Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I was just about to post that!
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
That is just so cool!
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Well, that was a "Strike Fighter" designed for ...right ?, a damn good plane, too bad the freaking price.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Billions for a plane that will easily be shot down over a well defended battlefield.
GregP
Major
I have very high hopes for it coupled with very low expectations.
It could be a great one or our downfall ... I'm hoping for the former ... just not really expecting it to be as advertised. Still, the planes to date in the post 3rd-generation jet fighter era have mostly been pretty good ones. Perhaps this one will continue the trend. If it does, I REALLY hate to see what the follow-on will cost!
If we went back to spears and bows and arrows, war would stop or at least be localized ... unless we attack from helicopters with crossbows.
I say balloons and blunderbusses at 50 meters! Liek in "Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines." Stay away from the wastewater pond!
It could be a great one or our downfall ... I'm hoping for the former ... just not really expecting it to be as advertised. Still, the planes to date in the post 3rd-generation jet fighter era have mostly been pretty good ones. Perhaps this one will continue the trend. If it does, I REALLY hate to see what the follow-on will cost!
If we went back to spears and bows and arrows, war would stop or at least be localized ... unless we attack from helicopters with crossbows.
I say balloons and blunderbusses at 50 meters! Liek in "Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines." Stay away from the wastewater pond!
Last edited:
michaelmaltby
Colonel
The F-35 badly needs some combat cred .... put it to work .... very selectively, I say.
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Bombing ISIS perhaps ? almost a holy duty, but I will not like to be in the shoes of the pilot if he has to eject.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
no worse off than in a downed F-15, F-16 or Tornado .... lets remember that some Lancaster and Halifax crewmen were abused by Germans who caught them ....
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Some were killed too, but that was sporadic, in Irak and sirya is the rule.
Glider
Captain
People question the ability of the F35 but personally I am all for it. There is no doubt that the wars that have been fought recently could have been won with an F4 which causes some to doubt the need. However the first time the USAF go up against a sophisticated enemy they will appreciate every advantage it gives them.
Instead of concentrating on what people think it cannot do, does anyone know have a better attack aircraft to fly when up against a modern defence?
Instead of concentrating on what people think it cannot do, does anyone know have a better attack aircraft to fly when up against a modern defence?
syscom3
Pacific Historian
No doubt the plane will be good. Its just so expensive, its unaffordable. Its plainly obvious that the only way to attack high value targets in a well defended area will be UAVs going on one way missions.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
.....or send the Dambusters! 
Glider
Captain
Possibly but current UAV's will simply get swatted out of the sky. They will need significant improvements before that will happen, which will increase the cost and complexity to an almost unaffordable level.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
ANY aircraft could be shot down over a well defended battlefield!!!
Any new combat plane WILL cost BILLIONS!!!
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Which is my point. They are unaffordable.
GregP
Major
I have a VERY hard time understanding the incremental cost of the capabilities added. The software to fly a modern fly-by-wire aircraft is fairly straightforward. It comes in airliners for crying out loud. It comes in a 6-seat business jet.
I don't need software to drop a piece of ordnance, but I can do it on Microsoft Flight Simulator for under $30.
So exactly what is costing so much? If we break down the costs of the software, my bet is we can rapidly identify things that are NOT and never will be needed. If I were on the Armed Services Committee, that's where I would start ... by identifying the incremental costs of the F-35 and eliminating things that cannot be easily justified, and I don't mean justified by a goup of people hostile to the program who have no qualifications to make the decision. The group doing the justifying it should be composed of senior pilots and senior military leaders. When they gtet finished, send the recommendations to the President and the Congress.
Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it really should be done.
I have no specific thing I want to elminate, but the cost is ridiculous and there at LEAST would be some understanding of what various things cost to add to an aircraft's capability list. We could balance thath against all the identifiable times we have needed that capability in the past shile looking at new threats coming down the pike.
If manned aircraft are going to be THIS costsly, scrap 'em and let's get to fighting with drones as rapidly as possible. For the cost of a single F-35, how many combat drones of what type could be acquired together with weapons? I would hate for it to come to that exclusively, but the companies that design manned fighter aircraft are pricing themselves out of the business as far as I'm concerned. Maybe this puppy SHOULD be the last manned combat aircraft.
I suppose we'll have to see the combat legacy of the F-35 to know for sure, but the cost is not in any manner acceptable to me as a taxpayer. Since we're buying it anyway, we should at LEAST understand why it costs so much, down to the penny.
I don't need software to drop a piece of ordnance, but I can do it on Microsoft Flight Simulator for under $30.
So exactly what is costing so much? If we break down the costs of the software, my bet is we can rapidly identify things that are NOT and never will be needed. If I were on the Armed Services Committee, that's where I would start ... by identifying the incremental costs of the F-35 and eliminating things that cannot be easily justified, and I don't mean justified by a goup of people hostile to the program who have no qualifications to make the decision. The group doing the justifying it should be composed of senior pilots and senior military leaders. When they gtet finished, send the recommendations to the President and the Congress.
Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it really should be done.
I have no specific thing I want to elminate, but the cost is ridiculous and there at LEAST would be some understanding of what various things cost to add to an aircraft's capability list. We could balance thath against all the identifiable times we have needed that capability in the past shile looking at new threats coming down the pike.
If manned aircraft are going to be THIS costsly, scrap 'em and let's get to fighting with drones as rapidly as possible. For the cost of a single F-35, how many combat drones of what type could be acquired together with weapons? I would hate for it to come to that exclusively, but the companies that design manned fighter aircraft are pricing themselves out of the business as far as I'm concerned. Maybe this puppy SHOULD be the last manned combat aircraft.
I suppose we'll have to see the combat legacy of the F-35 to know for sure, but the cost is not in any manner acceptable to me as a taxpayer. Since we're buying it anyway, we should at LEAST understand why it costs so much, down to the penny.
Last edited:
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Neither the Russians nor the Chinese will forego the use of manned fighter/multi-strike aircraft for drones .... they operate on a different cost-benefit model than NATO countries .... but I think we have no choice but to push the envelope and bear the costs ... that is the price of leadership.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And UAVs alone aren't going to cut it - and start building larger and more sophisticated UAVs and they will be expensive as well.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Look at all the specs and requirements imposed on certain systems. There was a push to use "off the shelf" equipment, but you have a lot of pentagon bureaucrats who just add on more and more compliance and oversight. The F-35 "SHOULD HAVE" eliminated a lot of this waste, instead it added to it.
That the problem with think takns and "dreamers' within the military. There's always a push to improve things - it looks good on your military resume.
Agree
Combat drones as primary combat aircraft are a pipe dream, especially in an air to air scenero. I think there will always be manned combat aircraft and I also believe that drones will eventually SUPPLEMENT but never replace...
I remember similar arguments in 1976 when the F-15 and F-16 were entering service and people were questioning why we needed TWO fighters!
