Page 3 of 42 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 420
Thanks Tree46Thanks

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

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,633
    Thanks
    263

    In regards to future warfare, the M-1 Abrams first combat was in the 1991 Iraq War.

    But

    IIRC, the M-1 Abrams was being developed in the late 1970s just about the time Saddam Hussein was manipulating his way into power in Iraq and Iraq was considered at worst the lesser of evils compared to Iraq.

  2. #22
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    18,899
    Thanks
    5262

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    In regards to future warfare, the M-1 Abrams first combat was in the 1991 Iraq War.

    But

    IIRC, the M-1 Abrams was being developed in the late 1970s just about the time Saddam Hussein was manipulating his way into power in Iraq and Iraq was considered at worst the lesser of evils compared to Iraq.
    Good point and yet another example of how quickly things change.

    Look at Russia, our longtime enemy, then became our friend (sort of), now our enemy again.

    China was never much of a military threat until recent years, now they are.

    At least North Korea has remained consistent...
    Thanks from Dayton3

  3. #23
    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
    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.
    I'm not sure you followed my point. If we build knights and the enemy trains cheap, throwaway guys with rifles, that is, anti-tank missiles, IEDs, what have you... we lose, or at least we suffer a lot more casualties than are necessary. Iraq was nuts, and that was because of disorganized tribesmen with (if they were fortunate) a slow stream of weapons and some training from Iran and Syria. We absolutely need to protect the peace and prepare for war. But main battle tanks are YESTERDAY's war.

  4. #24
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    59,392
    Thanks
    17389

    From
    Mass and Florida
    The idea of one aircraft to be shared by all services is a bad one and failed way back in the 1960's with McNamara's F111 boondoggle.
    Each service has very specific needs and one aircraft can never be ideal to fill all of them.
    Thanks from justagurlinseattle

  5. #25
    You'll see what I can do Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    14285

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    The idea of one aircraft to be shared by all services is a bad one and failed way back in the 1960's with McNamara's F111 boondoggle.
    Each service has very specific needs and one aircraft can never be ideal to fill all of them.
    Exactly, but Bush pushed that crap on the military despite concerted expertise along the lines of what you just said, and got most allied nations on the bandwagon.

    Obama, as with so many other issues, simply ignored the problems that started to result, and more or less is still ignoring them.

    I mean, for crying out loud, they want the thing to replace A-10. It can't even feed the pilot oxygen correctly and they want it to provide close air support...

  6. #26
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,633
    Thanks
    263

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    The idea of one aircraft to be shared by all services is a bad one and failed way back in the 1960's with McNamara's F111 boondoggle.
    Each service has very specific needs and one aircraft can never be ideal to fill all of them.
    You're right. And remember, the F-35 was NOT the Pentagon's idea.

    A few points

    1) In the 1990s, the U.S. Air Force and Navy wanted FOUR different combat aircraft plus the Marines wanted to use one that the Navy might get.

    The USAF wanted a ground attack plane to replace the A-10 which the USAF has loathed for decades.
    The USAF wanted an affordable stealth fighter to replace the F-16.

    The USN wanted a ground attack plane
    The USN wanted an air superiority fighter to take the place of long serving versions of the F/A-18 (because they are so reliable, the Hornets seldom suffer down time. So they are wearing out faster than expected.

    Congress basically said "No way the U.S. is buying FOUR different combat aircraft. Build one everyone can use". And of course that doesn't work well.

    2) The F-35 was NEVER expected to be superior to the latest Russian or Chinese aircraft. It was supposed to be "affordable stealth". The idea was that the F-35 would gear up for ground attack or anti air missions AFTER the F-22 Raptors had already taken out the state of the art opposition.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    18,899
    Thanks
    5262

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    But main battle tanks are YESTERDAY's war.
    Maybe, maybe not.

    I don't know where there next BIG war will be or who the opponent will be.

    Maybe main battle tanks are today what battleships were going into WWII.

    Just like A-10's were obsolete...until the Gulf War.

    So, ya never know.

    M-1's were designed with a European war with the USSR in mind, I think.

    Thankfully THAT's not gonna happen anymore...or is it?

    Russia does seem to act a little frisky lately.
    Last edited by Miller47; 19th January 2015 at 06:13 PM.

  8. #28
    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
    Maybe, maybe not.
    Their last real application, as I'm sure you're aware, was against Saddam in the Persian Gulf War. And yeah, there was a big tank battle, and they passed into history and the American consciousness as something we built that kicks a lot of ass up close (relatively speaking). But EVEN THEN, the war raced ahead of the tank lines. The battle was brief, yes, because the tanks killed everything in their way, but also because by the time the Air Force was done with Iraq, they had very little ability to resist in any kind of organized manner.

    Air power in a conventional war (the only conceivable proper place for a main battle tank today) has since advanced by LEAPS AND BOUNDS. It's hard to say what would come of an air battle with Russia or China, but the utility of tanks today in any such conflict when the U.S. did not rule the skies would be limited at best... for precisely the same reason that if the Army did have the ability to advance under air superiority, there simply wouldn't be any need for tanks by the time they got to the front.

    Also on the PGW: I've read before that the decision to push into Southern Iraq and destroy the Republican Guard on the ground, with the tanks, was mostly a tactic of psychological warfare. Even with air power cleaning up everything in the open, they feared that Saddam would be too stupid to fold UNLESS the U.S. made a commitment on the ground, in his face, and won a decisive victory. As demonstrated by scenes like the "Highway of Death," the tanks were hardly necessary to win the war.
    Last edited by Singularity; 19th January 2015 at 06:28 PM.

  9. #29
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,633
    Thanks
    263

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Their last real application, as I'm sure you're aware, was against Saddam in the Persian Gulf War. And yeah, there was a big tank battle, and they passed into history and the American consciousness as something we built that kicks a lot of ass up close (relatively speaking). But EVEN THEN, the war raced ahead of the tank lines. The battle was brief, yes, because the tanks killed everything in their way, but also because by the time the Air Force was done with Iraq, they had very little ability to resist in any kind of organized manner.

    Air power in a conventional war (the only conceivable proper place for a main battle tank today) has since advanced by LEAPS AND BOUNDS. It's hard to say what would come of an air battle with Russia or China, but the utility of tanks today in any such conflict when the U.S. did not rule the skies would be limited at best... for precisely the same reason that if the Army did have the ability to advance under air superiority, there simply wouldn't be any need for tanks by the time they got to the front.

    Also on the PGW: I've read before that the decision to push into Southern Iraq and destroy the Republican Guard on the ground, with the tanks, was mostly a tactic of psychological warfare. Even with air power cleaning up everything in the open, they feared that Saddam would be too stupid to fold UNLESS the U.S. made a commitment on the ground, in his face, and won a decisive victory. As demonstrated by scenes like the "Highway of Death," the tanks were hardly necessary to win the war.
    Air power is overrated. And it is ALWAYS overrated about what it accomplishes.

    Ever heard the statement by the Iraqi Army colonel after the 1991 War?

    "When my unit went into Kuwait, I had 30 tanks. After a month of air attacks, I had 24 tanks. After fighting the Abrams for half an hour, I had no tanks......."

  10. #30
    You'll see what I can do Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    14285

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    Air power is overrated. And it is ALWAYS overrated about what it accomplishes.

    Ever heard the statement by the Iraqi Army colonel after the 1991 War?

    "When my unit went into Kuwait, I had 30 tanks. After a month of air attacks, I had 24 tanks. After fighting the Abrams for half an hour, I had no tanks......."
    Doesn't account for the advances that've happened since then, nor does it account for the account that when the U.S. tanks hit the Republican Guard, they were in disarray, clawed into the desert with concealment that probably wouldn't work today, their supply lines were cut, and Kuwait was already a lost cause.

    Air power's not especially effective against insurgent guys with AKs and RPGs. But neither is the Abrams

Page 3 of 42 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed