending on the hungry people. It's about honoring those contracts.
btweston
btweston 1
Exactly. We make a pledge to buy things we don't need so that politicians can hook up their rich friends. It's not a coincidence that so many members of congress go on to accept lucrative positions in the war profiteering industry.

If we help a single mom feed her kids, we're communist. If we drop trillions on two unnecessary airplanes that still can't fly in an operational sense after more than a decade of tinkering, we're keeping America safe.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 1
I'm not saying there aren't problems in the two aircraft programs we're discussing here. Lord knows that's what you get when you put politicians in charge of developing aircraft. And typically you want to demogogue any criticism of social welfare programs, yet they indeed consume far more Federal spending dollars than all of the defense spending (only a small part of is in new equipment aquisition).
The numbers are: Defense- 22%, Education, Healthcare, and Welfare- 37%
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy03bs12003n_30#usgs302

The question then (and I presume that I know your answer) is which is the more appropriate, and constitutionally authorized role of the FEDERAL government?
National Defense, or Social Welfare programs?
btweston
btweston 1
Well, the congress is constitutionally enabled to pass any law it sees fit. Subject to the remainder of the constitution, of course. So there's that.

And you're lumping education, healthcare, and welfare into one boat. Now, I haven't mentioned healthcare. That's a whole 'nother can of worms. Education receives less than twenty percent of what we're spending on blowing things up, according to the information you've provided. Welfare receives less than half. And there is the "secret budget" available to the defense department which allows them to carry out clandestine operations.

And our military is still the best in the world, even without these magnificent flying machines. And yes, you are presumptuous.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 1
Also, keep in mind that most education funding comes at the state and local level, so for every $ in federal spending on education, there are about $3 in state and local taxes.
btweston
btweston 2
I have no idea where you're getting your numbers. Schools are cutting programs and conservative demagogues are cutting teachers' salaries and breaking their unions. All the while we spend astronomical amounts of money on elective warfare.

Even if military spending were at an all time low (it isn't), it is still an embarrassing waste. And our kids are uninformed morons.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 1
My daughter is a High School English teacher, so I know a little about public education from the inside. The reason we have a generation of uninformed morons has nothing to do with education spending, especially at the Federal level. I'll give you my daughter's number, she'll be glad to give you an earful. She spends more time and effort dealing with the beaurocracy of the education establishment than she can in actually educating her students. That's a fact.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Mine was too and left the field. This was several years ago, but she said it was getting too standardised and no room for individuality, just a general dumbing down of the students to a one size fits all; no individual lesson plans or anything and she just felt she was living a lie to participate in that.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, as luck had it, most of that materialized early and she had a husband that helped out and supported her in that decision. She taught a couple years here in AR, then the went to WV for about 3 years. She subbed some over there but it was worse than here in that regard. They got back here and after several moves, she is Ass't Director at a daycare and happy as all get out. Money is not quite as good but there is no outside interference.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 1
Exactly, Wayne. She wants to get out too, but guess what? She can't find another job that PAYS as well, considering she gets summers off and all the federal holidays, and state benefits!

تسجيل الدخول

ليس لديك حساب؟ سجل الآن (مجانا) لتستمع بمميزات مخصصة، وتنبيهات الرحلات، وغير ذلك الكثير!