User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 4:52:00 PM EST
[#1]
Its sexy. Press on. page 2
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 5:02:10 PM EST
[#2]
Quoted:
You missed the part about being short ranged and needing external stores that defeat the whole point of it being stealthy. I wouldn't call the F-35 "short ranged", and certainly not the C variant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 5:09:01 PM EST
[#3]
Quoted:
I'm not quite understanding the whole F-35 debacle. Whats currently wrong with the F-16 in the role that it fills for the USAF? ... I had a nice reply almost ready to submit when my bloody laptop decided to hang up. Maybe I'll try to reproduce it after I'm less ticked off, later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 5:11:32 PM EST
[#4]
Quoted: http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:193f1ee3-bac2-4a8d-b0b0-c42c84351a6aQuoted: You missed the part about being short ranged and needing external stores that defeat the whole point of it being stealthy. I wouldn't call the F-35 "short ranged", and certainly not the C variant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 5:12:54 PM EST
[#5]
Quoted:
I bet if the X-32 had won out in the JSF program, Boeing would already be delivering operational aircraft. I bet they would be in exactly the same situation as lockmart. Boeing hasn't designed and built a non-commercial derivative military aircraft in half a century. Look at their performance on the 7 late 7 or their foreign tanker and AWACS boondoggles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 5:27:45 PM EST
[#6]
If your on the ground in a bad situation. tell me that you don't like the sound of a couple of A-10's coming in
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 5:40:40 PM EST
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I bet if the X-32 had won out in the JSF program, Boeing would already be delivering operational aircraft. I bet they would be in exactly the same situation as lockmart. Boeing hasn't designed and built a non-commercial derivative military aircraft in half a century. Look at their performance on the 7 late 7 or their foreign tanker and AWACS boondoggles. What the hell are you talking about? Boeing bought the premier fighter airplane company on the planet. Too bad the Seattle operation didn't pay a little closer attention to advice during the proposal phase, but that's water under the bridge. Boeing would have had some of the same problems as LM, and a host of different problems. The operation would have been pulled out of Seattle and given to the experts in St. Louis. I'm not going to say anything else about the project, pro or con. If you want to buy me a glass of ice tea some day, we'll talk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 6:15:25 PM EST
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I bet if the X-32 had won out in the JSF program, Boeing would already be delivering operational aircraft. I bet they would be in exactly the same situation as lockmart. Boeing hasn't designed and built a non-commercial derivative military aircraft in half a century. Look at their performance on the 7 late 7 or their foreign tanker and AWACS boondoggles. What the hell are you talking about? Boeing bought the premier fighter airplane company on the planet. Too bad the Seattle operation didn't pay a little closer attention to advice during the proposal phase, but that's water under the bridge. Boeing would have had some of the same problems as LM, and a host of different problems. The operation would have been pulled out of Seattle and given to the experts in St. Louis. I'm not going to say anything else about the project, pro or con. If you want to buy me a glass of ice tea some day, we'll talk. I love your former company and their products. It's a shame Boeing seems to have forgotten how to build commercial aircraft successfully, and won't let the military side of the house (McD) do what they used to do so well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 6:20:08 PM EST
[#9]
Quoted: Serious question. If Martin Marietta was still in existence would they have done a much better job in less time already? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 6:26:38 PM EST
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Serious question. If Martin Marietta was still in existence would they have done a much better job in less time already? Hell, how can anyone answer that!? When was the last Martin airplane built? Before the merger with Lockheed, it had been years, maybe a couple of decades, since they had built an airplane. I suppose the answer really is, "No", and the reason is that they weren't in possession of the technologies needed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 6:35:50 PM EST
[#11]
Quoted: They always seemed to have a company that had their shit together. The XB-68 would have been years ahead of it's time had it not been canned. Quoted: Quoted: Serious question. If Martin Marietta was still in existence would they have done a much better job in less time already? Hell, how can anyone answer that!? When was the last Martin airplane built? Before the merger with Lockheed, it had been years, maybe a couple of decades, since they had built an airplane. I suppose the answer really is, "No", and the reason is that they weren't in possession of the technologies needed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 6:36:08 PM EST
[#12]
Make new F15-E or whatever they are up to. Make new F16's and F18's for Navy.
They are proven and work well. Bring back F-22 into production. Stealth needs build more B-2's or improved B1's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 7:02:42 PM EST
[#13]
I still think we should have gone with the F23
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 7:02:50 PM EST
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:193f1ee3-bac2-4a8d-b0b0-c42c84351a6a
Quoted:
You missed the part about being short ranged and needing external stores that defeat the whole point of it being stealthy. I wouldn't call the F-35 "short ranged", and certainly not the C variant. Sometimes, mission profiles like these are simply taken from the program spec. Sometimes, profiles like these are developed to show maximum capability. Unless you sit down with the engineers who provided the input, you can't really say which is which. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2012 7:04:49 PM EST
[#15]
Fuck the F-35. We need new air refuelers and the frickin AWACS is older than I am.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 4:55:10 AM EST
[#16]
Quoted:
I still think we should have gone with the F23
http://www.flygplan.info/images/YF-23_800x600.jpg http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110207165055/military/images/6/67/YF-23_Black_Widow_II_2.jpg http://simflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/YF23_Thunderbird.jpg It was a neat airplane. I think it didn't have nearly the room in it's internal bays that the F-22 did though.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 5:28:38 AM EST
[#17]
Big programs have been killed before. They may not have been as big as the F35, but killing it is doable. Dick Cheney killed the Avenger II. That was supposed to kill the industry, but it didn't. It also led us directly to the SuperBug, which is a very capable aircraft.
Kill the F35 and spinoff the useful tech (Distributed Aperture Sensors, Helmet,...) into things like the Silent Eagle or latest block upgrades to the F16. We still have a tremendous lead in fielded AESA equipped aircraft over the rest of the world. Expand and leverage that lead with existing platforms and maintain the F22 as an initial entry ace in the hole. Other things that should be killed: LCS - expesive gunboat Grren Fuel initiatives - let industry work alternative fuels and open it up to coversion of coal and natural gas not just $52 per gallon BIO-Jet A The next pentagon guy that proposes a uniform change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 8:47:38 AM EST
[#18]
Quoted:
Grren Fuel initiatives - let industry work alternative fuels and open it up to coversion of coal and natural gas not just $52 per gallon BIO-Jet A Fuel is our biggest cost and most critical requirement. We need to fund research into alternatives, and that does come cheap. The next pentagon guy that proposes a uniform change.
The answer now should be everyone adopting the Navy Type II. Extend the date on Army Greens, so you guys can have three uniforms, too! If you put three Sailors together, likely they will have 4 different uniforms on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:19:42 AM EST
[#19]
Quoted:
I still think we should have gone with the F23
http://www.flygplan.info/images/YF-23_800x600.jpg http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110207165055/military/images/6/67/YF-23_Black_Widow_II_2.jpg http://simflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/YF23_Thunderbird.jpg 
Turd pancake that looks like it's already been crashed. And what's with the T-bird scheme? Was it composited in a gay bar? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:23:03 AM EST
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I still think we should have gone with the F23
http://www.flygplan.info/images/YF-23_800x600.jpg http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110207165055/military/images/6/67/YF-23_Black_Widow_II_2.jpg http://simflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/YF23_Thunderbird.jpg
Turd pancake that looks like it's already been crashed. And what's with the T-bird scheme? Was it composited in a gay bar? you sir, dont know what sexy is 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:27:28 AM EST
[#21]
Lockheed Martin please take our 100 Billion $ we could spend on modern armor, modern self propelled artillery, missile defence, indigenous armed drone, attack helo, indigenous cargo helo or the vaporware indigenous warplane projects.
Or we could spend it on training but it's for chumps man 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:28:58 AM EST
[#22]
Quoted: Lockheed Martin please take our 100 Billion $ we could spend on modern armor, modern self propelled artillery, missile defence, indigenous armed drone, attack helo, indigenous cargo helo or the vaporware indigenous warplane projects. Or we could spend it on training but it's for chumps man I think I love you |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:31:08 AM EST
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lockheed Martin please take our 100 Billion $ we could spend on modern armor, modern self propelled artillery, missile defence, indigenous armed drone, attack helo, indigenous cargo helo or the vaporware indigenous warplane projects. Or we could spend it on training but it's for chumps man I think I love you 
We even have the production pipeline going but beacoup $$ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:31:49 AM EST
[#24]
We are 3/4 way across the river with the F35. No choice but to finish.
(I'm one that would take a chain saw to the budget, and it sucks to say, but that is the way I see it) However -fuck LockMart and make damn sure they don't get any logistics contracts. -The Air Force should get a swift kick in the nuts and maybe downgraded back to Army Air Force |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:34:13 AM EST
[#25]
f35 is the best thing ever if you're on a development program that interacts with the f35 and requires flight checks.
Dont let anyone fool you. Multiple year delays and cost over runs are great for everyone.
Its a flying bradley/LCS, aka POS. It drags down completely unrelated systems that have to interact with it and cause much more waste than just what happens directly in it's own program. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:34:59 AM EST
[#26]
Quoted:
We are 3/4 way across the river with the F35. No choice but to finish. (I'm one that would take a chain saw to the budget, and it sucks to say, but that is the way I see it) However -fuck LockMart and make damn sure they don't get any logistics contracts. -The Air Force should get a swift kick in the nuts and maybe downgraded back to Army Air Force 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:35:54 AM EST
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lockheed Martin please take our 100 Billion $ we could spend on modern armor, modern self propelled artillery, missile defence, indigenous armed drone, attack helo, indigenous cargo helo or the vaporware indigenous warplane projects. Or we could spend it on training but it's for chumps man I think I love you http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Battalion_Task_Force%2C_Complete_Unit_Firing_Field_Exercise_-_2012_-_1.jpg We even have the production pipeline going but beacoup $$ Not sure what that is, but it looks like a 52 caliber tube. That makes it instantly superior to the Paladin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:37:31 AM EST
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lockheed Martin please take our 100 Billion $ we could spend on modern armor, modern self propelled artillery, missile defence, indigenous armed drone, attack helo, indigenous cargo helo or the vaporware indigenous warplane projects. Or we could spend it on training but it's for chumps man I think I love you http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Battalion_Task_Force%2C_Complete_Unit_Firing_Field_Exercise_-_2012_-_1.jpg We even have the production pipeline going but beacoup $$ Not sure what that is, but it looks like a 52 caliber tube. That makes it instantly superior to the Paladin. 52 caliber indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-155_F%C4%B1rt%C4%B1na |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:38:57 AM EST
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lockheed Martin please take our 100 Billion $ we could spend on modern armor, modern self propelled artillery, missile defence, indigenous armed drone, attack helo, indigenous cargo helo or the vaporware indigenous warplane projects. Or we could spend it on training but it's for chumps man I think I love you http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Battalion_Task_Force%2C_Complete_Unit_Firing_Field_Exercise_-_2012_-_1.jpg We even have the production pipeline going but beacoup $$ Not sure what that is, but it looks like a 52 caliber tube. That makes it instantly superior to the Paladin. 52 caliber indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-155_F%C4%B1rt%C4%B1na Fuck me, it's cheaper than the Paladin PIM too. Thank God I'm the S3 of an MLRS BN. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:40:13 AM EST
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lockheed Martin please take our 100 Billion $ we could spend on modern armor, modern self propelled artillery, missile defence, indigenous armed drone, attack helo, indigenous cargo helo or the vaporware indigenous warplane projects. Or we could spend it on training but it's for chumps man I think I love you http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Battalion_Task_Force%2C_Complete_Unit_Firing_Field_Exercise_-_2012_-_1.jpg We even have the production pipeline going but beacoup $$ Not sure what that is, but it looks like a 52 caliber tube. That makes it instantly superior to the Paladin. 52 caliber indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-155_F%C4%B1rt%C4%B1na Fuck me, it's cheaper than the Paladin PIM too. Thank God I'm the S3 of an MLRS BN. We got some of those too
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:48:09 AM EST
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lockheed Martin please take our 100 Billion $ we could spend on modern armor, modern self propelled artillery, missile defence, indigenous armed drone, attack helo, indigenous cargo helo or the vaporware indigenous warplane projects. Or we could spend it on training but it's for chumps man I think I love you http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Battalion_Task_Force%2C_Complete_Unit_Firing_Field_Exercise_-_2012_-_1.jpg We even have the production pipeline going but beacoup $$ Not sure what that is, but it looks like a 52 caliber tube. That makes it instantly superior to the Paladin. 52 caliber indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-155_F%C4%B1rt%C4%B1na Fuck me, it's cheaper than the Paladin PIM too. Thank God I'm the S3 of an MLRS BN. We got some of those too Well, bully for you |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 10:05:22 AM EST
[#32]
Quoted:
Unmanned. We don't need pilots in the plane anymore. 
Remember that one time when Iran got a hold of one of our most advanced drones? 
Yeah. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 6:28:07 PM EST
[#33]
Quoted: Unmanned. We don't need pilots in the plane anymore. Yet we've had what something like at least one drone being brought down over enemy airspace from a possible hijacking http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-asks-iran-rq-170-sentinel-drone-back/story?id=15140133 At least another incident where a drone had to be shot down before leaving us controlled air space over Afghanistan (heading to china?) The drone was out of control and did not RTB as they are supposedly programed to do. http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-09/when-drones-go-wild-air-force-shoots-them-down |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 6:30:41 PM EST
[#34]
Not drone, tomohawk.
1 million a pop. fire and forget. If you already know where the target is, why send a plane with a man? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 6:33:01 PM EST
[#35]
Quoted: We are 3/4 way across the river with the F35. No choice but to finish. (I'm one that would take a chain saw to the budget, and it sucks to say, but that is the way I see it) However -fuck LockMart and make damn sure they don't get any logistics contracts. -The Air Force should get a swift kick in the nuts and maybe downgraded back to Army Air Force Lockheed Martin's Aero Divisions and Logistics side are two separate entities with different leadership at the reigns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 6:39:30 PM EST
[#36]
Quoted:
We could just go the better EW and munitions route now. This ^. Stealth Cruise Missles and PGS would be MUCH more cost effective and useful than the F-35. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 6:49:29 PM EST
[#37]
Quoted:
Make new F15-E or whatever they are up to. Make new F16's and F18's for Navy. They are proven and work well. Bring back F-22 into production. Stealth needs build more B-2's or improved B1's. Yeah, navalized F-16s. Might as well make them hover and fly hypersonic while we're at it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 6:49:53 PM EST
[#38]
I don't think you folks who suggest we scrap it and go with a new design understand what it takes to go from accepting bids to procurement. They're not designing next years truck with different cup holders from the pervious year and calling it good.
Integrated Air Defense in the years to come is what you have to look at. At present S-300 and S-400 can easily detect our legacy aircraft and strike them even while they're operating far beyond an enemies airspace. We simply can't afford for ourselves or allies to be intimidated by far reaching surface to air threats particularly during an age of increasing dependence on global trade and rising nuclear proliferation. You can do many things to improve electronic countermeasures, but you can't take a present airframe and give it the same low radar signature the F-35 JSF has. To simply update existing legacy aircraft would be to fall short of our duty to provide our pilots who we place in harm's way with the best product we can presently produce. We simply can't kick the can down the road. Our current aircraft are dated and not the best most capable platforms to protect our pilots from the dangerous threats we place them infront of time and time again. Another 10 years is too long to go. UCAV technology isn't there yet and will not be for some time to replace manned aircraft. The F-35 JSF is the best option we have to move forward with a multi-service multi-role aircraft. If anyone can produce a better aircraft for the next 25 years they're free to try and they were free to try during the JSF competition. The F-35 JSF is the best there is hands down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 6:51:55 PM EST
[#39]
You know most importantly our Navy needs the F-35C and frankly they need it yesterday. The threats faced in the Pacific are exactly the type the F-35 JSF was designed to face. Without it our Navy will have increasing difficulty in the next 25 years giving pause to the players in the region to maintain the stability necessary for the continuation of our way of life.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 6:52:18 PM EST
[#40]
Quoted:
Not drone, tomohawk. 1 million a pop. fire and forget. If you already know where the target is, why send a plane with a man? This |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 6:56:36 PM EST
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not drone, tomohawk. 1 million a pop. fire and forget. If you already know where the target is, why send a plane with a man? This Those targets tend to move now. We fired cruise missiles at UBL and they missed, because he moved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 7:02:53 PM EST
[#42]
Photo Release: First production-level F-35B arrives at NAS Patuxent River
(Note, this is not the first production level F-35B, it is the first production level F-35B to arrive at Pax River. This is USN BUNO 168313, the newest fighter aircraft to be accepted into the Navy/Marine inventory. Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 (VMFAT-501) is a newly reactivated training squadron in the United States Marine Corps that will eventually consist of 20 F-35B Lightning II aircraft and will serve as the Fleet Replacement Squadron. Known as the "Warlords," with the tail code VM, the squadron will be based at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida and will fall administratively under Marine Aircraft Group 31 and the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing but operationally under the Air Force's 33d Fighter Wing.) 
(Photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin) Oct 9, 2012 NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. - BF-17, part of the third lot of Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP 3) F-35B Lightning II aircraft, arrives at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., Oct. 4. BF-17 will temporarily add to the complement of F-35B and F-35C test aircraft at the F-35 Integrated Test Facility before heading to its destination at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The F-35B is the variant of the Joint Strike Fighter designed for use by U.S. Marine Corps, as well as F-35 international partners in the United Kingdom and Italy. The F-35B is capable of short take-offs and vertical landings to enable air power projection from amphibious ships, ski-jump aircraft carriers and expeditionary airfields. The F-35B is undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River, Md., prior to delivery to the fleet. PEO(JSF) Public Affairs (301) 757-2211 http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5140 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 7:44:58 PM EST
[#43]
might as well pack in a bit more photo ops and LM propaganda
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8449/8009967412_f05574582a_o.jpg  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kshe7-BYfWc Batman soundtrack for good measure  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 7:54:11 PM EST
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I still think we should have gone with the F23
http://www.flygplan.info/images/YF-23_800x600.jpg http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110207165055/military/images/6/67/YF-23_Black_Widow_II_2.jpg http://simflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/YF23_Thunderbird.jpg It was a neat airplane. I think it didn't have nearly the room in it's internal bays that the F-22 did though.... The rotary launcher was viewed as a risk even in the air-to-air role; I'm not sure how well it would have worked with air-to-ground. The DEMVAL aircraft had some other issues, too. Problems aside, this platform was well-liked in technical circles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 8:25:39 PM EST
[#45]
holy crap––shazamed that music, and it came up as "invincible" by "two steps from hell". am currently downloading the album, which is badass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 8:50:32 PM EST
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I bet if the X-32 had won out in the JSF program, Boeing would already be delivering operational aircraft. I bet they would be in exactly the same situation as lockmart. Boeing hasn't designed and built a non-commercial derivative military aircraft in half a century. Look at their performance on the 7 late 7 or their foreign tanker and AWACS boondoggles. What the hell are you talking about? Boeing bought the premier fighter airplane company on the planet. Too bad the Seattle operation didn't pay a little closer attention to advice during the proposal phase, but that's water under the bridge. Boeing would have had some of the same problems as LM, and a host of different problems. The operation would have been pulled out of Seattle and given to the experts in St. Louis. I'm not going to say anything else about the project, pro or con. If you want to buy me a glass of ice tea some day, we'll talk. I love your former company and their products. It's a shame Boeing seems to have forgotten how to build commercial aircraft successfully, and won't let the military side of the house (McD) do what they used to do so well. Was the F35 superior or was the X32 just "ugly"? I think they both looked good as did the YF-23 and the F-22. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 8:53:24 PM EST
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If Sukhoi can update the Su-27 to Thrust vectoring, why can we update the F/A-18 to them? we did it in the HARV program. The fact we haven't used thrust vectoring except in the F-22 (in that case to assist with stealth as much as maneuverability) should speak volumes. We have plenty of experience with thrust vectoring, yet the vast majority of our fighters don't use it. There are reasons for that. Cause were so gung-ho on BVR engagements? Weight, complexity, utility, and the AIM-9X. ...you didnt help design the F4...did you?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:05:25 PM EST
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not drone, tomohawk. 1 million a pop. fire and forget. If you already know where the target is, why send a plane with a man? This Those targets tend to move now. We fired cruise missiles at UBL and they missed, because he moved. they missed because we told the pakistanis before hand. dynamic targeting requires a man on the ground. now we are talking a much different ball of wax. there are effectively no strategic targets that must be dynamically targetted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:14:51 PM EST
[#49]
Quoted:
we've got two amazing jets in the works the F22 and the F35. Both are in fear of being cut. The F22 atleast flies but has a couple issues. Lets drop the F35 and finish the F22 That way we save some money and atleast get one of the projects finished. The F35 files can go in a big locked box that no one touches until it looks like the world is going to hell again. It seems like as long as we have one air superiority fighter to take out enemy fighters first, our currently existing airforce could bombard the ground all it needs. What year is it in your world? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2012 9:16:55 PM EST
[#50]
Quoted:
I don't think you folks who suggest we scrap it and go with a new design understand what it takes to go from accepting bids to procurement. They're not designing next years truck with different cup holders from the pervious year and calling it good. Integrated Air Defense in the years to come is what you have to look at. At present S-300 and S-400 can easily detect our legacy aircraft and strike them even while they're operating far beyond an enemies airspace. We simply can't afford for ourselves or allies to be intimidated by far reaching surface to air threats particularly during an age of increasing dependence on global trade and rising nuclear proliferation. You can do many things to improve electronic countermeasures, but you can't take a present airframe and give it the same low radar signature the F-35 JSF has. To simply update existing legacy aircraft would be to fall short of our duty to provide our pilots who we place in harm's way with the best product we can presently produce. We simply can't kick the can down the road. Our current aircraft are dated and not the best most capable platforms to protect our pilots from the dangerous threats we place them infront of time and time again. Another 10 years is too long to go. UCAV technology isn't there yet and will not be for some time to replace manned aircraft. The F-35 JSF is the best option we have to move forward with a multi-service multi-role aircraft. If anyone can produce a better aircraft for the next 25 years they're free to try and they were free to try during the JSF competition. The F-35 JSF is the best there is hands down. I'm willing to lose pilots to keep my nation solvent. We can buy three of the newest variants of generation four fighters for every generation five aircraft, and fly them for the same price as well. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
