RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163800,00.html
My question is what type of war is the F-35 designed to fight. The USA is already spending 300 million dollars for one F-22 Raptor. The F-22 is so hight tech that the USA has not seen a need for it in our present conflicts.

The F-22 and F-35 are nothing more than the already bloated military contractors suckin as much blood money from the USA tax payers. The F-22 and F-35 will not be used against terrorists. To kill a terrorist with this type of aircraft is like tryin to kill sand fleas with a sledge hammer.

I suggest we bring all our troops home, retool the military industrial complex so it can produce mass transit systems, solar panels,wind mills and other forms of alternative energy.

SEMPER FI AND GOD BLESS AMERICA

quote:

Originally posted by geehaw:
RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163800,00.html
My question is what type of war is the F-35 designed to fight. The USA is already spending 300 million dollars for one F-22 Raptor. The F-22 is so hight tech that the USA has not seen a need for it in our present conflicts.

The F-22 and F-35 are nothing more than the already bloated military contractors suckin as much blood money from the USA tax payers. The F-22 and F-35 will not be used against terrorists. To kill a terrorist with this type of aircraft is like tryin to kill sand fleas with a sledge hammer.

I suggest we bring all our troops home, retool the military industrial complex so it can produce mass transit systems, solar panels,wind mills and other forms of alternative energy.

SEMPER FI AND GOD BLESS AMERICA

To start i wqant to say Wlecome Home and Thanks for Your Service Marine...

I have never been a fan of the JSF...How can you call an aircraft with 3 to 4 completely different versions a JOINT Fighter...I agree the technology is currently not required at this time but it should not be banned...it should be developed and tested until such time there is a specific requirement when production cna be initiated at an increased pace...

Bringing everyone hme and retooling the military industry sounds like you want to eliminate the military industry andd the military...we have commercial energy companies to investigate and develope new forms of energy and transportation...we do not need ot retool the military industry...which is by no means an inexpensive undertaking...not a good idea...

Build it. Better safe than sorry. You stay as far ahead of your enemies as possible... and you stay there. Besides, terrorist arent the only enemies we have. The F-16, Harrier, and A-10's are aging. The F-35 might be expensive now, but in the long run you're saving munny because you're getting rid of several completely different aircraft and you're replacing them with one fighter with different versions

I want to know how the powers that be think that a single aircraft, even with all the various versions of it, can be all things to everyone. This aircraft is supposed to replace both the F-16 and the A-10, which were devised for two absolutely different types of missions. I wholly support continued development and upgrading of our forces, even if the specific technology may not have immediate use. However, it must be developed intelligently. One aircraft simply cannot meet all the needs required of it. We would be better off developing different aircraft for specific purposes. Both the F-35 and F-22 projects have seemed all along like poorly designed projects that have legitimate purpose but fail in execution.

'At the end of the day', as they say, the F22 just might be too much airplane. Or it might be too little airplane for too much price.

Maybe this is one reason Boeing didn't get the EADS contract.

quote:

This aircraft is supposed to replace both the F-16 and the A-10, which were devised for two absolutely different types of missions.

Exactly. The Air Force wants to replace the A-10 with something that can't do its job nearly as well. The best thing to replace the A-10 would be an improved A-10, but the Air Force hates the idea that an O-5 pilot can be directed around the battlespace by an Army NCO. So, they figure, by losing the A-10, and then simply claiming not to have any aircraft that "work that way", they avoid the problem.

The Army should be permitted to take up Close Air Support, if the Air Force really doesn't want it.

Swami

What is a f-35 ??? I thought that we just came up with the f-22 and now they want to down size the production of the f-22 to about 189 aircraft. so why build f-35's . will they cost more ??? are they cheaper maybe the price and configuration of a kite???.I thought that the f-22 was the kats meow at the present time.I thought that speed and delivery system was the most critical importance at this time. maybe I was wrong its about who can throw the most bull and get the most money in their pocket as to what is best for our country I hate to see it when we as a country cease to exist because some one out there sells us out. I wonder what country we will come under china, russia,or the ratical arabian countrys that supports terrorist at this time.h.e.l.l. they can't even control are maintain their countrys now.

I wholeheartedly agree. Tac air has been the saving grace of the US Army for half a century. From The Battle of the Bulge, to the Ia Drang Valley; we have depended on reliable air support.

I fail to see how this stealthy fighter jet will be able to carry the payload needed for supporting ground troops. I am somewhat ignorant on the subject so if someone can prove differently, let me know. The Army should develop a slower, much less expensive airplane for close air support, or have upgraded A-10's.

Shades of MacNamaras F-111, the all purpose schmoo that did everything with one airframe.
A F35 vstol might be a great airframe. A F35 interceptor might. A F35 fighter-bomber might be a great thing. However, it cannot ever be all these things.
The last thing we need is an airplane that does everything half assed.
Give the Army all the A10's. Give the marines the F35 VSTOLS and let the AF handle the bombers, dogfighters and and their associated support tankers and maintenance facilities.
The Navy has their own unique requirements and a bastardized F35 probably wont fill any of those. Get back to reality and give the different branches the aircraft that will fill their mission requirements and not a compromise.

quote:

Originally posted by swami:

quote:

This aircraft is supposed to replace both the F-16 and the A-10, which were devised for two absolutely different types of missions.

Exactly. The Air Force wants to replace the A-10 with something that can't do its job nearly as well. The best thing to replace the A-10 would be an improved A-10, but the Air Force hates the idea that an O-5 pilot can be directed around the battlespace by an Army NCO. So, they figure, by losing the A-10, and then simply claiming not to have any aircraft that "work that way", they avoid the problem.

The Army should be permitted to take up Close Air Support, if the Air Force really doesn't want it.

Swami

I agree that the F-35 will have a hard time replacing the A-10. Although the USMC seems to think the F-35 will be able to perform CAS.

The rest of your answer is garbage. Just what do you base that on?

As to the GAO report, over two thirds of their estimated costs are projections, most of which (fuel, depot, field maintenance, etc.) will apply to whatever airframe is purchase. And the F-35 isn't strictly USAF, although some of you seem to think so.

A better name for this report would have been "US/DoD Tactical Air Fleet Replacement and Operating Costs to reach $1 Trillion" It isn't just the F-35 pushing those numbers.

9644985 - the F-35 was designed to replace a multitude of acft throughout the services; F/A-18 A-D, AV-8, F-16, and A-10 (although there is a strong argument about the last one). It is a multipurpose aiframe. The F-22 was designed strictly as air superiority, although it has some strike capability, to replace the F-15. The USN thought it too costly to design a navalized F-22, so it is strictly a USAF acft.

Where is McCain on this one - and the F-22?

NO wonder airbus won the tanker contract. They have one flying, the boom is already designed, and their testing. And from what I can see, they will charge for each aircraft what is in the contract.

How is it that American manufactures come up with prices in their bids, then get the bid, and costs then skyrocket??? Who's holding THEM to their contracts???

And a bigger damn question, who is going to pay for all these weapons at these insane costs? The Chinese? Will be borrow from the Chinese to pay for these aircraft? Has anyone noticed that the middle class is pretty much broke, and no one wants to raise taxes on the rich?

Pretty soon, well be the most heavily armed nation in the world with the shinnest weapons, but we'll all be living in poverty to pay for all this!

quote:

Originally posted by TheTinker:

quote:

Originally posted by geehaw:
RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163800,00.html
My question is what type of war is the F-35 designed to fight. The USA is already spending 300 million dollars for one F-22 Raptor. The F-22 is so hight tech that the USA has not seen a need for it in our present conflicts.

The F-22 and F-35 are nothing more than the already bloated military contractors suckin as much blood money from the USA tax payers. The F-22 and F-35 will not be used against terrorists. To kill a terrorist with this type of aircraft is like tryin to kill sand fleas with a sledge hammer.

I suggest we bring all our troops home, retool the military industrial complex so it can produce mass transit systems, solar panels,wind mills and other forms of alternative energy.

SEMPER FI AND GOD BLESS AMERICA

To start i wqant to say Wlecome Home and Thanks for Your Service Marine...

I have never been a fan of the JSF...How can you call an aircraft with 3 to 4 completely different versions a JOINT Fighter...I agree the technology is currently not required at this time but it should not be banned...it should be developed and tested until such time there is a specific requirement when production cna be initiated at an increased pace...

Bringing everyone hme and retooling the military industry sounds like you want to eliminate the military industry andd the military...we have commercial energy companies to investigate and develope new forms of energy and transportation...we do not need ot retool the military industry...which is by no means an inexpensive undertaking...not a good idea...

To the both of you, think outside of the box. Cope Thunder has shown that our f-15s and f-16s are no match for the latest Migs and Sukhoi fighters. They were spanked by the Indian, that's right, the Indian AF. With China and Russia trying to re-assert themselves in the world arena, we need the fighters even more than ever. History has shown that you don't win a war by re-fighting the last war. Yes, they may not play a factor in an anti-insurgency, but what happens in a general war with either China or Russia? Even simpler, what happens in a war with an emerging Third World nation that has bought the latest Sukhoi or Mig? Finally, the reason it is called a joint fighter and has four different versions is that there is the common core among all versions and each version is then tooled for that service's needs. For example, the Navy version needs folding wings for storage and a strengthened landing gear to handle traps, but the other versions do not because they are land based. Both of your posts show your ignorance of air power and the actual world situation.

quote:

Production of the Lightning II has begun and the Defense Department is scheduled to buy the aircraft through 2034. U.S. allies are also buying hundreds of the jets and are contributing $4.8 billion in development costs.

Does that strike anyone else as a bit presumptive? What guarantees are being offered that this will be the ideal bird to be buying twenty-five years from now?

Wow!!!. And to think that the most technological US fighter aircraft during WWII was the P-51 Mustang. Produced at a cost of $50,985 in 1945 dollars. How times (and costs) change!!

Have a good day!~!

Yeah, I agree. "Joint" can only go so far. You try to come up with systems that are all things to all people, you get mediocrity across the board. That's just a basic fact of physics and mission requirements. I know it flies in the face of the new "Joint" mantra, but it's time that the Air Force hands over fixed wing, CAS, to the Army. It only makes sense. Let the Air force worry about top cover and strategic bombing and all the rest that they do. The whole space war issue will be heating up in the future and that's where the Air Force will need to be paying close attention. Just as a side thought.....these figures that are being thrown around are today's numbers in today's dollars........what are they going to inflate to in ......5.....10.....15 years from now. Mind boggling!

quote:

Originally posted by AFRet91:
Shades of MacNamaras F-111, the all purpose schmoo that did everything with one airframe.
A F35 vstol might be a great airframe. A F35 interceptor might. A F35 fighter-bomber might be a great thing. However, it cannot ever be all these things.
The last thing we need is an airplane that does everything half assed.
Give the Army all the A10's. Give the marines the F35 VSTOLS and let the AF handle the bombers, dogfighters and and their associated support tankers and maintenance facilities.
The Navy has their own unique requirements and a bastardized F35 probably wont fill any of those. Get back to reality and give the different branches the aircraft that will fill their mission requirements and not a compromise.

quote:

Originally posted by swami:

quote:

This aircraft is supposed to replace both the F-16 and the A-10, which were devised for two absolutely different types of missions.

Exactly. The Air Force wants to replace the A-10 with something that can't do its job nearly as well. The best thing to replace the A-10 would be an improved A-10, but the Air Force hates the idea that an O-5 pilot can be directed around the battlespace by an Army NCO. So, they figure, by losing the A-10, and then simply claiming not to have any aircraft that "work that way", they avoid the problem.

The Army should be permitted to take up Close Air Support, if the Air Force really doesn't want it.

Swami

Wasn't the A-10 set tp be scrapped prior to the Gulf War? How many more casualties would there have been without it?

Yeah the cost thing is embarassing, but that's a problem across the board. All the progress we've made in microchips and processor speeds, and we've made no corresponding quantum leap in accounting, or project management.

As far as the JSF is concerned, some of the comments here so far are a little off base.

As far as projecting the buy for another 20-30 years, that's partly a factor of precedent. The F-4 Phantom flew in the early 60s, and we're still flying QF-4s; some of our allies are still flying them as front line birds.

The F-15, -16, and YF-17 programs were started back in the 70s; we'll probably still be flying and buying them for another 10 years.

So projecting a service life over decades comports with precedent and experience, if not common sense.

As far as the system's capabilities, well, there are rumors of directed energy weapons applications. That may be Buck Rogers, Popular Science BS; may not be. Think about what a laser or microwave weapon system can do.

The lift fan bay in the STOVL version leaves some room for other applications in the CTOL versions, including a generator/capacitor taking power right off the turboshaft.

The swiveling engine nozzle in the STOVL version makes for a good dry run for a vectored thrust system. The roll posts that are supposed to stabilize the STOVL version in VTOL approaches and departures might have maneuvering applications, too.

Apart from all that, bear in mind that, in theory, any fly by wire system with a robust datalink and good computers can be turned into a UAV.

All in all, JSF might have a lot more capability than we've been letting on.

Either that, or the Japanese, English, Dutch, Australians, Israelis, etc., etc. are really f@#king gullible.

Could the whole thing be the F-111, all over again? Sure. But the F-111 program showed some ROI as the FB-111, and EF-111.

Finally, JSF might end up being the most sophisticated composite materials production line in history, and a timely investment in that future industrial base.

All in all, there are worse ways to spend a trillion dollars. Read the papers.

quote:

Originally posted by AirForceAggie:

quote:

Originally posted by TheTinker:

quote:

Originally posted by geehaw:
RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163800,00.html
My question is what type of war is the F-35 designed to fight. The USA is already spending 300 million dollars for one F-22 Raptor. The F-22 is so hight tech that the USA has not seen a need for it in our present conflicts.

The F-22 and F-35 are nothing more than the already bloated military contractors suckin as much blood money from the USA tax payers. The F-22 and F-35 will not be used against terrorists. To kill a terrorist with this type of aircraft is like tryin to kill sand fleas with a sledge hammer.

I suggest we bring all our troops home, retool the military industrial complex so it can produce mass transit systems, solar panels,wind mills and other forms of alternative energy.

SEMPER FI AND GOD BLESS AMERICA

To start i wqant to say Wlecome Home and Thanks for Your Service Marine...

I have never been a fan of the JSF...How can you call an aircraft with 3 to 4 completely different versions a JOINT Fighter...I agree the technology is currently not required at this time but it should not be banned...it should be developed and tested until such time there is a specific requirement when production cna be initiated at an increased pace...

Bringing everyone hme and retooling the military industry sounds like you want to eliminate the military industry andd the military...we have commercial energy companies to investigate and develope new forms of energy and transportation...we do not need ot retool the military industry...which is by no means an inexpensive undertaking...not a good idea...

To the both of you, think outside of the box. Cope Thunder has shown that our f-15s and f-16s are no match for the latest Migs and Sukhoi fighters. They were spanked by the Indian, that's right, the Indian AF. With China and Russia trying to re-assert themselves in the world arena, we need the fighters even more than ever. History has shown that you don't win a war by re-fighting the last war. Yes, they may not play a factor in an anti-insurgency, but what happens in a general war with either China or Russia? Even simpler, what happens in a war with an emerging Third World nation that has bought the latest Sukhoi or Mig? Finally, the reason it is called a joint fighter and has four different versions is that there is the common core among all versions and each version is then tooled for that service's needs. For example, the Navy version needs folding wings for storage and a strengthened landing gear to handle traps, but the other versions do not because they are land based. Both of your posts show your ignorance of air power and the actual world situation.

AirForceAggie,
Trying to explain it is like talking to a brick wall. I was shaking my head reading some of these posts. What they need is to go buy a subsricption to Popular Mechanics. Then, maybe, they will learn a little bit about aeronautics.

ASK THE AUSTRALIANS ABOOT THE F-111. THE'RE JUST TALKING ABOOT REPLACING THEM. WE ARE PLACING TOO MUCH RELIANCE ON "HIGH TECH" STUFF. WHAT HAPPENED TO A COMPITENT PILOT THAT DOESN'T HAVE A PHD. IN SOMETHING. GIVE US MORE A-10'S. PUT ALL THE COMPUTORS BACK ON THE GROUND.
SEMPER FI