Wouldn't that have been better performed by organically incorporating the Harrier into US Army forces Europe?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Wouldn't that have been better performed by organically incorporating the Harrier into US Army forces Europe?
The time shift thing seems to have changed though.
For example, how many aircraft from 1991 (and much earlier) are still considered vital combat assets today?
It's not the age of the issue that's relevant but the need for STOVL capability. There are plenty of airframes dating from earlier than 1991 that are still entirely relevant today but others that aren't. For my money, A-10 and Harrier both fall into the latter category. Don't get me wrong - I think both aircraft are fantastic. It's just that their roles have disappeared. Rather like horse-borne cavalry, really.
Here is the FY14' report on the F-35. The press doesn't report any of this stuff (even if it's negative) because they're too stupid to look for it.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/da.../DOT-E_2014_Annual_Report_Section_on_F-35.pdf
How does F-35 bomb-load capacity compare to the F-22 and YF-23?
About drone costs..
The X-47B which was a UCAV demonstrator (of which two were built) had a program price tag of $813 million. Do the math!
Deliberaty ignoring the fact that this is a one off "X" plane?
Deliberaty ignoring the fact that this is a one off "X" plane?
It would have been far better to invest the money in drone R&D and embrace the future rather than this deadend.
I take that to be a Yes you are ignoring the cost, survivability, size and other drone issues which will presumably have no developmental problems.The F35 "Schitzoid". Doesnt know if its fighter or a bomber. Its really good to know it carries a paltry 4000 pound internal payload when in full stealth profile. Pathetic. The fact it can carry even more on hardpoints at the cost of stealth just prives what many critics have condemed it for.
A purpose built bomber would carry a lot more internally. And if its selling point is it can carry a lot externally, then why have a stealth capability to begin with?
As fighter, its just a joke. It wont be able to maneuver with any modern fighters.
As for its software, its going to be its downfall. One issue after another. It wont be till 2020 that all the bugs are worked and by then the plane is already obsolescent. A great multi hundred billion dollar investment in a flying turkey. It would have been far better to invest the money in drone R&D and embrace the future rather than this deadend.
More myopic drivvle...The F35 "Schitzoid". Doesnt know if its fighter or a bomber. Its really good to know it carries a paltry 4000 pound internal payload when in full stealth profile. Pathetic.
The fact it can carry even more on hardpoints at the cost of stealth just prives what many critics have condemed it for.
A purpose built bomber would carry a lot more internally. And if its selling point is it can carry a lot externally, then why have a stealth capability to begin with?
As fighter, its just a joke. It wont be able to maneuver with any modern fighters.
As for its software, its going to be its downfall. One issue after another. It wont be till 2020 that all the bugs are worked and by then the plane is already obsolescent. A great multi hundred billion dollar investment in a flying turkey. It would have been far better to invest the money in drone R&D and embrace the future rather than this deadend.
The cost of a drone at 700 million? Sure . I believe that. Maybe for a one time airframe. With all the money pissed away for the Schitzo fighter, we could have put it in R&D for drones and would be able to deploy them by 2020 at a fraction of the cost of what were paying now.