syscom3
Pacific Historian
Yes, I meant smart munitions, not gravity bombs. If your target is permanent fixed, not to tough to hit it. If its mobile, that's would on board sensors are for (or external sensors able to provide updates).
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In fairness, I think he meant a dump truck full of stand-off guided missiles not dumb bombs, the objective being to stand-off outside the threat environment and just launch smart missiles to take our key targets. Of course, that's fine providing the target can be readily acquired, identified, validated and tracked with stand-off ISR assets. If it can't, then you're back to the old human-in-the-loop decision-action cycle to determine what and when to engage...and that means getting closer to the target and, hence, into the threat environment which means your dump truck is now useless and you need something more capable that has better survivability (ie F-35).
And we're developing a B-2 replacement, what's the point?!?!?They are now developing the S500. And everyone knows that electronic systems get upgrades from time to time.
Comparing the F35 maneuverability to our own fighters is stupid. How does it compare to foreign fighters? Thats the key.
There is no single way to blind the S400 short of an EMP. The S400 is very effective. And that's why the Russians have been asked not to sell it to Syria or Iran. Would it be 100% effective? Probably not. But if it makes the attrition rate on the attacker so severe that its unsustainable, it has accomplished its task.
And we're developing a B-2 replacement, what's the point?!?!?
With the money being sunk into this program, we could have developed plenty of low cost drones to do the dangerous work. Its not that hard to make one that can handle far more G's than a manned plane, which will come in handy to avoid AA missiles. Especially if the drone is planned for one way missions.
Because the concept works?I asked that question too. Why dump so much money into this type of plane?
Nope never said that - what I said it our own aircraft were used as a bench mark for comparison. Look at what the foreign contemporaries of say the F-16 and F/A-18 are and then compare away!!! Tornado, MiG-29, J10, to name a few...Are you saying that it is wrong to compare the F35 against foreign fighters?
Well that's what the Rand study initially did and then attempted simulated comparisons basically guessing on how Russian and Chinese aircraft would perform.And the only true way of measuring the F35 is against the F15/F16/F18? That's a sure recipe for failure.
WHAT PROOF OF THAT DO YOU HAVE?!?So what if its entering service. It will still be an over priced mediocre aircraft that will have a short production life.
Small minds think small...I like to think of it as being a modern day version of the TFX debacle of the 60's. Out of that came the F15 and F14.
And you can't comprehend that it has an air to air capability that will enable it to destroy opponents BEFORE it has to run!!!If it isnt a great fighter, then it better be a great bomber. And if its a great bomber, it better not have any air to air capability other than to run away.
If its mobile, that's would on board sensors are for (or external sensors able to provide updates).
Buff with this statement, I couldn't agree more. As you put it the "Harrier Mafia" got their way when the concept of this aircraft was being developed. It was an 'after the fact' proposal when the designer of the lift fan stated that the airframe of the V/STOL could be adapted to other missions.I'm no fan of the costs of the F-35. As a taxpayer, it makes my eyes water, and I still think the STOVL version is an expensive diversion of resources - there's no practical need for a vertically-landing asset these days, other than to maintain the superiority complex of the Harrier mafia. However, my 20 years in the military, including a number of operational deployments ranging from force-on-force to low-intensity conflict to peacekeeping to humanitarian relief, tell me that the F-35 is the right beast for the job. As manoeuverable as the F-18 (and maybe F-16) and yet capable of stealthy approach...sounds pretty good to me as an option for mission success!
Because its cheaper than a drone, more flexible than a drone, has a better payload than a drone, far more survivable than a drone, has infinitely more weapon options than a drone and is so, so much cooler than a drone. The last one being my nephews contributionI asked that question too. Why dump so much money into this type of plane?
I can confidently say that the USA and its partners would love to test it against a fully equipped, latest Russian standard fighter. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian pilots wouldn't mind such a test but I don't see it happening. Now if we work on the basis that this isn't going to happen what do you suggest the USAF test it against?Are you saying that it is wrong to compare the F35 against foreign fighters? And the only true way of measuring the F35 is against the F15/F16/F18? That's a sure recipe for failure.
If it were mediocre the RAF wouldn't be buying it as they already have the Typhoon. If it were overpriced the RAF would have simply dropped the F35 order and purchased more Typhoons. There was a lot of political pressure for that to happen but it didn't and its noticeable that all the UK political parties are sticking with it.So what if its entering service. It will still be an over priced mediocre aircraft that will have a short production life. I like to think of it as being a modern day version of the TFX debacle of the 60's. Out of that came the F15 and F14.
Its a great all round aircraft it will not be the best fighter but it will probably be the best attack aircraft. A lot of countries have been very happy with the performance of the F16 as a multirole aircraft and I have no doubt that the F35 will do the same.If it isnt a great fighter, then it better be a great bomber. And if its a great bomber, it better not have any air to air capability other than to run away.
That must be the grounded one that was being talked about. Or it could be the short production run i.e. only one (so far)Meanwhile...
"First-Ever Italian F-35A Rolls Out of Cameri, Italy, Production Facility"
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/fir...rolls-out-of-cameri-italy-production-facility
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lockheed-f-35-program-costs-decline-7.5-billion-pentagon-says
Senior admiral reiterates U.S. Navy commitment to F-35 warplane | Reuters
<SNIP> and I still think the STOVL version is an expensive diversion of resources - there's no practical need for a vertically-landing asset these days, other than to maintain the superiority complex of the Harrier mafia. <SNIP>
Gulf War I was 25 years ago. To put that time shift in context, how many aircraft from 1966 were still considered vital combat assets in 1991? Also, what proportion of USMC missions were flown by AV-8B compared to CTOL USMC aircraft? I'd argue that the whole raison d'etre for Harrier died when the threat of the Soviet 3rd Shock Army rolling over the inner German border evaporated. I just don't see a case where we need rough-field STOVL operations today - it provides nothing that cannot be done with aircraft that can fly further and/or carry more.
I have noticed most aircraft coming out of hangars are grounded, my wife is sometimes astounded at my powers of observation.