In Its First Night Flight, the F-35 Soars at Sundown

Imagine the freedom of flying this thing. The agility

A 5 billion dollar plane that does not work and is becoming obsolete by drones. Pathetic. But americans love it because it looks cool in video games. A pathetic nation run by pathetic religious fanatics that are hypocrites because they like to kill people.

-

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

- Stephen Roberts

@boka

Because a manned aircraft can't get tricked into landing at an Iranian runway like a drone can.

How are drones making manned aircraft obsolete? Versus any modern air defense, a Predator would be chewed up and spit out.

How would a drone even fair against an air-to-air threat?

You have no idea what you're talking about, so please just be quiet.

i like Stephen Roberts quote, but your trolling is quite pathetic, they don't cost 5 billion, negative cheers

i agree with boka. we spend billions on stuff we barely need. we come have given that money to starving squirrels

"religion is like a prison for the seekers of wisdom"

-Killah Priest

"...The Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.15 million...", Source Wikipedia.
Lots of other cool information about the plane is there too.

I think this an awesome plane! It is very cool indeed!

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

"The current schedule has the delivery of basic combat capability aircraft in late 2015, followed by full capability block three software in late 2016.[71] The $56.4 billion development project for the aircraft should be completed in 2018 when the block five configuration is expected to be delivered, several years late and considerably over budget."

Same source.

-

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

- Stephen Roberts

Boka learns to read a little, YEA!

Now can he be taught?

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

hey boka, if we dont get all these planes, what are we supposed to do when other countries look and see that we have no air force and try to invade us? and no, we dont like them just because they look cool, but also because your a$$ is grass and its the lawn mower.

-Knock knock
-Who's there?
-The Doctor.
-Doctor Who?
-Yes

Almost every major acquisition has been over budget or behind schedule at some point. With F-35 you have three major acquisitions occurring simultaneously, unfortunately coinciding with a major budget crisis/economic downturn.

Whatever your political position is, the military's planes are all old as dirt and need to be replaced. Like rpenri said, today's drones can't stand up to a modern air defense. And as cheap as they are (relatively speaking), they're not disposable...

That first picture, god what gorgeous colors!

Provided we don't all die in a radioactive crater I am willing to bet the next one they come up with has orbital capability.

Si vis pacem, para bellum
"If you wish for peace, prepare for war"

~from "Epitoma Rei Militaris," by Vegetius

Although sad, it is the truth; in order to protect and keep what you have, no matter what country you have to kit up and be ready for the evenuality of conflict; it's just our nature for good bad or indifferant. Yes we could spend money to help the (insert cause here) but without protection and a show of strength anyone will fall to a body politic far worse. (unless it's already fallen and worse, then it's mute)

boka is ignorant. the plane costs 200 million not 5 billion. i think he has been playing to many video games and is a little out of touch with reality. surely a man intelligent as he is understands that you have to establish air superiority to be able to fly drones. otherwise drones would be shot down at will. air superiority is achieved by having the best air to air fighters with the best pilots.

Imagine a world were there was no superpower to come to your rescue when your country's neighbor decided they want what you got.

I just recently got out of the navy after working 6 years on the flight deck and without getting into a ton of detail....The Navy is going to need these new planes in the next ten years. The navy and marines hornets are on their way out the door in the next ten years. That leaves them with just the Super hornets pulling jamming duty, air missions and ground missions. We WILL need a new fighter to stay dominate from our carriers over the next decade. You have no idea how many man hours are lost keeping our current planes flying and the stress it puts on our strike groups..it's a TON

@MillerTime19

Thank you for your service and welcome home.

Boka just doesn't understand the dynamics of our armed forces. I'm not in the navy, air force, marines, army, or any other service group. but i can speak to tactical planning and missions. Aircraft play a big role. Plus, when other countries manufacture better planess, what are we supposed to do?

Wait, and I'm American. I do not go to church on Sundays and I have never killed anyone in my life. I do not advocate war, and do not agree with all of the military choices we've made, but to say that we're the only ones that get involved in wars? That's a stretch. It isn't only American occupation.

I'm pretty sure that in theory if not in practice already, drones could out perform manned fighter jets. You can pull off manoeuvres requiring a lot more G-force when you don't have a frail meat bag sitting in the middle of the plane.

Besides, who needs planes to be dominant on a battlefield. I've played command and conquer games and a good old fashioned mammoth tank rush sorts 'em out no problem.

very nice plane but i wonder what the military has in the hangers that it wont show....

whats a military without aircraft fighters? drones are nice when theyre secure and functioning properly.

@millertime

1.) Thanks for your service.
2.) I have seen a few videos showing carrier testing of the F35C (naval/carrier variant). This plane DID NOT EVEN need the catapults! Imagine what could be done with the space being freed up?

As for the article, being a junior in high school and hoping for AFROTC in college, I would LOVE to be around this plane. I also wish to be a pilot, and although I want to fly bombers (especially B-52s), I would not at all mind flying this thing.

On a side note, please NOBODY (especially boka) try to claim that the B-52 is dead. It's not. It will be in service until around 2040. I am sure some future B-52 pilots have not even been born yet.

"Those of you who find your life will lose it, but those of you who lose your life for my sake will find it."
-Jesus-->Matthew 10:39

Popular Science is probably a relevant area for this discussion.

What is the value of defense spending versus other types of federal spending? How much money should a country spend on their defense? Do we, as Americans, need to worry about invading armies? Just how much should be spent on "Perceived Threats"?

For our discussion (if you care to follow it); please refer to our Federal Budget for last year:

www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/

Notice that about 1/6 to 1/8 of the total federal budget is spent on Defense spending. Now let's look at a comparison of country-by-country defense spending:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

We spend so much money on defense. We own 11 nuclear aircraft carriers (with the new Gerald Ford class to join the fleet soon). We have drones and robots. Tanks galore. F-22's, F-35's, even though most planes throughout the world are still outclassed by the F-15. We have vast desert graveyards that contain miles upon miles of abandoned and obsolete aircraft. We have shipyards around the country filled with perfectly fine, oil-burning Forrestal/Kitty Hawk class carriers. Even if we scrapped all of the military procurements from the past 15 years, the United States probably has enough obsoleted and stored military equipment to conquer the world twice over! Let's not forget that we still have about 10,500 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons stored as well.

How much is enough?

Dwight Eisenhower was a great military commander. One of the few five-star generals that ever existed. He was also known as the Supreme Allied Commander. Later he became President of the United States. When his term as President was up, he cautioned his fellow Americans about the threat from our Military/Industrial complex. He wrote:

"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration."

Perhaps it's time we recognize that we don't need to be the most dominant force on this planet. For a people who claim to love peace and freedom as much as we do, we sure invest a whole lot of time, effort, and money in figuring out ways to kill anyone we don't like.

Some thoughts to consider.

...and I actually have a comment for Sotachii. Sotachii states, "...but to say that we're the only ones that get involved in wars? That's a stretch. It isn't only American occupation."

Consider these numbers: Among the top 20 military budgets across the entire world (total expenditure between these 20 countries = 1.36 trillion dollars), the United States has the largest budget at 687.1 billion dollars. The number two country by military expenditure is China at 114.3 billion (about 17% of our budget). Between our two budgets (total of 801.4 billion), the United States is carrying 85.7% of the competition.

When we start to compare the top 20 countries (1.36 trillion), the United States is carrying 50.5% of that total expenditure. Let's look at the top 5 military spending countries in the world:

USA = 687.1 billion
China = 114.3 billion
France = 61.3 billion
UK = 57.4 billion
Russia = 52.6 billion
Total = 972.7 billion
USA Share of top 5 spending countries = 70.6%

Someone please tell me why we're outspending every country by this excessive amount? It's not a competition at this point. We're not competing against the Soviets in a cold war scenario anymore. We're not in a World War where our entire economy needs to be on this heavy of a war footing.

Matter of fact. Leading up to World War Two, the United States spent about 1.25% of our GDP on our military budget. This was pretty low; however, when confronted with War, our industrial capabilities and American know-how were able to convert our economy to a war footing very rapidly. (Remember, we were attacked on 12/7/1941 and by August 1945 we were parked in Tokyo Bay accepted the surrender of the Japanese government).

Today, we spend about 5% of our GDP on our military budget. Why? Who is the enemy we've locked horns with? What's the point of a country that claims to love peace and freedom while it arms itself to the teeth? Is there really a credible threat out there that can strip us of our freedom? Think about the size of our country. An invading army here would have the same problem the French and Germans had when they attempted to invade Russia... We're just too big with vast distances separating our east and west coast. Why do we need this much weaponry (other than the fact that this stuff is "cool as hell" to have)?

This is just very strange and weird to me.

And... No. I do love the United States. I did serve in the US Navy aboard the USS Ranger and the USS Kitty Hawk as Soviet Bears flew over our heads as they were escorted away from us by our F-14's. I'm a veteran, I lived through the Cold War, and I understand the need to have a strong military. What I don't understand is why we need to have a Military large enough to take on the next 19 countries in the top 20 list of military budgets simultaneously.

So to Sotachii... It is a valid argument to say the United States wanders around bristling for a fight, wishing and hoping to use all the hardware and equipment we've spent so much money on. I'd almost say I'd prefer that we just become the big bullies on the block, because if we don't, this is just wasted money.

Think about this... We spent Trillions upon Trillions of dollars building nuclear weapons over the past 70 years. There has been absolutely no return on these expenditures. Sure, you could say that the cost of detente and M.A.D. ensured we were never attacked; however, 100 well aimed nuclear weapons would achieved our policy. How many nuclear weapons did we posses at our peak of production? 32,193 warheads in 1966.

32,193? Who determined that number? What was the point of so many?

Eisenhower was right to caution us. He would have known best as he saw the development and ascension of the Military-Industrial complex through the 1940's and 1950's. This is a self-serving trap our government is entangled with that is just based upon greed and avarice. It enriches the few while bankrupting our country for no apparent good reason.

This is good. The Air Force definitally needs more fighters. UAV's are pointless without them. Nothing beats an experienced pilot in an advanced aircraft.

Everybody seems to think that the F-35 is a good fighter aircraft, but it is mainly intended for air-to-ground operations. The true King of the Air is the F-22 Raptor. Without the F-22's support, the F-35 wouldn't stand a chance against the improving air forces of the major powers.

@ Anjisan63: Someone has to stop or at least slow yer roll, so I figgered I'm here now, so give 'er a shot. Ok. This statement from a guy that served 20 years plus as Communications Officer on Air Force One. "Yeah, the plane has a lot of capability that no one ever sees, but neither that plane or ANY of the rest of them are American air superiority. I AM." Our drones are in fact not drones. If you count ALL the cost associated with the massive computers, satellites, training, and all the rest; you will in fact see a much more sobering cost total than if you look only at the strict production cost of a RC plane sitting on a parking lot. Then on to President Eisenhower. While we graciously posthumously award him with the honorific 5 Star General status, in truth, there were many things militarily that he was not skilled at. He was a fantastic military administrator and career soldier which allowed him to advance to ONE star. His ability to influence people in peace came directly from the same PERCEPTION that allowed him to attain his star. You may see some important distinction in that he attained the presidency, but IN FACT, he never advanced, skills wise, much beyond the attainment of flag rank. Were his concerns at the end of his days valid? Of course; they are still. But the most capable of us show pathways to success. He only spoke of the things that were staring him in the face on his desk. He told us NOTHING that was unknown; only putting a face on those fears that no one could ignore.