KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Nothing in the world can touch it? Ahem... It's not a high performance fighter - it's designed to be a modular, 'inexpensive' "bomb truck" for ground troop support, etc, with a low radar sig. Just sayin'. So....why do we need 2500 of these things again? Ground support? Is it really worth like 100x the cost of a Warthog, then? Quote
rob Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 They say nothing in the world can touch it (except for the F-22). That alone should guarantee that Pat can flap his lips and complain for the next 5 years in freedumb and not under another powers repressive thumb. riiiiiight. Cause our current planes are just dropping like flies. WE'RE NOT SAFE WITHOUT THIS NEW PLANE!!!! Quote
rob Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Bill, how many pictures of dead kids do you think that plane can provide? Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 They say nothing in the world can touch it (except for the F-22). That alone should guarantee that Pat can flap his lips and complain for the next 5 years in freedumb and not under another powers repressive thumb. riiiiiight. Cause our current planes are just dropping like flies. WE'RE NOT SAFE WITHOUT THIS NEW PLANE!!!! Well the still-expensive-as-fuck F22 has been grounded ... We just did not spend ENOUGH! Sound familiar? Quote
ZimZam Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Gizmondo reports today that the first one (finally) rolled off the the line and flew to it's new Florida home where pilots will soon be training on it in preparation for the production planes to follow. http://gizmodo.com/5822551/the-first-f+35-arrives-to-its-new-home/gallery/ They say nothing in the world can touch it (except for the F-22). That alone should guarantee that Pat can flap his lips and complain for the next 5 years in freedumb and not under another powers repressive thumb. Let's Buy one less plane and use the money to fund the NPS instead. Quote
ivan Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 i'm pretty certain we could still be maintaining our aerial integrity w/ p51s Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted July 19, 2011 Author Posted July 19, 2011 Our 'rival' nation states gave up trying to keep up 2 decades ago. Apparently, we haven't gotten the memo. Good thing we're rolling in dough. Still, though, there IS the possibility of alien invasion.... Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Our 'rival' nation states gave up trying to keep up 2 decades ago. Apparently, we haven't gotten the memo. No shit. We should buy 2500 planes "just in case" though. Quote
billcoe Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 First, let me preface my statement by saying that I don't feel our worldwide military posture and continued excessive belligerence is something I agree with. We were too isolationist before WW2, and this is the outcome of the failure to get the job done until it got brought to us too late, and the resulting price we, and the world, paid. However, if we are to be the ones dictating, and not the ones being dictated too, that is, if a strong military is something to be desired in this day and age: then we need to continue to modernize, and not rest on our laurels. These planes will be replacing the more numerous F-16s and F-18 hornets. There are shitloads more of them than there will be of this plane and they will wear out. Metal fatigue and hours in the air do matter with planes, especially the higher performance ones: unlike with say, your car. Hopeful the shorter range, coupled with Chinese shore to ship supersonic missiles that makes our carriers back off a bit for safety reasons, will mean that we will take a more defensive posture in the world going forward. I believe that a less threatening posture would actually be safer, but I don't plan for a living. Regardless, this plane is the next gen, and the Pentagon planners insist that we need it. For myself, I'd rather we be the hammer than the anvil. Be the ones who dictate, rather be dictated too. I'd rather see our Air Force rule the sky's rather than see our troops massacred on the ground. That's me, argue all you want, you pay some experts a shitload of scratch to wargame this stuff and plan for all extengincies. They did, and this is the result. People like Pat (Trashcanarnuba who started the thread) don't have to worry about the security of this country from external threats and our global posture 5 years from now while they do. Pat seems to love government spending and an expanded federal government presence for non-critical things until it gets to something like this, defense being a true federal government function as chartered by the constitution and where it really matters to our very lives, freedom and liberty. Bunch of backseat drivers won't make the car go off the road, although it can be hard on the ears on occasion LOL. Take care all. Quote
JosephH Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Cost of putting a human behind the controls of a high performance fighter or fighter/bomber is exorbitant - basically one-half to two-thirds of the total cost and the most limiting performance factor. We could probably build three UAV fighters for the cost of each F-35. The fighter and fighter / bomber role today is way better served with a mix of UAVs and cruise and other missiles. Hell, you could autonomously send twice as many UAVs as you have pilots to the near a battle and then have a the pilots jumping from downed UAVs to one's parked on-station. From a cost and performance perspective the combination of UAVs and missiles is just pretty tough to beat in most any scenario. Quote
Jim Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 For myself, I'd rather we be the hammer than the anvil. Be the ones who dictate, rather be dictated too. Oh, we're soon to be the anvil. And not because our military prowess has been usurped. It will be by those countries that have invested in technology, education, infrastructure, and implemented their global economic vision. And not flushing their treasure into the global military dominance black hole. India and China are coming on. Quote
billcoe Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 We don't have any unmanned planes with aeronautic specs close to these I believe. We might be further ahead spending that money on space based weapons and figuring out how we could shoot down everyone else's planes from orbital satellites. The X-47 is an interesting project: however, even a lay person would wonder how easy it would be to simply break the communication link (like a cell phone or radar jammer) so that the metal drops out of the sky like so many rocks. Or better yet, hack the signal and hijack/steal the plane. Regardless: the military will and should take a $ hit. Talking about the Barney Frank plan to cut the military I'd have to agree with Admiral Mullen (last paragraph): "House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, released a detailed budget plan that calls for modest defense drawdowns over five years. He argued that the Defense Department’s total budget share already has decreased from 25 percent to 20 percent. A smattering of conservatives are advocating more shrinkage. Some Republicans on Mr. Obama’s deficit commission supported cuts above $400 million. With all troops due to be pulled out of Iraq this year and Afghanistan by 2014, the Pentagon could save $100 billion annually on those two accounts alone. Mr. Gates instituted more than $100 billion in savings, although some of that money was redirected into other arms programs. The next phase is likely to be revealed in Mr. Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget in February or in some grand deficit-reduction agreement between him and Congress. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this year: “We can’t hold ourselves exempt from the belt-tightening. Neither can we allow ourselves to contribute to the very debt that puts our long-term security at risk.”" This is a process that generally is pretty good, although lots of people will bitch on it. By the end of the day, if there are enough patriots who hold to their beliefs and don't sell out to the military industrial complex/big money that follows these massive programs, we will all benefit. Take care all: Quote
billcoe Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Pretty fair and balanced short version here if anyone wants a good read on the general subject. http://original.antiwar.com/carl-conetta/2010/03/03/the-pentagons-runaway-budget/ Hope and change:-) Quote
JayB Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 For myself, I'd rather we be the hammer than the anvil. Be the ones who dictate, rather be dictated too. Oh, we're soon to be the anvil. And not because our military prowess has been usurped. It will be by those countries that have invested in technology, education, infrastructure, and implemented their global economic vision. And not flushing their treasure into the global military dominance black hole. India and China are coming on. [1980's]Don't forget about Japan![/1980's] All things being equal, people living in the US should be far less concerned with a relative military decline of the US than people who have collectively lived under the security blanket that the US has provided since WWII. Export driven growth is quite a bit easier when you don't have to worry about secure shipping lanes, etc, etc, etc... We'll be fine. Quote
rob Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 All things being equal, people living in the US should be far less concerned with a relative military decline of the US than people who have collectively lived under the security blanket that the US has provided since WWII. Export driven growth is quite a bit easier when you don't have to worry about secure shipping lanes, etc, etc, etc... We'll be fine. The shipping lanes won't be safe without this new plane!!!! Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted July 20, 2011 Author Posted July 20, 2011 I just don't know how Canadian's sleep at night without spending half their federal budget on bombs.... America maintains a big military, in part, as a means to enforce it's economic policy to keep our consumption juggernaut (over) fed. Successful or unsuccessful, this has been a cornerstone of our foreign policy strategy for decades. But the party line that our military is defensive? Uh...yeah, right. If defense were all that we were worried about, we could adopt the Dominican Republic's Coast Guard system: An old man, his nephew, and a double barreled shotgun. Quote
Hugh Conway Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 For myself, I'd rather we be the hammer than the anvil. Be the ones who dictate, rather be dictated too. Oh, we're soon to be the anvil. And not because our military prowess has been usurped. It will be by those countries that have invested in technology, education, infrastructure, and implemented their global economic vision. And not flushing their treasure into the global military dominance black hole. India and China are coming on. [1980's]Don't forget about Japan![/1980's] All things being equal, people living in the US should be far less concerned with a relative military decline of the US than people who have collectively lived under the security blanket that the US has provided since WWII. Export driven growth is quite a bit easier when you don't have to worry about secure shipping lanes, etc, etc, etc... We'll be fine. 80s Japan - effectively banned from having a military, democratic, interested in engaging with the west 00s China - largest standing army in the world rapidly militarising with technology stolen from the West, bizarre cleptocratic/communist system of government, interested in dominating the west Yeah, it'll work out great. At least well get some shitty copies of climbing gear along the way so we can't even trust that. Oh, and they'll rip off everything else along the way: http://birdabroad.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/are-you-listening-steve-jobs/ Quote
JosephH Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) We don't have any unmanned planes with aeronautic specs close to these I believe. We might be further ahead spending that money on space based weapons and figuring out how we could shoot down everyone else's planes from orbital satellites. The X-47 is an interesting project: however, even a lay person would wonder how easy it would be to simply break the communication link (like a cell phone or radar jammer) so that the metal drops out of the sky like so many rocks. Or better yet, hack the signal and hijack/steal the plane. Good ones Bill! UAV fighters will likely be mixed autonomous / remote-piloted and designed to deal with transient loss of signal. Wide area jamming would likely take too much energy. Hijacking one would require unlikely realtime decryption capabilities as the UAVs will probably have per mission encryption keys. Orbital weapons platforms have been a conservative Hardy Boys wet dream for decades, but nothing will ever come of it - more the other way around as the Chinese have been testing - satellite-killing kinetics which would be better than jamming, but probably be on the fasttrack to the use of nukes. P.S. You can sort of see where things are headed through the lens of the latest UAV/ISR platform out of Northrup/Rutan: http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=221181 Edited July 20, 2011 by JosephH Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted July 20, 2011 Author Posted July 20, 2011 Weaponize asteroids. Game OVER. Quote
Hugh Conway Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 If only this thing had LASERS! It does. Currently targeting Quote
JosephH Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Ohhhh mercy! Yes we got to beat that competition... Chinese J-14 developed with the best ideas we couldn't protect. and the J-20 right on its heels... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.