The F-35’s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy

[Wassit3]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

[Arctic Blast]

The defense industry and aerospace in general are going to absolutely pounded on by the economic downturn.

[michaelg123789]

I don't think it will hurt it any

[Arctic Blast]

It's ALREADY hurting (the major manufacturer's anyway), what with most of the major airlines struggling right now, and not in any position to be adding massively to their airfleet (which is why the timing of the new 'megajet' passenger aircraft couldn't possibly be worse). Now, with governments being forced to help chip in economically to keep the banking industry going, they're going to have to pull that money out of something. It's a fairly decent bet that a portion of that money is going to come from military modernization. ESPECIALLY because the populations of the countries are ALREADY pissed off about companies getting big bailout cheques...any government who would buy up loans and then drop a chunk of funding out of, say, education might as well start writing their 'Congratulations to our opponent' speech right now.

[ohms_law]

lol

Now there's a reactionary statement if I've ever seen one!

[ohms_law]

No need to apologize. if that's the way you feel, then that's the way you feel...
I just found it slightly humorous is all. It's not often that you find a truly reactionary statement like that, at least not one that seems to come from the heart.

Now, if you were the President, or some other government official, I might be kind of concerned. but... we're just regular people, right? *shrug*

[ohms_law]

lol

Never. Believe me, I'd never make it. Too many skeletons in the closet.
I did hope to do so when I was in High School...

[FRENCHREDSOX]

It's ALREADY hurting (the major manufacturer's anyway), what with most of the major airlines struggling right now, and not in any position to be adding massively to their airfleet (which is why the timing of the new 'megajet' passenger aircraft couldn't possibly be worse). Now, with governments being forced to help chip in economically to keep the banking industry going, they're going to have to pull that money out of something. It's a fairly decent bet that a portion of that money is going to come from military modernization. ESPECIALLY because the populations of the countries are ALREADY pissed off about companies getting big bailout cheques...any government who would buy up loans and then drop a chunk of funding out of, say, education might as well start writing their 'Congratulations to our opponent' speech right now.


Screw education. Seriously if students like metsguy are learning what they are learning - and these Obamakids singing their crap - we are all going down . We better fuk'n yea have a strong military. Yes by all means let us all sit around singing Kumbaya while Russia arms Venezuela. Before metsguy ask me what the hell I am talking about here it is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5045208.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26938574/

I can understand the "strong military" argument to an extent but the reality is so,so different than say in the 1970's when there was a real OPPONENT & real threat.

Venezuela ? Cuba ? North Korea ? Heck,these countries aren't even in the same "ballpark" as the US let alone a threat.From what I've read (plus wassit's article) the US already has enough firepower - the F-22 is/will be the "best" (or 2nd best - Eurofighter Typhoon or the Rafale are "potentially" as good) plane out there.

It seems that the F-35 is well,simply not a "good" plane (a la F-22 or B-2) for the cost involved.That is the real problem - cost/use/valadity wise the F-35 is a burden AT THIS MOMENT in time & the context of world/US geo-politics.*

The geo-politics,especially the terrorist threat,is a different animal to the "Cold War" scenario of the last 50 years - a F-35 at 135-150 million each won't MAKE any difference in that war,those dollars could be better employed today elsewhere even in the military (better paid soldiers/better equipment) - or diverting that EXCESS budget to education,science & research development or to "finding" a cure for cancer....




* Obviously,it is a question of where we are now & what will develop in the future - there doesn't (& tht is from Janes' scenarios & independent NATO scenarios) seem to be a belief that a "new Cold War" (either with China or Russia) will occur,thus the need for a new military strike fighter, a multi-role aircraft that can perform close air support, tactical bombing, and air superiority fighter missions is simply zero considering the actual stock available.


This is just my reaction to economic world events which gets lost in the fact that certain companies take advantage of political tensions to make mega-profits (the initial cost is always like 200% less than the actual cost) on the back of patriotism...

[Wassit3]

I can understand the "strong military" argument to an extent but the reality is so,so different than say in the 1970's when there was a real OPPONENT & real threat.

Venezuela ? Cuba ? North Korea ? Heck,these countries aren't even in the same "ballpark" as the US let alone a threat.From what I've read (plus wassit's article) the US already has enough firepower - the F-22 is/will be the "best" (or 2nd best - Eurofighter Typhoon or the Rafale are "potentially" as good) plane out there.

It seems that the F-35 is well,simply not a "good" plane (a la F-22 or B-2) for the cost involved.That is the real problem - cost/use/valadity wise the F-35 is a burden AT THIS MOMENT in time & the context of world/US geo-politics.*

The geo-politics,especially the terrorist threat,is a different animal to the "Cold War" scenario of the last 50 years - a F-35 at 135-150 million each won't MAKE any difference in that war,those dollars could be better employed today elsewhere even in the military (better paid soldiers/better equipment) - or diverting that EXCESS budget to education,science & research development or to "finding" a cure for cancer....




* Obviously,it is a question of where we are now & what will develop in the future - there doesn't (& tht is from Janes' scenarios & independent NATO scenarios) seem to be a belief that a "new Cold War" (either with China or Russia) will occur,thus the need for a new military strike fighter, a multi-role aircraft that can perform close air support, tactical bombing, and air superiority fighter missions is simply zero considering the actual stock available.


This is just my reaction to economic world events which gets lost in the fact that certain companies take advantage of political tensions to make mega-profits (the initial cost is always like 200% less than the actual cost) on the back of patriotism...

Very good critique of the situation. Also with the world at large moving to cheaper to produce, easier to maintain and higher performing unmanned vehicles, it was long been thought the F-35 would be the last of the manned high tech fighers anyway. Why put pilots in harms way if you don't have to??

[BalzOut]

... the F-35 is too needed. And its not Venezuela, Cuba and/or North Korea that we're significantly worried about. Do you think countries like China and India aren't doing their part to modernize? Who is our next "opponent" - we don't know, and that's the point. And don't think for one second that these countries aren't in the same "ballpark" as us when it comes to fighting wars. It's not advertised well stateside, but a few years back India "smoked" the US in an air-to-air exercise. So, resting on our proverbial laurels while these countries continue to research, modernize and recapitalize their defense infrastructures could certainly and absolutely put us at a disadvantage 10, 15 or 20 years from now.

- Did you know the average age of the Air Force's entire fleet of aircraft is approximately 27 years old? Sure, the F-22 (which btw, during a simulated air-to-air exercise in Alaska two years ago against our own fighters boasted a 86-0 kill ratio the first week, and a 256-1 during the course of the two week exercise) is a great, high-tech plane, but its "replacing" the F-15, which we're taking out of service ... slowly, but surely. The bottom line is we're still flying aircraft from the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, and we want to take them our of our inventory. How many of you are driving around a car from those decades? And if you do, what's the cost of maintenance for that vehicle? Just curious. If you think the cost of a new aircraft is expensive, you should try maintenance and modernization costs associated with refurbishing vintage aircraft.

- The F-35 is more than just a new, high-tech fighter. It's also a catalyst for international cooperation. In addition to the United States, the F-35 program has eight other partners. The United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark and Canada. In short, the F-35 is more than just a DoD weapon system, it's become a tool of the State Department and is, in some respects, driving how America cooperates with these other countries from a national security standpoint. Now that's cool.

Last, but certainly not least, I just want to point out that not one American military life has been lost due to enemy aircraft since the Korean War. That's because of America's investment in the research and develoment of new aircraft technologies, which have allowed us (and our allied patrners) to maintain air superiority in every conflict we've been in since the Korean War. How can you put a price tag on that? Heck, the person who wrote the thread above admits our military needs better equipment. What do you think an F-35 is?

My 2 cents ...

[Arctic Blast]

I agree that it's needed. My issue with military spending, though (I've posted on it a few times) is that, while some branches of the military seem to understand that the most common warfare model on Earth is now of the type in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Air Force is still trying to pretend it's 1983, and that it needs to stand up against the Warsaw Pact. At the same time as they're trying to get rid of the A-10, which is ESSENTIAL as the greatest close air support aircraft on Earth right now (I know the F35 is supposed to replace it, but it doesn't look as effective, simply because the A10 is a damn flying tank, and because of that gun the plane is built around), they're saying they need a massive fleet of F22s AND F35s, AND they've started making noise about maybe actually making the YF23 a production plane, as well. The MArines have always had to run a shoestring budget, so they've adjusted very well. The Army has made major adjustments, FINALLY dumping Cold War relic programs like the Comanche and Centurion that don't fit a modern battlefield any longer, and switching over to being able to fight smaller turf wars as well as larger conventional conflicts. The Navy is finally dropping the 'stealth destroyer' model, which never made sense to me...the F117 worked because it flew at night, when it was invisible, AND had no radar cross-section. A ship is visible during the day...what, you're going to run fleet ops ONLY at night??? Meanwhile, the Air Force is stuck in the past, sucking up more financial resources than any 2 of the other services put together.

[ohms_law]

The Navy is finally dropping the 'stealth destroyer' model, which never made sense to me...the F117 worked because it flew at night, when it was invisible, AND had no radar cross-section. A ship is visible during the day...what, you're going to run fleet ops ONLY at night?

The US Navy hasn't given up on Stealth Ship tech, though. They've simply shifted focus (and rightly so) to Littoral ops. See: DD-21 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dd-21.htm)

They've apparently canceled the build orders for the class earlier this year, but I'd be willing to bet that that is temporary... Littoral ops really is the future.
Besides, the tech still exists. And their keeping the first two.

[Arctic Blast]

I like the Littoral ship plan, as well, simply because it's designed more to focus on support of land ops than fighting the kind of naval campaign we haven't seen since WW2, and are quite unlikely to see anytime soon. So, there's an example of the Navy 'getting it' when it comes to shifting how they look at force requirement needs.