Will the F-35 Actually Save the US Money for the Future......

[Redress]

Well, this is really the case for 2 of the 3 branches buying this aircraft (Navy & Marines). I think the main reason the AF got into this was political, in order to help lower the per unit cost and to get the benefit of the R&D for later aircraft.

Zoomies have always been much more interested in Intercontinental bombers and Mach 3 fighter dogfights then in supporting the poor grunts on the ground. I put my trust in Navy and Marine pilots much more then the Air Force for this reason.

Totally off topic, but a (to my mind) kinda cool story.

We got an airforce pilot on a cross training deal. Capt. Smiley was one of the better F-16 pilots(and a hell of a guy). His first time out to the ship, doing his night CQ, after his last trap his plane was taxied to it's parking spot and we stood waiting for him to come down to ask if he had any problems with the plane. He took awhile coming down and when he got onto the deck, he clutched and hugged the ladder for awhile. When he finally turned to walk off, he says to us "I will never, ever again make fun of ****ing navy pilots. Holy **** that is scarey. Pardon me, I have to go change my underwear now."

Your comment about the "Mach 3 fighter dogfights". I think that is pretty much obsolete now. Speed might be of some use to get where you are needed fast, but with current AA missile technology, it's not really a dogfight. It's lock and fire at long range. AMRAAM has, as I understand it, even fired at BVR, a pretty decent kill probability. While maneuverability is still important to defend against incoming missiles, not so much as jammers and to a lesser extent chaff. Note however that my practical experience is quite a few years out of date(I will have been out 20 years this year), so I am basing this mostly on reading.

 

[EagleAye]

Totally off topic, but a (to my mind) kinda cool story.

We got an airforce pilot on a cross training deal. Capt. Smiley was one of the better F-16 pilots(and a hell of a guy). His first time out to the ship, doing his night CQ, after his last trap his plane was taxied to it's parking spot and we stood waiting for him to come down to ask if he had any problems with the plane. He took awhile coming down and when he got onto the deck, he clutched and hugged the ladder for awhile. When he finally turned to walk off, he says to us "I will never, ever again make fun of ****ing navy pilots. Holy **** that is scarey. Pardon me, I have to go change my underwear now."

Your comment about the "Mach 3 fighter dogfights". I think that is pretty much obsolete now. Speed might be of some use to get where you are needed fast, but with current AA missile technology, it's not really a dogfight. It's lock and fire at long range. AMRAAM has, as I understand it, even fired at BVR, a pretty decent kill probability. While maneuverability is still important to defend against incoming missiles, not so much as jammers and to a lesser extent chaff. Note however that my practical experience is quite a few years out of date(I will have been out 20 years this year), so I am basing this mostly on reading.

That's a great story about the F-16 pilot. Even Vietnam era pilots, who survived hellish AAA environments, felt that landing back on the carrier was the scariest part of the mission.

In all of air combat from ww1 to the present day, the far and away most important part of air combat is sighting the enemy first. This still applies in the BVR realm. It's just that now fighter pilots "see" with radar. That's why stealth is so very important. Oh, even a stealth fighter can be spotted on radar, but can they be locked up? This is necessary for a missile firing. But most importantly, a stealth plane can lock up an enemy before the stealth plane is. So a fighter like the F-22 can "sight" the enemy first, and fire first, and that gives all the advantages to the F-22. Speed is still important, but as you say, not as much as folks imagined before. Hyper-maneuverability like what we see in the Su-35, is nice but only really useful in a close range knife fight. The F-22 will avoid this because it has the advantage at BVR. All pilots are taught to play to the strength of their own aircraft and the weakness of their opponent. So while an F-22 is very good in a close range fight and a good match for the Su-35, it's very nearly un-defeatable at BVR. So that's the realm stealth planes like the F-22 and F-35 will fight in.

 

[Wiggen]

Totally off topic, but a (to my mind) kinda cool story.

We got an airforce pilot on a cross training deal. Capt. Smiley was one of the better F-16 pilots(and a hell of a guy). His first time out to the ship, doing his night CQ, after his last trap his plane was taxied to it's parking spot and we stood waiting for him to come down to ask if he had any problems with the plane. He took awhile coming down and when he got onto the deck, he clutched and hugged the ladder for awhile. When he finally turned to walk off, he says to us "I will never, ever again make fun of ****ing navy pilots. Holy **** that is scarey. Pardon me, I have to go change my underwear now."

Your comment about the "Mach 3 fighter dogfights". I think that is pretty much obsolete now. Speed might be of some use to get where you are needed fast, but with current AA missile technology, it's not really a dogfight. It's lock and fire at long range. AMRAAM has, as I understand it, even fired at BVR, a pretty decent kill probability. While maneuverability is still important to defend against incoming missiles, not so much as jammers and to a lesser extent chaff. Note however that my practical experience is quite a few years out of date(I will have been out 20 years this year), so I am basing this mostly on reading.

Navy pilots have to do everything Air Force pilots do, except they also have to land their aircraft on a small target that's moving. Pretty damned scary thing.

 

[APACHERAT]

.The F-35 is set to become the dominant fighter plane of the U.S. and its allies in the 21st century.QUOTE]

Then we are in trouble.

The F-22 was suppose to be our dominant air superiority fighter while the F-35 was the low end fighter. Part of the high / low end procurement that was used with the F-15 and F-16. The F-15 being the high end and the F-16 being the low end.

The Air Force said to guarantee air superiority for the next 50 years, they would need a minimum of 400 F-22's. Obama killed the F-22 after only just a little more than 100 were produced.

The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter but a dual purpose fighter and attack aircraft. It will not be excellent at either mission but probably good at it. Like the F-4 Phantom. The F-4 Phantom first developed not as an air superiority fighter but to be the first line of defense for protecting a naval carrier battle group. In the beginning the F-4 didn't even have guns. During the Vietnam war the F-4 was picked up by the Air Force. The F-4 evolved from being used as a air superiority fighter, attack aircraft, strike aircraft, electronic war fare, and reconnaissance. It was never excellent at any of these missions but was good at them all.

Basically what the Obama administration is doing, is eliminating the high end / low end mixture of weapons platforms with just low end weapons platforms and eventually the entire air force, navy and the Marines will be flying all low end aircraft that aren't excellent at any mission. The F-35 compared to the F-22 is low end.

Right after Obama killed the F-22, the Russians revealed their version of the F-22 that is a joint venture with India. Then a few months later the Peoples Republic of China revealed their version of the F-22. Both countries will export them to any one who has the money. Will Iran buy the Russians or Chinese air superiority fighter ?

In twenty years, America will probably have less than 100 air superiority fighters (F-22) that can control the skies. Doubt the F-35 which is not an air superiority fighter will be able to take on Russia's and China's air superiority fighters.

 

[EagleAye]

.The F-35 is set to become the dominant fighter plane of the U.S. and its allies in the 21st century.

Then we are in trouble.

The F-22 was suppose to be our dominant air superiority fighter while the F-35 was the low end fighter. Part of the high / low end procurement that was used with the F-15 and F-16. The F-15 being the high end and the F-16 being the low end.

The Air Force said to guarantee air superiority for the next 50 years, they would need a minimum of 400 F-22's. Obama killed the F-22 after only just a little more than 100 were produced.

The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter but a dual purpose fighter and attack aircraft. It will not be excellent at either mission but probably good at it. Like the F-4 Phantom. The F-4 Phantom first developed not as an air superiority fighter but to be the first line of defense for protecting a naval carrier battle group. In the beginning the F-4 didn't even have guns. During the Vietnam war the F-4 was picked up by the Air Force. The F-4 evolved from being used as a air superiority fighter, attack aircraft, strike aircraft, electronic war fare, and reconnaissance. It was never excellent at any of these missions but was good at them all.

Basically what the Obama administration is doing, is eliminating the high end / low end mixture of weapons platforms with just low end weapons platforms and eventually the entire air force, navy and the Marines will be flying all low end aircraft that aren't excellent at any mission. The F-35 compared to the F-22 is low end.

Right after Obama killed the F-22, the Russians revealed their version of the F-22 that is a joint venture with India. Then a few months later the Peoples Republic of China revealed their version of the F-22. Both countries will export them to any one who has the money. Will Iran buy the Russians or Chinese air superiority fighter ?

In twenty years, America will probably have less than 100 air superiority fighters (F-22) that can control the skies. Doubt the F-35 which is not an air superiority fighter will be able to take on Russia's and China's air superiority fighters.

I wouldn't worry tremendously. First of all 187 F-22s were built. That's quite a bit more than 100. Just because the F-22 is halted now, doesn't mean it cannot be restarted later. While it's true the F-35 is not the equal of the F-22, it's still a step up from the F-18E/F. The improvements to avionics in the F-35, namely information handling for the pilot (reduces information overload - a major problem for modern fighter pilots), is a feature that significantly improves survivability but cannot be easily quantified in statsheets. Thus this important detail is often left out of the calculus when comparing aircraft. Lastly, the PAK-FA (Russia's answer to the F-22) is still in prototype stage. The plan is two have four (4) prototypes in flight testing by 2015. They're aren't even done with the prototypes, and yet the F-22 has been flying with active squadrons for years now. This testing takes YEARS. It cannot be overstressed. By the time Russia is ready to deploy/export the PAK-FA, we'll already have a 6th gen fighter in the air and ready to get everyone scrambling and worrying like the F-22 did.

 

[Redress]

I wouldn't worry tremendously. First of all 187 F-22s were built. That's quite a bit more than 100. Just because the F-22 is halted now, doesn't mean it cannot be restarted later. While it's true the F-35 is not the equal of the F-22, it's still a step up from the F-18E/F. The improvements to avionics in the F-35, namely information handling for the pilot (reduces information overload - a major problem for modern fighter pilots), is a feature that significantly improves survivability but cannot be easily quantified in statsheets. Thus this important detail is often left out of the calculus when comparing aircraft. Lastly, the PAK-FA (Russia's answer to the F-22) is still in prototype stage. The plan is two have four (4) prototypes in flight testing by 2015. They're aren't even done with the prototypes, and yet the F-22 has been flying with active squadrons for years now. This testing takes YEARS. It cannot be overstressed. By the time Russia is ready to deploy/export the PAK-FA, we'll already have a 6th gen fighter in the air and ready to get everyone scrambling and worrying like the F-22 did.

Can I get you to explain the bolded? Not why information overload is bad, but how it is being improved?

 

[Wiseone]

One response to high manpower costs is to rely on technology. But that does not come cheap. Study after study shows that the price of combat aircraft has been rising substantially faster than inflation, often faster than GDP. The same is true of warships. In a book published in 1983, Norman Augustine, a luminary of the aerospace industry, drafted a series of lighthearted “laws”. In one aphorism, he plotted the exponential growth of unit cost for fighter aircraft since 1910 (see chart 2), and extrapolated it to its absurd conclusion:

“In the year 2054, the entire defence budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3½ days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.”

Nearly three decades on, Mr Augustine says, “we are right on target. Unfortunately nothing has changed.” These days Raptors go for $160m apiece ($350m including the cost of developing the jet), compared with $50m-60m for the venerable F-16. In the long run, high unit costs must limit numbers. Since 1970 America's fleets of combat aircraft and major warships have shrunk, even as defence spending rose (see chart 3).

Chart 2

Chart 3

The cost of weapons: Defence spending in a time of austerity | The Economist

 

[APACHERAT]

I wouldn't worry tremendously...

I'm not opposed to the F-35, but the F-35 was suppose to be part of the high end (F-22) and low end (F-35) of our air superiority forces and we will not have enough F-22's.
Reopening the production lines of the F-22, that production line has been dismantled and the tooling may or may have not been scrapped by now. The manufactures may have held on to it and put it in storage hoping that Obama wasn't reelected, but I doubt they will keep it in storage for another four more years.

With no more F-22's in the pipe line there is talk of the F-15 evolving further to fill the gap of not having enough F-22's. We have already seen the F-15 evolve in to an attack aircraft (F-15 D) and the since there was no replacement for the F-111 that was the air forces main deep strike fighter/bomber we now have the F-15 E. But the F-15 E isn't as capable as a deep strike attack aircraft as the F-111.

The Navy and Marine Corps ran in to the same problem when the A-12 was canceled during the 1990's. It was the replacement for the A-6 Intruder. Probably the best deep strike attack aircraft the Navy and Marines ever had. With no replacement for the A-6, the FA-18 evolved in to the FA-18 E Super Hornet. But the FA-18 E isn't as capable as the A-6, lacking the payload and range by about 200 miles.

Interesting about the A-6, Congress ordered that 100 A-6's be held in high maintenance storage at the bone yard at Davis Monthan AFB to be quickly reactivated in case of a national emergency. But as we saw how the Clinton administration broke the law and turned the four Iowa class battleships in to museums and Congress refused to impeach Clinton twice. Today the U.S. Navy doesn't have any ship that can provide adequate naval shore fire support for the Marine Corps. Under the law, the IOWA BB's were suppose to keep these ships in a state of readiness in the naval reserve fleet until the navy was able to commission enough ships with a 155 MM naval gun. Not sure, I think Obama also canceled that weapons platform development, the 155 MM naval gun ? I wonder if he has also ordered those 100 A-6's at the bone yard to be cut up and sold for scrap ?

 

[EagleAye]

Can I get you to explain the bolded? Not why information overload is bad, but how it is being improved?

A lot of it is classified so I don't know a lot of specific details. But suffice to say that the cockpit and HUD display was designed by pilots, for pilots. The modern pilot has access to a tremendous amount of important data, but not all of it is important moment to moment. It's nice to know the location of aerial refuelers 150 miles away, but I don't need to know that while I've got a bogey on my six. So information is condensed down into the critical data, available at the critical time. What kind of data is displayed is easily configurable. The MFD (Multi-Function Display) available in the F-16 was a great step ahead, but even that was a bit clunky when a split second is critical to the fighter pilot. The new display in the F-35 is far larger and is easier to use. Add to it the Helmet Mounted display, and the pilot has much more than a HUD, because the HUD is displayed on the helmet visor. Information stays with the pilot no matter where he looks. With the AIM-9X, a pilot can turn his head (not the whole plane like before), achieve lock, and fire at an enemy that is passing behind the aircraft! The pilot doesn't have to fumble around with switches in the cockpit anymore. Quicker processes like these shorten the time between enemy identification and weapons release, and that turns a very good airplane into an amazing airplane.

 

[Wiseone]

I'm not opposed to the F-35, but the F-35 was suppose to be part of the high end (F-22) and low end (F-35) of our air superiority forces and we will not have enough F-22's.
Reopening the production lines of the F-22, that production line has been dismantled and the tooling may or may have not been scrapped by now. The manufactures may have held on to it and put it in storage hoping that Obama wasn't reelected, but I doubt they will keep it in storage for another four more years.

With no more F-22's in the pipe line there is talk of the F-15 evolving further to fill the gap of not having enough F-22's. We have already seen the F-15 evolve in to an attack aircraft (F-15 D) and the since there was no replacement for the F-111 that was the air forces main deep strike fighter/bomber we now have the F-15 E. But the F-15 E isn't as capable as a deep strike attack aircraft as the F-111.

The Navy and Marine Corps ran in to the same problem when the A-12 was canceled during the 1990's. It was the replacement for the A-6 Intruder. Probably the best deep strike attack aircraft the Navy and Marines ever had. With no replacement for the A-6, the FA-18 evolved in to the FA-18 E Super Hornet. But the FA-18 E isn't as capable as the A-6, lacking the payload and range by about 200 miles.

Interesting about the A-6, Congress ordered that 100 A-6's be held in high maintenance storage at the bone yard at Davis Monthan AFB to be quickly reactivated in case of a national emergency. But as we saw how the Clinton administration broke the law and turned the four Iowa class battleships in to museums and Congress refused to impeach Clinton twice. Today the U.S. Navy doesn't have any ship that can provide adequate naval shore fire support for the Marine Corps. Under the law, the IOWA BB's were suppose to keep these ships in a state of readiness in the naval reserve fleet until the navy was able to commission enough ships with a 155 MM naval gun. Not sure, I think Obama also canceled that weapons platform development, the 155 MM naval gun ? I wonder if he has also ordered those 100 A-6's at the bone yard to be cut up and sold for scrap ?

It's great to talk about all the toys we'd love to have as a military, but there's the simple matter of paying for them that puts a damper on all of that. Plus you have to consider just how useful all these whizz-bang toys really are. Take the F-22, the world's finest air superiority aircraft ever built, the only issue it has is that no enemy we are fighting has an airforce so what exactly are we getting in return for all that money? And any "potential" enemy's airforce, if they even have an airforce, would be outclassed by what the USAF and USN had before the F-22 and F-35. So again, why are we wasting taxpayer dollars?

 

[Redress]

A lot of it is classified so I don't know a lot of specific details. But suffice to say that the cockpit and HUD display was designed by pilots, for pilots. The modern pilot has access to a tremendous amount of important data, but not all of it is important moment to moment. It's nice to know the location of aerial refuelers 150 miles away, but I don't need to know that while I've got a bogey on my six. So information is condensed down into the critical data, available at the critical time. What kind of data is displayed is easily configurable. The MFD (Multi-Function Display) available in the F-16 was a great step ahead, but even that was a bit clunky when a split second is critical to the fighter pilot. The new display in the F-35 is far larger and is easier to use. Add to it the Helmet Mounted display, and the pilot has much more than a HUD, because the HUD is displayed on the helmet visor. Information stays with the pilot no matter where he looks. With the AIM-9X, a pilot can turn his head (not the whole plane like before), achieve lock, and fire at an enemy that is passing behind the aircraft! The pilot doesn't have to fumble around with switches in the cockpit anymore. Quicker processes like these shorten the time between enemy identification and weapons release, and that turns a very good airplane into an amazing airplane.

Some of this is odd since it sounds alot like what we had way back in the 91x software. HUD was fairly configurable, could pick radar targets to place on HUD, not all of them. I suspect it is a case of continuing in the right direction kinda thing. I wonder if they have improved HOTAS? More configurable switches would have been awesome.

 

[EagleAye]

I'm not opposed to the F-35, but the F-35 was suppose to be part of the high end (F-22) and low end (F-35) of our air superiority forces and we will not have enough F-22's.
Reopening the production lines of the F-22, that production line has been dismantled and the tooling may or may have not been scrapped by now. The manufactures may have held on to it and put it in storage hoping that Obama wasn't reelected, but I doubt they will keep it in storage for another four more years.

With no more F-22's in the pipe line there is talk of the F-15 evolving further to fill the gap of not having enough F-22's. We have already seen the F-15 evolve in to an attack aircraft (F-15 D) and the since there was no replacement for the F-111 that was the air forces main deep strike fighter/bomber we now have the F-15 E. But the F-15 E isn't as capable as a deep strike attack aircraft as the F-111.

From what I hear, the lines have been kept open so that spare parts could be made for the F-22. I agree that we should have more F-22s. But so far, the only countries to make anything close to the F-22 are Russia and China. I don't expect we'll be going up against them very soon. It's economically unfeasible. So our only real opponents are countries with 3rd and 4th generation fighters, and none of those are the equal of the F-15. The F-35 will be more capable than even the F-15, so a good supply of them should hold us quite well. These planes are so far superior to our opponents that we likely do not need an equal number to our supply of F-15s and F-16s. It's been going on for some time that air forces are getting smaller and smaller as airplanes become more sophisticated and more expensive. We're continuing to see it now.

I do believe, though cannot confirm, that something even better than the F-22 is in the works. Congress may be holding money back because an even more ground breaking aircraft is on the drawing board right now. If 187 F-22s can tide us over until then, then maybe that money is better spent on making it's replacement?

And let's not forget the B-2. Capable of hitting any target on the face of the Earth, that's about as "deep strike" as you're ever going to get.

 

[winston53660]

From what I hear, the lines have been kept open so that spare parts could be made for the F-22. I agree that we should have more F-22s. But so far, the only countries to make anything close to the F-22 are Russia and China. I don't expect we'll be going up against them very soon. It's economically unfeasible. So our only real opponents are countries with 3rd and 4th generation fighters, and none of those are the equal of the F-15. The F-35 will be more capable than even the F-15, so a good supply of them should hold us quite well. These planes are so far superior to our opponents that we likely do not need an equal number to our supply of F-15s and F-16s. It's been going on for some time that air forces are getting smaller and smaller as airplanes become more sophisticated and more expensive. We're continuing to see it now.

I do believe, though cannot confirm, that something even better than the F-22 is in the works. Congress may be holding money back because an even more ground breaking aircraft is on the drawing board right now. If 187 F-22s can tide us over until then, then maybe that money is better spent on making it's replacement?

And let's not forget the B-2. Capable of hitting any target on the face of the Earth, that's about as "deep strike" as you're ever going to get.

I think the future is in cheap disposal un manned drones as a very important component of developing air superiority in the future.

 

[EagleAye]

Some of this is odd since it sounds alot like what we had way back in the 91x software. HUD was fairly configurable, could pick radar targets to place on HUD, not all of them. I suspect it is a case of continuing in the right direction kinda thing. I wonder if they have improved HOTAS? More configurable switches would have been awesome.

It is a continuation. Original MFDs had certain buttons you need to press to update the display. Now they are touch screens. You can move screens across the screen to organize it the way the individual pilots wants it. Before, the HUD was only on the front windscreen. Now, it's on the helmet visor, so no matter where you turn your head (as combat pilots are constantly doing) the data is always there. From what I read, the organization of data is a big leap forward, I just don't know the details of "how" it is. And yeah, HOTAS has been improved. They put kids (those who play HALO and Call To Duty) in the F-35 simulator, and learned a lot about how the next generation fighter pilots will think. The designers try to accommodate that and know they are designing a plane for the next generation as well. Quick thinking and data processing is a must for future pilots, and those pilots are being built hour by hour in front of computers across the country.

 

[EagleAye]

I think the future is in cheap disposal un manned drones as a very important component of developing air superiority in the future.

I agree. Current fighters are built to withstand 12 gees. But guess what? They won't ever do that because that would kill the pilot. The Russians are making great hyper-maneuverable aircraft, but how much good will that do you if using that makes the pilot blackout? But what if there wasn't a pilot? Imagine the insane maneuvers possible if the actual pilot is 1000 clicks away in an air-conditioned trailer. And how much more aggressive would he be if a mistake wouldn't end his life? Yeah, UAVs are coming. It's inevitable.

 

[APACHERAT]

It's great to talk about all the toys we'd love to have as a military, but there's the simple matter of paying for them that puts a damper on all of that. Plus you have to consider just how useful all these whizz-bang toys really are. Take the F-22, the world's finest air superiority aircraft ever built, the only issue it has is that no enemy we are fighting has an airforce so what exactly are we getting in return for all that money? And any "potential" enemy's airforce, if they even have an airforce, would be outclassed by what the USAF and USN had before the F-22 and F-35. So again, why are we wasting taxpayer dollars?

Was the U.S tax payers wasting their money when it came to weapons platforms that the liberals with in the Democrat Party said were obsolete weapons of the "Cold War" like the A-10 Warthog ? In 1990 all of the Ap-10 were headed to the bone yard. It was a weapons platform designed to destroy Soviet tanks in Europe. What saved the A-10 from the bone yard was the first Persian Gulf war (1990- 1991) That weapons platformn ended up becoming the # 1. close air suport aircraft in America's arsenal. Just think if Marine pilots were in the cockpit !!!

Every Marine is an rifleman first no matter what his MOS is. Every Marine pilot is also a rifleman first and is capable and qualified to lead a Marine rifle platoon in combat. So when providing CAS for Marines or the army on the ground, he has a better idea of what's happening on the ground.

But I digress.

There's a long list of weapons platforms that the Democrats have said were a waste of the tax payers money are obsolete, are relics of another era. How wrong they usually are.

1980's during the Reagan administration, to fill the carrier gap, four Iowa class BB's were activated. This caused the Soviet navy to crap their pants and went on a massive ship building program that would lead the financial collapse of the Soviet Union. An Iowa class BB can put more tons of ordinance on target in one hour than entire navy carrier air wing in 24 hours.

How the U.S. Air Force which they had the Douglas A-1 Skyraider to use in Afghanistan. They were looking for a replacement because all of the A-1's (SANDY's) were scrapped. I believe the Obama administration canceled that replacement while American troops are being killed because we don't have a COIN aircraft, the OV-10 being the last COIN aircraft to serve with the Marines during the first Gulf war.

Have you noticed how many M-14's were pulled out of storage after collecting dust for thirty or forty years and issued to U.S. Marines and soldiers ? Always been the weapon of choice by Navay SEALS since the early 1970's.

How about the LAW's you see starpped on the back of the rucksacks of Marines and soldiers during the Iraq war and today in Afghanstan. Another Cold War relic, designed to take out Soviet tanks and heavily used to take out Charley in Vietnam.

But in 2002 there was a Marine officer working in Marine HQ's searching for what Marine weapons that were in storage from the Vietnam war and the Cold War that could be brought out of storage and deployed to Afghanistan to save American Marines and soldiers lives. The weapons platform he found wasn';t in storage but was scrapped because the lkiberals said it was a "Cold War" obsolete weapon.

That was the USMC ONTOS, originally designed to take out Soviet tanks but would be widely used by U.S. Marines killing Charley in Vietnam. The best counter sniper weapon ever designed. A very deterrent weapons platform when it came to VC sappers trying to get "in the wire" of U.S. military bases in Vietnam. Used as a very affective assault weapon at Hue during Tet of 68.

The ONTOSD, a small tracked vehicle with six 106 MM recoilless rifles with a .50 cal Browning M-2 heavy machinegun.

Also uncovered in 2002 was the U.S. Marine Corps "Small Warfare Manual" that was shelved in January of 1942. It was shelved at the beginning of WW ll and collected dust for 59 years. The Original Small Wars Manual would become the revised Small Wars Manual used today by the USMC and the U.S. Army. They delated thgings like how to pack a donkey.

Just saying, most of Americas weapons platforms have not been a waste of tax payers money. They save American lives, in the past, today and probably in to the furture if they aren't scrapped by the the libs within the Democrat Party. And what weapons platforms that Democrats have abolished have ended up costing Americans to bleed and die in combat. Just the technolgy of these weapons platforms were directly involved in the adavancement in the private sector like what your using right now, the internet.

It was the "Cold War" and the profifts of the military industrial complex made during the "Vietnam War" that they were making and directed those profits to the R & D of the internet as we know it today.

 

[HL01]

And this from the guy always singing the praises of the J-15 and J-20. Please...

i never mentioned any chinese jets, as japan just can't win an air war against china now anyway. yes, japan can wait until 2016 for just a tiny number of crippled and expensive f-35.


and let's see how japan is being ripped off in more detailed:

DailyTech - Japan Buys Four F-35 Fighters Despite Price Increase

Japan paid $3.7 million per fighter more than previously agreed

The F-35 fighter program has been plagued with setbacks and price increases for years now. As the price continues to increase, many partner countries that originally agreed to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter have threatened to reduce orders or bail altogether. Each time a country reduces the orders it intends to place or cancels orders out right, the price of each fighter increases.

Some cost estimates for the F-35 program have pegged the lifetime cost of the fighter fleet at $1.45 trillion.


How the F-35 May Hurt U.S.-Japan Ties - The Diplomat

How the F-35 May Hurt U.S.-Japan Ties

Although the F-35 was the only 5th generation jet, the Defense Ministry’s choice was a gamble. Ongoing problems with the plane, such as cracks in the fuselage, fuel concerns over not only its performance and safety, but successful completion of its development. Persistent problems mean falling behind the development schedule and increases in the final cost. Worse, U.S. defense spending cuts and the European debt crisis could lead to reduced orders or even participation by some of the planes’ developers since four of the partner nations are EU members. Fewer orders or resources could lead to further spikes in costs.

Japan has a shrinking budget and needs new fighters. Any changes will put Japan in a precarious situation. While the other options available to the Defense Ministry weren’t 5th generation fighters, it nevertheless had other options better suited to aid its collapsing defense industry.

 

[Wiseone]

Was the U.S tax payers wasting their money when it came to weapons platforms that the liberals with in the Democrat Party said were obsolete weapons of the "Cold War" like the A-10 Warthog ? In 1990 all of the Ap-10 were headed to the bone yard. It was a weapons platform designed to destroy Soviet tanks in Europe. What saved the A-10 from the bone yard was the first Persian Gulf war (1990- 1991) That weapons platformn ended up becoming the # 1. close air suport aircraft in America's arsenal. Just think if Marine pilots were in the cockpit !!!

Every Marine is an rifleman first no matter what his MOS is. Every Marine pilot is also a rifleman first and is capable and qualified to lead a Marine rifle platoon in combat. So when providing CAS for Marines or the army on the ground, he has a better idea of what's happening on the ground.

But I digress.

There's a long list of weapons platforms that the Democrats have said were a waste of the tax payers money are obsolete, are relics of another era. How wrong they usually are.

1980's during the Reagan administration, to fill the carrier gap, four Iowa class BB's were activated. This caused the Soviet navy to crap their pants and went on a massive ship building program that would lead the financial collapse of the Soviet Union. An Iowa class BB can put more tons of ordinance on target in one hour than entire navy carrier air wing in 24 hours.

How the U.S. Air Force which they had the Douglas A-1 Skyraider to use in Afghanistan. They were looking for a replacement because all of the A-1's (SANDY's) were scrapped. I believe the Obama administration canceled that replacement while American troops are being killed because we don't have a COIN aircraft, the OV-10 being the last COIN aircraft to serve with the Marines during the first Gulf war.

Have you noticed how many M-14's were pulled out of storage after collecting dust for thirty or forty years and issued to U.S. Marines and soldiers ? Always been the weapon of choice by Navay SEALS since the early 1970's.

How about the LAW's you see starpped on the back of the rucksacks of Marines and soldiers during the Iraq war and today in Afghanstan. Another Cold War relic, designed to take out Soviet tanks and heavily used to take out Charley in Vietnam.

But in 2002 there was a Marine officer working in Marine HQ's searching for what Marine weapons that were in storage from the Vietnam war and the Cold War that could be brought out of storage and deployed to Afghanistan to save American Marines and soldiers lives. The weapons platform he found wasn';t in storage but was scrapped because the lkiberals said it was a "Cold War" obsolete weapon.

That was the USMC ONTOS, originally designed to take out Soviet tanks but would be widely used by U.S. Marines killing Charley in Vietnam. The best counter sniper weapon ever designed. A very deterrent weapons platform when it came to VC sappers trying to get "in the wire" of U.S. military bases in Vietnam. Used as a very affective assault weapon at Hue during Tet of 68.

The ONTOSD, a small tracked vehicle with six 106 MM recoilless rifles with a .50 cal Browning M-2 heavy machinegun.

Also uncovered in 2002 was the U.S. Marine Corps "Small Warfare Manual" that was shelved in January of 1942. It was shelved at the beginning of WW ll and collected dust for 59 years. The Original Small Wars Manual would become the revised Small Wars Manual used today by the USMC and the U.S. Army. They delated thgings like how to pack a donkey.

Just saying, most of Americas weapons platforms have not been a waste of tax payers money. They save American lives, in the past, today and probably in to the furture if they aren't scrapped by the the libs within the Democrat Party. And what weapons platforms that Democrats have abolished have ended up costing Americans to bleed and die in combat. Just the technolgy of these weapons platforms were directly involved in the adavancement in the private sector like what your using right now, the internet.

It was the "Cold War" and the profifts of the military industrial complex made during the "Vietnam War" that they were making and directed those profits to the R & D of the internet as we know it today.

I'm not here to argue that every piece of military spending is a waste, you've gone off on a tangent by addressing my point about F-22s and F-35s but talking about everything but them. I get that sometimes a piece of military equipment becomes useful again long after conventional thought says its outlived its time, however that fact doesn't justify spending on things which don't serve a purpose.

 

[APACHERAT]

however that fact doesn't justify spending on things which don't serve a purpose.

The purpose is supporting the rifleman on the ground. (soldier or Marine)

The United States spends hundreds of millions of dollars every year to support it's combat ground forces from bleeding and dieing on the battlefield than all other countries combined.

Think about it. Let me know when we are spending to much ?

 

[HL01]

I wouldn't worry tremendously. First of all 187 F-22s were built. That's quite a bit more than 100. Just because the F-22 is halted now, doesn't mean it cannot be restarted later.

While it's true the F-35 is not the equal of the F-22, it's still a step up from the F-18E/F.....

the major problem is rather the cost.

how do you 'restart' the production line so easily, when each f-22 costs at least usd 361 million (in 2006 fig.) ?


and the "step up from the f-18" is not just performance but unfortunately the tremendous cost to fly it:

The F-22 Raptor: Program & Events

The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-19141.html

F/A-18A-D $18k cost per flying....

 

[Wiseone]

The purpose is supporting the rifleman on the ground. (soldier or Marine)

The United States spends hundreds of millions of dollars every year to support it's combat ground forces from bleeding and dieing on the battlefield than all other countries combined.

Think about it. Let me know when we are spending to much ?

Yes I'm familar with the old adage that "nothing is too good for our troops, cost is no issue" but in the real world things cost money and this country only has so much of it. Talking about how our heroes deserve only the best is nice rhetoric but doesn't solve the problem of the Federal Government having only so much money to spend and having the decision on how to spend it, AND it doesn't excuse us from making sound fiscal decisions about spending.

 

[EagleAye]

i never mentioned any chinese jets, as japan just can't win an air war against china now anyway. yes, japan can wait until 2016 for just a tiny number of crippled and expensive f-35.

You did in other threads, and you sang their praises before development was even complete. And we've already shown you how Japan would win a defensive airwar, over Japan, even without F-35s. But let's leave that in the other thread.

and let's see how japan is being ripped off in more detailed:

DailyTech - Japan Buys Four F-35 Fighters Despite Price Increase

Japan paid $3.7 million per fighter more than previously agreed

The F-35 fighter program has been plagued with setbacks and price increases for years now. As the price continues to increase, many partner countries that originally agreed to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter have threatened to reduce orders or bail altogether. Each time a country reduces the orders it intends to place or cancels orders out right, the price of each fighter increases.

Some cost estimates for the F-35 program have pegged the lifetime cost of the fighter fleet at $1.45 trillion.

How the F-35 May Hurt U.S.-Japan Ties - The Diplomat

How the F-35 May Hurt U.S.-Japan Ties

Although the F-35 was the only 5th generation jet, the Defense Ministry’s choice was a gamble. Ongoing problems with the plane, such as cracks in the fuselage, fuel concerns over not only its performance and safety, but successful completion of its development. Persistent problems mean falling behind the development schedule and increases in the final cost. Worse, U.S. defense spending cuts and the European debt crisis could lead to reduced orders or even participation by some of the planes’ developers since four of the partner nations are EU members. Fewer orders or resources could lead to further spikes in costs.

Japan has a shrinking budget and needs new fighters. Any changes will put Japan in a precarious situation. While the other options available to the Defense Ministry weren’t 5th generation fighters, it nevertheless had other options better suited to aid its collapsing defense industry.

You act shocked and surprised that, when developing the most advanced tech in the world that no one has ever developed before, it doesn't follow an exacting budget to the penny and a timetable to the second. This is naivete of the highest order. When someone is making a simple toy that involves 50 year old tech, and doing so on a pre-built assembly line, it is reasonable to expect the toy will follow a specific budget and timeline. But not all things are the same, and expecting identical results from wildly different processes is foolhardy in the extreme. Only a few people in the entire world know how to develop a stealth aircraft. With the F-35, this very tiny pool of experts are trying to build one airframe that fits the very different needs of three different military services. So this pool of experts are trying something that no one in human history has ever attempted. Yet here you are, a child amongst men, scowling and tapping your watch and questioning why the process isn't fitting into YOUR preconceived notion. Your notion which is NOT based in any understanding of the process at all, and looking down on the most brilliant minds in the field. It is to laugh.

Developing brand new technology doesn't always fit into the simpleton's "paint by numbers" understanding of the world. Anyone who has ever created anything new understands this. Cost overruns and timetable extensions are quite common. It happens all the time. Ask the Chinese military about timetable. They've had the Liaoning for 14 years, and only recently made it's first successful landing trap. 14 freakin, years! The US makes about 100 in a single day, but China makes one in 14 years. Perhaps criticism from China about the F-35's timetable are inappropriate. Just a tad?

 

[EagleAye]

the major problem is rather the cost.

how do you 'restart' the production line so easily, when each f-22 costs at least usd 361 million (in 2006 fig.) ?

and the "step up from the f-18" is not just performance but unfortunately the tremendous cost to fly it:

The F-22 Raptor: Program & Events

The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-19141.html

F/A-18A-D $18k cost per flying....

And guess what, the F-18 costs more to operate than F-8 Crusader, and the Crusader costs more to operate than the F9F Panther, and Panther costs more to operate than the F4F Wildcat. So I'll tell you what. We'll build a batch of 1942-era Wildcats for China to operate on their Liaoning. And China could claim they have the world's best naval aviation because it costs less to operate than anybody else's. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

Higher tech machines cost more to operate. That's the way the world works. More capability means more cost, always. It's silly to look at operating cost and complain yet demand greater abilities.

 

[HL01]

You did in other threads, and you sang their praises before development was even complete. And we've already shown you how Japan would win a defensive airwar, over Japan, even without F-35s. But let's leave that in the other thread.

chinese jets? which threads? where did i praise them?

japan winning an 'defensive' air war over japan??? who said china needs to do dog fight over japan in order to defeat jsdaf???


make all you defenses you can about the uncontrolled high cost of the f-35, you won't change the fact that japan has to pay almost double for each jet with lower than expected performance, and most important of all, can't fire missiles.

 

[HL01]

And guess what, the F-18 costs more to operate than F-8 Crusader, and the Crusader costs more to operate than the F9F Panther, and Panther costs more to operate than the F4F Wildcat. So I'll tell you what. We'll build a batch of 1942-era Wildcats for China to operate on their Liaoning. And China could claim they have the world's best naval aviation because it costs less to operate than anybody else's. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

Higher tech machines cost more to operate. That's the way the world works. More capability means more cost, always. It's silly to look at operating cost and complain yet demand greater abilities.

yeah yeah yeah.... f4f, f8, f9f.... why didn't you mention paper air plane too? that will make your argument much stronger, haha....


and just thank you for confirming that f-35 is very expensive to build and to operate.