News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Status of F-35 – Senate Armed Services Committee Statement [pdf]. Parent comment

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 ]