Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military Transportation

The US Grounds All F-35 Jets (bbc.com) 238

Posted by EditorDavid from the flight-delays dept.
Thelasko tipped us off to this story. NBC News reports: The U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marines -- as well as 11 international partners who participated in the program -- grounded all F-35 fighters on Thursday as part of an ongoing investigation into a jet that crashed in Beaufort, South Carolina, late last month.
"The pilot in that incident ejected safely but the aircraft was destroyed," reports the BBC, adding "the problem has already been identified as faulty fuel tubes. Once these are checked or replaced the aircraft will be back in the air."

The U.S. has spent more than $320 billion to build their fleet of 2,400-plus F-35 jets, according to a recent GAO report -- or roughly $130 million for each one of the planes. The BBC calls it "the largest and most expensive weapons program of its type in the world."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The US Grounds All F-35 Jets More

The US Grounds All F-35 Jets

Comments Filter:
  • its just faulty fuel lines nothing to see here. They will be replaced. some have already been replaced.

    • Not only that, the grounded them Thursday, for 24-48 hours. Each plane was grounded until its part numbers could be manually verified for possible part replacement.

      Slashdot ran this Saturday, after the whole event had ended and everything was already back in service. How derpy! It isn't even news, and fuel parts aren't that interesting to nerds.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by stooo ( 2202012 )

      >> The US Grounds All F-35 Jets
      That's kind of wrong. The F-35 ground themselves.

  • Field testing for bin Salman (Score:5, Funny)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Saturday October 13, 2018 @11:40AM (#57471914) Journal

    It's important that we get all the kinks out these planes before we ship the ones Saudi Arabia ordered. The customer comes first, especially when they're brutal dictators who own a lot of Manhattan real estate.

    • After what Saudi agents did in Turkey -- frankly, this real estate should be expropriated. Plenty of homeless vets in NYC who need housing, after all. Fair is fair, many of them lost their mental health fighting to prop up Saudi interests.

      • Re:Field testing for bin Salman (Score:5, Informative)

        by CanadianMacFan ( 1900244 ) on Saturday October 13, 2018 @12:35PM (#57472138)

        After what they did in Turkey? How about what they've been doing in Yemen? And their own country? The blockade on Qatar?

      • You know what the difference is between what Saudi agents did in Turkey and what agents from virtually every nation do? The Saudis appear to have been ridiculously brazen about it. Coupled with the smiling image of their Head Prince, the whole thing seems to reek of smugness.

        However, the only real difference between this political killing and those in our "Civilized West" (besides all the coverage) is the borderline honesty of it all; we know that "MBS will deny but the twinkle in his eye does belie."

        It's

        • What's scarier? A killer who still has some shame about whom s/he kills, or a killer without a sense of remorse or shame?

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            "We came, we saw, he died" [laughter].

            Hint: this has nothing to do with remorse or shame.

    • Hmm, sounds good, so how do we get them to buy some Windows 10 licenses, or Intel CPUs?

    • Petrodollars (Score:5, Insightful)

      by labnet ( 457441 ) on Saturday October 13, 2018 @03:17PM (#57472714)

      USAs relationship with the Saudis has always puzzled me. The Saudis were mostly responsible for 9/11 and funded much of the Islamic terrorism around the world. So why does the USA give them a free pass?
      The most simple explanation, is Saudi Arabia promised to always sell oil in USD in return for protection. The Petro dollar is critical to the USD, and every country that has dared sell on the world stage in another currency has met with the wrath of either the CIA or US military.
      This relationship is criminally sad.

  • $320 billion that could have been spent for well-baby programs for everyone born in the US, or for improved infrastructure, or for paying down the national debt. But no, it has to be spent for murder weapons that don't even work properly. America! YEAH!

    • $320 billion that could have been spent for well-baby programs for everyone born in the US, or for improved infrastructure, or for paying down the national debt.

      $320 billion over 18+ years. Depending on whether we count development time or not.

      So, less than $18B per year. If we'd spent all of that on paying down the national debt, the national debt would have grown slightly slower (note that in 2014 alone, the federal deficit was larger than the entire cost of the F35 program from inception to present).

      • $18 billion per year divided by 3.8 million births per year = about $4,700 per new family. Give it to them as a tax credit, let them use it to defray medical costs, take unpaid time off to recover from birth, etc, etc, etc. And a tax credit wouldn't be in conflict with anything. Point being, there are ways to spend the money that don't involve building murder weapons.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Solandri ( 704621 )

          $18 billion per year divided by 3.8 million births per year = about $4,700 per new family. Give it to them as a tax credit, let them use it to defray medical costs, take unpaid time off to recover from birth, etc, etc, etc.

          Defense spending has dropped significantly as percent of the budget [manhattan-institute.org] since the 1960s. The bulk of the budget is now Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements [usgovernmentspending.com]. We already spend $2.6 trillion dollars per year on the types of programs you're advocating. Adding $18 billion would ha

          • ICBMs/SLBMs and an armed population are cheap and effective at dissuading invasion. We're not giving any of those things up anytime soon. Things like the F-35 are mostly good at invading OTHER countries, not at protecting against invasion from outside.

          • Suggesting the F35 program was wasteful and bloated, is not the same thing as suggesting that there should be no military at all.

            The US spends more on its "molehill" of a military than the next 7 countries combined. There is room for reduction.

          • Having a military to defend yourself with is the most economically sound way to dissuade a potential invader.

            A good deterrence is one where you can hurt the opponent and allow the opponent to be able to hurt you. If you don't allow the opponent to be able to hurt you you break the symmetry and are going for dominance.

            https://www.thebalance.com/u-s... [thebalance.com] says the military spending for 2018 is $874.4 billion. I think that's a very conservative estimate because the militarization of the US runs much deeper than t

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Bert64 ( 520050 )

            Costa rica does not have a military..

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • U.S. military spending is huge only because the U.S. economy is huge. As percent of GDP, the U.S. doesn't even make the top 25 [indexmundi.com]. It only spends about 3.5% of its GDP on military spending, slightly above the world average of about 2.3%. If you factor in that the U.S. is bound by the peace treaties ending WWII to provide for Japan's national defense, U.S. military spending drops to 2.8% of the combined Japan + U.S. GDP. Add in NATO (which allows European countries to underspend on their militaries - the U.

      • Re:$320 billion wasted (Score:4, Informative)

        by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Saturday October 13, 2018 @12:53PM (#57472236)
        Except that a lot of military spending is paid for by "emergency funding" that's outside the official US budget. Most of the spending on the Iraqi and Afghan wars wasn't counted as part of the official US budget.

        • A lot of military spending goes to health care and pensions for retired or disabled military personnel.

          Also, the one that spent for military hardware goes to we'll paying tech jobs in plants and facilities all over the country. It isn't poured into a hole where it disappears.

  • I'm not even from the US and I know there must be a company paying very good money for making sure any fault on these boys reaches widespread news. It's getting to a point those planes don't look so cool anymore to us common mortals.

    • Re:Another month another F35 smear (Score:5, Informative)

      by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Saturday October 13, 2018 @11:53AM (#57471982)
      F-35 was money thrown down the toilet. You're Portuguese -- when your government does corrupt and wasteful things, people turn out into the streets and shut things down. It's a shame that Americans aren't as proactive when seeing government waste and graft.

      • You're Portuguese -- when your government does corrupt and wasteful things, people turn out into the streets and shut things down. It's a shame that Americans aren't as proactive when seeing government waste and graft.

        That's right, people here were busy protesting a judge's high school drinking habits, scribbles in his yearbook, and which parties he may or may not have attended.

        I read a fascinating analysis about how the Democrat gambit to keep Justice Kavanaugh's nomination from succeeding went wrong in so many different ways. The interesting thing that this particular commentator pointed out was that their insistence on making high school hijinks into the center point of the opposition means that nobody was talking ab

        • Yep, the guy was a fratboy arsehole -- this crap continued through college and probably later. But the real stinker about his entitled arse were his policies and ideals. Anti-choice, against separation of church and state, against enforcing Amendments 4, 5, and 6 properly. Hope the stress of his confirmation hearings has started him on the path to severe alcoholism...
  • Why "of it's type"? Surely it is the largest and most expensive weapons program anywhere.

    • Re:Why the qualifier? (Score:5, Informative)

      by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Saturday October 13, 2018 @11:55AM (#57472000)
      You mean the largest and most expensive welfare program for defense-contractor parasites. FTFY. :D It's a reverse Robin Hood -- stealing from the average working American and giving to Lockheed-Martin stockholders.

  • Compared to previous fighter jet safety (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JeffOwl ( 2858633 ) on Saturday October 13, 2018 @12:00PM (#57472010)
    This jet is doing quite well. Over 320 units total among three different variants as of September, and they passed 100,000 combined flight hours a year ago so I don't know what they are up to now but I'm sure it is quite a lot. The fact that it has been this long before a crash is unprecedented in the development of fighter aircraft. Not to mention no, zip, zero deaths (knock on wood) by this point is unheard of. By the time F-16 had this many aircraft there had been a number of deaths, I think at least half a dozen, but I'd have to go back and check the timing vs. production numbers to be sure. F-18 Hornet had 3 deaths in 83-84 just after introduction which climbed to 6 by the end of 1986 (the year if first saw action). F-22 which has had a few deaths is only half the total number of aircraft.

    • Re:Compared to previous fighter jet safety (Score:5, Insightful)

      by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Saturday October 13, 2018 @12:04PM (#57472024)

      At a billion dollars per unit, it had better be good :)

      Also, even if it did avoid a few deaths (say 10), $32 billion per life saved is awfully high. Put the money into something like biomedical research or infrastructure improvement, and you could save more lives for less money.

      And no, military lives aren't worth more than the lives of anyone else in the US.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ksevio ( 865461 )
        The summary says they're only $130m per unit now. Guess they've made a lot more or Trump negotiated us a discount by asking to not include guns or something

    • Given that the comparisons you’re drawing are all decades old... the lack of pilot deaths with a newer plane could very well be due to stricter limits on the pilots’ flight time versus down time.

      • That is an interesting thought, but given that many of the mishaps were not attributed to pilot actions, I don't think that would be the whole answer.

    • Safety irrelevant if it can't perform (Score:5, Interesting)

      by link-error ( 143838 ) on Saturday October 13, 2018 @05:08PM (#57473014)

      http://theconversation.com/wha... [theconversation.com]

      Total and complete waste of money, but most on here probably already know this.

      'Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “a marketing and publicity gimmick” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.'

      'Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “inherently a terrible airplane” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21, a 1950s Soviet fighter design'

      'Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. It’s that bad."'

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by epine ( 68316 )

        He has said the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21, a 1950s Soviet fighter design.

        I ridicule the F-35 procurement boondoggle all the time. But close-in combat is probably number four on the list of design criteria.

        * stealth
        * operational readiness
        * long-range combat
        * close-in combat

        In order to get into a one-on-one situation, you have to first pass through three other criteria.

        * you can't shoot what you can't find or can't see
        * the Americans can keep a fair number in th

  • The U.S. has spent more than $320 billion to build their fleet of 2,400-plus F-35 jets...

    Will spend. Maybe. Fewer than 350 have been delivered to date. Current production is less than a hundred per year, predicted to reach a maximum of 160 per year by 2023. My own guess is that fewer than 1,600 will actually be built.

  • Boondoggle. That's what this "bird" is. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TigerPlish ( 174064 ) on Saturday October 13, 2018 @12:12PM (#57472062)

    What, no one remembers the F-111? Swing-wing, twin-engine, single-tail, was supposed to do everything for everyone, and it ended up being a mediocre low-level bomber and a quite capable electronics warfare platform, but it didn't do anything the sales brochure said it'd do.

    The navy rejected it.

    The Air Force grudgingly kept it.

    The F-35 is more of the same. Specialized missions require specialized aircraft, there is no jack-of-all-trades in fighters.

    Interceptor / fighter - F-15, F-22. Expensive, rather rare, yet still the most unfair fighters ever produced, full-stop.

    Low-cost fighter - F16. Cheap to buy, cheap to fly, but rather limited in what it can haul. But it does 95% of the jobs out there for fighters.

    Close Air Support - A-10. This one needs no writeup. You know it, or you don't. If you know it, you love it.

    Marines support - Harrier. Always a rube goldberg, the marines still love it because they can take it and base it pretty much anywhere.

    And this last trio is what the F-35 tried to replace -- it was supposed to be the cheap fighter, and the CAS airplane, and the vertical-takeoff bird, and it can't do any of those things well. The Air Force, supposedly, privately, wants the A-10 fixed up for the next few decades because they already know the 35 is a loss.

    My tax dollars at work. Fuck them. Build more F16s and come up with a new CAS airpane, a bespoke one like the A-10 was.

    • The Harriers are falling apart and becoming too dangerous to fly. The reason the F35B has become operational first, to replace those things.

    • Here we go again! I love the A-10, but it sucks at close air support in modern conflicts. It is highly vulnerable compared to the F-16. Close air support is not done looking out the window, it is done by dropping precision ordinance from above the range of MANPADs.

      Marines like the A-10 because they don't have anything else armored with a big cannon, and they're not convinced they won't ever have to face concealed armor anymore. In actual conflicts where the A-10 is used, the F-16 is the primary platform for

      • Marines like the A-10 because they don't have anything else armored with a big cannon, and they're not convinced they won't ever have to face concealed armor anymore. In actual conflicts where the A-10 is used, the F-16 is the primary platform for close air support.

        First of all, the Marines don't have the A-10, only the Air Force does.

        Second of all, the A-10 was born as can opener, and it excels at that.

        Third of all, yes, the F-16 is a wonderful pinpoint bombtruck. And if you didn't notice, the F-35 is supposed to replace it too.

        Neckbeards who played too many of the wrong video game become incapable of listening.

        When logic fails, ad hominem?

        The whole point of the discussion is that the F-35 is a failure even before being put into service. It is trying to do too many roles.

        Maybe it'll mature into a nice airplane. Maybe it'll be forever a dog, to be q

  • According to Air Force Times: https://www.airforcetimes.com/... [airforcetimes.com]

  • any post about grounding the F35... (Score:3)

    by mschaffer ( 97223 ) on Saturday October 13, 2018 @12:48PM (#57472206)

    Any post about grounding the F35 should end with "again". For example: "The US Grounds All F-35 Jets Again".

  • ...Mars sounds peaceful and lacking in corruption... until we humans arrive... but we won't be there long as Mars is about as fertile and life-friendly as the moon.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close