Lockheed’s stealthy F-35 breaks down too often, Pentagon says. So argue with the Pentagon not me

[esalla]

Having been in the DoD procurement racket for several years, I will pass on an observation.

These major weapons systems, mainly planes, have a gestation that makes reliability extremely challenging.

Not only are the planes conceived and ordered with the "latest" technology, but while the first units are being constructed, even newer technology is being developed around the country and around the world. So AS THEY ARE BUILDING the first planes, the government and the contractor are considering and incorporating new, innovative features that were not part of the initial design. In each case, you have the Contractor(s) or some vendor whispering in the Generals' ears that this plane will be "obsolete when it comes out of the starting blocks" if it doesn't have this latest gadget. And when the generals hear that, it becomes a "must have."

And adding something to a plane or a ship is not a simple matter. They are designed with NO SPARE SPACE, and they are perfectly balanced, side to side and front to back. Every cubic inch of that plane is occupied with some essential part, and when you say, "Here is something else that has to fit," it often involves multiple ripple effects, because the plane will still have to be perfectly balanced on every axis.

It is not unusual to have scores to new add-ons incorporated into the design of a plane WHILE IT IS BEING BUILT.

While all this does not excuse unreliability on a plane that costs tens of millions of dollars, it is the main reason why the unreliability exists. If "we" were buying Piper Cubs, they would last forever and require minimal maintenance. But that's not the case.

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship. As such this jet is garbage which is why we sell it to whoever

ONE VERSION of the F-35 was designed for vertical take off with a minimal warload. Just like the Harrier and Sea Harrier were. I believe a F-35 is perfectly capable of vertical take off with internal fuel and internal weapons only. Most jets aren't capable of taking off with max fuel and weapons loads. That's why Air Force jets take off with minimal fuel loads and refuel shortly after takeoff. I think the last US aircraft capable of taking off with full fuel and weapons loads was the B-36 which was designed before aerial refueling was practical.

Though navy jets could refuel after takeoff even mentioning that there would be a tanker waiting in a foreign ocean in an emergency is just pure silly. Your line of thinking only works in a planned mission and where a fuel tanker will not give up the goose and say here we come

 

[Dayton3]

Having been in the DoD procurement racket for several years, I will pass on an observation.

These major weapons systems, mainly planes, have a gestation that makes reliability extremely challenging.

Not only are the planes conceived and ordered with the "latest" technology, but while the first units are being constructed, even newer technology is being developed around the country and around the world. So AS THEY ARE BUILDING the first planes, the government and the contractor are considering and incorporating new, innovative features that were not part of the initial design. In each case, you have the Contractor(s) or some vendor whispering in the Generals' ears that this plane will be "obsolete when it comes out of the starting blocks" if it doesn't have this latest gadget. And when the generals hear that, it becomes a "must have."

And adding something to a plane or a ship is not a simple matter. They are designed with NO SPARE SPACE, and they are perfectly balanced, side to side and front to back. Every cubic inch of that plane is occupied with some essential part, and when you say, "Here is something else that has to fit," it often involves multiple ripple effects, because the plane will still have to be perfectly balanced on every axis.

It is not unusual to have scores to new add-ons incorporated into the design of a plane WHILE IT IS BEING BUILT.

While all this does not excuse unreliability on a plane that costs tens of millions of dollars, it is the main reason why the unreliability exists. If "we" were buying Piper Cubs, they would last forever and require minimal maintenance. But that's not the case.

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship. As such this jet is garbage which is why we sell it to whoever

ONE VERSION of the F-35 was designed for vertical take off with a minimal warload. Just like the Harrier and Sea Harrier were. I believe a F-35 is perfectly capable of vertical take off with internal fuel and internal weapons only. Most jets aren't capable of taking off with max fuel and weapons loads. That's why Air Force jets take off with minimal fuel loads and refuel shortly after takeoff. I think the last US aircraft capable of taking off with full fuel and weapons loads was the B-36 which was designed before aerial refueling was practical.

Don't bother, esalla is convinced he or she knows everything. Though he or she refuses to provide proof of his or her claims.

 

[esalla]

Having been in the DoD procurement racket for several years, I will pass on an observation.

These major weapons systems, mainly planes, have a gestation that makes reliability extremely challenging.

Not only are the planes conceived and ordered with the "latest" technology, but while the first units are being constructed, even newer technology is being developed around the country and around the world. So AS THEY ARE BUILDING the first planes, the government and the contractor are considering and incorporating new, innovative features that were not part of the initial design. In each case, you have the Contractor(s) or some vendor whispering in the Generals' ears that this plane will be "obsolete when it comes out of the starting blocks" if it doesn't have this latest gadget. And when the generals hear that, it becomes a "must have."

And adding something to a plane or a ship is not a simple matter. They are designed with NO SPARE SPACE, and they are perfectly balanced, side to side and front to back. Every cubic inch of that plane is occupied with some essential part, and when you say, "Here is something else that has to fit," it often involves multiple ripple effects, because the plane will still have to be perfectly balanced on every axis.

It is not unusual to have scores to new add-ons incorporated into the design of a plane WHILE IT IS BEING BUILT.

While all this does not excuse unreliability on a plane that costs tens of millions of dollars, it is the main reason why the unreliability exists. If "we" were buying Piper Cubs, they would last forever and require minimal maintenance. But that's not the case.

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship. As such this jet is garbage which is why we sell it to whoever

ONE VERSION of the F-35 was designed for vertical take off with a minimal warload. Just like the Harrier and Sea Harrier were. I believe a F-35 is perfectly capable of vertical take off with internal fuel and internal weapons only. Most jets aren't capable of taking off with max fuel and weapons loads. That's why Air Force jets take off with minimal fuel loads and refuel shortly after takeoff. I think the last US aircraft capable of taking off with full fuel and weapons loads was the B-36 which was designed before aerial refueling was practical.

Don't bother, esalla is convinced he or she knows everything. Though he or she refuses to provide proof of his or her claims.

Lol I already provided proof that the pentagon agrees with me

As for knowing more than most.
Its actually a curse

 

[Dayton3]

Having been in the DoD procurement racket for several years, I will pass on an observation.

These major weapons systems, mainly planes, have a gestation that makes reliability extremely challenging.

Not only are the planes conceived and ordered with the "latest" technology, but while the first units are being constructed, even newer technology is being developed around the country and around the world. So AS THEY ARE BUILDING the first planes, the government and the contractor are considering and incorporating new, innovative features that were not part of the initial design. In each case, you have the Contractor(s) or some vendor whispering in the Generals' ears that this plane will be "obsolete when it comes out of the starting blocks" if it doesn't have this latest gadget. And when the generals hear that, it becomes a "must have."

And adding something to a plane or a ship is not a simple matter. They are designed with NO SPARE SPACE, and they are perfectly balanced, side to side and front to back. Every cubic inch of that plane is occupied with some essential part, and when you say, "Here is something else that has to fit," it often involves multiple ripple effects, because the plane will still have to be perfectly balanced on every axis.

It is not unusual to have scores to new add-ons incorporated into the design of a plane WHILE IT IS BEING BUILT.

While all this does not excuse unreliability on a plane that costs tens of millions of dollars, it is the main reason why the unreliability exists. If "we" were buying Piper Cubs, they would last forever and require minimal maintenance. But that's not the case.

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship. As such this jet is garbage which is why we sell it to whoever

ONE VERSION of the F-35 was designed for vertical take off with a minimal warload. Just like the Harrier and Sea Harrier were. I believe a F-35 is perfectly capable of vertical take off with internal fuel and internal weapons only. Most jets aren't capable of taking off with max fuel and weapons loads. That's why Air Force jets take off with minimal fuel loads and refuel shortly after takeoff. I think the last US aircraft capable of taking off with full fuel and weapons loads was the B-36 which was designed before aerial refueling was practical.

Don't bother, esalla is convinced he or she knows everything. Though he or she refuses to provide proof of his or her claims.

Lol I already provided proof that the pentagon agrees with me

You told me that links to sources on the internet are NOT PROOF.
Change your mind already?

 

[esalla]

Having been in the DoD procurement racket for several years, I will pass on an observation.

These major weapons systems, mainly planes, have a gestation that makes reliability extremely challenging.

Not only are the planes conceived and ordered with the "latest" technology, but while the first units are being constructed, even newer technology is being developed around the country and around the world. So AS THEY ARE BUILDING the first planes, the government and the contractor are considering and incorporating new, innovative features that were not part of the initial design. In each case, you have the Contractor(s) or some vendor whispering in the Generals' ears that this plane will be "obsolete when it comes out of the starting blocks" if it doesn't have this latest gadget. And when the generals hear that, it becomes a "must have."

And adding something to a plane or a ship is not a simple matter. They are designed with NO SPARE SPACE, and they are perfectly balanced, side to side and front to back. Every cubic inch of that plane is occupied with some essential part, and when you say, "Here is something else that has to fit," it often involves multiple ripple effects, because the plane will still have to be perfectly balanced on every axis.

It is not unusual to have scores to new add-ons incorporated into the design of a plane WHILE IT IS BEING BUILT.

While all this does not excuse unreliability on a plane that costs tens of millions of dollars, it is the main reason why the unreliability exists. If "we" were buying Piper Cubs, they would last forever and require minimal maintenance. But that's not the case.

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship. As such this jet is garbage which is why we sell it to whoever

ONE VERSION of the F-35 was designed for vertical take off with a minimal warload. Just like the Harrier and Sea Harrier were. I believe a F-35 is perfectly capable of vertical take off with internal fuel and internal weapons only. Most jets aren't capable of taking off with max fuel and weapons loads. That's why Air Force jets take off with minimal fuel loads and refuel shortly after takeoff. I think the last US aircraft capable of taking off with full fuel and weapons loads was the B-36 which was designed before aerial refueling was practical.

Don't bother, esalla is convinced he or she knows everything. Though he or she refuses to provide proof of his or her claims.

Lol I already provided proof that the pentagon agrees with me

You told me that links to sources on the internet are NOT PROOF.
Change your mind already?

Again you are arguing with the pentagon now, not me.

The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which reman "open, in dispute"

taskandpurpose.com

The Pentagon is battling the clock to fix serious, unreported F-35 problems

Defense News exclusively obtained documents detailing the F-35 jet's most serious deficiencies.

www.defensenews.com

CIAO

 

[Dayton3]

Having been in the DoD procurement racket for several years, I will pass on an observation.

These major weapons systems, mainly planes, have a gestation that makes reliability extremely challenging.

Not only are the planes conceived and ordered with the "latest" technology, but while the first units are being constructed, even newer technology is being developed around the country and around the world. So AS THEY ARE BUILDING the first planes, the government and the contractor are considering and incorporating new, innovative features that were not part of the initial design. In each case, you have the Contractor(s) or some vendor whispering in the Generals' ears that this plane will be "obsolete when it comes out of the starting blocks" if it doesn't have this latest gadget. And when the generals hear that, it becomes a "must have."

And adding something to a plane or a ship is not a simple matter. They are designed with NO SPARE SPACE, and they are perfectly balanced, side to side and front to back. Every cubic inch of that plane is occupied with some essential part, and when you say, "Here is something else that has to fit," it often involves multiple ripple effects, because the plane will still have to be perfectly balanced on every axis.

It is not unusual to have scores to new add-ons incorporated into the design of a plane WHILE IT IS BEING BUILT.

While all this does not excuse unreliability on a plane that costs tens of millions of dollars, it is the main reason why the unreliability exists. If "we" were buying Piper Cubs, they would last forever and require minimal maintenance. But that's not the case.

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship. As such this jet is garbage which is why we sell it to whoever

ONE VERSION of the F-35 was designed for vertical take off with a minimal warload. Just like the Harrier and Sea Harrier were. I believe a F-35 is perfectly capable of vertical take off with internal fuel and internal weapons only. Most jets aren't capable of taking off with max fuel and weapons loads. That's why Air Force jets take off with minimal fuel loads and refuel shortly after takeoff. I think the last US aircraft capable of taking off with full fuel and weapons loads was the B-36 which was designed before aerial refueling was practical.

Don't bother, esalla is convinced he or she knows everything. Though he or she refuses to provide proof of his or her claims.

Lol I already provided proof that the pentagon agrees with me

You told me that links to sources on the internet are NOT PROOF.
Change your mind already?

Again you are arguing with the pentagon now, not me.

The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which reman "open, in dispute"

taskandpurpose.com

The Pentagon is battling the clock to fix serious, unreported F-35 problems

Defense News exclusively obtained documents detailing the F-35 jet's most serious deficiencies.

www.defensenews.com

CIAO

So???

 

[esalla]

Having been in the DoD procurement racket for several years, I will pass on an observation.

These major weapons systems, mainly planes, have a gestation that makes reliability extremely challenging.

Not only are the planes conceived and ordered with the "latest" technology, but while the first units are being constructed, even newer technology is being developed around the country and around the world. So AS THEY ARE BUILDING the first planes, the government and the contractor are considering and incorporating new, innovative features that were not part of the initial design. In each case, you have the Contractor(s) or some vendor whispering in the Generals' ears that this plane will be "obsolete when it comes out of the starting blocks" if it doesn't have this latest gadget. And when the generals hear that, it becomes a "must have."

And adding something to a plane or a ship is not a simple matter. They are designed with NO SPARE SPACE, and they are perfectly balanced, side to side and front to back. Every cubic inch of that plane is occupied with some essential part, and when you say, "Here is something else that has to fit," it often involves multiple ripple effects, because the plane will still have to be perfectly balanced on every axis.

It is not unusual to have scores to new add-ons incorporated into the design of a plane WHILE IT IS BEING BUILT.

While all this does not excuse unreliability on a plane that costs tens of millions of dollars, it is the main reason why the unreliability exists. If "we" were buying Piper Cubs, they would last forever and require minimal maintenance. But that's not the case.

The f35 was designed to be vertical takeoff meaning that 5 to 10 could takeoff or land at a time on a carrier or assault ship. As such this jet is garbage which is why we sell it to whoever

ONE VERSION of the F-35 was designed for vertical take off with a minimal warload. Just like the Harrier and Sea Harrier were. I believe a F-35 is perfectly capable of vertical take off with internal fuel and internal weapons only. Most jets aren't capable of taking off with max fuel and weapons loads. That's why Air Force jets take off with minimal fuel loads and refuel shortly after takeoff. I think the last US aircraft capable of taking off with full fuel and weapons loads was the B-36 which was designed before aerial refueling was practical.

Don't bother, esalla is convinced he or she knows everything. Though he or she refuses to provide proof of his or her claims.

Lol I already provided proof that the pentagon agrees with me

You told me that links to sources on the internet are NOT PROOF.
Change your mind already?

Again you are arguing with the pentagon now, not me.

The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which reman "open, in dispute"

taskandpurpose.com

The Pentagon is battling the clock to fix serious, unreported F-35 problems

Defense News exclusively obtained documents detailing the F-35 jet's most serious deficiencies.

www.defensenews.com

CIAO

So???

I fail to see your problem. You ask for details, I provide info from the pentagon that agrees with everything I said and now you cry.

I didn't provide links earlier because I knew you wanted proof but would reject anything I said, so now you can tell the pentagon that they are stupid. Lol as always I was correct