How Thirty Year-Old F-16s Defeat the New $1.5 Trillion F-35s

  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Aug 11, 2015 1:52 PM GMT
    How Thirty Year-Old F-16s Defeat the New $1.5 Trillion F-35s

    "A report issued by the Straus Project for Military Reform reveals how our old F-16 fighters consistently defeated the new $1.5 trillion F-35 fighter in secret tests – even though the military saddled the F-16s with heavy fuel tanks and armaments. You’l listen how the planes can’t dogfight, they can’t determine friends and foes in long range attacks without revealing their location, and their stealth technology is ineffective. The $600,000 helmet the pilots wear are ineffective in combat, bad weather, and landing. There are 30 million lines of software code to operate the planes. Furthermore, the planes are being dubbed “hangar queens” because they require so much maintenance that pilots only get about one-fifth the training they need. It is a fiasco and Congress is unwilling to stand up to the military/industrial complex to demand accountability."


    http://danahey.com/how-thirty-year-old-f-16s-defeat-the-new-1-5-trillion-f-35s/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 6:32 PM GMT
    metta8 saidHow Thirty Year-Old F-16s Defeat the New $1.5 Trillion F-35s

    "A report issued by the Straus Project for Military Reform reveals how our old F-16 fighters consistently defeated the new $1.5 trillion F-35 fighter in secret tests – even though the military saddled the F-16s with heavy fuel tanks and armaments. You’l listen how the planes can’t dogfight, they can’t determine friends and foes in long range attacks without revealing their location, and their stealth technology is ineffective. The $600,000 helmet the pilots wear are ineffective in combat, bad weather, and landing. There are 30 million lines of software code to operate the planes. Furthermore, the planes are being dubbed “hangar queens” because they require so much maintenance that pilots only get about one-fifth the training they need. It is a fiasco and Congress is unwilling to stand up to the military/industrial complex to demand accountability."


    http://danahey.com/how-thirty-year-old-f-16s-defeat-the-new-1-5-trillion-f-35s/


    "It is a fiasco and Congress is unwilling to stand up to the military/industrial complex to demand accountability."


    Its been my understanding that members of Congress, in many US districts are "paid off" by the military/industrial complex due to the amount of contract money and jobs created within a state or its district. It is more important for the congress member to answer to their voters about jobs (so they can be re-elected), rather than the quality of the products the voters are paying for. This is not private industry such as auto manufacturing.

    It works like this, the government says "I need this made". The contractor bids "lowest price usually". Contract money is awarded by government. Prime, sub prime "engineers" design, build, test prototypes, (this is where many things get hidden from the government, who supplies the money, hidden by the contractor). The contractor is private, what do all private companies want? Profit Margins.

    The government DOES NOT tell the contractor how to build the product they are requesting. All the government asks is that the contractor stay within budgets allocated to the project. They do have specific performance parameter requirements of said final product that the government has to approve of before each step in the build process continues. Start up, new programs, are always more expensive until the program becomes "mature". (basically all the bugs have been worked out, much like Microsoft's Windows operating system took many years from its first type '95, to its 8.0). In order to maximize profit margins from the governments money, the "creative engineering minds" of the contractors find ways to "cut corners" with the money they can spend. Every bit of the money has to be tracked. How do they "cut corners"?, well, that is a unfortunate proprietary 'secret', not even the government can know about, unless the government suspects "wrong doing" by the contractor. Then the government will use its power to deny contractor money, impose fines...etc.

    As far as the F35 program, I suspect this program process was not set up correctly from the beginning, with a focus on quantity rather than quality. Politically, "quantity-jobs" were more important than "quality-product".

    The expensive monster created probably will not go anywhere. The only thing we, as tax payers, can do is probably request a even more reduction of the amount of planes produced. But that in itself could create even more politics among the private contractors (profit margins) and pissed off voters (congress people and their voting districts). Catch 22