Page 2 of 42 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 420
Thanks Tree46Thanks

Thread: F-35 Where do we go from here?

  1. #11
    Established Member Redwood's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,781
    Thanks
    4348

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    If the plane worked as planned and would add superiority over our potential enemies maybe we could sort of tolerate it.
    Many say it won't compete with threats from Russia and China.
    The Marines variant is pretty interesting. Like a Harrier.. it can do VTOL.. the ability to take off + land with no runway. Unlike the Harrier.. it is stalthy, supersonic,has a good payload. Aside from it's VTOL abilities.. the Harrier has performance qualities below the typical Viet Nam era jets.
    A BIG reason to do the F-35...was to do an up to date super Harrier. With the F-14 retired..and the F-15's having aged.. the Air Force and Navy expected a need. It sort of came down to...you can do it now.. or 5 years later....but we already spent to do the early parts.. might as well follow throgh rather than start over.

    Problems? The V-22 Osprey had a lot of problems...is however a real special tech. The M-1 Abrams tank and the Bradley.. both had problems.. many critics.. yet in the first Gulf War.. they proved to be excellent. I'm all for being careful about just buying every item..gadget for the Military. I fuss that we do spend to fight one sort of war.. then have to spend all over again when we're in a different kind of war. Sometimes thhe wrech you need was in the toolbox all along. The Air Force did not want to keep the A-10 Warthog in service. It ain't fast or sleek or hi tech. Vs Saddam.. it was a STAR. The Warthog is an armored plane buit around a massive monster machine gun that can chew up a tank as if you'd attcked a birthday cake with a chainsaw. A Warthog....is your best buddy if you are a soldier on the ground.

    POLITICS....local contractors/jobs DO play too much role.I heard we are buying/building some more Abrams tanks. Great tank..if you are in a war vs tanks.. but they are not very air mobile. Odds are the next few wars we fight.. we don't need those. We may need stuff we can fly in on a C-130, vehicles that stand up to IEDS...as was so in Afghanistan + Iraq.

  2. #12
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    18,899
    Thanks
    5262

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    There is a reason for that which has nothing to do with military need.
    The "need" for the tanks or for the airplanes?

    I'd say you could make the argument for both and for lots of other military programs, too.

  3. #13
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,633
    Thanks
    263

    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    The "need" for the tanks or for the airplanes?

    I'd say you could make the argument for both and for lots of other military programs, too.
    The military is currently going by the very questionable assumption that the U.S. will never "fight another land war in Asia" (stated by Bush's second, Obama's first Secretary of Defense).

    This is horrendously questionable as it seems to assume that the U.S. has the least bit of choice in the matter. That makes their "not going to need tanks" assumption very questionable.

    As for the F-35, EVERY area of U.S. air power is aging radically. We've got to have something.

  4. #14
    You'll see what I can do Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    14285

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    The "need" for the tanks or for the airplanes?

    I'd say you could make the argument for both and for lots of other military programs, too.
    There is no argument for building new Abrams tanks. None. If there's a need to keep a large standing force of them, refurbish the old ones. They're hardened steel. They'll be fine.

    The new ones are basically rolling off the production line and going straight to the boneyard in the hopes that one of the limited eligible customers will buy them.

    Main battle tanks have a use against a large enemy force of other tanks and armored vehicles that can't be destroyed from the air. No enemy we have a realistic chance of fighting has such a force.
    Thanks from Friday13

  5. #15
    You'll see what I can do Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    14285

    From
    Kansas
    Every dollar we tank into... tanks is one we can't spend on much more useful and practical technology, like submarines.

    The Navy is building stealth technology into ships, but realistically it doesn't take much for an anti-ship missile to take them out anyway. And if such an attack succeeds, it's a great dollar-for-dollar investment for the enemy.

    We need a force across several sectors that is versatile, fast, can deploy quickly (or is already deployed round-the-clock and simply cycles back when needed) and can HIDE as a matter of course.

  6. #16
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    18,899
    Thanks
    5262

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    The military is currently going by the very questionable assumption that the U.S. will never "fight another land war in Asia" (stated by Bush's second, Obama's first Secretary of Defense).

    This is horrendously questionable as it seems to assume that the U.S. has the least bit of choice in the matter. That makes their "not going to need tanks" assumption very questionable.

    As for the F-35, EVERY area of U.S. air power is aging radically. We've got to have something.
    I agree.

    Some estimates say that the F-35 will have a service life of 50 years.

    Does anyone have any idea what will be happening in the world 50 years from now?

    Of course not. We don't even know 5 years into the future, much less 50.

    The F-15's, F-16's, Harriers and others that the F-35 will replace have been flying since the 70's.

  7. #17
    You'll see what I can do Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    14285

    From
    Kansas
    What we're doing right now is building armored knights when a potential enemy can cheaply produce riflemen. It's a waste for the (likely) peacetime, and in a war (unlikely), it invites disaster.

    Any land-vehicle platform that is more than 10 years old should be looked at with extreme scrutiny before we continue to manufacture it.
    Thanks from Friday13

  8. #18
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    6,813
    Thanks
    1654

    From
    <«-------†------»> Floating Between Dimensions.
    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    This mega dollar project appears to still be a wreck. Way over cost, under performing, unable to sell it.

    This article is a few months old and there are still serious issues.

    America's F-35: Coming In for a "Crash Landing"? | The National Interest

    The F-35 is double-inferior,” John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue concluded in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press. The new plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” they warned.
    After we spend trillions to build the shit, we will sell it all for scrap metal @ 0.001 cents to the dollar.

  9. #19
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    18,899
    Thanks
    5262

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    [size=3][font=Georgia]What we're doing right now is building armored knights when a potential enemy can cheaply produce riflemen.

    It's a waste for the (likely) peacetime, and in a war (unlikely), it invites disaster.
    We pour money into weapons systems while others (IS) find it cheaper to "produce riflemen", by brainwashing them and equip them with AK-47's, RPG's and Toyota pick ups.

    Very often in times of the (likely) peacetime, it is the (unlikely) war, which we find ourselves thrust into. No one knows what the future shall bring.

    No one gets rich betting that the US will stay out of wars.
    Thanks from justagurlinseattle

  10. #20
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,633
    Thanks
    263

    Incidentally, in fighting insurgents in Iraq, the M-1 Abrams has been (for obvious reasons) far and away the most IED resistant vehicle I've heard from people on site.

Page 2 of 42 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed