Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]

Re:Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statemen... by ChrisBland on Monday May 02, 2016 @12:26PM (#11612846)

When viewing the F-35 through the lens of a defense project, it looks silly. You must also realize that this is also an indirect federal jobs program. When the F-35 would replace other aircraft and their roles, the bases, parts suppliers, and ...sub contractors those people had to be kept employed. No member of congress wanted to say don't add that or build that if it would hurt their district. So much backroom dealing goes on with projects like these its embarrassing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statemen... by cowardlydragon on Monday May 02, 2016 @05:37PM (#11615890)

I'd rather we drop a half-trillion in alternative energy projects. That's a much better jobs investment, and arguably vastly increases our national security than a shitty money pit jet that the Chinese get to make a 99% competitive jet at 1/10th the cost.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statemen... by sickbeard on Monday May 02, 2016 @12:38PM (#11612972)

Army: We need 3 different planes

Government: Why not build one plane that can do 3 things? it will be cheaper.

... it turns out it isn't.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statemen... by russell on Monday May 02, 2016 @03:58PM (#11615013)

Hah! The army is the only service not getting one, unless there is a helicopter variant in there somewhere.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statemen... by Retra on Monday May 02, 2016 @08:00PM (#11616815)

Is it too late to add helicopter capability?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statemen... by jgeada on Monday May 02, 2016 @01:52PM (#11613743)

LMFTFY:

Government/Army: We need 3 different planes for these 3 different requirements

Private corporations @ public trough: you could "save" money by building a single plane meeting all those requirements, and we'd also bring extra jobs to your geographical area. Oh, and plus there is this extra "lobbying" money you can have you if support this project.

Politician: Sounds like a good idea...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statemen... by levemi on Monday May 02, 2016 @04:47PM (#11615454)

That's not how the F-35 was conceived or designed, not at all. It was a highly competitive contract with the requirements given to a few companies and they were given some amount of money to compete for the best design[1].

Your comment is nonsense.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program

[ Parent | on HN ]