F-35 in trouble

[Lonestar]

In related news, the Senate kills funding for a second F-35 powerplant. Shocking.

[Ben Kenobi]

If we degrade our assets to the point where we have slightly superior equipment but superior training, we may find ourselves in a situation like Vietnam, where we lose a thousand aircraft over the skies, 76 to enemy aircraft.

QFMFT

Don't you know lonestar, that the goal is to get America in another Vietnam?

[Lonestar]

QFMFT

Don't you know lonestar, that the goal is to get America in another Vietnam?

If I honestly thought we(the USA) would be sitting tight and not interferring in other countries, I wouldn't mind it so much. But in the States, even "peace" governments stick their noses in other peoples' buisiness, and well, at least we should be equipped for the job.

Secretary Gates seems to be convinced that all future conflicts will be with third world mudholes with no air defenses. And if that were true, we wouldn't even need the Goldplated F-35, we could just buy more F/A-18s, or even cheaper bomb trucks like the A-10 or the F-16.

I might add that, after the F-22 does it's job of clearing the skies, again, we would not need gold-plated F-35s to do the job Gates says they'll be used for.

Buy more F-22s, Superbugs, and UCAVs. Kill the F-35.

[Dis]

we won't be in a war with a major power. Both sides have too much to lose.

F-22's suck. although they look cool. Maybe when one completes a combat mission I might have a little more respect for it.

[Lonestar]

we won't be in a war with a major power. Both sides have too much to lose.

Believe it or not, I don't either. I'd say going to war with, say, China is almost zero probability.

F-22's suck. although they look cool. Maybe when one completes a combat mission I might have a little more respect for it.

F-22s are better than anything flying out there, shippy.

[Ben Kenobi]

If I honestly thought we(the USA) would be sitting tight and not interferring in other countries, I wouldn't mind it so much. But in the States, even "peace" governments stick their noses in other peoples' buisiness, and well, at least we should be equipped for the job

I'm a believer of Teddy Roosevelt. Speak softly and carry a big stick.

The problem with the air force is that if you need it and it's not there, there's not much you can do about it.

These policy decisions directly affect your NATO allies, including ourselves. I would rather never get into another war, but that's not a decision that is entirely up to the US.

[Drake Tungsten]

The amount of ignorance on display in this thread is amazing considering that I already have the most ignorant people on ignore.

Anyway, I've been complaining about the F-35 for a while now. It's a cluster**** of a program that's going to produce an overweight plane that will be merely ok at the wide-variety of missions it's slotted to fulfill. This might be acceptable if the plane were as cost-effective as it was supposed to be at the outset, but cost overruns have almost completely negated this former selling point.

At this point, it looks like the U.S. military would be better off buying more F-22s and killing the F-35 in favor of new F-16s, F-18s and A-10s. That's never going to happen, however, as you've got three separate branches clamoring for the F-35 along with a variety of international customers. We're stuck with this piece of crap.

[Blaupanzer]

Military, read Air Force, won't even use current A-10s with absolutely controlled skies. Not sexy enough, I reckon.

F-22s are unacceptably overpriced, according to the people who answer to the people that fly them. Takes a lot of guts to say such a thing to the pilots unless you are absolutely sure.

F-35 has the hybrid issues that arise when services pretend they are cooperating but they are really working in parallel. Won't be as bad as the FB-111 disaster, but won't be as relatively better as the F-14 was when it first got delivered to the fleet.

[Patroklos]

The F-22 is no longer needed and is just a waste of money robbing resources from items which are needed more. I mean we've had two wars going on for the better part of a decade now yet the 187 F-22s in service have yet to fly a single combat mission.

1.) the F-22 has only been in active squadrons for 2 years I believe.

2.) your metric for usefulness is retarded.

[CerberusIV]

One military reason for replacing the F-15 with the F-22 and the F-16, F/A-18 and AV-8 with the various F-35 models is that the new planes will be much more stealthy. You can debate whether that is actually worthwhile but it is one of the major selling points for the new planes.

Another issue is that the F-16 and F-18 models still available are for sale to countries approved by the US govt. It just doesn't look good when your own armed forces are using essentially the same equipment (same airframe and weapons systems but maybe slightly better avionics) as assorted African and Latin American countries - so there has to be something newer and "better" for the US forces.

What amuses me in all this is the the two aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy may well be ready a couple of years before there are any F-35's for them to operate (the Harriers being scheduled for withdrawal from service in the next few years) leaving the RN with no actual carrier capability whatsoeveer after spending all that money. In the cost overrun/delay entering service competition this is looking like a win for the US over the Brits - quite outstanding.

[Asher]

1.) the F-22 has only been in active squadrons for 2 years I believe.

So what combat missions has it been in?

If it's not been in any you're trying to dismiss his post with smoke and mirrors.

[Dis]

I have to agree. 2 years is sufficiently long time. We are fighting 2 wars after all. If a use cannot be found in 2 wars, one wonders when a use will ever be found.

It's an impressive air defense fighter without a doubt. And the 180 or so may find a use someday when we have air superiority missions. For the sake of cutting massive defense spending. Yes we are gambling that a conventional ww3 won't happen. But I think it's a good gamble. 180 will be plenty for anything barring a conventional ww3.

[Drake Tungsten]

I have to agree. 2 years is sufficiently long time. We are fighting 2 wars after all. If a use cannot be found in 2 wars, one wonders when a use will ever be found.

This is retarded. If you'd look back a few years to Kosovo or Desert Storm, you'd find plenty of uses for the F-22.

[Whoha]

F-22
F-35

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

There was a tremendous amount of demagog actions reagarding F22 costs. Little to any of was substantial in its analysis. Saying what the cost of the previous 200 F22 ran you is more than abit misleading considering R&D is a sunk cost.

Real analysis needs to consider roll off (incremental costs on additionals). Nowhere was that reported IIRC.