The F-35 Thread

[NineLine]

[outlawal2]

That's reasonable I guess. But still expensive... :D

 

@outlawal2

 

I don't hate that plane. I just think it will follow F22 pretty rapid. My guess this is going to happen when a drone will shot down one.

 

Everybody forgets the fact that we can't fly an airframe forever... Once the airframe gets too old it fatigues and then you can't use it at it's rated capabilities any longer.. We are in that boat with some of the F-18's right now.. I read somewhere where they are using some of them for lesser missions because they can't take the high G-loads. (And if you keep flying it anyway, sooner or later it will fail and kill someone) So this means that we HAVE to replace the plane with something... Kicking out new F-16's (or 18's or 15's or 10's or whatever flavor happens to make someone happy) is still going to cost a LOT more than the plane did when it went into service 20 or 30 years ago. EVERYTHING is more expensive today.. (My Dad talks about buying a brand new car in 1962 and it cost him $2000... and it wasn't the bottom of the barrel model either, so that same car today will run you somewhere in the range of $18 or $20K... Use the same math on the planes and you would see that the obsolete designs would not cost that much less than the cutting edge designs..) I won't even talk about how bad the US helicopter fleet is... Those dinosaurs are going to start dropping out of the sky soon... That was the reason for the now defunct Comanche program that was supposed to replace a very large portion of the entire helicopter fleet but the damned Army kept changing the requirements until it became impossible to meet them...

 

It doesn't make sense to build obsolete planes and use them until 2050...

[Pilotasso]

Kicking out new F-16's (or 18's or 15's or 10's or whatever flavor happens to make someone happy) is still going to cost a LOT more than the plane did when it went into service 20 or 30 years ago. EVERYTHING is more expensive today..

 

A 30 million dollar price tag was brutal in late 70's for F-15's. Guess why they invented the F-16.

 

I disagree somewhat with the fact you wouldn't save money with advanced versions of legacy designs.

 

The US could purchase F-16V's and Silent eagles to complement F-22's and F-35's where opposing airforces only have soviet era flankers and migs.

 

Perfectly doable technically and financially, but very unpopular for lobbies and politicians.

[Night]

Everybody forgets the fact that we can't fly an airframe forever... Once the airframe gets too old it fatigues and then you can't use it at it's rated capabilities any longer.. We are in that boat with some of the F-18's right now.. I read somewhere where they are using some of them for lesser missions because they can't take the high G-loads. (And if you keep flying it anyway, sooner or later it will fail and kill someone) So this means that we HAVE to replace the plane with something... Kicking out new F-16's (or 18's or 15's or 10's or whatever flavor happens to make someone happy) is still going to cost a LOT more than the plane did when it went into service 20 or 30 years ago. EVERYTHING is more expensive today.. (My Dad talks about buying a brand new car in 1962 and it cost him $2000... and it wasn't the bottom of the barrel model either, so that same car today will run you somewhere in the range of $18 or $20K... Use the same math on the planes and you would see that the obsolete designs would not cost that much less than the cutting edge designs..) I won't even talk about how bad the US helicopter fleet is... Those dinosaurs are going to start dropping out of the sky soon... That was the reason for the now defunct Comanche program that was supposed to replace a very large portion of the entire helicopter fleet but the damned Army kept changing the requirements until it became impossible to meet them...

 

It doesn't make sense to build obsolete planes and use them until 2050...

You are missing one very important factor: inflation. $2k in 1962 dollars is around $16k in today's dollars.

 

Even if it does cost more than it used to, it is still a hell of a lot cheaper and you can buy more of them. Quality is NOT always better than quantity, especially when you start looking at a potential conflict with a large country like China or Iran. I think the US should buy 1000 F-35's and 2000 F-16V's + F-15 Stealth Eagles.

[mvsgas]

Is not only the aircraft cost, there many other factors. If the US buys F-16 or F-15 (newer version) The only service that would used them is USAF. With the F-35, USN, USMC and USAF share the cost of many components. Also, having one common airframe, they can centralize training. Instead of having three or four bases for training, they can all do all initial training at one base, huge saving on that area alone. There are more things than just the cost of the airframe. There is also personnel, in the future or maybe now ( I don't know) they can use same mechanics, I know squadron on the USAF (Nellis AFB Aggressors) that at one point had several version of the F-16, but the mechanics work them all, what is there to say that it won't be the same on F-35?

Why do so many people always say 2 missiles and 2 bombs? Same load out as many aircraft now, and the F-35 has external stores also. With the SDB, that can be quadrupled.

 

Some other stuff I found interesting

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012annual_psr/WERTH.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012targets/WMcCoy.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA567738

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/Navy/stamped/0604329N_5_PB_2013.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/Navy/stamped/0604800M_5_PB_2013.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/AirForce/stamped/0604735F_5_PB_2013.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/AirForce/stamped/0207142F_7_PB_2013.pdf

Just my Two cents

[blue 22]

http://wtkr.com/2013/08/19/marines-navy-test-the-f-35b-aboard-the-uss-wasp/ looks amazing for the marines

[zaelu]

Quality is NOT always better than quantity, especially when you start looking at a potential conflict with a large country like China or Iran. I think the US should buy 1000 F-35's and 2000 F-16V's + F-15 Stealth Eagles.

 

Conflict with China? China wins by default only if chinese people go on work strike for 3 months. :megalol:

[topol-m]

[Pilotasso]

Is not only the aircraft cost, there many other factors. If the US buys F-16 or F-15 (newer version) The only service that would used them is USAF. With the F-35, USN, USMC and USAF share the cost of many components. Also, having one common airframe, they can centralize training. Instead of having three or four bases for training, they can all do all initial training at one base, huge saving on that area alone. There are more things than just the cost of the airframe. There is also personnel, in the future or maybe now ( I don't know) they can use same mechanics, I know squadron on the USAF (Nellis AFB Aggressors) that at one point had several version of the F-16, but the mechanics work them all, what is there to say that it won't be the same on F-35?

Why do so many people always say 2 missiles and 2 bombs? Same load out as many aircraft now, and the F-35 has external stores also. With the SDB, that can be quadrupled.

 

Some other stuff I found interesting

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012annual_psr/WERTH.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012targets/WMcCoy.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA567738

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/Navy/stamped/0604329N_5_PB_2013.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/Navy/stamped/0604800M_5_PB_2013.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/AirForce/stamped/0604735F_5_PB_2013.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/AirForce/stamped/0207142F_7_PB_2013.pdf

Just my Two cents

 

I Understand that but having F-22+F-35+F-16V+Silent eagle would still represent only 4 types whereas the US is used to have many more. Also the Navy would be reduced to Superhornet on the Supercarriers and F-35B on wasp class ships.

 

F-35C is debatable, they would either keep it or scrap it, they would still have fewer plane types than F-18+F-14+A-6, when they didn't have the corsairs as well.

[NineLine]

But are they trying to guess at what they might need them for in the future, do they need to plan for WWIII or just for these smaller wars here or there they have been involved in... And from the sounds of it, the F-35 is planned on beig a more multi-role airframe than what we have seen from any other plane.

 

I Understand that but having F-22+F-35+F-16V+Silent eagle would still represent only 4 types whereas the US is used to have many more. Also the Navy would be reduced to Superhornet on the Supercarriers and F-35B on wasp class ships.

 

F-35C is debatable, they would either keep it or scrap it, they would still have fewer plane types than F-18+F-14+A-6, when they didn't have the corsairs as well.

[s1dev]

You are missing one very important factor: inflation. $2k in 1962 dollars is around $16k in today's dollars.

 

Even if it does cost more than it used to, it is still a hell of a lot cheaper and you can buy more of them. Quality is NOT always better than quantity, especially when you start looking at a potential conflict with a large country like China or Iran. I think the US should buy 1000 F-35's and 2000 F-16V's + F-15 Stealth Eagles.

 

Except the millions of dollars in training per pilot + the logistics of supporting an airforce that large (you aren't going to get said aircraft to a base in theater any time soon, and you're going to have to have a limited number of aircraft in the air at one time) + cost of CSAR mission when they get blown out of the sky because they're flying inferior aircraft + trying to convince your pilots that they aren't expendable + cost of fuel

 

overall, having a larger airforce of inexpensive aircraft is going to be a lot more than a smaller airforce of expensive but superior aircraft

[Night]

Except the millions of dollars in training per pilot + the logistics of supporting an airforce that large (you aren't going to get said aircraft to a base in theater any time soon, and you're going to have to have a limited number of aircraft in the air at one time) + cost of CSAR mission when they get blown out of the sky because they're flying inferior aircraft + trying to convince your pilots that they aren't expendable + cost of fuel

Not every aircraft that isn't a $100+ million dollar stealth aircraft would be shot down in a modern conflict. The A-10C shouldn't be retired because it's not stealthy or new.

 

There is a place for stealthy aircraft like the F-35, which is taking out long and medium range SAM sites in target area and F-22's to take out enemy aircraft. These new fifth generation fighters should work on making the area clear for less expensive and more numerous 4th generation fighter-bombers. But once the US has gained air superiority and there are large amounts of targets that need to be taken out, the number of F-35's will just not cut it. It would be immensely useful to still use aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 in environments where air superiority has been gained.

 

Non-stealthy aircraft could be useful in the beginning operations as well, lobbing JASSM's and JSOW's, etc. from a hundred miles away.

 

 

 

overall, having a larger airforce of inexpensive aircraft is going to be a lot more than a smaller airforce of expensive but superior aircraft

That's just not true. A mix of both would be ideal, a smaller number of stealthy F-35's and F-22's, and a larger number of F-16's and F-15's.

 

Can you imagine how horrible it would have been if the US Navy, Air Force, and Marines ditched all earlier aircraft in favor of the F-4 phantom before the Vietnam war?

Edited August 22, 2013 by Night

[Kaktus29]

@night... i agree completely.. if one looks at efficiency than a mix is only thing that works.. since whats the point of having 100% stealth fleet if you will need stealth in maybe 2-4 days of the war and then the next 200 days you could easily operate and destroy the enemy on the ground with conventional planes of 4th generation?.. But one has to understand if this is what US would do it would mean less profit on projects like F-35, F-22.. Lockheed doesn't want to loose return on investment they made in their projects so its politically inconvenient to go against the money current..

 

Russia on the other hand since it's forced to be much more rational with money is doing the rational thing, making a mix of stealth fleet with 4th++ generation planes.. since Stealth will always be used as the tip of the spear in the battle not as a CAS,and ground attack after enemy has been severely subdued .. Cost-wise its also better, since stealth planes are much more expensive to maintain, train on, and use..

 

why did the comanche the stealth battle chopper fail in US? cuz it doesn't warrant the expense with what it gives.. apache can easily do the mission without being stealth, .. being afraid to die to make planes, tanks that are impervious to being hit is surely not a way to go, of course one wants to minimize casualties but when one is afraid to sustain any kind of damage its a sure sign of problems in the field of war fighting..

 

people want to believe pilots are not expendable.. lol.. yes they are, just as the soldiers are, or even civilians.. in war if you are a general you have to make mathematical equation where the end result is victory that is acceptable.. a nuke exchange even if it yields a victory is not worth is since your population would die from leukemia and cancer in 20 years time for sure.. so, if the equation balances out to come out as a winner you do it..simple..

 

sacrificing 100 pilots but getting total air superiority with all the benefits this entails is worth it, or sacrificing 5 planes and ZERO pilots(cuz planes are AI advanced 6th generation for example) but no more than 5 planes since they cost 10 billion a piece.. so you see, its economics, what can you afford as a nation.. money, materials, people.. all this forms an equation.. when you have scarcity in one field that that field you try to save and protect, if you have advantage in another field you try to exert it and spend it for your benefit so attrition is okei.. being extra emotional is not helpful.. we can all agree war is nasty and should be avoided, but IF it happens, its all mathematics and generals should take over to make the best choices that deliver best results..

 

Russia did incredibly well when making those choices in WW2 when they saw what works best.. a superior tank in all field and superior armor like nazis did? or something that is less superior but faster, more reliable and much easier to build?..

 

if one wants to see efficiency Russian army offers the best efficiency per pound(british monetary pound that is))..

 

i'm still amazed by that story in pentagon when a audit was done and they found out some of their tech geeks made a hammer that cost what was it? 700 dollars.. a normal hammer you can buy in a store for 10 bucks was 700 in US military.. technology of the hammer was same as 200 years old hammers used to have-a wooden handle, metal block-voila..

So, money begets corruption, allot of money begets lots of corruption.. US military is so awash with money they make projects that don't make sense just so they can spend the money somewhere and not return it back to the budget..

 

i think US will spiral in this nazi thinking of superiority and just keep pushing even more superior weapons to the point when they will have 3 most amazing fighters AI controled with artificial genetically designed brain able to put down 100 4th generation fighters and will cost 20 billion a pieace.. and 100 tanks super awesome power etc etc.. the point is nazis did this mentality and its a sure failure.. but one cannot escape this failure velocity since it feeds upon itself.. like F22 is superior yes, so why is this wrong path then? and then you keep going and going.. until you are swamped in debt and low numbers of your units and heavy maintenance that is not conducive to real military environment where spare parts, mechanics, space and peace to conduct the maintenance is nowhere to be found..

 

i call this the superiority trap.. once in it, there is no way coming back..

[tflash]

Some more info on F-35B on the Wasp: http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/21/f-35b-flies-with-weapons-uss-wasp-testing-expanded-carrier-ops/

[PFunk1606688187]

@night... i agree completely.. if one looks at efficiency than a mix is only thing that works..

 

The question of efficiency is not a fixed concept. Efficiency exists in many different ways depending on your mindset or priorities.

 

As much as the USAF keeps trying to kick the A-10 to make budgetary room for other things, if they had unlimited money and no constraints on what they'd like to have I'm sure they'd be content to keep it onboard, and up to date.

 

So whats efficient? Maintaining multiple training bases to support multiple airframes which individually are incapable of supporting the full spectrum of envisioned 5th generation doctrine in whichever hot war could happen with a near-parity opponent is not really efficient in the modern paradigm of American budgetary constraints.

 

The problem of superiority through mass production is that its a wartime concept. The Soviets emerged as contenders in WW2 because it was a total war scenario. The full scale of every economy at the time was focused into production for the war effort. This is hardly the case in our world. Fact is I'd be very surprised if a total war were ever to occur again, at least between 1st world economies.

 

The biggest threat for the future seems to be cyber attacks, the ability to target a nation's infrastructure, be it civilian or military, as the opening blow in whatever conflict is to follow. Total war doesn't occur in hours, it takes years. How many wars have lasted years that weren't asymmetrical since Korea? If you look at the way the Israelis have fought you can't exactly call their tactics ones of treating their men as expendable. If anything the Israelis have shown that the small elite army mindset is superior to the cold war Soviet centralized drone concept.

 

The issues of the Nazi defeat at the hands of the Allies is one of economics. If Germany had a competitive economy combined with its technology, not to mention the manpower to sustain losses, it would have been a different war. Comparisons in this sense are meaningless. The US is not Nazi Germany. The conditions aren't the same nor will the next conflict mirror them. The world changed after WW2 and for more reasons than just Nukes. The world economy is so interconnected that nations willing to commit to full scale total war would be committing to a war for the scraps of our entire way of life. They'd be victors of a broken world economy that would take generations to fix, because destroying China or Russia or America or the EU would deplete the markets they sell to.

 

Globalization isn't exactly an environment where one can immolate the enemy as was case the in WW2. Wars are now fast, flurries of blows between adversaries trained to the sharpness of a samurai sword. Its really like a samurai duel really. Two quick blows, barely any chance to parry, and death for one or the other. Its not going to last long enough for reinforcements to come in. The troops will probably be needed to keep the domestic population from rioting over the disaster that is their economy as much as they'll be needed for occupation.

 

I think most weapons development now is a case of checking the enemy, just to ensure that if he gets any ideas about it, he can be assured that its a dead end going hot. Its like MAD with the Soviets. Only a madman would entertain the notion of playing the scenario out, but as long as you have something seriously superior?... maybe... maybe I can try it.

 

Thats not even accounting for the corrupting effect of the arms industry's need to exist perverting the analysis of a nation's need for arms. Too often when selling us a new weapon we hear about all the jobs that would be created, or lost.

 

This is all moot anyway. Who exactly is going to outproduce the US on advanced tech right now, even with shrinking of the forces?

[Night]

Do you know how many times prominent generals have said total war would never happen again? It was a common belief in the USSR in the 1930's that a modern war would be fully mechanized, and would be over in a matter of weeks. We in the US have been spoiled by fighting technologically easy opponents - Iraq and such - but if we were ever to face off against China, a few thousand aircraft would come in handy.

[PFunk1606688187]

Do you know how many times prominent generals have said total war would never happen again? It was a common belief in the USSR in the 1930's that a modern war would be fully mechanized, and would be over in a matter of weeks. We in the US have been spoiled by fighting technologically easy opponents - Iraq and such - but if we were ever to face off against China, a few thousand aircraft would come in handy.

 

There's a difference though between people miscalculating in the past and that making it a rule for the future. I'm sure many veterans of the civil war thought that typical rank and file musket lines were a thing of the past once the smarter soldiers who'd been around started doing things like running from cover to cover then going prone, or once breastworks defeated the notion of the stand off fight in the final part of Grant's Overland campaign, but alas the lessons weren't learned fully until WW1, though the writing was on the wall a half century earlier.

 

Also take note of the fact that total war hasn't happened since WW2 but not for lack of effort on the part of the great powers to get themselves face to face with the prospect of one. No matter the amount of technological superiority of modern fighter aircraft or aircraft carriers or the superior numbers of Soviet tank battalions standing ready to swarm the Fulda gap, war could not happen, despite numerous face offs that easily could have lead to it. It wouldn't even take a full total war to begin. The world would be over in a few minutes, so where's the total war?

 

The closest thing was the Soviets trying to keep up with American arms but even then that doesn't count because the Soviet Union couldn't impose on its own people the same harsh wartime restrictions that most nations dealt with during WW2. The Cold War is proof enough for me that total war likely won't happen, and if it did it would be clear fairly quickly who would win or lose and the loser would just resort as early as possible to a nuke strike because thats his only hope, short of an unlikely ignoble surrender to preserve the world.

 

The most notable engagements since WW2 have been with non-parity power, wars between proxies, asymmetrical wars against opponents with no sophisticated thermonuclear deterrent, and fast burning wars where the middle tier militaries of poor Generals in the Middle East were quashed in a week or less. The startling and emphatic result of the 6 day war should prove that quality over quantity goes to the Israelis and their "make do with what you got" mentality, and by making do we mean honing their inferior numbers into a superior war machine capable of striking fast and early against an opponent before their mass numbers can inflict attrition upon them.

 

Even in the potential future conflicts of 21st century industrialized nations, the idea of a traditional full scale engagement seems unlikely. Like I said, cyber war is where the edge likely would come from. Even if we consider drones as something of a game changer, the fact that Iranians could hack a state of the art Stealth drone and steal it ought to be proof enough that if Iran could do it, imagine what China could do, the same China that's known to have stolen an enormous bulk of data on the JSF program and possibly used it to jump start their own.

 

Who needs total war? Who's economy are you going to go against? Our economies are inter-linked. We share economic interests like never before, and if most war is about that, what is actually to be gained by bombing each other into oblivion?

Edited August 25, 2013 by P*Funk

[Night]

You can say total war is unlikely, I just don't buy it. They said the same thing after WWI. I believe that we are living in an era very similar to the world just before WWI, many nations are experiencing economic unrest and I can think of a few scenarios that could easily trigger a catastrophic large scale war. It would not necessarily lead to a nuclear end game by the losing opponent, but the fact that it could end that way wouldn't necessarily stop anyone. After all, total war scenarios are usually unstoppable by the time anyone sees it coming. Just like before WWI, many nations today have signed treaties and alliances that could easily involve in to another full scale world war. I could easily see a China invading Taiwan, where the US would have to get involved. Or a conflict with Iran spilling over to Turkey and Israel engulfing the entire Middle East. I am not saying a total-war is inevitable or even very likely, but I do believe that the potential is grave enough to warrant the US in keeping as many fighter jets as we can. I think relying on 1-2,000 F-35's and F-22's would be an enormous mistake. We already know that China has stolen highly classified plans for the F-35. Do you really like the idea of basing your entire country's national defense on a compromised system like the F-35?

 

Mostly what I wanted to comment on in your post P Funk are your comments on cyber warfare. I think the idea of "cyber warfare" is WAY overblown by authors like Tom Clancy, and government officials who want to scare congress in to giving them more money for ineffective cyber-defense sinkholes.

 

The truth is that our critical infrastructure is NOT as vulnerable as some three letter government agency scare-mongers would have you believe. The computers used to control the actual reactor systems of nuclear power plants are completely unconnected to any outside networks (like the internet). The damage to America's electrical power systems that could be caused by a worst-case cyber attack would be minimal and could easily be repaired. The computers that control natural gas pipelines and refineries are similarly unconnected to any networks, and the ability to upload any sort of software to these computers through physical means like a USB drive is highly restricted. In fact, most computers in nuclear power plants and refineries don't actually have USB ports or run Windows.

 

The only reason the US should be concerned over its electronic systems is espionage. Our governments stupendous inability to secure classified data networks is actually astounding. You would be stunned. Recently, the EDA (economic development agency) was alerted of a POSSIBLE malware infection on some of their computers. They responded by physically destroying $2.7 MILLION dollars of computer equipment, including mice and keyboards. The only reason that they didn't destroy more is because they ran out of money in their budget, and they planned on continuing the destruction next fiscal year. I honestly don't expect these Feds to be able to count the number of fingers on their right hands, much less defend the nation's classified material from China. The idea of giving these people billions of dollars to protect us from cyber warfare sounds to me like an an EPIC disaster in the making.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Night

[PFunk1606688187]

WW1 was unstoppable because of a chain of guarantees that bound nations, and because nobody knew how war would be fought. We are very aware of our guarantees now, we are aware of the likely outcomes, and unlike WW1 we spent most of the late 20th century guarding against it. To assume that because we didn't have a war we're due for one doesn't track logically because you're assuming all those near misses in the cold war don't count, like we weren't then actively avoiding the same thinking that lead into WW1 without any awareness of what it would mean.

 

Your argument that cyber warfare is overrated is kind of silly too. The notion that we can have world spanning networks that facilitate our expansive way of life but that none of them are vulnerable... is absurd. Hacking hasn't stopped being effective, they just basically made it impossible for you to get away with it anonymously for the most part, unless you're hiding in a country like China. Secondly, you assume that having a power grid go down for a few hours isn't damaging. If you could attack a critical system only for a few hours you could open a window for exploitation. In war opportunities are fleeting. Those you create especially. Also, you underestimate the potential of a cyber attack being effective in a non military sense, but instead in a strategic economic sense. Attack the nation without risking anything militarily, you bypass the nuclear deterrent because you're not engaging in outright conflict. If anything its one of the safest ways to fight a war these days.

 

Lastly, you ignore the whole "Iran hacked our drone" thing. Oh yea, the future still has much hope for an enormous nation encompassing total war, but we won't be using networked systems that are vulnerable to an attack. Of course not. I mean, its not like every aircraft doesn't have datalinking or anything. No, hacking our networks isn't a problem in the future war. Lets of course not forget the thing of how Israel destroyed Iranian nuclear technology by planting a virus in some firmware. It doesn't need to be networked to still be vulnerable.

 

Meanwhile you assert that the same people who have our critical infrastructure locked down are incompetents who you have no faith in when it comes to guarding classified material or handling malware infections, but apparently those same people are going to keep us safe when it comes to other critical systems.

 

I don't understand. Are they incompetent or not?

 

And lastly, if the F-22 and F-35 are compromized, so what? What do you propose you base your defenses on then? Its not like that knowledge is going to be different if you re-engineer a different aircraft. 5th Gen tech will still rely on the F-35 and F-22 as a basis, as does any and all technological development in any sphere rely on whats been already discovered. Also, NATO's traditional adversaries have always stolen their tech. Its not a new idea. Every military has stolen better tech, going back to the Romans and before that.

 

Its awfully facile to just make some broad comparisons to WW1 and act like its the same. Economically the world is so different you need a stronger thesis than that to predict global total war that will somehow avoid the MAD concepts that held us back from the brink for so many years after 1945.

[tflash]

The whole idea that the US is sacrificing quantity over quality makes little sense to me. In fact, the F-35 is designed to be produced in higher quantities than the 4th gen competition. The whole supply chain and industrial base is designed for this. It is also designed to be produced at a far higher rate than the 4th gen competition.

 

Where are the high production rates of Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, SU-35 ? Remember they are currently already building the 100th F-35.

 

And then the whole price issue: the price is not 10 times higher than the competion, but in fact only marginally so, with a shrinking difference when production ramps up. And you must count sorties, not airframes. The F-35 is designed to generate much, much more sorties than the competition. Two of the major problems that are faced by some of the very best competitors, the Rafale and Typhoon, are exactly that: production rate and sortie generation. In all sales negotiations that are going one today these are the showstoppers.

 

And then there is the last, completely bogus argument: the F-35 has less payload. NO. It has more payload and range. It has less payload in clean configuration. But it can load as much if not more than an F-16 or Super Hornet.

 

The only reason that a mix makes sense is the production delays which at a 10 year timespan to the original planning. Since the Navy has a relatively young fleet of Super Hornets, there is an opportunity to keep this fleet longer aboard. For the Marines and Air Force this makes no sense: who would buy F-16 if you can buy F-35 ? From the same company? And going from Harrier to F-35 is simply a quantum leap in capability.

 

We heard the same nostalgia in the past when Tomcat and Intruder were retired. The naked truth is however that the US Navy currently can yield a much higher sortie rate at a much lower cost with Super Hornet. The same will be true with transitioning to F-35.

 

Sorry guys, but US will be soon flying routinely about 180 F-22 + 100 F-35 5th generation aircraft. That is "quantity" to me.

[Kaktus29]

be careful, i mentioned US being like Nazi Germany in ideology of superiority.. germans designed tanks, planes, rifles, machine guns that were totally superior in quality to everybody else?..why? ideology.. could the engineers build same tanks with less obsession of superior armor, gun, etc? of course they could, but that did't fit the ideology.. US is same, the fact that a US pilot would be shot down-just 1 pilot-is unheard of for US air force..for them its total failure and they will do whatever is necessary to prevent it.. you see they can't accept a battle loss part of the war .. for this reason battling the nazis took ages in western theater in europe when US engaged them and for same reason US was afraid of invading japan but started lobbing nukes instead..

 

this is a huge vulnerability in my opinion. i'm not saying use your pilots, soldiers as expandable clay you can build new in factories later but acknowledging attrition in war as something normal is how wars are fought..otherwise you are totally alergic to actually being able to fight a real total war..which what happened in 2WW to US and France, UK..

 

Bombing campaign of germany didn't yield results but mostly was a terror campaign intended to intimidate and terrorize the civilian population.. similar to shock and awe stage in iraq.. philosophy is in superiority and reducing casualties to zero in friendly lines..for casualty means vulnerability .. this to me is stupid notion..

 

about war in general, reason why no big total war after 2WW is obvious-nukes..and today even if nukes wouldn't exist possibility of total war would still be small since cruise missiles can enact same disaster as nukes by targeting the very important water-cleaning filtering stations, electrical transformation stations, water dams, etc.. one can pretty much kill millions of people through secondary effects by using cruise missiles(a city with no electricity and most of the oil depot exploded, destroyed will have no means of electrical power to use and transport water to the city population that would die in hundreds of thousands(a city of 4 million for instance)..

 

F-35, F22, PAk, etc.. all this plane in the future will mean, especially if one has them allot, that this weapon platforms become strategic in nature .. today there is no front line, where it gets hard to cross, basically one can target every small spot in strategic rear one can imagine.. and thus this acts in same manner as nukes did and still do..this is what prevents war from going hot..

 

but, a numerical and quality superiority can push the one who is superior into action of war, this is only normal.. when huge discrepancy happens in the world of military power war breaks out.. for same reason native indians were slaughtered by english settlers ..if indians would be armed with rifles most probably there would be lots of "respect" and much less expansion to the west part of US..

 

about China attacking Taiwan..)lol.. this will not happen, thats like saying Poland will attack Austria in 1938.. it doesn't make sense.. now Germany attacking poland..that makes sense..

[Rangi]

meanwhile in f-35 news

 

 

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35c-completes-first-in-flight-refuel-with-usaf-kc-135

 

I have always thought it seemed nicer to insert your probe into the drogue than have a big ass probe inserted in your orifice.

[countto10]

Are we still talking about re-fueling?

[Night]

P Funk, when I say that it is extraordinarily difficult to hack in to something and cause physical damage, that is very true. You, and many people in government, seem to give China an almost omnipotent ability to take out any civilian or military system it pleases. However this isn't true. Most hacking would be limited to making a computer unable to boot. It would be extremely rare to actually find a way to cause difficult to repair physical damage.

 

Most of the US' infrastructure is largely immune to a cyber attack because it's simple. For the most part, it's not connected to the internet. It uses a large variety of operating systems and versions. Attacking US infrastructure would be any hacker's nightmare. I do believe that our government is largely full of technologically illiterate buffoons, but by complete accident (and in some cases outright neglect) they have created/allowed infrastructure to be largely immune to hacking.

 

Now with drones, they would not be very useful in a war against China anyways. In the specific case you mentioned, Iran did NOT actually steal the drone. The drone had crashed and Iran had reassembled it. It would be pretty difficult for any nation - let alone Iran - to hack in to and steal the drone. The drone communicates with satellites, and that communication is encrypted up the wazooh. While it is theoretically possible that they could hack in to computers that control the drones in a time of war, drones wouldn't be a very high value target.

 

Now you can keep going on about how dangerous cyber warfare is - keep in mind that I do work in this very field - or you can throw out specific examples of vulnerabilities that the PRC could exploit.

[maturin]

Where exactly do we have entire sections of infrastructure not connected to the internet? And remember that most damaging cyber attacks are actually conducted by agents on the ground, who pick the lock to the server room or coax a disgruntled employee into giving up a password.