Dash119
Senior Airman
To be fair, the term "Bleeding Heart" strikes me as being somewhat political...
Respectfully,
Kim
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
To be fair, the term "Bleeding Heart" strikes me as being somewhat political...It isn't surprising to me that the media often focus on weapons systems that cost billions of dollars and have serious problems that need fixing, when a good percentage of the citizens paying for the weapons are barely hanging on financially and millions are going hungry every day. There are a great many urgent needs that could be addressed with all those dollars, so intense scrutiny and accurate criticism are inevitable and appropriate.
Please spare us the bleeding heart - and don't make this political. I'd advise you to read this: A few ground rules for the new folks
To be fair, the term "Bleeding Heart" strikes me as being somewhat political...
Respectfully,
Kim
Might want to look up the definition of that term and then you may understand why a Mod applied it to a warning post...To be fair, the term "Bleeding Heart" strikes me as being somewhat political...
Respectfully,
Kim
-15 was too expensive and not needed. The F-16 had engine and wiring problems that killed several pilots. The F-18 has cracks in their vertical stabilizers.
The only reason why I don't like the F-35, is because it will eventually put the A-10 out of business.Just saw that link GrauGeist. Let's get a metric buttload of F-35's!
Since you jumped in to reenforce the Mod, and the Mod rated your post with a 'Like', I feel I justified in exploring this just a little more...Might want to look up the definition of that term and then you may understand why a Mod applied it to a warning post...
Since you jumped in to reenforce the Mod, and the Mod rated your post with a 'Like', I feel I justified in exploring this just a little more...
From the Merriam-Webster website:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bleeding heart
Is there some other source I should be looking at, because none of those definitions helps me understand...
Just my opinion, but there was a lot of criticism of the press contained herein, and it seemed to me N33 took another view and offered a defense of the press. In my opinion, it is either all political or it's none of it is.
The only reason why I don't like the F-35, is because it will eventually put the A-10 out of business.
While I could be wrong, I'm not sure when the proposal was conceived. Was this before the F-22's were tested at Nellis (2003) or after?Costs? I remember reading about that as well. Also consider if you start modifying a dedicated air to air fighter to drop bombs, what does that do to overall mission if those modified aircraft as now configured different from the rest of the fleet?
I'm not sure what you mean by growth capability, but he F-23 had a bigger weapons bay from what I recall -- that said, what was the cost?IIRC, production cost, sustainability and growth capability
The claim I heard was that the problem was that Northrop was building both the B-2 and if it won the F-23 program it would be producing too much of the USAF's stuff.People say the decision was political based, I know this is BS.
This was after and I think the program office for this was at Edwards. As mentioned, it died on the vineWhile I could be wrong, I'm not sure when the proposal was conceived. Was this before the F-22's were tested at Nellis (2003) or after?
Growth doesn't always mean size - the ability to place more systems and capabilities on the airframe. It was determined the F-22 was better suited.I'm not sure what you mean by growth capability, but he F-23 had a bigger weapons bay from what I recall -- that said, what was the cost?
BS - All major contractors are involved in airframe construction so even though Northrop would have been the prime, other contracts have a piece of the pie. For example, the B-2 you had Northrop, Boeing, LTV and Hughes. Boeing and LTV built most of the aircraft, Northrop built the cockpit nose area. There was a time on the program where there more Boeing people assembling the B-2 than Northrop folks.The claim I heard was that the problem was that Northrop was building both the B-2 and if it won the F-23 program it would be producing too much of the USAF's stuff.
I have heard of the idea of using the B-1 for that purpose because it had the ability to fly supersonic. I'm not sure what their odds of getting through for a nuclear strike would be so it might be a predominantly cruise missile strike anyway.I imagine the reason they're ramping up F-15 production is two words..."missile boats." A single F-35, operating inside hostile airspace, can designate targets for a number of F-15s. The F-15s fire their long range air to air missiles from beyond detection range, so they don't need to be stealthy. What they DO need is to be larger, twin-engine aircraft which can carry more missiles. Basically, the F-35 is too good at its job. One F-35 can keep any number of F-15s busy.
They even want to make B-52s into "arsenal planes," just to have something to carry enough missiles for the F-35s' targets.
Didn't it have the ability to operate in air-to-air and air-to-ground modes simultaneously? If so, it could designate targets to other airplanes while carrying out ground attacks.Remember, the F-35 is a STRIKE aircraft, not a dedicated air to air fighter. It's designed to primarily drop bombs.
The only real question is whether the modifications are actually required.I've said this many times - cost overruns are not just accepted by the government, they have to be approved and many of those overruns were due to the customer wanting to add things on to the aircraft or contract, the press conveniently never mentions this.
NOOOOOO!!!!!!The only reason why I don't like the F-35, is because it will eventually put the A-10 out of business.
BS - All major contractors are involved in airframe construction so even though Northrop would have been the prime, other contracts have a piece of the pie. For example, the B-2 you had Northrop, Boeing, LTV and Hughes. Boeing and LTV built most of the aircraft, Northrop built the cockpit nose area. There was a time on the program where there more Boeing people assembling the B-2 than Northrop folks.
It does but it's primary purpose was/ is to drop bombsDidn't it have the ability to operate in air-to-air and air-to-ground modes simultaneously? If so, it could designate targets to other airplanes while carrying out ground attacks.
I've worked on government contracts a great portion of my 40 years in aviation, I've asked myself that questions many times!!!The only real question is whether the modifications are actually required.
I know the A-10 will be around for a while yet, but the question is "for how long?".
In this age of high-tech, it's a beautiful anachronism, but it can't shake off the repeated calls for retirement (as well as it can battle damage) for very much longer.
Wow - what I wrote, above, has no political content at all. It violated no forum rules. It was a direct response to the opinions offered in previous posts. And I never referred to people who disagree with me as "ill-informed naysayers," which is much more political than what I wrote.
This is clearly not the community for me. I apologize to all for politely offering a viewpoint that is apparently not welcome here.
As my last post, I offer the following facts for whomever has a mind open enough to consider them: The alleged $80 million cost per F-35 is not at all close to what each aircraft actually costs the taxpayers. That's the cost of only the engine and airframe. It excludes the R&D costs (many billions), the costs of initial sets of spare parts for each aircraft, the costs of the flight training simulators, the costs of the ALIS support system, and other accessories. It also excludes the costs of fixing the problems still associated with the aircraft, and the approximately $2 billion a year Lockheed Martin is paid to keep the fleet of F-35's flying. Finally, it should be acknowledged that the F-35 costs $44,000/hour to fly.
Foreign aid was brought up by another poster, which seems a lot more political than my comments directly addressing the subjects in previous posts. The return on the investment the USA gets from foreign aid is huge. The US spends less than one percent of its budget on foreign aid. In return, the goodwill generated helps the US accomplish all of its foreign policy goals, keeps many countries stable and helps ward off military conflict that would be bad for our country, and keeps diseases and other problems at bay before they can afflict the citizens of the US.
The average percentage of GNP from western industrialized nations devoted to foreign aid is 0.4%. The US gives 0.2%, ranking the US near the bottom.
We don't know what the return on the investment will be for the F-35 program.