I think this is a first for S/N: An audio presentation as a story.
The other day I heard Pierre Sprey, the primary designer of the F-16 and A-10, talking to journalist Ian Masters about the F-35 attack jet. This guy is a fascinating speaker.
Topics: Politics and military procurement;
It's about 20 minutes in length, but if your media player has a speed control, you can listen to it in less time than that.
The high bitrate version at Ian's site is 19MB. Mr.Sprey is the 3rd of 3 guests.
The low bitrate webcast at KPFK's archive is 14MB for all 3 guests.
KPFK also has a stream.
The 3rd segment is from 36:30 to 55:00.
KPFK's stuff will be available until mid-October.
He goes into considerable detail on stealth, noting that it is a complete boondoggle:
He goes into some detail as to why stealth costs so much:
In his closing comments he says:
Until you can arrange a system by which congressmen who give away the taxpayers' money to defense companies and generals who go to work for defense companies as soon as they retire--until you can stop that, you will be increasingly weak and undefended at higher and higher cost.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Saturday July 19 2014, @03:03AM
Sorry, but all I can think of is:
What - A - Shock.
What in the holy hell has happened in the United States of Corporate America?
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19 2014, @03:15AM
"What in the holy hell has happened in the United States of Corporate America?"
John Boyd died since the F16 and A10 were designed, so it's back to business as usual.
(Score: 4, Informative) by cafebabe on Saturday July 19 2014, @04:56AM
A while back, I bookmarked a discussion about F-35 contract overruns on RT [youtube.com]. I thought it might be of interest here but I didn't submit it because it was already two years ago and I thought this issue was settled. Apparently not. I also watched an interview with Pierre Sprey [youtube.com] but didn't bother bookmarking it. He's a straight-talking techie but he has the benefit of hindsight and being an armchair critic.
On a personal note, I thought that US air superiority was doomed after I saw a Eurofighter flying at an airshow. The Eurofighter is a brute of engineering and louder than Concorde. And it is a boondoggle with a left wing made in Italy and a right wing made in Wales or somesuch nonsense. However, it is less of a brute and less of a boondoggle than the F-35.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19 2014, @05:42AM
Not that I disagree with your general premise, but for those who might take what you said at face value, the F-35 is NOT an air superiority fighter.
(That's the F-22--the one that has pilots passing out because the gadget that supplies breathable air to them fails).
If it had been given the proper designation, the F-35 would have been called an A-something (air-to-ground attack).
...but then, as Mr.Sprey notes, its mission has been continually redefined since it was first dreamed up 2 decades ago.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Saturday July 19 2014, @07:03AM
Agreed, it Probably should have been the F/A 35, like the F/A 18.
Supposedly it can hold its own in a dog fight. And contrary to the story, they are all flying again.
Still the F16 is a rare aircraft, probably the single most successful military aircraft ever built. And the the A10 was also unmatched in its role, I don't think it even has a competitor.
Has they gone with two or three designes, they could have built all of them for less money then they have spent on this "just so" story where every thing has to be a compromise to fit all the roles.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Saturday July 19 2014, @09:08AM
Iirc they called it an F to get pilots interested in flying it.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19 2014, @02:46PM
This sort of thing has been going on for a *long* *long* *long* *long* *long* time.
I like this one as it is semi funny take on what is actually a fairly serious issue.
These programs are not meant to create weapons our soldiers can use. They are meant to create careers for middle management 'soldiers', massive graft for the 'industrial complex', and make senators look good for 'creating jobs at home'.