Boeing says F-35 isn’t so stealth after all.

Add to that it will cost 24 Billion dollars to service and support them, on top of the purchase price.
I would suggest the purchase is being forced on us by America or a lot of people got very big kickbacks.

No person with all the evidence available in there right mind could with a straight face say we are getting our moneys worth.

The US Navy has decided to drop the number of Lockheed Martin-made F-35s it plans on purchasing from 69 to 36.

A number of high ranking Generals in the Pentagon have even gone on record to criticize the planes record of efficiency.

Add all the problems together from software to reliability to now not so stealthy the Russian plane is better in range and speed.

Maybe we should even look to the European jets or anything except this EXPENSIVE big white elephant.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Money_for_nothing%3F_Boeing_says_F-35_isn%E2%80%99t_so_stealth_after_all/34762/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Dear Philip,

I read an article by David Wroe, Defence Correspondent
in The Saturday Age, April 26th 2014, Insight 29.

It gives another perspective on this topic which
is worth reading:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joint-strike-fighter-commitment-a-boost-for-hightech-manufacturers-20140425-379on.html

Foxy, a different perspective but when they finally get it right if ever the cost by pentagon officials is sure to skyrocket.

Also just like a used car salesman the Americans are saying it is the best but when you compare some specifications like range and speed the Russian one wins.

Time will tell if it is the lemon the US generals say it is.

Reminds me about our other military purchases, the submarine lemon comes to mind, also something with uniform purchases.

Yeah..but..
What are the alternatives?
The next best option is the Dassault Rafale which costs $95 million.
The SAAB Gripen, $70 million but it's less capable.
Eurofighter Typhoon, around $90 million.
The Russian PAK-50 and Chengdu J-20 are years away, they still face major obstacles before they can enter production and it's not certain whether they can live up to their potential.
In the worst case scenario for the forseeable future the Australian F35 and FA/18 fleet might be facing off against older Su27 and Su30 variants and derivatives like the Chengdu J7 in combined operations with the U.S and it's now dominant F22 Raptor.

It shows how primitive mankind still is, when all countries have a need to spend money on weapons of mass destruction.

Mankind was doing it 10,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 200 years ago and we're STILL doing it. In this aspect mankind hasn't advanced at all, as we are still a territorial, fighting, aggressive, primitive species.

What is important here is not what we are spending on military hardware, but the fact we are spending billions of dollars as our contribution to supporting the greed that is Global Capitalism.
Unregulated greed-driven capitalism is destroying the economic viability of the whole world.
A very good article by Richard Seymour goes a long way to explaining the link between Global Capitalism and militarism, and its ever increasing need to devour trillions of dollars of wealth each year.

http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2014/03/08/capitalism-and-militarism

I can already see that our gullible 'Usual Suspects' on OLO will dutifully fall into line and accept Abbott's lies as to what motivates this obscenity.

‘morning Philip S,

I take issue with your comments that;

<< F-35 isn’t so stealth after all >> and that
<< More information coming out to confirm that the F35 is useless>>

The link you provided does not confirm either of your statements, but if you can point to anything that substantiates your claims, that would be great?

Firstly, the comments from competitor Boeing only say that Russia and China “have developed air defense systems that put the F-35’s stealth technology to the test”. I think that is what ADS do? But their technology remains untested at this time, yes? “And if those capabilities should improve”, “the ability to actually stay hidden may soon be slipping away”.

So as yet “untested”, “if”, and “may” have now been translated by you into <<the F35 is useless>>

The link you offered does not say the stealth capabilities are off spec, it just says that future detection technology “may” reduce its current edge but only “if” foreign capabilities improve?

I can’t think of any military system, from any developer from any nation that has been delivered on time, on budget or on spec. Nothing new here.

I think you should have read your own link before you posted.

Perhaps you can do that now and let us know exactly where your link supports your claims?

The main thing Nhoj is, are they good enough to keep those damn reffos out of the place.

Fortunately they are sure to be good enough to keep the rotten greens out of power. You know the ones, they like a little luxury in their offices.

Dear Hassie,

You mean like Liberal Senator Anne Ruston from SA - who
splurged $650,000. And that's only one of the many
who have a great deal to answer to.

What a great lifestyle.
Cheauffer-driven cars, and all the other perks
and benefits not only for themselves but their
spouses and family members. A good-job if you can
get it. In the meantime, let the vunerable in our
society pay for it. Cut, cut, cuts but not to
pollies. Pay-rises are the order of the day for them.
No wonder voters are turning away from the major
parties.

Nhoj,
Your sentiments are admiral; but with nations led by persons like a KGB President we cannot be pacifist

Josephus, yep that's precisely my point. We are so primitive as a species still, that we rely on attack and defence for our survival ... no different from insects, fish, monkeys, birds etc etc etc. We are no less territorial and no less aggressive than other species.

We are not nearly as advanced a species as we "think" we are. Mankind is pretty primitive.

spindoc -
Try paragraph 8 then in 9 how it is changing.

Dear pacifists,
The computer on which you access this site is a derivative of a machine devised to break German military cyphers in WW2, the internet itself is based on a secure military communications system.
Your GPS street directory, the kevlar in your motorbike jacket, the carbon fibre in your racing bike,the integrated circuits in your fridge, the long life food you take hiking, the encrypted radios and datalinks used by Police and Emergency workers...etc..etc..all trickle down technology from the military.
On topic:I mentioned the Dassault Rafale fighter, the advanced flight control and cockpit management system developed for that warplane is now used in Airbus passenger jets to reduce pilot workload and fatigue to make air travel safer and more efficient.
Westinghouse make radar equipment, GE make jet engines, Sony, Intel, Mitsubishi, GM, Ford, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and most other engineering companies make life saving and life enhancing machinery as well as weapons systems.
Another example, Spartan motors build fire engines, ambulances and other specialised emergency vehicles in addition to their line of armoured military trucks, the technological advances made in manufacturing a chassis which can survive a landmine blast or a rocket strike trickle down to better, stronger and more reliable emergency vehicles for civilian use.

Jay, but but but but but - what's your point?

The fact that technology designed for the military to enable one to harm other people can also result in other technology that helps people is hardly a recent discovery, that was previously unknown to mankind.

Try again.

You have a silly opinion on just everything don't you Nhoj. What would you know ever about these aeroplains ? From my former homeland there were many USSR fighter plaines always on the grounded never flying because you ask ? No ability to fly that's why ? From the fence of the aerofield you could see birds living in engine ducts and other openings of the aeroplaines never cleaned out or anything. Yet always garded by dogs and men with guns. So you don't know anything about these plains. Other things to you quote 10000 years ago, they had no plaines in those days did they.

‘morning Philip S,

Paragraph 8 & 9 of what ?

The original, the copy, the competitors comments? What are you saying besides a diversion?

Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the “Money for nothing” article prove me correct and you incorrect. If you think differently you can publish and be damned!

Why don’t you publish what you think represents your case from the links you used?

You screwed up because you don’t read, comprehend or check for yourself? You just adopt without question the opinion of others.

You can always prove me wrong by supporting your case. On the other hand you can duck and weave as an excuse for your incompetence? You rely on the fact that most OLO’ers will not bother to check your link. If they do check they can likewise try to support your case. If not they too are tarred with the same brush.

Like so many on OLO, the link is emotively absorbed, but bears no connection with reality of the claims made. When caught out you refuse to make your case.

Prove me wrong.

spindoc - Just because information comes from a company that supplies a rival product does not mean there information is incorrect.

To quote you "You screwed up because you don’t read, comprehend or check for yourself? You just adopt without question the opinion of others" Your opinion an incorrect one, I have read enough information from generals and Pentagon official and others to form an opinion this plane is going to be a white elephant.

Just because you have different information does not make you right, time will tell which of us is correct.

I will save a copy of this thread to remind you in the future.

Philip S,

Here's the video & transcript of the Four Corners program last year which examined the F-35.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/02/18/3690317.htm

"PIERRE SPREY, FORMER PENTAGON ANALYST: So we have an airplane that can't turn to escape fighters, can't turn to escape missiles, sluggish in acceleration because it's so big and fat and draggy and doesn't have enough motor for the weight.

My prediction is the airplane will become such an embarrassment that it will be cancelled before 500 airplanes are built.

ANDREW FOWLER: And with Australia one of the biggest potential customers for the Joint Strike Fighter, it's drawing plenty of flak here as well.

PETER GOON, CO-FOUNDER, AIR POWER AUSTRALIA: They've produced an aircraft that is not going to do the job.

Clearly it's not competitive even with aircraft that are in our region today, let alone those that are coming down the pipe,"

"ANDREW FOWLER: Winslow Wheeler is a veteran military analyst who's charted the soaring cost of the JSF.

WINSLOW WHEELER, DIRECTOR, STRAUS MILITARY REFORM PROJECT: Anybody paying attention to this airplane knew it was going to be a disaster from the very beginning. From the early 1990s we started seeing public warnings, in the mid 1990s.

This airplane has high cost and low performance in its DNA. It was designed into the airplane. It's going to die a slow agonising death in this country."

etc....

Poirot, - thank you for the link regrettably it probably will no difference to spindoc. The only acceptable evidence will be when we have actual video of some falling out of the sky.

spindoc - accused me of failing to read and comprehend but it is he who has because he failed to address my critical part which was "I would suggest the purchase is being forced on us by America or a lot of people got very big kickbacks."

I am more concerned the purchase is not being made voluntarily.

I have not read the book yet but Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser has made a radical call for Australia to break its alliance with the United States and become a “strategically independent” country.

We started out with 200 or so US Marines in the north soon it will be some where up to 2,500 of them, why?

America has now virtually become a police state, every country they go to there is trouble, plus they make them self exempt from the host countries laws.

‘morning Philip S,

No, the question was, what was it in the link you provided that substantiated your assertions?

You have avoided answering these questions.

There as nothing in the link you offered that was even close to your claims, otherwise you would have provided it.

Like all good alarmists you have gone off into the ether without going anywhere near your claims. Accordingly I bring you back to your original claims.

I have no problem with anyone offering opinion. But when you make claims and seek to substantiate there claims with so called “evidence”, it is entirely appropriate to call you out.

All you have to do is show what in your original link supports your claim. So far nothing and your response has been nothing. To which we are entitled to claim that you falsely inserted evidentiary claim when you meant opinion.

Like I said, show us the evidence or withdraw.

It is quite simple, your link, your evidence, your assertion. I’m so glad that you feel it necessary to “retain a copy of this thread for the future” but I’m concerned that you have failed to deal with the present.

<< F-35 isn’t so stealth after all >> and that
<< More information coming out to confirm that the F35 is useless>>

Where in your links do the statements exist to support your assertions

spindoc - You do have a habit of going round and round in circles.

Please read again what I said before now look at the heading again
"More information coming out to confirm the F-35 fighter is useless"

That means what is in the article plus information that has previously been around just because you do not have that information is not my problem, as you do on other threads you ask for all the information but then you totally disregard it in favor of your own opinion.

I have played your silly game before but will not get caught again wasting my time dredging up all the information you will disregard anyway.

Dear Warmongers,

I'm sure there have been great improvements in medicine, due to wars. Just ask Florence Nightingale. We would never have found a cure for smallpox if people didn't die from the disease. look at all the improvements in car safety due to road trauma. If millions hadn't died in wars we wouldn't have a lovely little light in our fridges that pops on and off with the door. Jay what is your point.
<<Westinghouse make radar equipment, GE make jet engines, Sony, Intel, Mitsubishi, GM, Ford, Boeing, Lockheed Martin>> One thing they all have in common, they all make money, lots and lots of it, thanks to ours, and others generous contribution to global capitalism through militarism.
Its immaterial as to whether we are spending billions on F-35 fighters or Sopwith Camel's, the important thing for global capitalism is we are spending!

More whoppers from Mr Shonk.

"Last week the government decided to buy 58 F-35 fighter aircraft for $12.4 billion. When asked where the money would come from, the Prime Minister reassured us that it was already there. “It's money which successive governments have carefully put aside to ensure that our nation's defences are strong,” he said."

"Alas this is not true. There is no piggy bank. Instead there is just a plan. Ever since 2000 the government has been planning to spend a lot of money on new fighters, but plans are not hard cash. The money itself will still have to be found in each budget as the bills for the F-35 come in, year by year, over the next decade."

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/defence-challenge-reconciling-australias-warfare-shopping-list-with-reality-20140428-zr0ng.html

Tch tch....

Philip S
The JSF like the NBN and 'Paid Parental leave" and the 'Disability Insurance Scheme' are unfortunately the best we can get.
Its a bit like politicians what we have is the best we can get.
Suffer in silence like lambs to the slaughter.

Poirot,
Some of us have come to the realisation that the Mad Monk will say anything that he believes will suit his line of argument at the time, if its a lie, which often it is, so what! Don't forget Abbott is a devout Catholic, once holding an ambition to be "one of them" and going as far as starting the "training". A good Catholic knows he can get absolution for his sins simply by confessing to "one of them". In Abbott's case it would be a long 'Confession' requiring a penance of at least 3 'Hail Marys' to avoid eternal damnation.

Paul1405 - To quote you "Some of us have come to the realisation that the Mad Monk will say anything that he believes will suit his line of argument at the time, if its a lie, which often it is, so what!"

I believe this comment can be said to apply to any politician, not just Abbott.

Slightly overgeneralized but When is a politician telling a lie - when their mouth is open.

@Paul & co.

<<Some of us have come to the realisation that the Mad Monk will...>>

Wow! you mean to say you didn't previous hold that view--you've had a recent change of heart?

Coming from a Green who badmouthed Abbott since before he was elected that is hilarious ---and it shows the depths the Greens will stoop to misrepresent themselves.

This sort of stuff is pretty much what we got about the F111 when we ordered them.

Some of it was actually true, but with a bit of good old Ozzy ingenuity, we turned them into the most successful aircraft we have ever had.

Hell we have even managed to turn those dreadful Collins class subs into an almost useful weapon, although someone should be in prison for buying a sub design from the Swiss, who don't even have a sea coast. [Labor again]

Now it is a bit of a tradition of the Brits the Yanks & us of course, to go into a war with inferior equipment. You could ask anyone who looked at a Zero, from a Wirraway or Buffalo cockpit, if any actually survived. However I think that is changing a little.

One advantage in brushfire engagements like Iraq, or Israel is that the gear gets tested. So with luck & a little ingenuity, the E35s may prove to be OK