So, what should replace the F-35?

[bobclark86]

I keep seeing people shouting "Kill the F-35!"

Well, I agree with you -- it's a boondoggle which is going to get some of our best pilots killed because of cheap contractors (Anybody else remember the Pentagon saying it was going to be cheaper than the F-22 project? Also, how is it supposed to replace the A-10 for low-speed, long-duration loitering over a battlefield while taking heavy damage if it's made light to go Mach 2?).

That said, it's an economic reality that the project is being done in 46 of 50 states and "liberal" (as in not-tight, rather than left-wing) figures put it at about 140,000 jobs nationwide. As nobody wants to be the guy who sent 140,000 people to the unemployment website, what should we replace the project with? I'm a fan of the "Bitching is easy, but fixing is fun" line of thinking. I'm tired of people pointing fingers (not here, but in my world in general), and I'd rather be part of the solution.

Let's see... space probes are in the same line of thought, plus we spend a bunch of money on something that might actually be beneficial to everybody, not just a bored general someplace. We could always upgrade our rail system with separate passenger lines and new high-speed trains, but not sure the eminent domain would be a good thing to make people happy (existing right-of-ways turn too tightly for 200mph bullet trains, or so I've been told by the guys who build the Acela system). How about some kind of fancy clean-burning incinerators for energy production on crap we were going to throw away to begin with?

Any other good ones? I'm planning on writing at least some of them up and sending them to my congressman (who represents an area with a Lockheed plant) and my senators.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. How about the F15 for interception and the F16 for air-to-air?

We can even throw in new avionics packages and still have plenty left over to take better care of the poor.

[Kolesar]

3. The Navy carrier fleet could get by with F-18s for a few more decades...eom

[bobclark86]

13. My mom was at NAS Pensacola in '74...

right as the F-14 was being introduced. They just retired them three years ago... I think the still-rolling production lines of the F/A-18 will work for the forseeable future with upgrades to avionics as they go – like the 60-year-old B-52.

[Gorp]

42. We have C-130's going overhead on a regular basis. They still work just fine.

[OceanEcosystem]

77. Probably woudn't fare well against Chinese and Russian stealth jets.

Going with the Strike Eagles or Silent Eagle may not cut it in the decades ahead.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

78. We won't be having dogfights with the Chinese or Russians

...in the foreseeable future. What we already have is plenty enough in the way of deterrents, and if it isn't, I'm sure we'll all get our nukes ready to go. We just don't need a new air superiority fighter.

[Kolesar]

2. Conservatives claim that leaving the money with the public creates more growth and jobs

So don't buy anything, by that logic. However, conservatives "admit" that transportation spending is *one* area where public spending is shown to create jobs.

There was a proposal to build a nationwide WiFi network in the UHF spectrum. With lower frequencies than 2 Gigahertz, it will have more coverage and work through walls. It will be high speed internet access for everybody at a modest price. It was in www.nytimes.com a week ago. Thanks for asking.

[bobclark86]

15. Ooh!

I forgot about that... that would give the avionics manufacturers to do other than R&D for upgrades of existing military systems.

Not sure the guys welding wings together would get the jobs, but I'm sure we can make some fancy titanium-composite towers for their expertise .

[Kolesar]

32. We lacked translators, not armaments, to stop the 9/11 terror attack

Ok, the subject-verb agreement isn't perfect, but I became aware that the intelligence services did not have adequate translators to examine available materials where those "campus radicals" were organizing in Germany and the Arab world. We could have identified and followed some of the hijackers when they tried to get entry into the US. We could have done a lot of things to prevent 9/11.

Instead, the aerospace companies hogged up all the budget money so they could sell supersonic jets and over-specified spy satellites of doubtful use.

[FarCenter]

4. Drones are replacing manned aircraft pretty rapidly

You can't design a fighter for maximum performance that will not kill the pilot. Airframes can withstand much higher G-forces than humans.

[Egalitarian Thug]

5. Nothing. The JSF is not the problem, it is a symptom. Few people can really grasp just how

awe-inspiring one nation could be without the literally unimaginable drain that is our 50 state corporatewelfaremightymilitarymachine ©.

The F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 platforms are the most capable air superiority on earth as well as being more than a sufficient deterrent to any other nations that might entertain a notion of starting a war with us. Our military is supreme with no other even a close second.

We could do all the things you mention, and ensure a universal rise in our standard of living, provide health care, education, end homelessness, hunger, and have money to spare. Unfortunately, we as a people have to first change our minds to make this happen.

[sir pball]

11. Try again, the Russians are kicking our asses

Especially with the Sukhoi Su-30MKI and forthcoming MiG-35 development of the -29; the Russians Kept It Simple, Stupid - instead of trying to put in every whiz-bang brand-new super-duper-ultra-tech bell and whistle they just took some already very capable platforms (the Su-27 and Mig-29 are quite the equals of the 15/16/18s) and loaded them up with state of the art avionics and weapons systems to come up with relatively inexpensive, production-ready "4++" generation fighters that can run circles around our 4g birds and hold their own in visual fights with even -22s. Sure, BVR combat the stealth aircraft are gonna kick ass but last time we took that line of thinking we ended up with TOPGUN. We could (and probably should have) probably do some serious upgrades on our existing aircraft to maintain parity, but at this point, for better or worse, we've sunk so much into the 22/35 programs that it's likely cheaper to just finish them than restart F15 production with the avionics and radar systems from the 22s...good money after bad.

Doesn't help that India is pouring resources into Russian fighter development, and that the Russkies aren't overly particular about who they sell their hardware to (the Norks have 50 or so, yes we would win in the end but the loss rate wouldn't be pretty).

[Gorp]

44. I'd agree accept that the F-22 and F-35 are both over-priced pieces of shit.

It's far more cost-effective to upgrade existing F-15/16/18 crafts and build new ones based on proven models than to throw tons of money at things that don't work. And don't give me the jobs argument crap. We could put far more people to work for far less money by sticking with the working fighter models.

[sir pball]

64. From the get-go maybe

That's what I would have rather seen done originally, at least with the 35 (the 22 development goes back to the 80s, Cold War Mania!) but at this point, especially with the 22, I'd rather have something to show for the hundreds of billions already sunk as well as questioning the development costs of upgrading the teen series with advanced electronics and supermanuverability. Scrap the VTOL, or let the UK pay for it since we don't really need it, and get the basic aircraft up - or even better and vastly cheaper, put a tail hook on the 22 and restart production, at least that's a developmentally complete project.

[bemildred]

51. Buying overpriced hardware built by incompetent numbnuts won't help fix that problem.

If it is a problem, which, given the rise of the drones, is very questionable.

[Egalitarian Thug]

52. If you can get out of the absurd mindset that has been fostered, you would also consider

another equal factor is likelihood of aggression and sheer numbers. Russians pouring their money into obsolete airborne weapons platforms is not our problem. The undebatable fact is that manned combat aircraft cannot compete with unmanned aircraft in either performance or cost, and if you insist in being paranoid (Do you really believe that the Russians are going to launch an invasion of the U.S.?), that's where the R&D money should be going.

Like the F-22, the F-35 is nothing but an enormous corporate welfare program and both a technological and economic deadend.

This is exactly the thinking we have to end if we're going to avoid collapse.

[sir pball]

65. I never said anything about Russian aggression.

I have about as much concern for conflict with Russia as with Mexico; my point was that the current Russian fighters are superior to the American teen series, and that Russian hardware is in the hands of countries I can envision a shooting war with. Yeah, we would win by sheer numbers and pilot skill but if we can't avoid fighting I'd rather be as superior as possible. Upgrading the teens would be an option but I don't know that it would be cheaper at this point than just finishing the 35 as efficiently as possible (drop the damn VTOL!).

[bobclark86]

16. I get the corporate welfare bit...

the only problem is the short-term result of just dumping the MIC programs would be massive unemployment. That's why I want to retool for civilian uses... sure, we'll still be giving corporations billions, but I'm sure we can scale it down a bit and still "make all (our) wildest dreams come true."

[Egalitarian Thug]

53. That's where changing our minds comes in. We are stuck in a cycle of

outdated and unsustainable economic and sociological models. Most Americans think in terms of an 11th century economic system and a 19th century social system. People do not need to spend 1/3 of their lives toiling to meet their immediate needs and money is nothing like what almost everybody still believes it is. Unemployment but one of the symptoms of our failure to evolve out thinking as out world has changed.

[leveymg]

6. The next gen of air superiority and ground attack will be remotely piloted vehicles.

There will be some continued need for some sort of manned forward air control aircraft to optimize the effectiveness of drones. That will be probably be a highly survivable aircraft with multiple crew, something like the EA-6B Prowler, but much stealthier, faster and less vulnerable. A "mother ship" would carry its own mix of offensive and defensive drones. It will probably be a variant of a manned bomber like this Lockheed concept, below:

[Blue_Tires]

7. +1

It's clear we're hurtling towards the era of complete "push-button" quasi-video game war...

[leveymg]

9. The F-35 is obsolete, inferior, unsurvivable junk. Stop throwing money at it.

Last edited Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:58 PM - Edit history (1)

There will be a need, however, to maintain air superiority. Might as well proceed in that direction in some other way (please see my comment above).

[ronnie624]

8. Publicly funded, universal health care. n/t

[backscatter712]

10. The F-35 is likely to be America's last manned fighter.

Drones are going to be far cheaper, and will be able to do the same thing, but with the pilot flying the plane from a ground console.

[sir pball]

38. Yes and no

Oddly enough there's an article over at Slashdot talking about drones replacing fighters - there's some very good points being raised about connectivity issues. When your drone is tooling along straight and level at a few hundred mph, a satlink to a PlayStation is fine, but when you're doing heavy-duty air combat maneuvering at 4-600mph and 5+ gees, ANY lag even just from the speed of light gets to be an issue, not to mention the lack of a 360-degree view. And don't even get started on potential jamming, spoofing, or outright takeovers...a technologically equivalent enemy would have a field day!

UAVs are a good idea and are the future, but for the heavy-duty stuff I don't see pilots going the way of the dodo just yet.

[Ikonoklast]

56. Actually, human lag time is worse. Pilots take longer than automonous drones in decision-making

The 360 degree view has been just recently solved.

The USAF is now training three times as many drone operators than actual pilots of all types...they see the future, and it is not only pilotless, but soon to be autonomous.

[FogerRox]

39. No drone can remotely handle the Su-30 and Mig-29 derivatives

no pun intended. Drones are a ways away from CAP or superiority rolls.

[FarCenter]

61. How would the Su-30 and Mig-29 do against the Patriot missile -- which is an autonomous drone?

[stevenleser]

74. The patriot is not a drone. A drone is a weapons platform, not a weapon. A patriot is a weapon. nt

[FarCenter]

76. A drone is any unmanned vehicle under its own guidance and optionally remote guidance

For example, a Tomahawk cruise missile is a type of drone. It differs from the MQ-9 Reaper in that it does not have a remote control link and that the entire vehicle is expended on the target, instead of shooting a missile and having the vehicle return to base.

The basic concepts have been around a long time. See "Robot Television Bomber" from the December 1940, Popular Mechanics.

http://books.google.com/books?id=19kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA805&dq=Popular+Science+1933+plane+%22Popular+Mechanics%22&hl=en&ei=sXYNTvyADIGLsAK8pbSRCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=true

[backscatter712]

79. A drone could have advantages.

If the pilot's a computer, or the pilot's on the ground, the plane can pull far more G's. A manned fighter is limited to what, 5-7 G's, and when you're turning that hard, the pilot's likely to pass out, which is problematic in the middle of a dogfight.

A drone fighter can pull 10, 15, 30 G's, whatever the airframe can take. The pilot's on the ground experiencing a force of 1 G. Without the weight of the human pilot, the cockpit, the canopy, the ejection seat, instrument panel, life support, etc., I imagine that a drone fighter could be much lighter, smaller, more aerodynamic, stealthy, faster...

Of course, there's the difficulties of the interface between the fighter and its human pilot on the ground - we seem to have mastered that for less demanding missions - see the Predator. Of course, for a hard dogfight, the pilot would probably want to have a 360 degree view, maybe through something like an Oculus Rift style VR headset. It would have to be super-low latency, the radio-link between ground and drone would have to be highly resistant to jamming, and have enough bandwidth to transmit a huge amount of information - camera views, radar images, instrument data. Again, the Predator seems to be able to manage this task - the Predator blowing up weddings in Yemen is being piloted from Langley.

I suspect it would be quite the engineering challenge, but it could be done.

[Gorp]

46. I disagree. Even with the rapid communication links we have now, a pilot is quicker.

Remote communication is no match for a trained pilot's reflexive reactions, and it never will be.

[FarCenter]

55. The drones will rapidly become autonomous -- there is no need for a pilot on the ground

With the weight and power budget that goes into supporting a pilot, you can easily engineer in enough compute power to replace the human pilot's functions.

And the computers will be far faster than pilot's reflexive reactions.

Just ask securities traders competing with algorithms running on servers how it has worked out.

[Gorp]

57. That's true, but autonomous drones have no sense of ethics.

The most important skill of a soldier is to know when NOT to pull the trigger.

[backscatter712]

80. It'd have whatever ethical precepts are programmed into it.

Of course, being a weapon of war, it wouldn't be programmed to hold back.

[Gorp]

81. That's the point. A pilot knows when firing is ethically wrong.

[stevenleser]

58. I dont know how rapidly we will be able to build the following AI into a drone...

- Three dimensional basic and advanced dogfighting.
- How to determine friend from foe in a dogfight. Particularly when an enemy will do its utmost to use electronic countermeasures to try and fool a drone into thinking friends are foes and vice versa
- Complete knowledge of all types of ground attack methodology, including, how to look and know when a target is and is not too close to a church or school or similar target. And in a subset of this, how to perform close air support when you have two opposing ground units close to each other and correctly identify the 'good' and 'bad' guys so you dont accidentally perform CAS for the bad guys.

We might have realistic seeming androids before we can perfect AI to do all the above.

[FarCenter]

60. The problems are soluble or irrelevant

Three dimensional basic and advanced dogfighting rely on assessing the positions and potential future positions of the adversaries around you and putting your aircraft into an advantageous future position. Computers can do the physics math lots better than humans relying on pattern recognition and gut feeling from experience. As for strategy and tactics, those are also programmable, as evidenced by chess playing programs.

You'd have to use existing IFF technologies. All modern fighters look sort of alike in terms of shape and configuration. There is no reason for anyone to put helpful paint jobs on airplanes. Besides, other fighters are too far away for visual identification almost all of the time.

The F-35 is not going to loiter over a ground battlefield at low altitude and low speed. It is not a drone. It's attack modes would be controlled by ground controllers or by inputs from controllers using surveillance drones who would provide coordinates and target designations. An unmanned attack drone with F-35 performance characteristics would operate similarly.

[stevenleser]

66. You gloss right over the complexities...starting with IFF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe

"The term is something of a misnomer, as IFF can positively identify friendly targets but not hostile ones. If an IFF interrogation receives no reply or an invalid reply, the object cannot be identified as friendly but is not positively identified as a foe."

---------------------------------------------
That flying craft that doesnt respond to IFF might be an airliner, it might be a personal aircraft owned by a private citizen, it might be a friendly aircraft whose IFF is malfunctioning, or it might in fact be an enemy aircraft. Or it might be a friendly aircraft that has turned off its transponder to help avoid detection. And again, you are talking about an electronic warfare environment where signals like IFF can possibly be jammed. All of this is why, in practice, the requirement is usually to visually verify the target before you engage it.

That is just the beginnings of the problems of fully automated combat aircraft.

[FarCenter]

69. To intercept airliners and general aviation aircraft doesn't require an F-35

You can use existing fighters to do that.

However, for air superiority combat the identification of non-friendly forces has to be done by other than visual means.

Beyond Visual Range

The keys to success in the BVR environment lie in a fighter aircraft achieving first sight, first shot, and first kill. These keys require fighter aircraft to meet certain criteria.

Firstly, exemplary communications and sensors (including secure and jam-resistant data links - to be first to seek out the enemy). Additionally, exceptional supersonic dash and agility capability (to be first to optimum AAM launch conditions), and a weapons suite with the operational "edge" (to ensure first kill). Finally, the persistence in the fight with retained advantage, should further fighting be necessary. Eurofighter Typhoon meets these needs in full.

As long ago as the introduction of the F-14 it was said that enemy fighters would not close to visual range. The F-14 was equipped with the Phoenix missile to engage distant targets.

[stevenleser]

71. And that is easier said than done in terms of identifying what is an enemy target at that range.

Right now, a lot of that ID is done via folks who work on specialized AWAC-type aircraft that are outfitted with a massive and very expensive array of instrumentation and they communicate via electronic and regular voice communications with pilots of fighter and bomber aircraft to help them identify what is and is not an enemy/target/etc. Again, it is an electronic warfare environment, so relying on one plane dozens if not hundreds of miles away being able to get an encrypted electronic signal to an artificially intelligent drone to aid it in target selection is an iffy proposition.

I'm not saying it is impossible. One day this will be very probable. But I am not seeing evidence that AI has advanced nearly far enough to make autonomous fighter aircraft.

[Posteritatis]

72. Yeeeah, you're oversimplifying the hell out of things

A computer that's good at chess isn't good at strategy and tactics, it is good at chess, and that in a very limited way. This is the case for a plethora of reasons that people have been battering their heads against for years without much forward progress.

The whole argument proceeds to further fall apart from there. Saying your description of dogfighting is all there is to it is in the same general range as "all an army has to do to win a battle is defeat its foe."

[stevenleser]

73. That's a good point. Even in chess there are a limited amount of possible moves.

There are a lot of them, but there is a limitation there that is not present with a fighter plane AI. There are virtually limitless possibilities of scenarios and potential actions when you talk about air and ground combat.

[Posteritatis]

75. And that's before the subjectives like rules of engagement and other shades of gray

All that in three dimensions with some pretty slim margins for decision-making time - very slim indeed, if you extrapolate this ahead a bit and assume that The Other Guy is developing similar technology - and it's definitely pretty far away from "all we have to do is X" to say the least.

A few friends and I have been fiddling with a pretty simple game AI for the last couple of years; that's constrained to a 2D plane with no terrain or atmospheric effects (to say nothing of politics, civilians, etc.), and even getting something that simple to behave reasonably well is some kind of nightmarish infinite Matrioshka doll where it's unexpected hurdles all the way down. Large companies with uncountably superior piles-o-resources than we've got aren't doing that much better in that department; humans still run circles around AI unless it's in a very, very constrained and highly specialized environment.

Anything near modern technology in actual combat situations in the atmosphere? It's not happening anytime soon. People who extrapolate chess-playing games to assume sapient AI is just around the corner don't have any idea what they're talking about, and are just getting their ideas from movies (or, worse, science journalism) in the first place.

[jpak]

68. SkyNet is self-aware

[stevenleser]

70. Yeah, that is another reason not to implement artificially intelligent killing machines...

with the AI capable of 'determining' what is and is not a friend or enemy.

[kentauros]

12. If we have to keep it within the defense/MIC spending,

then more hospital ships and more medical personnel, equipment and training for the mobile engineers (whatever they're called within the military) for creating/rebuilding earthquake-destroyed docks (like in Haiti), training more personnel in Search & Rescue, and equipping them well.

Also, adding many times the budget the Navy has already allotted to Polywell Fusion research

[bobclark86]

14. Doesn't have to stay Pentagon...

but I would suggest keeping it within the current workforce and manufacturers. A little bit of retooling is OK, but otherwise you lose the ability to make a relatively-seamless transition away from the MIC to the Civilian-Industrial Complex .

I do like your ideas, though, especially if fusion power/alternative energy is an endgame.

[kentauros]

17. Okay, and I like your idea of a "CIC"

I've had the idea of beefing up the non-military aspects of the military for a couple of years now, seeing how well they often do in rendering aid in emergency and disaster situations. Maybe we could spin that off of their responsibilities, paring them down while creating the Civilian Aid forces, or whatever we call them, like say, The Peace Corps

There's another alternative power generation idea that needs some money to implement, and it's called the solar antenna. With a 80-92% efficiency rating, and that it can work at night, it should blow the rest of solar out of the water completely

[Kolesar]

21. Your solar-antenna would work at night in my quite-cloudy town

Infrared radiation is returned from the sky on a cloudy night. The effect is much less on a clear night, that is why we get a frost in the morning.

It occurred to me that more CO2 in the atmosphere means more infrared radiation is returned to the ground, so the solar antenna would be more effective yet. CO2 is the reason that the nights are so much warmer than they used to be. It used to be that everything would cool down at night, but now we are experiencing a 24/7 hell hole.

[kentauros]

23. One thing that I sincerely hope would be done,

especially with these more efficient energy systems, would be to put aside some of their power generation solely for the purpose of sequestering CO2, or even breaking those molecular bonds and releasing the O2 back to the atmosphere. The technology is improving for doing just that. We only need the investments to make it happen.

Oh, and you're right about using the solar antenna to capture IR and escaping heat. One idea I've read is to use them as heat sinks. Their only big stumbling block seems to be how to convert the 30 trillion Hz output to usable electricity. The solar-antenna technology was invented over five years ago. I'd have thought they would have made such an electronic advancement by now...

[Kolesar]

25. Reforestation would sequester the CO2 as would algae growth from dumping iron powder into the sea

There is a Russian man who wants to seed the melting permafrost and make a grassland so that the carbon in the frozen soil does not immediately release into the sky during the big melt. He would introduce grazing animals like bison, I recall.
It's a big topic. Check the Energy/Enviro forum.

[kentauros]

28. I have read about the use of iron powder, and am still iffy on doing that.

I want to see us try to reign in the damage we've done, so I guess we'll need to do some geo-engineering projects on the same scale as the pollution-based geo-engineering we've already done.

I like the idea of seeding the permafrost, as well as another sequestering method called "terra preta".

I used to hang out at Energy/Enviro, but got tired of the disasterbaters
There are still a few regulars that post good stuff to read. The last time I posted there was for a link to reuseit.com and had my intent of helping people cut back on disposables shot down (because of the idea of buying new stuff to cut back on disposables.) No one else commented, so I left again.

[The Second Stone]

18. Except for the VTOL version the rest should be dropped

the program is a huge failure because it tries to be everything to everyone. The Swiss Army knife is a neat toy, but its tools are crummy compared to the correct tool, even it's knife is a bad knife compared to a knife. The whole point of integrated military is that the people and weapons are the best for their job with the best training and design.

So kill the F35, fix the F22 and when the F22 is fixed, buy a few hundred more.

The F35 is a complete failure. Perhaps it can specialize and replace the Harrier.

[FarCenter]

19. The VTOL version is a big part of the programs troubles

Drop the VTOL and simplify the other versions.

[The Second Stone]

22. then just drop them all

it is a huge waste of money with drones being the future of military aircraft.

[FarCenter]

24. Yes, it is probably too late and too costly to salvage the Air Force and Navy versions

[99Forever]

20. Simple.

A wholesale commitment to renewable energy technology and repairs and upgrades to our dilapidated infrastructure.

We already have way to much shit to kill people with and toys for the warmongers at the Pentagon.

[Kolesar]

26. Peace, and paintable weatherproofing caulk!

[99Forever]

31. I'm not exactly sure how to take your response.

So I won't assume what it sounds like.

[midwest irish]

27. F-22

was/is a better plane. Problem is that F-35 was bogged done in politics; both domestic and international. So we had to go with that.

[Recursion]

29. We're *still building* LCACs, and you expect the F-35 to be scrapped?

That's one of the big problem with acquisitions: we have no exit strategy.

[Earth_First]

30. Simple solution: fuck war.

No more F-35s period.

I know, I'm a dreamer.

...however, I'm not the only one.

[n2doc]

33. Not another Jet

How about hiring 140,000 people to work on infrastructure? How about 140,000 people in education? Energy? Environmental cleanup?

Lots of needs. Lots of ways we could employ people to fix those needs. They won't necessarily be the same ones who lose their jobs, but the MIC has never given a rip about unemployment outside its own sector, so why should we care about them?

[Gorp]

47. Well said, but with one minor correction. For the cost of the F-35, it would be WAY more than 140K.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. As an act of patriotism I'll offer my '93 Toyota pickup and put on fresh duct tape.

Unlike F-35s it costs less, lasts longer, and performs useful tasks.

[Orsino]

35. Butter. n/t

[bigtree]

36. here's a diagram

[guardian]

37. The G-36 of course. nt

[rurallib]

40. schools and teachers

[Gorp]

41. More F-15s. They're proven, highly effective, reliable, and relatively inexpensive.

The F-35 is a relic from the cold war (first designed 25 years ago, maybe more and ten years in development) that's the most expensive and least reliable and useful plane in production. Hell, the F-22 can't even communicate properly, making it the second least useful. The F-15 is a perfect example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." If we need more planes, build more of those.

I've got a member of the airforce in the house right now, like at this very moment (my daughter's boyfriend) and we just had this discussion last night. He's in complete agreement. So far the F-35 has cost over a billion dollars and is so far over budget that they use the "throw good money after bad since we already spent it" excuse. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses.

There's no strategic or tactical use for that plane in today's theaters. Dump the damn program already. The only gain possible from continuing it is for the defence contractors that have already sucked way too much money out of our government, meaning the taxpayers - us.

[Puzzledtraveller]

43. The Viper MK II of course

[Gorp]

48. "Use the Force, Luke."

[Taverner]

45. A School Lunch Program eom

[Tikki]

49. The YF-23 should have been built and then modified to meet the joint criteria.

Tikki

[bemildred]

50. Nothing. nt

[janlyn]

54. not surprising...

That our government seems to want to continue with a plane that costs 130 million each and, when in comparison to the f22 has poorer performance.
Meanwhile they are scraping the a-10 program at our local base for drones!!

The warthog has been one of our most successful combat planes.and ask any soldier on the ground which plane they would most like coming to their defense and which plane strikes fear in the hearts of enemies on the ground, they will tell you unequivocally it's the A10.
Trust our government to fix something that's not broke!!!

[FarCenter]

59. They should conduct a War Game between the F-35 and the Patriot missile

Can a F-35 penetrate airspace controlled by the Patriot missile system (or the equally capable Russian and Chinese systems?).

[Cleita]

62. I don't see why we don't start the space program again instead of letting private enterprises do it?

We could reduce the military budget and put it into space. It would still employ all those people who are building weapons of destruction today. Instead we can built weapons of discovery. Also, we should also be studying our oceans with exploratory vessels, not polluting them with military and commercial operations.

[winter is coming]

63. Republicans. We should threaten to offload them onto other countries.

Or would that be considered a war crime, given their toxicity?

[lpbk2713]

67. I'll make the Pentagon an offer they can't refuse ...

Five Million $$ each ...