"The F-35 Stealth Fighter May Never Be Ready for Combat" Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Showcase Article It's probably too late already this season to snatch these bargains up...
Featured Workbench Article Does anyone else have trouble with the color green on microscale vehicles?
Current Poll
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
| Tango01 | 25 Dec 2016 9:46 p.m. PST |
"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is the most expensive procurement program in Pentagon history. It's been plagued by schedule delays, gross cost overruns and a slew of underwhelming performance reviews. Last month the Air Force declared its variant "ready for combat," and most press reports lauded this as a signal that the program had turned a corner. But a memo issued from the Pentagon's top testing official, based largely upon the Air Force's own test data, showed that the declaration was wildly premature. Michael Gilmore's latest memorandum is damning. The F-35 program has derailed to the point where it "is actually not on a path toward success, but instead on a path toward failing to deliver the full Block 3F capabilities for which the Department is paying almost $400 USD billion."…"
Main page
link Amicalement
Armand |
 20thmaine  | 26 Dec 2016 4:50 a.m. PST |
Its pilots in 2080 will wonder what all the fuss was about… |
| Tango01 | 26 Dec 2016 11:42 a.m. PST |
|
 piper909 | 26 Dec 2016 6:19 p.m. PST |
I wonder if milites in the Late Roman army had the same problem of ultra-expensive artillery or armor proving to be not up to the job when push came to shove? And if this all helped bankrupt the imperial treasuries when they could least stand it? |
| Charlie 12 | 26 Dec 2016 7:48 p.m. PST |
I'm reminded of several other programs that were roundly criticized in their time. The planes in question had many faults and some urged their outright abandonment. Those planes? The P-51 Mustang, F4U Corsair, B-24 Liberator and F-4 Phantom…. |
| GROSSMAN | 26 Dec 2016 7:56 p.m. PST |
Good point Charlie, but I don't think this will be the case here. |
| Charlie 12 | 26 Dec 2016 8:24 p.m. PST |
Unless you have a crystal ball, who can say? |
| Winston Smith | 26 Dec 2016 9:14 p.m. PST |
They're going to be too expensive to risk in combat. |
| Mako11 | 27 Dec 2016 2:58 p.m. PST |
Yea, I knew the declaration it was "operational" was pure propaganda. Being able to "fire" the gun doesn't mean it's ready to be used in combat to hit anything. Hell, you can "fire" a gun on its own, even when not installed in the aircraft. If that does come to pass, certain company CEOs, other executives should be made eligible for capital punishment. |
|
