To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't started switching to air-to-air drones yet. They seem to be using them for everything else these days.
How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
11–20 of 347 posts
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#12Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#13...currently an estimated $1 trillion to design, build and operate 2,400 copies... Am I the only one shocked that a country spend this much to make a weapon? Is there any decency left?
If you consider that the entirety of the Apollo programs, in which we developed machines to put us on the moon, cost $109 billion (in 2010 dollars), I would say.. yes. It's a little shocking that we've spent a trillion dollars on a plane.
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#14I understand the point the article is trying to make, but its not realistic. Having worked with the Navy for a few years I know that the biggest use of airplanes is not air to air combat ( which is what this article is complaining about ) It is air to land bombing. So why are we complaining about making an air force that serves our needs rather then one that might be useful for some other task. As a note he says this…
Won't the air to ground bombing mission be done mostly by drones? Manned aircraft will be increasingly reserved for special operations and dirty little wars, which is pretty much the Marines' job description.
Also, the vertical takeoff capability will be mandatory for a hypothetical future war against a major power. Once the huge, lumbering aircraft carriers are sitting on the sea floor, they will be replaced by heavily armored battleships. In a major war, the only sea launched aircraft will be VTOLs.
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#15I understand the point the article is trying to make, but its not realistic. Having worked with the Navy for a few years I know that the biggest use of airplanes is not air to air combat ( which is what this article is complaining about ) It is air to land bombing. So why are we complaining about making an air force that serves our needs rather then one that might be useful for some other task. As a note he says this…
the F-35 is one of the largest wastes of government money that is publicly known. by the time the aircraft has all the bugs ironed out, it will have cost USD 1 tln and be easily destroyed by much cheaper drones. the entire contract should be converted into drone development, which will actually pay dividends.
trying to argue that we need the F-35 or that it will provide any kind of strategic military value is absurd.
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#16I understand the point the article is trying to make, but its not realistic. Having worked with the Navy for a few years I know that the biggest use of airplanes is not air to air combat ( which is what this article is complaining about ) It is air to land bombing. So why are we complaining about making an air force that serves our needs rather then one that might be useful for some other task. As a note he says this…
> the biggest use of airplanes [...] is air to land bombing
But what happens to your bombers when you don't have air superiority?
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#17$1 trillion; this is why the US has no health care. Does anyone realistically believe you will go to war with China or Russia anymore? It's time to stop the charade of war, and help your own citizens instead.
Does anyone realistically believe you will go to war with China or Russia anymore?
Historically there have been military conflicts between superpowers. So I'd say its incumbent on those claiming we won't have wars to explain what's changed and why we won't have anymore major military conflicts.
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#18Why are we still building manned fighter planes?
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#19Having worked on the F16 at one point in my career it kicks the F35 is the ass every day and twice on Sunday. Plus you can buy 20 of them for every F35. It's all about money though, the F16 is too cheap to keep Lockheed in business no matter how much you upgrade it.
I don't think this is to replace the F16. The F22 replaces them. How do you think the F35 compares to the F18 ?
I don't believe this is accurate.
The F-16 is the "low" part of the "high/low" multirole fighter strategy. For the air force, the "high" jet is the F-15. The F-22 is predominantly designed for air superiority, and thus is most directly a replacement for the F-15C. Whether it really even replaces the F-15C is questionable, since the quantity produced is extremely small compared to the overall legacy fighter fleet.
The assumption is that gap will be filled by the F-35 and the F-16 will be replaced by the F-35.
Re: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
#20The USAF intends to replace the A-10 with this turkey, and it's an awful idea.
A-10: holds 1350 rounds of 30mm ammo. F-35: holds 180 rounds of smaller 25mm ammo internally, plus 220 rounds externally
A-10: 1.8 hour loiter time. F-35: Not listed, but as a high subsonic (stall speed) fighter, it's going to be shorter
A-10: Has titanium armor protecting the pilot & critical systems. F-35: Already overweight, no chance of any armor.
A-10: Can be field repaired. F-35: Because of stealth requirements, only the simplest of damage can be repaired in the field.
And then there's the price...
[Edit: Added stall speed qualification]