Why is U.S. spending so much on F-35 fighter?

It is because of the graft problem endemic between politicians and defense contractors. If you are willing to kick back enough money to your local congressmen and senators (in the form of jobs for their friends, PAC money, and campaign contributions) you will get an open-ended contract which allows for nearly endless delays and cost increases. The longer the delays, the more money both the contractor and his government prostitutes get.

History repeats. Lockheed is a name many Japanese associate with corruption and a mid-1970s scandal.

How is the F-35 fighter jet going to protect us against the imminent threat of climate change caused by global warming?

Because even though the GOP will swear against them in general... The F-35 is a Government jobs program pure and simple. Remember that the U.S. Army said "We have enough tanks. We DO NOT need any more." Yet when the program came up to get cut, the political leaders swore up and down that people in their State needed the jobs.

Yet, when President Obama tries to get a Government jobs program going, he's called "Socialist" left, right, and center.

Drones. Drones are the air force of the future. They've proven that they're cheap (by comparison with a single fighter jet you can have a dozen drones), reliable (they can stay in the sky for days at a time), and there are no friendly casualties since you guys are all sitting in a bunker tens of thousands of miles away. And they're faster... no, wait, bear with me here. Which is faster at reaching point A, the supersonic jet launched from a carrier hundreds of miles away, or the drone that has been maintaining position over point A for the last 12 hours?

They're also more environmentally friendly (an odd argument for a weapon of war, but hey, it is a consideration), and can legitimately be tasked with additional duties such as studying wildlife, policing, etc. All an F-35 can do is fly somewhere really fast and blow something up.

Why doesn't the U.S. government just hand out t-shirts to the entire senate saying, "Corrupt".

@ Frungy Yes you are Partially right drones are the future but drones IF you Know much About them then you wouldnt give them so much credit. I know from first hand experience that all i can say here but in a "Dog Fight" drones are a sitting duck they can not do much except take out programmed target and flight certain coordinated and return to base if they were to encounter a manned aircraft they dont have a chance. We are not there yet but getting there thats all i can say!

kaimycahlFeb. 23, 2014 - 02:49PM JST @ Frungy Yes you are Partially right drones are the future but drones IF you Know much About them then you wouldnt give them so much credit. I know from first hand experience that all i can say here but in a "Dog Fight" drones are a sitting duck they can not do much except take out programmed target and flight certain coordinated and return to base if they were to encounter a manned aircraft they dont have a chance. We are not there yet but getting there thats all i can say!

They don't have to stand a chance, all they have to do is lock on missiles and fire, and then suicide run into the flight path of the fighter... a tactic that isn't available to a manned fighter plane, and a tactic that is AMAZINGLY successful when the fighter is going at supersonic speeds and evading would mean enough G's to knock out or even seriously injure the pilot. Also drones cost so little (compared to a regular fighter) that the term "swarming" is relevant. A single pigeon can take out a fighter through pure bad luck. A swarm of targeted drones could make mince-meat of a fighter. Even if they couldn't get close the fighter simple isn't armed to take out multiple small targets, its armaments are all geared towards a small number of large targets. The simple fact is that fighters are last century's technology and completely outdated.

Before going on a GOP vs Democrat rant, remember that almost every government contactor employs union workers, especially the aerospace sector, and that these union members do not vote for the GOP. Once again, among politicians, party affiliation is matter of convenience, not ideology. Republican or democrat, a politician's first constituents are those who cough up the cash; the rest are simply lied to, and played against each other. "How wondeful for leaders that men are stupid" said Adolph Hitler. Apparently things haven't changed much since his time. How much do you want to bet that at least 90% of those up for reelection later this year end up getting reelected? Everyone bitches about how bad things are, but they allow them to continue.

So the Chinese will also have to spend more to copy it

sangetsu03Feb. 23, 2014 - 06:37PM JST ... a politician's first constituents are those who cough up the cash; the rest are simply lied to, and played against each other. "How wondeful for leaders that men are stupid" said Adolph Hitler. Apparently things haven't changed much since his time. How much do you want to bet that at least 90% of those up for reelection later this year end up getting reelected? Everyone bitches about how bad things are, but they allow them to continue.

Sadly this is so painfully true.

Micheal Rhian DriscollFeb. 23, 2014 - 07:51PM JST So the Chinese will also have to spend more to copy it

Nope. One corrupt/negligent worker at the defense contractors, the cost of one DVD to copy the software, then about a dollar to photocopy the blueprints, and that's the sum total of their expenses. Assuming that some disgruntled engineer who's been fired doesn't just upload the entire thing to the internet in a fit of pique. Worst case they just wait until it rolls onto the runway then pay some poor kid from a lower class neighborhood more money than he's every seen to enlist in the airforce and give him a camera to take pictures of everything while he's busy mopping floors.

They don't have to stand a chance, all they have to do is lock on missiles and fire, and then suicide run into the flight path of the fighter... a tactic that isn't available to a manned fighter plane, and a tactic that is AMAZINGLY successful when the fighter is going at supersonic speeds and evading would mean enough G's to knock out or even seriously injure the pilot. Also drones cost so little (compared to a regular fighter) that the term "swarming" is relevant. A single pigeon can take out a fighter through pure bad luck. A swarm of targeted drones could make mince-meat of a fighter. Even if they couldn't get close the fighter simple isn't armed to take out multiple small targets, its armaments are all geared towards a small number of large targets. The simple fact is that fighters are last century's technology and completely outdated.

LMFAO. Come on back to reality Frungy. We miss you here...

@USNinJapan2

I am LMFAO with you at The Frungy post this guy is dreaming and reading too many scientific manga magazines. What I posted I know deal these this technology everyday I cant say much more but if he thinks a school of drones can take out a fighter plane he might as well think that same pigeon he is talking about can take out a hawk. LMFAO he has no idea how a drone operated.

@Frungy if you would like to know do your research and if you read it I probably wrote it.

The main cause of the delay was a decision to start building the plane before testing was finished. As a result, bugs and other technical glitches keep forcing repairs and redesign work, slowing down production.

Rushed to 'market'.

This is why the U.S (and programme partners) is spending so much on the F35.

Boeing and its Dreamliner is a similar situation.

Kaimycahl and USNinJapan2 - And what precisely is a missile except a short-range drone (UAV)? You're so short-sighted that you can't see that there are ALREADY anti-aircraft drones.

Israel used UAVs alongside manned aircraft back in 1982.. that's more than 30 years ago. This isn't science fiction, it is science fact.

This technology not only exists, but it has already been battlefield tested and found to be highly effective. Or perhaps your expertise in this field only extends so far as scoffing at those who know better.

why dont they run an android in F-35?

The F-35 program is the epitome of how our military has lost track of its mission and vision. The Marines have put all their funding into this vice its bread and butter, amphibious warfare. The F-35 has taken money away from its EFV, what it really needs to replace the ancient AAV-7. This is coming from a former F-14 pilot and former SFTI (aka TOPGUN) instructor. F-35's will maintain our already superior air superiority, but it wont counter the ease of which our enemies can neutralize and mitigate this as a poster already stated. Our enemies (future and current) already know the easiest way to make us use air power inefficiently is to use drones, the fighter variety. Just like we currently use F-4 drones (QF-4s) from our old phantom jets, our enemies can use the same cheap, simple tech to outfit old MiG-17's as drones. Put a missile on it and we have NO CHOICE but to take it out no matter what the armament. As long as our radar shows a threat, our doctrine is to take it out. Our jets carry finite A/A missiles, bottom line is that we have fewer missiles then the enemy has drones. And then we have to deal with 5th generation fighters with humans in them. A very scary future!

@Frungy

Frungy to earth LMFAO you know nothing just keep reading the science fiction manga in the 7-11s battle tested my arse I'm there every day so don't tell me! Yes I agree i am short sighted from believing the things you posted but you can keep dreaming and stay far sighted! If you told any fighter pilot that an army of drones can take them out they will ask you for some of the stuff you are on. A missile and a drone is totally different i wont go into the science of the difference because you wouldn't understand. Saying that a missile and a drone are like in comparison is like saying a donkey and a monkey is the same LMAO a drone does not take out targetsthemselves they are designed to do surveillance gathering data or in some cases shoot missiles and take out targets. I have never heard of a drone being sent to hit a target. LMFAO stay out of the manga Frungy!

@ Frungy LMAO that was quite a speech coming from the supervisor of the mop and broom department i see you got a promotion sir! Keep up the good work maybe one day I can top that and become manager of the broom and mop department until then keep writing the book on how to shine floors if not i might not get the proper training from the mop and broom superiors above me! Get a real job! Can on fodder! LMFAOL

And what precisely is a missile except a short-range drone (UAV)? You're so short-sighted that you can't see that there are ALREADY anti-aircraft drones

The main difference between a UAV and a missile is the issue of re-use. UAVs are unmanned aircraft that are capable of re-use. The missiles are considered expendable.

slumdogFEB. 24, 2014 - 04:14PM JST

The main difference between a UAV and a missile is the issue of re-use. UAVs are unmanned aircraft that are capable of re-use. The missiles are considered expendable.

Actually that is the difference between a drone and a missile. Both are UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). A missile is therefore a drone that is programmed to crash into its target and explode. Of course some here would deny the existence of drones programmed to crash into planes as "science fiction".

Stupid UK Government also threw themselves into the F35 programme, having got rid of all the Harriers. It means we will have a brand new aircraft carrier without the aircraft for quite a while. F35 is behind schedule, over priced and ugly as sin. The RAF and RN should have kept the Harriers until the F35 was at least in production.

Why is U.S. spending so much on F-35 fighter?

Because someone makes A LOT OF MONEY from it!

The term UAV covers both drones and missiles. Both are unmanned and both are aerial vehicles. As for "guide missile" that term is tautological, an unguided missile is a rocket.

Fundamentally however we are arguing semantics. Did the kamikaze aircraft cease to be aircraft and instead become missiles because the intention was not to reuse them, but rather to crash them?

Did the kamikaze aircraft cease to be aircraft and instead become missiles because the intention was not to reuse them, but rather to crash them?

Actually, that is a great question to which I would answer, 'Yes'. The intention was to use the aircraft as a missile, so it was essentially a piloted missile or projectile. It is in the use that the definitions and names change.

UAVs and drone are aircraft and weapons such as the Tomohawk are missiles based on whether they will be reused or not.

By the time F-35 ironed out all the bugs, UAV will be mature enough for mass deployment and replacing regular fighter jets. Without the added weight of pilot on board, you can add another hundred pounds or more ammunition, not to mention an UAV can pull crazy maneuver that could easy knock any well trained pilot unconscious.

The F-35 should be abandoned and military use of drones should be made illegal across the board as they are as cowardly and despicable as mines, poison gas and agent orange.

HonestBloke,

The F-35 should be abandoned and military use of drones should be made illegal across the board as they are as cowardly and despicable as mines, poison gas and agent orange.

You got that right!

12 dead and 15 wounded by a drone at a wedding party in December!

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_into_a_funeral

HonestBlokeFeb. 24, 2014 - 11:29PM JST The F-35 should be abandoned and military use of drones should be made illegal across the board as they are as cowardly and despicable as mines, poison gas and agent orange.

Isn't the problem more basic than that? Isn't the problem armies? Japan has got by with just an SDF, despite being surrounded by nations that would just love to rip its throat out, for more than 6 decades. I think that armies generally should be outlawed. No nation should make war on another, a massive mutual non-aggression pact, and a massive mutual self-defense pact. Any nation that attacks any other instantly gets its ass kicked by every other nation.

... of course the fly in this ointment is that it would put a real crimp in the U.S. economy if they had nowhere to use all those missiles, fighter planes, tanks, etc. that they keep manufacturing, and they'd be unable to sell the aforementioned to other countries if war was no longer possibility. So the U.S. would never sign off on it, and no-one else would sign off on it if it meant the U.S. economy tanking and dragging their economy down with it... but the real stupidity is that instead of getting out of the war game the U.S. keeps trying to build more and more and raises tensions (case in point, the U.S. stoking tensions between Japan and China) so it can sell more weapons.

It is idiocy that will end in another world war and the U.S. is already positioning itself so it can claim it didn't fire the first shot, and that it was the victim, but anyone with half a brain can see that this is the only logical outcome of the U.S.'s current foreign policy. And what's so stupid about this thing? Everyone can see it coming, but no-one wants to talk about it and no-one is raising a hand to stop it. It is like the Lehmann thing all over again, no-one wants to point out the Emperor is butt naked.

The U.S. has already developed a more efficient and cost-effective way to take down drones, and it involves a laser weapon. There is a plans to upgrade to 100 kilowatts in future to combat oncoming missles. The more powerful the laser, the quicker it erases incoming threats. Navy will benefit substantially with more defense and offensive capability. The lasers is much cheaper than conventional weapons. If the military has more of them, it can use fewer missiles and mortars. Lasers can reduce costs by removing logistical problems. If there is no need for trucks to deliver mortars to different bases, then those vehicles would no longer have a reason to burn costly fuel by driving around to keep soldiers well-supplied. Once a laser is stationed somewhere, it doesn't need more ammunition. High power laser weapon is what Japan needs to shoot down the on coming multiple missles at a fraction of the cost.

Why is U.S. spending so much on F-35 fighter?

Because they'll be damned if they spend it on education or healthcare?

I think that armies generally should be outlawed. No nation should make war on another, a massive mutual non-aggression pact, and a massive mutual self-defense pact. Any nation that attacks any other instantly gets its ass kicked by every other nation.

How would every other nation be able to 'kick the offending nation' in the ass if the other nations did not have armies?

Complete trade embargo for a few weeks to a few months

Can't have an embargo without an army.

until you get to the point where several dozen countries mobilise their SDFs

Those are armies.

They don't need to do anything else, just defend.

Can't do that without an army.

You were mistaken about the other stuff we discussed as well (as people can see if they click on my posting history).

In addition, above you have successfully explained why countries such as the US are spending so much on equipment such as the F-35 fighter.

weapon weapon, hunger hunger, smoke smoke, war war... we are not the inhabitants but the enemies of the planet