The most expensive weapon system of all times

[Skybird]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136312,00.html

The new dream weapon of air-based warfare? Well - mine not.

[GoldenRivet]

push button warfare... :-?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sgq42zBkLc

[Ducimus]

push button warfare... :-?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sgq42zBkLc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8-kNPKNCtg

[Red October1984]

push button warfare... :-?

I shudder at the idea... :nope:

[Platapus]

F-35: A weapon desperately searching for an problem. :nope:

[Skybird]

F-35: A weapon desperately searching for an problem. :nope:
Or it is a problem for all three branches of the military, navy, marines, air force. And every of the three branches has a different problem with it, because the design tries to do justice to all three branches' differing demands and thus cannot do anything really good.

Which makes it the meta-problem that the project is.

And with a super-expensive stealth design being compromised by needing to hang external fuel tanks and weapons onto it, I have a principle problem... In German, we have a word for things like this: we call it the eierlegende Wollmilchsau (egg-producing wool-milk-pig).

I would not be surprised to learn one day that the program was cancelled like the Comanche.

[Stealhead]

I shudder at the idea... :nope:


It has already been here for over 40 years...ICMBs nuclear warfare it is push button/turn key away and we all know what it would mean for humanity.

In 15~30 minutes billions of humans would die after the pushing of some buttons and turning of keys.

It still hangs over us at this very second we are all less than an hour away from annihilation.

Now as Monty Python said....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

[TarJak]

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/02/18/3690317.htm

Interesting article on the F-35 our Four Coners program last Monday. The transcript has some scary comments and numbers in it.

[eddie]

We stopped production of the F22 because of its cost, but we are stuck paying for this crap? :doh:

[HundertzehnGustav]

And with a super-expensive stealth design being compromised by needing to hang external fuel tanks and weapons onto it, I have a principle problem... In German, we have a word for things like this: we call it the eierlegende Wollmilchsau (egg-producing wool-milk-pig).

The F4 was a machine that could do it all.
(besides nimble dogfight dances! it sucked at that!)
when the money was flowing in abundance.

The F-14 was a machine that the navy needed - cause that 111 could not do the Job.
when the money was flowing in abundance

The F-18 was a machine that the navy and marines wanted. a more versatile complement for the F-14 and successor to the awesome SLUFF and F-4 groundpounders
when money was flowing, but no more in abundance

The F-18 2.Gen was a replacement of the F-14, with no russian migs no more about to swarm the world, and will complement and replace the early Hornets
when money was starting to become a proper issue

The F-35 is the same as the F-4: a Plane made to serve all and everyone equally well. Much like Win8. And yet in already 3 different variants needing much specialized maintenance.
A combo of Harrier, F-18C and F-22. [are you beeping bonkers? that is one difficult job to create such a machine!]
And yet there aint no real enemy on the Horizon.
And yet that thing is half as good as a Lightning II.
If it is sposed to be a proper groundpounder you need to give up the stealth, or give up the range.And complicated to boot.

...when the Pockets are dry.


I am all for having Fighters and FighterBombers.
But the market, and the Navies and Airforces of Today needs something that actually works.


buy a Yurofighter or a frickin rafale for chrissakes- or buy the licence and manufacture a bunch of Flankers yourselves.
That F-35 is a useless toy.
I sincerely hope all the Countries that need replacements for F-16 and F-18 fightersfighterBombers get something better than the F-35.

[Platapus]

In 15~30 minutes billions of humans would die after the pushing of some buttons and turning of keys.

There is probably a downside to this, but I just can't think of one offhand. :nope:

[Skybird]

the links set up by commentators should not go ba unnoticed:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/

Those acceleation times are a extremely bad news for a pilot who has an advanced AAM in his neck. The recommendation to reduce the Gs being pulled even more, does not make it better.


http://www.cassidian.com/en_US/web/guest/passive-radar-from-cassidian-remains-invisible
There is potential in that - though not to the benefit of the F-35.

And the F-22, costing so much, and having had two wars bypassing it since the kind of enemy it was designed for did not show up: the Raptors still have not proven their value in any hot engagement. Are they still grounded btw.?

http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/fia12-typhoon-raptor/

"We have had a Raptor salad." Nicely put :D

The Chinese probably already have had their bite on the F-35 anyway. Of course Lockheed claims that their espionage attack into the company'S datanetwork, confirmed to have stolen code of the control logic and other technical data, was harmless and did not do threatening damage to the plane'S survivability. - What else would you expect them to say with that much money at stake?

Meanwhile, the Americans train more drone pilots than combat pilots these days.

And there is practically not a single American hightech weapon or platform in service that does not use Chinese-made chips and high tech parts.

I think they really need to start thinking in the Pentagon.

[Pisces]

[Off-topic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8-kNPKNCtgTheir Wingman song is cool too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqDE76JjK7o

Oh yeah, the obligatory offensive language warning applies!

[/Off-topic]

[Bilge_Rat]

1. The basic concept, having an airframe that can be used by more than one service is good. The F-4 was used by both the air force and navy.

2. Is there a need? well the F-15, F-16 and F-18 were designed 40 years ago and are nearing the end of their useful life.

3. Does it have to use the latest cutting edge technology? Based on the F-15/16/18 experience, they will probably have to last 40 years. What will be the anti-air tech in 2050? What is more expensive? building it right from the beginning or having an expensive upgrade in 2030?

4. Is there a threat? These airplanes have a long lead time, Russia and China are both designing their own next generation plane. When, not if, but when the next crisis comes around, there wont be time to develop new planes.

5. should it be scrapped? trillions of dollars down the drain. Yes, there would be an immediate savings, but you still have the problem that the current generation of planes will be obsolete in 10 years.

6. Are manned airplanes obsolete? who knows? Drones can do some interesting things, can they do everything? If you want to fly an infantry division to the next crisis point with C-17s, are you really going to trust their protection to drones? How do you prevent the enemy from jamming the transmissions between the drone and the GCI?

7. do we need so many variants? That is probably where they could have saved some bucks.

[Oberon]

TBH, the F-22 is here to stay. It'll be in limited numbers, used only against nations with no anti-aircraft ability, and kept in cotton wool otherwise. Meanwhile the drone arm will grow and get more competent, and the conventional airforce will make up the shortfall.

In terms of an air war against the likes of China, well, I think it's very unlikely to happen, but if it does and there's a shortage of aircraft, then there's:

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Boneyards/Boneyard_015.jpg

[HundertzehnGustav]

1. The basic concept, having an airframe that can be used by more than one service is good. The F-4 was used by both the air force and navy.

2. Is there a need? well the F-15, F-16 and F-18 were designed 40 years ago and are nearing the end of their useful life.

3. Does it have to use the latest cutting edge technology? Based on the F-15/16/18 experience, they will probably have to last 40 years. What will be the anti-air tech in 2050? What is more expensive? building it right from the beginning or having an expensive upgrade in 2030?

4. Is there a threat? These airplanes have a long lead time, Russia and China are both designing their own next generation plane. When, not if, but when the next crisis comes around, there wont be time to develop new planes.

5. should it be scrapped? trillions of dollars down the drain. Yes, there would be an immediate savings, but you still have the problem that the current generation of planes will be obsolete in 10 years.

6. Are manned airplanes obsolete? who knows? Drones can do some interesting things, can they do everything? If you want to fly an infantry division to the next crisis point with C-17s, are you really going to trust their protection to drones? How do you prevent the enemy from jamming the transmissions between the drone and the GCI?

7. do we need so many variants? That is probably where they could have saved some bucks.

2 -the E and F have sopme 10-20 years left.

3- the cutting edge tecnology is stolen, and therefor no more cutting edge. PAK-FA. Chinese hardware. software leaks.

4- now you have a bunch of expensive toys, and some rustbuckets. not a single proper tool at hand.

5 - drones. cheap. effective. what needs trying is a fighter drone,.. something that has a gun and can put that gun on an enemy Fighter, transport, chopper...
but they drop eggs, and do so in an accurate manner.

6 - as far as i can see: yes.
it is only a matter of time whehn humans will thrust Cargo and Tanker and surveilance roles to manned drones of all sizes and measures.
Some roles get handed to the machines faster... some much later. Including civilian drones carrying passenges in 2060 or 2100

Not that i like any of that. if it were me, the development would have stopped at the A-4 Skyhawk or the Mig-19.
That 35 aint no good for nothing, it seems. and drones are around the corner. Naval drones even.

when toys are the killers, then the detachment from war is complete.
I hope i die soon, for these times are ugly. Careless killings ahead.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

F-4 Phantom II was developed for as naval fighter and there were relatively minor changes to make it suitable for other services. F-35 Ligthning II tried to merge three aircraft requirements to one airframe which is completely different thing.

So what to do then? I would scrap current F-35 program and use already researched technology for fresh start. I would drop Marine's F-35B S/VTOL variant completely. I would build naval fighter version and cram that down the throats of other services (just like with F-4). Its not perferct solution nor cheap but in long term I think it as better option than current incarnation of F-35.

[Skybird]

That still would make it

- a plane with short legs

- an overpriced plane due to the expensive stealth technology - that stealth technology that more and more is being seen as overestimated in the modern hightech war of tomorrow, since better sensors will compromise it sooner or later. The cost-effect balance just does not show a positive number in black.

Skip the whole program. Focus on cybertech. Drones. Build something on basis of the existing conventional fighters.

And finally get a reasonable AA missile that can outrange modern Russian ones.

Any possible war against any of the real big players will likely not be a meeting on the battlefield anyway, but a cyberwar. A war of currencies waged on financial markets. Economic domination. A drone war. An ELINT war. And this will be a war that very easily can cripple Europe and America. Chinese cyberstrikes against civilian Western infrastructure, energy, economy, traffic, I fear more than anything conventionally military they could show up with. And the claim the American military infrastructure is protected and hardened against such a war I do not believe as long as the claim has not proven its truth in real conflict. Not even mentioning the Europeans' believe that it will not get that bad anyway. Infantility is a widespread disease, I often say to myself these days.

[Bilge_Rat]

ah yes Drones, the wonder weapon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BypnhFI7HGY

Drones are fine if you want to kill terrorists in the desert, more problematic when you want to go up against a superpower.

First of all, right now drones are propeller driven, with the current performance of WW1 airplanes. Second, the biggest weakness of drones is the link back to the operator, you jam that and they become expensive lawn darts.

yes, if you spend trilions of dollars, you may get unpiloted planes that can do everything manned planes can do now. Will you save any money? doubtful and you still have the pesky problem of how to secure the radio link back to ground control.

[HundertzehnGustav]

what to do?
it is a tricky situation indeed.

scrap the F-35
with the lessons learned, build a new one,
-use the good, working parts of it, the basic design philosophy.
-drop the extra goodies the gimmicks...
-make it large enough to have legs, two engines, two Guys.
-land and take off from a carrier, and operate for lengths of time overseas.

if THAT machine works, hand it to the USAF to make a singleseater fighterversion of it.
make a copy for the marines, so they get the same tool as the navy and can operate alongside one another in perfect synch

use the F-35 as a testbed and for experiments. get the most out of the wasted dollars.

? :06: :up:

[Skybird]

Drones are the weapons of choice for the kind of conflicts that are mos tliekly - more likely than a conventional full war with any equally armed main power like China or Russia. Asymmetric wars, and all that.

However, I did not call drones wonder weapons (I am to critical of them myself), the vulnerability of theirs - so far - I am aware of, its the com link, and I did not say they should replace existing fighter forces. I just said the fighterforce should not base on something to absurdly expensive like the F-35, but on an improved conventional design, not throwing money after stealth that much, since I think that tech is overestimated.

Drones are supplemental, and will play a big role in civilian and riot control as well as counter insurgency, INTEL, surveillance and such. Once they have been turned to autonomous control logic - I hate the perspective and am totally against it, but if it can be done they will do it - we will need to talk again. Ground sentry robots of that kind already have been produced. Southkorea on my mind, Japan as well. I don'T like it, but that is the broken world I have to deal with.

[HundertzehnGustav]

the human is the weak link in aircraft performance (often not always)
drones offer more manuuuvrability than any Human could ever take, no?

securing the link is a difficult IT problem. at best.

is it about increasing manoevrability, or lessening training costs or lessening pilot loss?
a combo?

hardly know enough

[Skybird]

BTW, how high was the implicit debt of the United States again? How many hundred percent of the GDP at minimum?

And the Pentagon thinks it must bypass political intention for budget cuts by squeezing a half-a-trillion contract out of the closing door in the very last second.

The name is wrong, it is not the United States of America, it is the Broke and Overindebted States of America. But wanting trillions-expensive toys like F-35 and such. :timeout:

[Oberon]

F35 fleet has been grounded after a crack was found in an engine blade:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21554331

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTayxuDsPkMk0y2xt0ZbQg3hY3boEMaj CtyiZNdeiQTO2YdZIj1oA

[Jimbuna]

the human is the weak link

Right now it would appear to be the engine blades:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21554331

[Glock30Eric]

I have seen F-35 flying overhead on a daily basis when it isn't being grounded. It is bigger than F-18. It must have more drag issue than F-18 which it is really bad.

I think they should kill F-35 from the contract prospective; running over the budget by double and it is really late to the schedule. I hope they could kill it but I really doubt it because it is a pure politician program; all eggs into that program.

My dream: Kill F-35, use that money to modernize and reproduce the F-18s, F-16s, F-15s, A-10s, and few other planes. I would like to see NAVAIR to develop a navy version of A-10 since we are conducting lots of CAS (Close Air Support) in both so called, "fronts" without a declaration of war from our legislative branch :/\\!!. Those 30mm in the front will be very useful in the CAS. :D

Furlogh is coming soon. :/\\!!

[HundertzehnGustav]

My dream - the best of all.

Yankee Software and Engines, Gun, AA Missiles, Squad markings.:D (simply awesome)
Russian Aerodynamics a la Su-35, Bombs, paintscheme:yeah: (what looks good flies right, yes?)
Non Asian Electronics hardware:/\\!! (no more fake china chips and Playstation components!)
German Maintenance Crew :hmm2: (Ordnung! Perfektion! jawoll!)
A highly pissed off :stare: Israeli or Greek Pilot at the stick. :o:o(at war for decades already...)

[Bilge_Rat]

The F35 program is taking longer and is more expensive than originally planned. The plane will not perform as well as the original design. All true, although you could say the same thing about pretty much any weapon system designed in the past 100 years.

Just cancelling the program sounds good, but just remember what happened with the A-12. The A-12 was an advanced stealth bomber designed in the late 80s to replace certain obsolecent U.S. Navy and USMC planes. After numerous complaints that it was too expensive, it was cancelled in 1991. Instead the Navy went with the F/A-18 E "Super Hornet", which was basically just an improved version of the regular "Hornet". Even though based on an existing design, the F/A-18 E still took 10 years to become operational and was not that much cheaper per plane ( $67 M vs $84 M ). Now the "Super Hornet" is already obsolecent while the A-12 would probably still have a useful life of 20 years left. Cancelling the A-12 now looks like it was a case of "penny wise, but pound foolish".

Cancelling the F35 just shovels the problem out another 10 years when costs will be even higher.

[Jimbuna]

Wouldn't surprise me if the UK pulled back from buying the F-35 and go for the new Iranian stealth plane instead :hmm2:

[Takeda Shingen]

The leadership at Boeing has got to be tickled pink over this whole show.

[Jimbuna]

No doubt...tis just a pity they've nothing better to offer.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

The leadership at Boeing has got to be tickled pink over this whole show.Why? Plane has become 'too-big-to-fail' from political point of view - remember that work is nicely divided between congressional districts. Lockheed Martin can milk U.S. government out of its money no matter whether the aircraft actually works or not nor what the final price will be. Sound like dream situation to me.

[Takeda Shingen]

Why? Plane has become 'too-big-to-fail' from political point of view - remember that work is nicely divided between congressional districts. Lockheed Martin can milk U.S. government out of its money no matter whether the aircraft actually works or not nor what the final price will be. Sound like dream situation to me.

The selection of Lockheed's X-35 over Boeing's X-32 in the JSF compeition marked what appeared to be the departure of Boeing from the military fighter market. With Lockheed failing to deliver, that next contract is more likely to be up for grabs, allowing Boeing another chance. At the very minimum, the bad press now attributed to Lockheed puts some wind back in Boeing's sails.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

The selection of Lockheed's X-35 over Boeing's X-32 in the JSF compeition marked what appeared to be the departure of Boeing from the military fighter market. With Lockheed failing to deliver, that next contract is more likely to be up for grabs, allowing Boeing another chance. At the very minimum, the bad press now attributed to Lockheed puts some wind back in Boeing's sails.
:damn: Good point! Didn't think it from that perspective.

[Skybird]

Whatever the technological specifications are, they need to skip the F-35 and build a much cheaper airplane.

When your state finances (which means: your state's debts) are like they are today, you do not throw your lent money out of the windows like this.

One cannot have what one cannot afford. Too many people think states can run forever by the infinite-money cheat. It is a cheat. States using it first delay collapse by robbing their citizen. Then the next generation by stealing its future. When there is nothing left they could rob, it all collapses. There is no winner, all are loosers, and a new match is laucnhed.

And then it goes the same way again, it seems. Since centuries. Since millenia. Is man maybe genetically designed to be too stupid to learn?

[Glock30Eric]

Yes. There are three groups of people on earth.

1) People that makes things to happens.
2) People that watches things to happens.
3) People were took off by a surprised and said, "WTF that happened!?"

Majority of the people are #3.

[Oberon]

I know there was a plan a while ago to build a CAS aircraft that was essentially a Cessna with Hellfires for environments where an A10 would be overkill. Not sure whatever came of that.

[Takeda Shingen]

Whatever the technological specifications are, they need to skip the F-35 and build a much cheaper airplane.

When your state finances (which means: your state's debts) are like they are today, you do not throw your lent money out of the windows like this.

One cannot have what one cannot afford. Too many people think states can run forever by the infinite-money cheat. It is a cheat. States using it first delay collapse by robbing their citizen. Then the next generation by stealing its future. When there is nothing left they could rob, it all collapses. There is no winner, all are loosers, and a new match is laucnhed.

And then it goes the same way again, it seems. Since centuries. Since millenia. Is man maybe genetically designed to be too stupid to learn?

Building the cheaper plane was supposed to be one of the hallmarks of the program; it is why the whole JSF competition was held. It was supposed produce an aircraft with similar performance to the F-22, but with a fraction of the price tag, much like the Virginia and the SSN-21. Unfortunately, Lockheed has dropped the ball so often as to look like Cleveland Browns and the price tag has skyrocketed.

[Skybird]

Yes. There are three groups of people on earth.

1) People that makes things to happens.
2) People that watches things to happens.
3) People were took off by a surprised and said, "WTF that happened!?"

Majority of the people are #3.
No, five groups.

4) People always living beyond their means at the expense of others.

5) People consuming everything around and when the next generations ask what is left for them and where to live, they just shrug their shoulders and say: "It surely was my party, but it surely is your problem."

[Bilge_Rat]

Whatever the technological specifications are, they need to skip the F-35 and build a much cheaper airplane.


Building a "cheaper airplane" means continuing the production of current 4th gen planes, but these planes were already obsolescent during the Kosovo op in 99. In Kosovo, the Serbians showed what you could do with smart tactics. They did not shoot down too many planes, but they forced NATO planes to fly at high altitudes and away from suspected SAM/AAA nests. More importantly, the Serbian Army, which was the main target, had almost complete freedom of movement and suffered only light casualties. No doubt the Russians were behind the new tactics. Since then, air defences have only improved.

Russia and China are currently spending billions of dollars to upgrade their air forces and are developping their own 5th generation planes, the Russian PAK FA and the Chinese J-20. I hope no one is still under the impression that the US has a huge technological edge over Russia and China? The gap is narrowing rapidly and could be gone in as little as 5 years if the US stops funding new technology.

The risk is not just a war with Russia and China, but since both are major arms exporter, whatever they build will eventually be sold to other nations. Last month, the IAF destroyed a shipment of SA-17 on their way to Hezbollah. If they are getting the best Russian SAMs on the market, you can be sure every tinpot dictator already has them.

As to saving money, I would think the experiences of the 1920-1930s would show that a strong defence is a lot cheaper in the long run than any war.

[MH]

I'm not sure what will become of f35 yet im pretty sure that experience gained and the "pushing of technological envelope" on this project will pay off in next time....if it will have to come to this.

Also remember all those airplanes that briefly went in and out of service in early jet age and led in to all the successful 4th generation designs.
It also costed loads of money but with more diversity.
The f22 seems to be good at the job it was designed to do.

[Skybird]

Building a "cheaper airplane" means continuing the production of current 4th gen planes, but these planes were already obsolescent during the Kosovo op in 99. In Kosovo, the Serbians showed what you could do with smart tactics. They did not shoot down too many planes, but they forced NATO planes to fly at high altitudes and away from suspected SAM/AAA nests. More importantly, the Serbian Army, which was the main target, had almost complete freedom of movement and suffered only light casualties. No doubt the Russians were behind the new tactics. Since then, air defences have only improved.

Russia and China are currently spending billions of dollars to upgrade their air forces and are developping their own 5th generation planes, the Russian PAK FA and the Chinese J-20. I hope no one is still under the impression that the US has a huge technological edge over Russia and China? The gap is narrowing rapidly and could be gone in as little as 5 years if the US stops funding new technology.

The risk is not just a war with Russia and China, but since both are major arms exporter, whatever they build will eventually be sold to other nations. Last month, the IAF destroyed a shipment of SA-17 on their way to Hezbollah. If they are getting the best Russian SAMs on the market, you can be sure every tinpot dictator already has them.

As to saving money, I would think the experiences of the 1920-1930s would show that a strong defence is a lot cheaper in the long run than any war.

Fear-mongering over drops in your defence budget? That is hilarious (LINK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#ref_y)

You country has trillions and trillions in explicit debt. It has 800% of that in implicit debt- minimum. Your treasury is a total and utmost mess. Every day you increase your debt burden by dimensions that the human mind cannot imagine.

Your defence budget still has grown from 2011 to 2012. It now is three times as big as that of Russia and China together. It is as big as that of the 16 nations with the next biggest defence budgets wordwide alltogether.

When you have payed your debts, and secured your financial stability in black instead of red numbers, and your implicit debts and obligations of the next 30 years - one generation - are significantly smaller than your yearly GDP - then you can claim that your economy is healthy enough to support the maintenance of such an big military apparatus like yours.

Right now, every dollar you spent, is a dollar you have borrowed - borrowed additionally to the 18 trillions of debts you already have in explicit debts, and the 140+ trillions in implicit debts resulting from your already accumulated inherent obligations. What that means? You are broke. Bancrupt. Insolvent. Burnt. Done. Not one penny your state spends, is yours. You live on tick. You pump up a bubble. Granted, over here we do the same. Just not on that total scale, not reaching that total in red numbers. Still, since we talk about multiple-time overkill debts, these differences do not really matter anymore.

Maybe it is a good idea to invest into the military indeed. We will need it to fight off our children when they have grown up and go after our throats for what we have done to their future.

2011, some politician from either Brazil or India attended a finance conference, and was asked what the rising powers and BRISK states would advise the West to do over the debt crisis. His words were as sober as they were precise (quitong by mind and translatring from the German text I read back then: "You will need to learn to be poor. You will need to learn that you cannot afford what you want to have. You will need to learn to be where we have been. You will need to learn to get along with the little you have, not with the much you dream to have if only things were different than how they are for you."

[Bilge_Rat]

The f22 seems to be good at the job it was designed to do.

F-22 is great, but its a pure air superiority fighter. The F35 will take over the fighter-bomber role.

[Oberon]

I'd say that nothing is going to fix the US debt problem, not in this generation and probably not in the next. It is too far gone to be fixed conventionally, the hole is so deep that no ladder can reach the bottom of it, so the only way forward is to keep digging and hope you reach China (pardon the expression).
Honestly, whilst austerity can possibly help fix some budgets that are moderately in debt, such colossal numbers as the US has...no, I don't think it can be done that way. Furthermore, the US public will simply not accept it, and you've got a general public that is quite capable, willing, and some might say eager, to overthrow any form of tyrannical government that they perceive to be present. So the only way the US government can stay in power is to keep these people happy with bread and circuses whilst attempting to maintain the perception of military strength in order to prevent its enemies from taking advantage of its difficult position.
I would not trade positions with the President of the United States of America for all the money in the world, not now and not for the next three generations.
America is not doomed, it's not going to turn into some sort of dystopia like some European and Asian (and some American) writers seem to think it is, however it does face some rocky times ahead, make no mistake, as we all do, but they will pull through it. :yep:

[MH]

Is USA really in such a bad shape?

I understand that one is supposed to rant here but keep in mind that American economy is in much better shape and with stronger foundation than of most other countries .
The numbers are scary (usa is big economy)and steps must be taken but it does not necessary look like dooms day.

http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/12/26/4115211-13565026510973155-Michael-Fu_origin.jpg

[Oberon]

That is a good point, if you don't factor it in as percentage of GDP then it is a hideously scary number, but as a factor of the GDP it isn't so bad. The tricky part is how to use that to fix the debt and how long it'll take to do that.
Now, this whole economic crisis is going to burn itself out in the next few years and there'll be lots of patting each other on the back for 'fixing' it but the problem will remain because it's not a financial problem it's a global sociological problem that is caused by our own nature. We all want what we don't have, we all want what someone else has, all that finances do is make it easier for us to do this and put away paying for it until a later date. This works for both the average Joe and the US Senate and Chinese Politburo, although obviously the way the Chinese government works makes it a bit easier to regulate what its people can gain access to, but even then the thriving knock-off market and corruption makes access to goods easier depending on who you know and what you can provide them with.
Skybirds comment from the chap from Brazil has some merit, however in a few generations time Brazil may, and probably will, find itself in a similar position to America, because its current generations will have enjoyed their quality of life that has come through financial bargaining and they will be unwilling to give it up, and I can't blame them, there are few here and now that would want to give up things like satellite television, internet access, easy to cook food, and good workplace regulations on safety and pay even if it is for their children or their childrens children. One or two people might, but the overwhelming might of society will not, and that is something that you'll be hard put to change.

[MH]

The standard of living in USA is mostly economy driven compared to some other social democratic places where the link between the state and the way its citizen live is much stronger.
Now, this whole economic crisis is going to burn itself out in the next few years and there'll be lots of patting each other on the back for 'fixing' it but the problem will remain because it's not a financial problem it's a global sociological problem that is caused by our own nature. We all want what we don't have, we all want what someone else has, all that finances do is make it easier for us to do this and put away paying for it until a later date.

Then we should blame ourselves.
Possibly that is the reason why American system works so well by living most responsibility and bill paying in the hands of the people.

[Jimbuna]

That is a good point, if you don't factor it in as percentage of GDP then it is a hideously scary number, but as a factor of the GDP it isn't so bad. The tricky part is how to use that to fix the debt and how long it'll take to do that.
Now, this whole economic crisis is going to burn itself out in the next few years and there'll be lots of patting each other on the back for 'fixing' it but the problem will remain because it's not a financial problem it's a global sociological problem that is caused by our own nature. We all want what we don't have, we all want what someone else has, all that finances do is make it easier for us to do this and put away paying for it until a later date. This works for both the average Joe and the US Senate and Chinese Politburo, although obviously the way the Chinese government works makes it a bit easier to regulate what its people can gain access to, but even then the thriving knock-off market and corruption makes access to goods easier depending on who you know and what you can provide them with.
Skybirds comment from the chap from Brazil has some merit, however in a few generations time Brazil may, and probably will, find itself in a similar position to America, because its current generations will have enjoyed their quality of life that has come through financial bargaining and they will be unwilling to give it up, and I can't blame them, there are few here and now that would want to give up things like satellite television, internet access, easy to cook food, and good workplace regulations on safety and pay even if it is for their children or their childrens children. One or two people might, but the overwhelming might of society will not, and that is something that you'll be hard put to change.

So should I sell the house or the investment portfolio? :88)

[Bilge_Rat]

Ths issue is not the economy, most charts put the USA in the top ten in terms of GDP per capita, the wealth is there, its just the politicians who are not willing to raise taxes. If Americans were paying taxes on the same level as citizens in Canada or the UK, the US would have a large bdget surplus.


Fear-mongering over drops in your defence budget? That is hilarious (LINK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#ref_y)




you really think Russia and China are releasing the real numbers? :ping:

Russia has said its 5th generation plane program will only cost $10 billion. Russia is replacing 50% of all the weapons used by the Russian Army by 2020. Russia, which supposedly only has a small military budget has still managed to export arms at the same level as the US for the past 10 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arms_exports

Most financial analysts have serious doubts about the numbers the Chinese government is releasing about its economy, why should military spending be any different? China has not released the projected cost of the J-20 program.

[Oberon]

So should I sell the house or the investment portfolio? :88)

Sell everything and buy a cow. :yep:

EDIT: On second thoughts, sell everything except the plane collection. You can give that to me for safe keeping. :yep:

Then we should blame ourselves.
Possibly that is the reason why American system works so well by living most responsibility and bill paying in the hands of the people.

Unfortunately that is the case, the banks make a nice juicey target, but at the end of the day, without us taking opportunity of what they offer, they wouldn't be able to offer anything.

[Jimbuna]

I wouldn't believe a word of Chinese propaganda but would take careful consideration of what Russia spouts out.

[MH]

If Americans were paying taxes on the same level as citizens in Canada or the UK, the US would have a large bdget surplus.If they paid taxes like here in Israel they could buy beer for whole china because.... why not.:haha:

[CaptainMattJ.]

Funny, I just wrote a research paper about whether or not our funding being funneled into "Defense" (which also includes a separate budget for offense :doh:) is being used efficiently. This paper was talked about in january and the first thing that came to my mind was the F-35 program, and i'm using it as a prime example of the horrible inefficiencies of the DOD. I found quite a few links that stated the wide reaching effects of this disaster of a program, unfortunately i already have written and submitted my paper, so i didn't get to use this source.

The F-35 Program nearly doubled in cost, we are now receiving less aircraft than originally planned, the full-rate production date has been set back 7 years to 2019, cost per aircraft doubled, aircraft are experiencing huge setbacks, manufacturing defects, haven't gotten through all of it's testing, ect. How can the pentagon be left to waste money on this program?!

[Glock30Eric]

Funny, I just wrote a research paper about whether or not our funding being funneled into "Defense" (which also includes a separate budget for offense :doh:) is being used efficiently. This paper was talked about in january and the first thing that came to my mind was the F-35 program, and i'm using it as a prime example of the horrible inefficiencies of the DOD. I found quite a few links that stated the wide reaching effects of this disaster of a program, unfortunately i already have written and submitted my paper, so i didn't get to use this source.

The F-35 Program nearly doubled in cost, we are now receiving less aircraft than originally planned, the full-rate production date has been set back 7 years to 2019, cost per aircraft doubled, aircraft are experiencing huge setbacks, manufacturing defects, haven't gotten through all of it's testing, ect. How can the pentagon be left to waste money on this program?!

Exactly!

[Skybird]

Guys, I have tried often enough to explain in past threads what the difference between "explicit debt" and implicit debt" is.

You better start to understand that the latter is far more important - and threatening - than the first. Ypou have to multiply the harmless debts they use to quote in the media by factors between 5 and 20, depending on the industry nation you chose.

In the past, when the competition on the global economy market was easier for the West, and taxes were flowing rich, and economy was fine - already then all states made debts. If even in the easiest and best and wealthiest of times states did not manage to control their debts, how could you assume that in an economic environment far more difficult and much more fought over, with higher debts and interests, a much bigger crisis, a much more meaningless currency of non-value, a multiple times as disadvantageous volume relation between real material values and FIAT money, in short: with every variable being far far more disadvantageous - how could you assume that in this harder situation budgets and debts and deficits and all that will improve...?

You already have not flown by will-power alone when you jump out of the window in the past. You instead broke your bones. And now some of you seem to think that the trick nevertheless will work if you jump off the peak of Mount Everest - because it is higher and the challenge presses your mind power more intense to fly?

Well, in times when you get a "suspect" marker stamped on your intel file when you have not a certain amount of red numbers on your banking accounts and do not have a credit card, and when many people "solve" their debt issues by shifting the debts of one credit card to the next and do this over four, five cards and more, and their banks even encourage them to do so, maybe I could not expect more indeed. Miracle belief will save us, no doubt. Or, as Oberon put it, digging until we reach China.

Ecplicit debts are just destracting. The compare to the tip of the iceberg you see above the water surface. Implict debts is what you must focus on instead - the many many times as huge bulk of the iceberg hidden below the surface: its mere volume, and the time dimension that it implies, because implicit debts realise over time, inevitably. The current states of things say little. The momentum says all.

[Glock30Eric]

^^^ Yup it is like the Titanic hit the iceberg but it wasn't sure if it had hit it, so they had to make a second run into iceberg to make sure that the ship got hit by an iceberg. LOL. it is true.

[MH]

The whole dark prognosis about implict debt is just prognosis. Not neccessary meaning that it all will happen.Bush administration had put usa in this mess with tax reduction and increased spendings but things can change now.

[Glock30Eric]

The whole dark prognosis about implict debt is just prognosis. Not neccessary meaning that it all will happen.Bush administration had put usa in this mess with tax reduction and increased spendings but things can change now.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sZ0oWYYn6hM/T4s8ZJo9ZNI/AAAAAAAADmA/sggheael-Rs/s1600/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

The problems went all way back to 1913 when USA legislative branch established Federal Reserve Bank, then the problem grew worse when President Nixon in 1971 removed the gold standard in USA's currency, and then President Clinton enabled the reckless bank practice in 1994-2002, where the housing bubble grew in accordance with our GDP expanding like a crazy lighting bolt.

Yeah blame President Bush for everything.... Is President Bush the scapegoat for every problems that we have?

EDIT: President Bush stole the idea from President Reagan with the cutting taxes and increase defense spendings. President Reagan is far worse than President Bush if you take the inflation adjustment in the picture.

[Skybird]

Ffffffft - Bumms.

Ffffffft - Bumms.

Two more willpower-flyers whose will got defeated by gravity.

[MH]

Forgot about regan.
BW
Nothing personal against bush....you know just saying.

[MH]

Ffffffft - Bumms.

Ffffffft - Bumms.

Two more willpower-flyers whose will got defeated by gravity.



or relativity.

[Skybird]

Thew relativizing is something you will mislearn to use soon, becasue the snowball system caused by the enormous costs of future pensioneers you cannot avoid to get overrolled by - except by establishing a police or military dictatorship and supressing the masses uprise with brute force.

LINK: graph (http://www.welt.de/img/wirtschaft/origs111865855/594972375-w900-h600/DWO-EU-27Nachhaltigkeitsran.jpg)

This illustrates the so-called sustainability gap (="Nachhaltigkeitslücke") of the EU states and the US. It is a caluclation done in 2012 on basis of data from 2011. As you can see, the real debt level of the US, Luxembourgh and Ireland, standardized in hundreds and thousand percent of the national GDP, is bigger than that of Greece, Spain or Cyprus.

English link (http://www.stiftung-marktwirtschaft.com/wirtschaft/themen/generationenbilanz.html)

Later calculations of this type, done at the end of last year and opublished earlier this year, painted even darker pictures for some states. They have the USA at "just" 800%, but have Germany for example at 500% of it's GDP, and put France and Britain much higher, and have - I do not remember the precise ranking, sorry - either Japan or Britain at a whopping 2000%. Will deliver a link when I find it again.

There is a calculation margin, yes, obviously, different models are used, and different data get accepted into the caluclation, for whatever the motives for using these and rejecting other data may be. But one thing should be clear: there is a trend in the conclusions, and these conclusions indicate that the real debts of nations is multiple times higher, 5 times, 8 times, 12 times, 20 times as high as those debts officially allowed to be announced in media propaganda to not upset the masses.

The economic and unemployment news in the media and in press conferences - are just a sedative; the big show and discussion made of these, all that experts' mumbo-jumbo: just an anti-depressant.

Implicit debts, which are closely linked to the sustainability gap, also get called "hidden debts". They in generally describe dimensions that are beyond good or evil and where it does not matter whether you have an economic growth of 0.5 or 5.0% and where it is unimportant whether your unemployment rate is 20%, 8% or 2% - you are facing an avalanche of costs coming at you that will overroll you, no matter wheter you stand or sit or lie flat, yell, or be silent. It does not matter, the avalanche is plowing you under.

Another way to describe this disaster is to calculate by which ammounts the debt burden would be need to be reduced per year over how long a time in order to avoid the worst within the time left. These numbers are not any more encouraging and also allow no optism. To avoid just the worst scenarios to come true, Western nations would need to reduce their total (implict+explicit) debts by yearly amounts of between 5 and something around 20% or 25% (depending on the nation you look at) per each year over the coming next years. As I rcall it, I am not certain, Germany would need to cut debts by around 16% per year, the US 18% or so, but I could be wrong on these numbers. As I recall it, the cuts are the higher the more pressing the debt burden is, naturally. I leave it to your imagination how big the chances are that this will come true, and what this would mean to the social and structural integrity of states, national economies and social systems.

Its all a snowball rolling, turning into a big snowball, turning into a bigger snowball, into a rush, into an avalanche. Snowballing debts get you killed sooner or later. Every time. an economy build on the principle of building on credits, is an economy with an inbuild expiration date. Money printing - is the worst of all capital crimes, it kills not just people - it kills people AND whole nations.

[Bilge_Rat]

all very nice, but it has nothing to do with the F35.

current funding for the F35 program was U.S. $11.4 billion for the 2011 year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

yes, a nice chunk of change, but cutting the program will have only a small impact on the deficit. In addition, the program is a one time cost, once the aircrafts are purchased, you are only talking about maintenance/repair.

The largest item in the budget is the war in Afghanistan, still U.S. $159.3 Billion in 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

Once the troops are home, that expense goes way down.

In addition, its not just a U.S. problem, many countries have to replace their aging fighter fleet. Canada will have to make a decision soon on replacing its CF-18s. Australia just paid AUS $2.9 billion for 24 F/A-18Fs, which works out to US $141 million per plane. Compared to that, the estimated US $150-175 million per plane for the CTOL F-35A looks like a bargain, especially since it will have a useful design life of at least 20 years longer than the F/A-18.

No matter how you look it, cutting new equipment spending is the least efficient way to balance a budget.

[Glock30Eric]

all very nice, but it has nothing to do with the F35.

current funding for the F35 program was U.S. $11.4 billion for the 2011 year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

yes, a nice chunk of change, but cutting the program will have only a small impact on the deficit. In addition, the program is a one time cost, once the aircrafts are purchased, you are only talking about maintenance/repair.

The largest item in the budget is the war in Afghanistan, still U.S. $159.3 Billion in 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

Once the troops are home, that expense goes way down.

In addition, its not just a U.S. problem, many countries have to replace their aging fighter fleet. Canada will have to make a decision soon on replacing its CF-18s. Australia just paid AUS $2.9 billion for 24 F/A-18Fs, which works out to US $141 million per plane. Compared to that, the estimated US $150-175 million per plane for the CTOL F-35A looks like a bargain, especially since it will have a useful design life of at least 20 years longer than the F/A-18.

No matter how you look it, cutting new equipment spending is the least efficient way to balance a budget.

Well. I really don't think we need F-35. Our ships can take an enemy plane down easily with our long range missiles. Missiles are way cheaper than a plane with manned pilot.

Abolish F-35 and buy a massive amount of missiles like a ratio 10 missiles for every a fighter plane in the world. It will take care of it self. If they evaded one missile then they should be expecting nine more coming at them, furiously.

We need a long range bombers and really good CAS plane like A-10 to minimize the budget with very effective military force.

IMO, the fighter/bomber obsoleted the battleship in WW2. Right now a high tech missile obsoleted the planes and carriers. I don't think there will be a way to obsolete a submarine near in future, unless they send out a massive unmanned submarine/mine drones in the whole ocean part.

NAVAIR is developing unmanned air drone and it could downsize the carrier and planes.

[MH]

http://onthefiringlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/loadingaglock-500x382.jpg


:up:

[Skybird]

all very nice, but it has nothing to do with the F35.


It has. Money, or what is beeing mislabelled as that. The thread title is "The most expenbsive weapin system..." That the Pentagon just has squeezed out F-35 related contracts over another another half a trillion dollars in the very last minute, is symptiomatic. Empires and wars as well are run by money, and economy, not so much by weapons only. All European big powers of the past 5 centuries finally collapsed over over-stretched defence lines, and military costs letting their fiscal system collapsew.

You have debts? You must spend not more, but less. It's so simple, but nobody listens, or pretends not to understand. You hgave worthless money? you must not increase but decrease the amount of money in circulation. You live beyond your means, and buy more thhna you can afford? You have to reduce your expectations and have to limit your desires, and have to reconsider your priorities.

Every 8 year old being given a little pocket money already learns to understand that when needing to decide whether to buy that chocolate or that comic. Ten years later the same child goes to university and learns in economic courses how to unlearn this simple truth, and how to convince itself that the higher the debts, the richer it is. :dead:

[Bilge_Rat]

no, it has nothing to do with it. The equation is simple.

can the US afford the F35? of course.

is there a need for the F35? of course.

Are there other items in the military/governement budget that should be cut before the F35? of course.

see, simple really.

[Skybird]

No, you cannot afford that. Your debt burden, explcit, is bigger than your yearly GDP, is above 100% of the yearly GDP. Even on Decembre 31st you will not have spend a single dollar over the year that really had been yours.

It got leased to you, directly or indirectly.

Your total explicit debt is exceeding your GDP, and is somewhere between 100 and 110 percent. You would need to pay the full GDP of one year to get rid of these debts, and get a straight balance by the end of the year.

Your total implicit debt is exceeding your GDP by somewhere between 800 and 1200 percent.

You can afford nothing. What you do is: you live on tick. You live by tricks. You hang on a drip, and every year you need more bottles with serum than the year before.

Over the need for the F35, one can argue. I say a new plane may be needed indeed, or planes (plural). What the F35 offers, is not what I see a likely need for in the to be expected conflicts your country will most likely find itself in in the forseeable future. The F35 lacks in firepower, in manouverability, in range, and if curing all these things, it lacks in stealth, which is the prime argument why that flying brick is so expensive. That means: the money gets wasted headlessly and a plan is not to be perceived.

The plan that economically you cannot afford anyway, that is.

[Jimbuna]

http://cdn.lolchamp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-Difference-is-Clear.jpg

[Bilge_Rat]

Over the need for the F35, one can argue. I say a new plane may be needed indeed, or planes (plural). What the EU offers, is not wehat I see a likely need for in the to be expected conmflöicts your country will most likely find itself in in the forseeable future. The F35 lacks ion firepower, in manouverability, in range, and if curing all these things, it lacks in stealth, which is the prime argument why that flying brick is so expensive. That means: the money gets wasted headlessly and a plan is not to be perceived.

not sure where you get that from, a lot of info is still in a flux, which is not unusual for a complex project like this.


The F-35A is expected to match the F-16 in maneuverability and instantaneous and sustained high-g performance, and outperform it in stealth, payload, range on internal fuel, avionics, operational effectiveness, supportability, and survivability



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kshe7-BYfWc

I'm Canadian btw.

[Skybird]

I'm Canadian btw.
Ah. Okay, noted.

not sure where you get that from, a lot of info is still in a flux, which is not unusual for a complex project like this.
You get that from any source critical of the F35. The navy hates the short legs it has, needing to bring carrier groups closer to enemya sdhores and within reach for the enemy, or needing to hang fuel tanks under the wings, compromising the stealth factor, or needing signficantly more aerial refuelling, limitng and complicating tactical agility on operational level. Plus the plane has small payload only when not hanging ammo under the wings. The airforce does not like the agility that leaves to be desired, and again the short legs and slow acceleration, plus again the ammo problem. The Marines pay much for a vertical liftoff capability that in many people's opinion is not being needed and adds tremendously to the mechanical and technical complexity and is a potential source of problems.

See the articles I linked earlier, for examples.

[Bilge_Rat]

You get that from any source critical of the F35. The navy hates the short legs it has, needing to bring carrier groups closer to enemya sdhores and within reach for the enemy, or needing to hang fuel tanks under the wings, compromising the stealth factor, or needing signficantly more aerial refuelling, limitng and complicating tactical agility on operational level. Plus the plane has small payload only when not hanging ammo under the wings. The airforce does not like the agility that leaves to be desired, and again the short legs and slow acceleration, plus again the ammo problem. The Marines pay much for a vertical liftoff capability that in many people's opinion is not being needed and adds tremendously to the mechanical and technical complexity and is a potential source of problems.

See the articles I linked earlier, for examples.

a couple of issues here. First, the US never releases the true performance figures. However based on various sources:

1. the F-35 will have a longer range than either the F-16 or F/A-18;

2. the F-35 will have better performance, acceleration or maneuverability than the F-15/F-16/F/A-18.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-lockheed-claims-f-35-kinematics-better-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-hornet-382078/

currently, only the F-22 can out perform it, but the F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter while the F35 is a "jack of all trades".

3. yes in "stealth" mode, its payload is limited, but in non-stealth mode, it can carry a bigger payload than the F16 or F/A-18. Stealth gives you more options, in a high threat environment, the F-35 can be in and out without being detected, while in a low threat area, it can carry all the bombs you want.

lots of critics out there with an axe to grind, but looked at objectively, the F-35 is a great airplane.

[Jimbuna]

a couple of issues here. First, the US never releases the true performance figures. However based on various sources:

1. the F-35 will have a longer range than either the F-16 or F/A-18;

2. the F-35 will have better performance, acceleration or maneuverability than the F-15/F-16/F/A-18.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-lockheed-claims-f-35-kinematics-better-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-hornet-382078/

currently, only the F-22 can out perform it, but the F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter while the F35 is a "jack of all trades".

3. yes in "stealth" mode, its payload is limited, but in non-stealth mode, it can carry a bigger payload than the F16 or F/A-18. Stealth gives you more options, in a high threat environment, the F-35 can be in and out without being detected, while in a low threat area, it can carry all the bombs you want.

lots of critics out there with an axe to grind, but looked at objectively, the F-35 is a great airplane.

I have a tendancy to agree :yep:

[Skybird]

Have you even read that article in full, Bilge_Rat? It is anything but a strong argument prfo F35, but supports those doubting the plane. Like the earlier article I linked to:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/

This counters Lockheeds claim that the F35 will be so agile and fast. Instead it paints the picture of a plane that is redesigned recently to become more vulnerable to locke don missiles than any pilot could like to hear. Those acceleration numbers are really bad news.

Consider that the Typhoon has outmanouvered the F-22 in excercises. And consider that the Russians ecell in making missiles. Their AA missiles also usually have higher ranges than Wetsenr ones. They will not sit still and leave stealth planes untouched. They will get the sensors soon to unstealth them, I havbe no doubt.

There is too much money spend on and too much variables of tactical relevance sacrificed for this feature, "stealth". The F35 thus is too much compromises, and especially in the domain of the A10, it cannot compete - the A10 is what holds that niche of combat operations better than any other pane there is or will be. Plus there is the exploding importance of drones. The lacking probability that the F-35 or F-22 will engage in wars where they meet that kind of opposition they technically will have been designed for. And it will be built in too small numbers, because the price is too high. And Canada and Australia have made moves and the Australians placed orders for other planes that indicate they are considering to opt out of their placed orders. Then the F-35 will not only not become cheaper per piece for the US tax payer - it will also become more expensive for all, for foreign customers. Which will react to that, by retreating from their orders, or reducing their volume.

The financial climate is not such as that this superexpensive weapon, which in itself is just a bag of compromises, and still has no enemy to engage, could hold its ground. Despite two wars having been fought now, the F-22 still waits for its first opportunity to prove its value against an advanced - against ANY! - enemy in the sky.

[Bilge_Rat]

Have you even read that article in full, Bilge_Rat? It is anything but a strong argument prfo F35, but supports those doubting the plane. Like the earlier article I linked to:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/

This counters Lockheeds claim that the F35 will be so agile and fast. Instead it paints the picture of a plane that is redesigned recently to become more vulnerable to locke don missiles than any pilot could like to hear. Those acceleration numbers are really bad news.

The problem with those articles is that they only give you part of the story. Even with the so called "performance reductions", the F35 still performs better than any 4th gen plane.

The F35 has achieved an instantaneous turn rate of 10 Gs, which is better than the specs for the F-15/F-16 or F/A-18.

The best summary of current F35 performance is this quote:


Lockheed Martin (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/landingpage/Lockheed%20Martin.html) is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/landingpage/Lockheed%20Martin%20F-35.html) (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/landingpage/Eurofighter%20Typhoon.html) and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/landingpage/Boeing.html) F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/landingpage/Super%20Hornet.html).

"The F-35 (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/landingpage/Lockheed%20Martin%20F-35.html) is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission," says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot who is responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for all three variants

(...)

Flynn says "that the F-35 (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/landingpage/Lockheed%20Martin%20F-35.html) can go out on any given day, and we have, gone to the red line of the airplane" with a full internal weapons load. Going to the limits of the aircraft's envelope with a full load of weapons is "inconceivable in any of the other fourth-generation airplanes, including Typhoon, which most would say has the best performance of those four fourth-gen jets," says Flynn, who is a former test pilot for the Eurofighter (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/landingpage/Eurofighter%20Typhoon.html) and Lockheed F-16. All variants of the F-35 are capable of flying at Mach 1.6 and 50° angle-of-attack, he says. The A and C models have a maximum speed of 700 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS-1296 km/h) while the F-35B can fly at 630 KCAS (1167 Km/h). The A, B and C variant are rated at 9g, 7g and 7.5g's respectively.




http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-lockheed-claims-f-35-kinematics-better-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-hornet-382078/

Consider that the Typhoon has outmanouvered the F-22 in excercises.

That exercise was a series of WW2 style dogfights where it was found that the Typhoon, not surprisingly, has better low speed maneuverability than the Raptor. It makes for nice headlines, but is irrelevant, since the US has not fought that way since WW1.

Its like having a mock dogfight between WW2 Zeros and F4U Corsairs where you tell the Corsairs to only engage in low speed turning fights. The result, not surprisingly, would be a lot of shot down Corsairs. However, if the pilots fly the Corsairs as they are supposed to, namely high speed "Boom and Zoom", the result will be a lot of shot down Zeros.

In any real fight, the F22 or F35 would detect, track and fire AAMs at the Typhoon before the Typhoon even realised there was an enemy out there.



And consider that the Russians ecell in making missiles. Their AA missiles also usually have higher ranges than Wetsenr ones.

I thought you were arguing that there was no credible threat to NATO's air superiority. :ping:

They will not sit still and leave stealth planes untouched. They will get the sensors soon to unstealth them, I havbe no doubt.

There is too much money spend on and too much variables of tactical relevance sacrificed for this feature, "stealth".

That must be why Russia and China are building their own "stealth" fighters. :ping:

The F35 thus is too much compromises, and especially in the domain of the A10, it cannot compete - the A10 is what holds that niche of combat operations better than any other pane there is or will be.

The F35 was not designed as a A10 replacement. However, it will handle the CAS role as well or better than the F-15/F-16 or F/A-18.

Plus there is the exploding importance of drones.

Drones are toys. To develop an unmanned aircraft that can carry out the Air-to-Air/Air-to-Ground missions as well as the F35 will cost a lot more than the F35 program. You are not going to save any money that way.

The lacking probability that the F-35 or F-22 will engage in wars where they meet that kind of opposition they technically will have been designed for.

The whole point of "deterrence" is building up your defence to dissuade potential enemies from attacking. Do you really think the world will be a safer place to live if NATO sticks with its current weapons while Russia and China build 5th gen "stealth" fighters which they will then sell to Third World dictatorships?

As to the need, just in the past 20 years, NATO/US aircraft have fought in Gulf War 91, Bosnia no-fly zone enforcement 93-95, Bosnia 95, Kosovo 99, Iraq no-fly zone enforcement 91-03, Iraq war 03-10, Afghanistan 01-now, Lybia 11, Mali 13. Looking at the next 10 years, there are a lot of potential trouble spots: Iran, North Korea, South China Sea, North Africa, Caucasus, Ukraine, etc.


And it will be built in too small numbers, because the price is too high.

US $180 million (est.) for a F35A (USAF) vs US $141 million for a F/A-18F (RAAF) vs US $188 million (max.) for a Eurofighter (UK) vs US $179 million (max.) for a Dassault Rafale (France).

And Canada and Australia have made moves and the Australians placed orders for other planes that indicate they are considering to opt out of their placed orders.

Barring any major unforeseen event, Canada will buy the F35. There is no credible alternative.

[MH]

zSomeone please post a hud/gun cam picture of f22 targeted by f18 as prove that f22 is not awersome anymore.And the oxygen problems... yeas it must be crap.

As said above praple don't take into consideration the terms and posible rules in those exercises.

[gimpy117]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136312,00.html

The new dream weapon of air-based warfare? Well - mine not.

they mean "the most expensive weapon system we hope gets built"

lol that A/C is a folly. Too many features crammed into one airframe.

[Takeda Shingen]

zSomeone please post a hud/gun cam picture of f22 targeted by f18 as prove that f22 is not awersome anymore.And the oxygen problems... yeas it must be crap.


http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/f-22-targeted.jpg

[MH]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/12/08/rafale%20F22.jpg


That apearently is Rafale vs Raptor.



http://www.alert5.com/newsphotos/f18fgunf2202.jpg



F18 vs Raptor.



OK f22 is not magical but close to that n term of tech.

[Takeda Shingen]

OK f22 is not magical but close to that n term of tech.

I wasn't trying to make a statement, just being silly. :oops:

[Stealhead]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/12/08/rafale%20F22.jpg


That apearently is Rafale vs Raptor.




http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/f18fgunf2202.jpg


F18 vs Raptor.



OK f22 is not magical but close to that n term of tech.


Those images really are not an effective means to judge a given aircraft.Those are all taken from training footage.It is very common in training for the odds to be very stacked against one side or the other.the idea being train hard make the situation far more difficult than a real world situation.

If you look you will find shots of every modern fighter in the HUD of another aircraft.That must mean that every modern aircraft sucks:03:.

The rule of weapons/warfare is once your foe creates a better weapon you create a counter.The realistic stance should be how capable is a platform in a real world situation and how skilled are the people flying the aircraft.these are factors often overlooked.

Another equally important question should be how much does this weapon cost and do we really need it?Many weapons sound great on paper but prove to be impractical.The F-22 happens to impractical there are several other 5th generation designs that can do everything that an F-22 can do except for full stealth and sooner or later thanks to ever advancing computer systems radar will be able see spot "stealth". Even stealth aircraft are "seen" by radar they just are not able to discern the small return as what it is and not something else like a flock of birds.Computers with advanced algorithms will be able to analyze a stealth aircraft radar return if there are not already some in use that can.

The F-35 simply is overly complex and should have been cancelled years ago.

[MH]

Those images really are not an effective means to judge a given aircraft.Those are all taken from training footage.It is very common in training for the odds to be very stacked against one side or the other.the idea being train hard make the situation far more difficult than a real world situation.



Yes... that what i sort of..was trying to say.

I wasn't trying to make a statement, just being silly. :oops::nope:

[Stealhead]

Yes... that what i sort of..was trying to say.

:nope:


I know the photos got my juices flowing I meant to "quote" only the photos I forgot to cut out the bottom.:cool:

[Sailor Steve]

If you look you will find shots of every modern fighter in the HUD of another aircraft.That must mean that every modern aircraft sucks:03:.
They do. That's why we need to spend the entire budget to develop one that's perfect. Maybe a cloaking device that needs more power than any system can generate. :D

[Stealhead]

They do. That's why we need to spend the entire budget to develop one that's perfect. Maybe a cloaking device that needs more power than any system can generate. :D

I think we need just to go ahead and develop super wicked fighters that also transform into other things like the Japanese cartoon Macross.

http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/MacrossZero_zpse462ebaf.jpeg

If we had that we could simply crush every other nations pathetic military industrial complex into dust.
See it is protecting those kids from bad people with less expensive jet fighters.

[Bilge_Rat]

For anyone interested in the current state of air warfare, this article on the Kosovo 1999 operation is a very good primer on the current challenges :

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/sum02/lambeth.html



Evidently, the Serbs launched only a few SAMs against attacking NATO aircraft the first night. The second night, the enemy fired fewer than 10 SA-6s, none of them scoring a hit. Later during Allied Force, the Serbs frequently fired SAMs in large numbers, with dozens launched in salvo fashion on some nights but only a few launched on others. Although these ballistic launches constituted more a harassment factor than any serious challenge to NATO operations, in numerous instances allied pilots had to jettison their fuel tanks, dispense chaff, and maneuver violently to evade enemy SAMs that were guiding.

Indeed, the SAM threat to NATO's aircrews proved far more pronounced and harrowing than media coverage typically depicted, and aggressive jinking and countermaneuvering against airborne SAMs frequently became necessary whenever the Serbs sought to engage NATO aircraft. Ten or more pilots operating in a target area might report a SAM shot as ballistic while the one pilot on whose helmet the missile was figuratively guiding would be actively reacting to it. Shortly thereafter, 10 pilots would recover to widely dispersed home bases and report nonthreatening ballistic launches, while only one would return with the evidence of a guided shot. Such episodes drove an initial impression among Allied Force leaders that "most" of the observed SAM shots were ballistic. Fusion of all the pertinent information and elimination of duplicate reporting, however, indicated that a substantial number of SAM launches, perhaps as many as a third, were guided.

Indeed, Gen Wesley Clark, US Army, supreme allied commander, Europe (SACEUR), later reported numerous instances of near-misses involving enemy SAM launches against NATO aircraft. General Jumper added that a simple look at cockpit-display videotapes would show that "those duels were not trivial." (14) From the very start of NATO's air attacks, Serb air defenders also sought to sucker NATO aircrews down to lower altitudes to bring them within the lethal envelopes of widely proliferated man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and AAA emplacements. A common Serb tactic involved firing on the last aircraft in a departing strike formation, perhaps on the presumption that those aircraft would be unprotected by other fighters; flown by less experienced pilots; and low on fuel, which would limit their freedom to countermaneuver.




Yugoslavia’s poorly developed road network outside urban areas also may have worked to the benefit of NATO attackers on more than a few occasions because the enemy’s SAM operators depended on road transportation for mobility, and towed AAA tended to bog down when it left prepared surfaces and moved into open terrain. NATO pilots, therefore, studiously avoided flying down roads and crossed them when necessary at 90-degree angles to minimize their exposure time. By remaining at least five kilometers from the nearest road, they often negated the AAA threat, albeit at the cost of making it harder to spot moving military vehicles




In all, more than 800 SAMs reportedly fired at NATO aircraft, both manned and unmanned, over the course of the 78-day air war, including 477 SA-6s and 124 confirmed man-portable infrared missiles. (33) A majority of the fixed SAMs were fired without any radar guidance. Despite that expenditure of assets, enemy fire downed only two NATO aircraft--the F-117 mentioned above and, later, an F-16--although another F-117 sustained light damage from a nearby SA-3 detonation and two A-10s were hit by enemy AAA fire but not downed. (34) Also, in two reported cases short-range, infrared-guided missiles hit A-10s, one of the missiles apparently striking the bottom of the aircraft, defusing itself, and bouncing off harmlessly. (35) US and NATO aircraft fired at least 743 HARMs against radars supporting these enemy SAMs. (36) Yet, enough of the Serb IADS remained intact--mainly the persistent AAA and MANPADS threat--to require NATO fighters to operate above a 15,000-foot floor throughout most of the air effort. Although al lied pilots could effectively counter the older SA-7 with flares if they saw it in time, the SA-9/13, SA-14, SA-16, and SA-18 presented a more formidable threat.

In the end, as noted above, enemy SAM fire brought down only two aircraft (both American), thanks to allied reliance on electronic jamming, towed decoys, and counter-tactics to negate enemy surface-to-air defenses. (37) However, NATO never fully succeeded in neutralizing the Serb IADS, and NATO aircraft operating over Serbia and Kosovo were always within the engagement envelopes of enemy SA-3 and SA-6 missiles--envelopes that extended as high as 50,000 feet. Because of that persistent threat, mission planners had to place such high-value surveillance-and-reconnaissance platforms as the U-2 and JSTARS in less-than-ideal orbits to keep them outside the lethal reach of enemy SAMs. Even during the operation's final week, NATO spokesmen conceded that they could confirm the destruction of only three of Serbia's approximately 25 known mobile SA-6 batteries.

In all events, by remaining dispersed and mobile, and by activating their radars only selectively, the Serb IADS operators yielded the short-term tactical initiative in order to present a longer-term operational and strategic challenge to allied combat sorties. The downside of that inactivity for NATO was that opportunities to employ the classic Wild Weasel tactic of attacking enemy SAM radars with HARMs while SAMs guided on airborne targets were "few and far between." (39) Lt Gen Michael Short, the Allied Force air commander, later indicated that his aircrews were ready for a wall-to-wall SAM threat like the one encountered over Iraq during Desert Storm but that "it just never materialized. And then it began to dawn on us that...they were going to try to survive as opposed to being willing to die to shoot down an airplane."





40.) Interview with Lt Gen Michael Short, USAF, PBS Frontline, "War in Europe," 22 February 2000. Serb IADS operators may have been able to trade short-term effectiveness for longerterm survivability because allied aircraft typically could not find and successfully attack fielded Serbian forces and other mobile ground targets. Had they been able to do so and kill enemy troops in large numbers, Use Serb army's leadership would have insisted on a more aggressive air defense effort. That would have enabled NATO to kill more SAMs but at the probable cost of losing additional friendly aircraft.




The unsettling SEAD experience of Allied Force sent a much-needed wake-up call to the Air Force’s EW community. The survival tactics used to such maddening effect against NATO’s aircrews by Serb IADS operators were first developed and tested in the no-fly zones of Iraq. Operations Northern and Southern Watch had steadily policed these zones ever since the coalition first showed the full extent of its capability against active SAM radars during the Gulf War. For that reason, they should have come as no surprise to the Air Force’s mission planners. It is reasonable to expect more of the same as potential future opponents continue to monitor US SEAD capabilities and operating procedures, adapting their countertactics accordingly.




One palliative now on the horizon that portends a major boost in overall SEAD mission effectiveness is substantially reduced observability to enemy radars- an inherent design feature of the next-generation F-22 and F-35 (the latter previously known as the Joint Strike Fighter).48 Once the United States fields these new multirole combat aircraft in sufficient strength toward the end of this decade, their much-reduced radar cross sections will enhance their survivability by shrinking the effective engagement envelopes of enemy radar-directed SAMs by 95 percent or more. Provided that proper tactics and some important operating limitations are respected, that will enable the F-22 and F-35 to fly in hostile airspace and reach effective weapons-release parameters undetected.49

Granted, as we have already seen in the arresting case of the F-117 shootdown over Serbia in 1999, such low observability to enemy radars will not render the F-22 and F-35 fully invisible along the lines of the fanciful Romulan cloaking device of Star Trek fame. It will be impossible to operate these successor-generation stealth aircraft with complete abandon in a high-threat SAM environment. On the contrary, pilots will have to fly even the F-22 and F-35 in specific attitudes to threat radars to preclude their detection and susceptibility to risk. As a senior Air Force officer cautioned two years before the F-117 downing, stealthiness “significantly reduces your vulnerable area, but it does not give you the freedom to ignore the threats.”50 At some aspect angles, even the stealthiest aircraft may be at least fleetingly detectable by surface radars. Moreover, they will continue to emit infrared signatures that an enemy can exploit.

Nevertheless, such advanced low observability by radar promises to reduce substantially the range at which an enemy’s acquisition radars can detect ingressing friendly aircraft from various look angles, as well as complicate the tracking of any F-22 or F-35 momentarily detected by enemy sensors. This will have the net effect of narrowing significantly any defender’s window of opportunity for successfully engaging and downing such aircraft. Thus, the F-22 and F-35 can operate in high-threat areas with less intense concern for surface-to-air defenses and can fly on headings and at altitudes aimed at maximizing opportunities for early target acquisition.



and the Serbs were only using SA-3 and SA-6 missiles, newer SA-10 and SA-17 SAMs are even deadlier.

[MH]

Nevertheless, such advanced low observability by radar promises to reduce substantially the range at which an enemy’s acquisition radars can detect ingressing friendly aircraft from various look angles, as well as complicate the tracking of any F-22 or F-35 momentarily detected by enemy sensors. This will have the net effect of narrowing significantly any defender’s window of opportunity for successfully engaging and downing such aircraft. Thus, the F-22 and F-35 can operate in high-threat areas with less intense concern for surface-to-air defenses and can fly on headings and at altitudes aimed at maximizing opportunities for early target acquisition.


:up:

[Stealhead]

For anyone interested in the current state of air warfare, this article on the Kosovo 1999 operation is a very good primer on the current challenges :

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/sum02/lambeth.html



That is an interesting article and all but it was written for this journal it is nothing more than that persons evaluation and their opinion.The author is a member of RAND there are certainly coworkers of his that have differing opinion on the same subject.

Scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page and you will notice a very interesting disclaimer:
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Published in the same journal you are very likely to find papers that have an opinion that differs greatly from the one of this author.

In other words it is their opinion nothing more.

[Bilge_Rat]

That is an interesting article and all but it was written for this journal it is nothing more than that persons evaluation and their opinion.The author is a member of RAND there are certainly coworkers of his that have differing opinion on the same subject.

Scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page and you will notice a very interesting disclaimer:
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Published in the same journal you are very likely to find papers that have an opinion that differs greatly from the one of this author.

In other words it is their opinion nothing more.

Huh? it's a fact based article. What part do you think is incorrect or his personal opinion?

[Stealhead]

No the author has taken data on the Kosovo air war which are facts and has then taken these facts and used them to formulate his opinion(an educated one) about how effective the F-22 and F-35 would be against modern air defenses.It is basically more akin to a thesis.

The article was written for Aerospace Power Journal the purpose of the publication(online) is to allow persons express their educated opinion about numerous subjects related to air power and it current and future use.It is a professional journal.

The most recent issue has an article in which a USAF officer is expressing his ideas on developing a light attack program for the USAF.This publication is meant as a means for professionals to discuss topics of importance.Someone publishes an article and other professionals discuss the ideas expressed in order to develop actual strategy.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/About.asp from the about page;

"The Air and Space Power Journal (ISSN 1554-2505), Air Force Recurring Publication 10-1, published quarterly, is the professional journal of the United States Air Force. It is designed to serve as an open forum for the presentation and stimulation of innovative thinking on military doctrine, strategy, force structure, readiness, and other matters of national defense. The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Journal are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government."

In other words anything someone publishes in it will have experts that agree and disagree with what was discussed.Another member of the Air Force officer or professional with credentials similar to the authors could easily write a counter-article to this one disagreeing with its thesis completely.

[Bilge_Rat]

No the author has taken data on the Kosovo air war which are facts and has then taken these facts and used them to formulate his opinion(an educated one) about how effective the F-22 and F-35 would be against modern air defenses.It is basically more akin to a thesis.


Agreed. Obviously no one knows how well the F-35 will perform in combat. What the article does show are the reasons that led to the development of the F-35.

Air warfare has always been a cat and mouse game between the offence and the defence. After the 1982 Lebanon war and the 1991 Gulf War, it looked like the pendulum had shifted decisively to the offence, but new tactics were developped during the Iraq no-fly zone operation in 1991-2003 and Kosovo 1999 which showed the defence still had the upper hand.

Kosovo 99 showed that pretty much all non-stealth airplanes were obsolescent. They were restricted in where and when they could fly and what targets they could strike. The Serbians were competent, but they were using SA-3s and SA-6s which were not even the best equipment available in 99. Now even organizations like Hezbollah have access to SA-17s.

In Kosovo, only stealth airplanes like the F-117 and B-2 had relative freedom of movement and they were used for all the high risk strike missions. The Serbs tried very hard to shoot down a F-117 and they only succeeded through a combination of NATO mistakes and good luck. The F-117s were flying predictable, regular routes in and out of Serbia. The Serbs positioned a SAM battery along that route and through other intelligence had a rough idea when the plane would come through. Even then, the Serb commander later admitted that they only detected the aircraft on radar when it opened its bomb bay doors.

The F-117s were also the first generation of stealth airplane. The B-2 bomber which came out 10 years later is supposed to be stealthier than the F-117. The F-35 which is the third generation of stealth airplane is supposed to be even stealthier than the B-2. The USAF certainly believes this since they want the F-35 to be able to take over the B-2s role once the B-2 can no longer penetrate enemy air defences:


What is certain is that a dual-capable F-35 is moving to the center of extended deterrence plans. With its stealth and specialized sensors, the F-35 will soon be the only nuclear-capable fighter able to penetrate the most sophisticated enemy air defenses.

The F-35 could be thrust into the spotlight if the planners judge that the B-2 reaches a point where it is no longer able to penetrate enemy air defenses—especially in daytime. The B-2 does not carry standoff weapons, noted Alston. Threats that keep a B-2 from performing direct nuclear attacks could, in effect, hand that mission, too, to the F-35.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/July%202010/0710nato.aspx

[MH]

Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program, explained that critics of the F-35 simply do not understand the fundamental requirements and technologies behind the aircraft, nor have these critics been briefed about the true capabilities of the new warplane. The F-35 is "not designed for an air-show in Paris," Davis said referring to the thrust vectoring Russian Su-35 aircraft which regularly performs spectacular routines at air-shows around the world. Davis said that while the F-35 was not designed as a pure air superiority machine, the program has a requirement to defeat any threat aircraft today- or any projected threat aircraft in the future. http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter-jet-controversial-future-fleet.html

[HundertzehnGustav]

so the F-35 does the nuking, the Jabo stuff and also the fighting iff needed.
and it is a harrier and can land on carrier decks.
it will do everything except massive tankbusting and local support.

That is a risky game. all cards on one plane.
If it sucks, or the enemy, in time discovers its weaknesses, U loose.
Prettttty arrogant planning.

[Stealhead]

Agreed. Obviously no one knows how well the F-35 will perform in combat. What the article does show are the reasons that led to the development of the F-35.

Air warfare has always been a cat and mouse game between the offence and the defence. After the 1982 Lebanon war and the 1991 Gulf War, it looked like the pendulum had shifted decisively to the offence, but new tactics were developped during the Iraq no-fly zone operation in 1991-2003 and Kosovo 1999 which showed the defence still had the upper hand.

Kosovo 99 showed that pretty much all non-stealth airplanes were obsolescent. They were restricted in where and when they could fly and what targets they could strike. The Serbians were competent, but they were using SA-3s and SA-6s which were not even the best equipment available in 99. Now even organizations like Hezbollah have access to SA-17s.

In Kosovo, only stealth airplanes like the F-117 and B-2 had relative freedom of movement and they were used for all the high risk strike missions. The Serbs tried very hard to shoot down a F-117 and they only succeeded through a combination of NATO mistakes and good luck. The F-117s were flying predictable, regular routes in and out of Serbia. The Serbs positioned a SAM battery along that route and through other intelligence had a rough idea when the plane would come through. Even then, the Serb commander later admitted that they only detected the aircraft on radar when it opened its bomb bay doors.

The F-117s were also the first generation of stealth airplane. The B-2 bomber which came out 10 years later is supposed to be stealthier than the F-117. The F-35 which is the third generation of stealth airplane is supposed to be even stealthier than the B-2. The USAF certainly believes this since they want the F-35 to be able to take over the B-2s role once the B-2 can no longer penetrate enemy air defences:



http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/July%202010/0710nato.aspx


I do find it interesting that the author choose Kosovo he ignored two CAP/SEAD campaigns that lasted for over a decade and where generally fairly successful Operations Southern and Northern Watch.

The bit about the F-35 replacing the B-2 sounds somewhat like a strong F-35 supporters hopes more than anything realistic.Be wary of any thing published by the Air Force Association they are a very opinionated bunch and have no official connection to the USAF though some AFA members are active or former members of the USAF.

[MH]

so the F-35 does the nuking, the Jabo stuff and also the fighting iff needed.
and it is a harrier and can land on carrier decks.
it will do everything except massive tankbusting and local support.

That is a risky game. all cards on one plane.
If it sucks, or the enemy, in time discovers its weaknesses, U loose.
Prettttty arrogant planning.

No its not.
The 4th and 4.5 proven and upgraded planes are still in production.

[HundertzehnGustav]

ask me again in 15 years.
i look forward to this thing failing and the navy, marines and air force beeping about it, requesting something that actually works.

A lot of things do not sound , look right about it.

[Bilge_Rat]

ask me again in 15 years.
i look forward to this thing failing and the navy, marines and air force beeping about it, requesting something that actually works.

A lot of things do not sound , look right about it.

right...the USAF, U.S.N., U.S.M.C., UK, Canada, Israel, etc., all military professionals who have designed or purchased aircraft or other military equipment in the past and somehow always managed to buy equipment that worked AND was better than what it replaced, will in this one case make a mistake...right.