He actually said that his experience in the F-22, which is basically the fastest fighter in the world when loaded for combat, taught him that fifth-generation fighters make that rule obsolete.  To say that speed is the least impressive feature of the world's fastest fighter is an incredible statement.

Large, expensive platforms like aircraft carriers will always be vulnerable to coordinated massive strikes from cheap armaments.  What does a 1980's surplus Exocet missile cost, $100,000?  Think of how many of those you could launch before you reached cost parity with an aircraft carrier.

Sukhoi has said similar. They now try to compete via cost effective fighters. And given the range of the Su-30 and its payload capacity, it is a good price. Avionics may not be the best, but for the price they do seem to offer a lot.

"and it is really fast"  
LOL  
'I wish this plane was faster' ... said no one.

I think the chinese version of the F35 will be spectacular.  I mean, not being designed around a VOTL system simply so the marines can have some nostalgia is a huge leap forward.  Hell theirs might be able to carry 5 or 6 bombs while still being stealth.

I hope this is all true.

SukhoiSukhoi

And the latest Sukhoi will die like the rest in front of the JSF. Bargain Strike Fighters are really not bargains.

At least not for First World Super Powers who like to win at Shock and Awe. +P  on the AWE part.

The problem with his beliefs about Russian scientists during the Cold War is that they were mainly relegated to reverse-engineering of US and other Western technology as a strategy to avoid all the RDT&E we spent.  One of the main frustrations of Russian aerospace and military technology scientists was not being able to pursue their own designs.  The bureaucracy of the Soviet Union exacerbated this problem hopelessly, while the MIC in the US steamed ahead like gangbusters.  We cranked out world-class quality and quantity, with regular and realistic training, seeded with regular deployments and conflicts far away from our own shores.  Our logistics remained well-oiled after WWII, in contrast to the post-Great War period.

I agree with your comments on asymmetric warfare.  Any nation that has it in their head that they would go toe-to-toe with the US is simply smoking crack.  If WWII wasn't convincing enough, Gulf War I sealed the deal for the remaining doubters, and Soviet tech was on display as dismally unsuited to even be in the same battlefield and airspace with US Forces.  That was true from tank "battles", to the air.  US armored units literally rolled through Soviet-style front lines, to include reverse-slope defenses, then into their rear reserves and assembly areas, and ventilated T72's and BMP's like an unrealistic video game.  The air dominance is barely worth mentioning, with the MIG-29 and every other Soviet system defeated by highly-trained, well-equipped pilots of the USAF and USN.

There isn't really a good way to compare the US to Germany, especially due to geography and population.  We took their air-land battle concept, and made it central to our doctrine for war-fighting after WWII.  It was very relevant, but not for Germany with an inexperienced Corporal from the artillery running the show against world powers on his Northwest and Eastern fronts.

The statements about the F-22 vs. 20 cheap fighters I'll address this way:  What nations are producing cheap fighters right now, and for what markets?

The US is the biggest, and our idea of a "cheap" fighter is in fact a 4th Generation multi-role tactical combat aircraft known as the F-1C/D Block 70, with AMRAAM, JDAM, SNIPER, conformal tanks, upgraded IFF, world-class radar, training, and logistics packages that rival any other foreign military sales.

The next is China, making their evolution of the F-20 for Pakistan.

China is buying Slav "4th Gen" Su-35's from Russia, while furiously trying to make 4th and 5th Gen fighters with stolen US tech and an aerospace industry after getting that tech from the Clinton Administration and Lockheed, and suffering several setbacks so that they had to go back to the Russians to buy more Su-27's and Su-35's after failing to reverse-engineer them correctly.  As of 2015, their own Shenghai Aircraft Company has rolled out a new J-11D variant with a new AESA radar configuration, but they are still decades behind the US in every aspect, although trying to catch up still.

Iran has made silly F-5's with diagonal vertical stabs and claiming them to be the best fighter in the world.  I almost feel sorry for them.

Even if China had a few squadrons of the latest unproven in combat J-11D's, with an 85% operational capability (that's unrealistic but just for pointers), they would not be capable of dealing with an existing US force comprised of F-22's and our Gen 4 aircraft working together, and that's without any F-35's present.
Te fact that we have regular joint forces training since no later than the 1970's, regular live fire exercises across the military, and regular real world deployments in sea, air, land, and space decades before China does not stack the deck in China's favor at all.

Aside from that, we wouldn't even need to engage them on that front, with their trade imbalance the way it is.  A simple tariff on Chinese goods, with a reduced tariff on South Korean Japanese, Taiwanese, and Filipino products would crush China-which is not a good thing for the global economy, but an option if they were to get stupid like it looks to be in the Spratley Islands.

The Imperial Japanese Navy of the 1930's was a more formidable force in comparison, and we stomped a mudhole in it rapidly until it was almost gone.  China faces challenges greater than this just looking at her interior, which is why they are scrambling to lay claim to every place possible in their periphery for the energy exploitation, and to keep the public focused outwards from the internal dichotomy of extreme poverty vs. developing global economy on the coast.  

And hes funny to boot. Great vid, thanks for posting it.

Woops

I've been looking at the VTOL aspect of the JSF in the short term as a major stumbling block for the program, but....

In the back of my mind, I'm asking, "What happens when you let a MAGTF respond to a theater that normally would require months of USAF staging into land-based locations before combat operations can commence?

The big question here is, what happens when a 5th Gen Fighter, which also has VTOL capability, can respond to contingencies and also act as part of an air armada for a Joint Forces Campaign.

You're looking at an aircraft that possesses the deployability of a Harrier, awareness of more than an AWACS and F-22 combined, that can fly faster than an F-15E with combat load at altitude, and doesn't suffer from stores CAT limitations with that combat load for maneuverability, speed, and endurance.  Once initial dominance and SEAD is accomplished, you can now transition to FAC and CAS with a lot of loiter time with the F-35's internal fuel capacity, with information integration and communication providing the most effective component of CAS over actual munitions on target.  With sensor fusion and ground forces IFF, the F-35 can control organic fire support and indirect assets already on the ground to eliminate ground threats to troops in contact, without every needing to fire a round or drop a bomb, and the munitions can be much smaller due to PGM, so that ground forces have more combat endurance.

Add a USMC pilot to that equation, then multiply x a few dozen, with the proactive capability of an LHA/LHD, and we have a seriously game-changing type of task force that has not been known in history.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how this advances the real issue facing our military today. SHARP training.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

The F-15, F-16 and F-18, carrying a loadout, are subsonic planes that can dash supersonic for a limited time and distance.  Cruise is probably below their critical Mach number, which is lower for those planes carrying a loadout than for their clean configuration.  Supersonic speed, with a loadout, is far below their clean maximum speed.

The F-35, is a subsonic plane, with a loadout, but I read it can cruise at 0.9 Mach at only 40% power.  So, at reasonable fuel burn rates the F-35 has faster cruise speed.  Then there is cruise somewhat above Mach 1.0, the other planes can't do that if they are carrying a loadout.  This supercruise can't be maintained for long or for very far, because of thermal loading, but it is available if needed.  Dash speed, on a "business trip" probably equals or perhaps exceeds that of the other planes.

Comments or corrections?

I thought supercruise could be used nearly indefinitely and is waaaayyyy more efficient that afterburning.

Concorde used it.

Pretty sure the VTOL concept was promised to be a game changer in Iraq and never materialized.  Its a concept that will likely not be needed anytime soon, if ever again.  Hell the harrier is a shitty as CAS fighter if you need it for more than 20 minutes.  It was requested to support beach assault landings which will never again be attempted in a contested environment.   We dont fight like Guadalcanal any more, the range of both our and their weapons systems makes it foolish. The VTOL system is a waste of time with jets. Its unnecessary and the compromises necessary to make it happen are what inevitably make the jet less useful than the alternative aircrafts.  Sure, they are cramming every single electronic system they can into the F35, but at the end of the day, it still cant turn, shoot, or run and carrys 4 bombs in the most optimistic of environments.   As the guy on the ground, no thanks

I dislike it simply because of the stupid price tag on the thing.


NO matter HOW great it is, if we can only afford to buy 40 of them its pointless.

 
Well, first they have to build that capacity.  China has about 629 4th Gen or better fighters right now.  We have 1675 in the Air Force alone, of which 233 are F22/F35.  All numbers per wiki.  We don't have to worry about being overwhelmed just yet.    


 

Edited: Russia has about 830.  We overmatch Russia and China combined right now in numbers, and have better quality to boot.

If I were a russian military expert, I'd want America to pour money down the lockmart hole, too.

Know how I can tell you've completely ignored everything in this thread?

It really isn't all that much more expensive than what new production 4th Generation fighters are going for. The F-15 and F-16 aren't still available for $30 million and $20 million respectively, as they were in the 1980s. Today, nations that are ordering new build Strike Eagles and Vipers are having to shell out about $100 million per copy. The F-35 looks so expensive right now because it is in LRIP. Once production ramps up, the cost per copy will gradually decrease until it is about in line with what the 4+ Generation fighters are selling for. Considering the vast leap in capability the F-35 offers, it will actually be quite a bargain. But sure, if you compare the cost of an F-35 in 2015 to the cost of an F-16 in the 1980s, you're probably going to think it is overpriced. Go compare the sticker price of a new high performance car such as the Mustang and Camaro with their 1980s counterparts when they were new. The price of shit increases with time.

There's this myth out there that the US military doesn't do quantity. I'm not sure where it came from, but it's really really wrong. We have more soldiers, tanks, jets, warships, etc than most of our potential adversaries, and usually by a large margin.

Where do people get those kinds of ideas?

A Russian said it, we should definitely believe it

I think the F-35 will be a bad ass bird.

I just wish we'd focus more on upgrading our fucking ARTILLERY!

The only thing new (and they were basically COTS) the Army has bought in two decades is the Stryker and MRAP/MATV fleet.    You've bought a shitload of new (30 to 50 year old design) aircraft, upgraded lots of 1970s tech Abrams, canceled Crusader, Canceled commanche, canceled FCS.  I guess the Army has decided technology isn't for them, and that warmed over 1960s/70s/80s tech is as far as they ever want to go.

I don't know shit as a civilian.  But I find that very hard to believe.  The F4 didn't need a gun either.

Advantage has always gone to pilot with greatest KE.

Stealth can and will be compromised.

The Soviets couldn't shoot the SR71 down for one very good reason.

The most cardinal rule will still apply regardless of LM PR, physics and shit.

Ronald Reagan said it best when he said that freedom in the USA unlocked individual potential resulting in amazing technological achievements.  The Soviets were and the current Russian Federation are a top down culture and that's why they will always be behind the USA in terms of technology and innovation...well, we're certainly doing everything we can to transform US culture to a more Soviet style system so maybe at some point we'll suck as equally as they do.

who?
China?  

We are funding China's military.

Seawolf, Spirit, and Raptor are all examples of programs that resulted in a quantum leap in technology that already has been or will in the near future be applied to a more affordable follow on project for mass production.  Also, all three programs matured as the cold war ended, so it shouldn't be surprising that there were massive cuts in the planned production runs.  If China and other potential adversaries implode in the next few years, you can expect similar cuts in the F-35 and other programs, but short of that expect thousands of JSFs to be built.

We develop weapons.  We try them out.  We don't keep buying them when it's apparent they really aren't the thing we need in big quantity as the world changes.



But the advances are remembered.



 

I thought they were funding ours. Aren't we buying -35s with loans from them?

And Zumwalt?  Even its predecessor program didn't start until 1997.  What about LCS?  We have lots of examples of high tech, low production numbers.  Curtailing F-22 production is one of the stupidest things we have ever done, but Lockmart sacrificed it on the altar of the F-35.  We needed a lot more than 183 of them to replace 700+ F-15Cs, and we still do.  The piece of shit F-35 will never fill that role, so we are left upgrading 1980s production F-15s and gimping them along for another couple decades.

I think we are buying 90% of our own debt at this point.  And I don't mean american citizens.  I mean the fed.
DEFINITION of 'Quantitative Easing'

An unconventional monetary policy in which a central bank purchases government securities or other securities from the market in order to lower interest rates and increase the money supply. Quantitative easing increases the money supply by flooding financial institutions with capital in an effort to promote increased lending and liquidity. Quantitative easing is considered when short-term interest rates are at or approaching zero, and does not involve the printing of new banknotes.

The F35 is a game changing technology.

So lets play some counter factual historical fiction games.

Imagine we had only F35s 50 years ago.

How would the world have changed?

Imagine we had nothing but F35s 15 years ago.  
How would the world have changed?

Imagine we had 2400 F35s today.

How would the world be different?

I can tell you this, US troops would never have had to fear enemy air attack, in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.  Maybe we could have shot down more Migs, but what's more than 100%?

I havent ignored anything.  Im sure the F35 will be a gigantic systems platform capable of detecting and coordinating anything.  That part of the plane has promise.  My serious worry is that we are basing our national air superiority this constant mantra that this aircraft will rewrite historically proven air combat facts.  I hope it does but if it doesnt we are screwed.  We have put all our eggs in one basket.  Then just to magnify that problem we decided to take that basket and burden it with a useless VTOL system that has forces a very capable systems platform to compromise on just about every other physical necessity in a strike platform. One service components selfish demands have caused some monumental design compromises.  It appears the chinese are developing a very similar aircraft that wont be burdened by the design limitations of the VTOL system, so what happens when 2025 rolls around and they have an interconnected situationally aware aircraft that can out turn, shoot, and run our F35?

Chip talks about what this plane will do in 2025.  The problem is that this plane was sold to us as being able to be here in 2015 for a half a billion less. Yes Im sure the F35 will be well ahead of every other thing flying in terms of situation awareness and inter connectivity, but we have bet the farm on the idea that that is what will make it superior, while our enemies are designing systems that will likely have the same interoperability but with better physical capabilities.

Not under combat loadouts, LOL

He's a huge F-turdy-five fanboy, and is just playing devil's advocate here.  

Quiet you.  Da community needs more of dem programs.  


 

Irrelevant in the time of proxy nation brush fire wars and terrorism. Fancy planes don't stop children in kindergarten from having their throats cut or $20 bombs at sporting events. If a Russian plane and an American plane trade shots in my lifetime I will be extremely surprised. It's money bukkake along the same lines as how the USSR fell. Spending massive capital on needless military products that don't win conflicts while ignoring domestic issues.

It's only a $1.2T program.  GWB spent four times that much bailing out banks with TARP I.  Obama has run up 20X that much in national debt during his term.

But how is that different than what happened?

This is "game changing" technology.

how?

I left out one of these:  or these

Yeah, because 3.8% of GDP is the exact same thing as 17% of GDP.

 

Kelly Johnson

Is it too late to clone the man?

He'd quit in disgust after five minutes of seeing what garbage Lockheed skunkworks has become.

The fact that we have done and continue to do dumber things doesn't excuse stupidity. We have lost the war in Iraq. The F35 has not helped us not lose the war in Iraq, has not prevented any sort of terror attack, and will never do so. It's a very expensive game of tilting at windmills with made up money. We are headed for a Soviet style burnout because we are letting ourselves do the exact same things the USSR did that caused it's failure as a state.





 

I completely fail at sarcasm today.

We didn't lose the war in Iraq.  Iraq lost the war in Iraq.  The big question after 9-11 was whether the Arab world had a cultural flaw preventing it from joining the 21st century, or whether they just suffered under poor governments.  Iraq was an opportunity to test whether the Arabs could be dragged into modernity, and it was a risk worth taking given the threat of terrorism and the compounding problem of nuclear proliferation.  We won the war part.  We crushed every army sent against us and took their capital, and left when we wanted to leave.  That's a military victory.  The political situation never stabilized because the Arab world is not ready for modernity.  

 

In short, the military lessons from Iraq are that we kick fucking ass.  The political lesson is that the next time some Arab terrorists fly planes into building we just kill them, we don't waste time building schools afterwards.  Instead, we put our own strongman in power and the CIA pats him on the ass on the way out and says "remember what happened to your predecessor."