General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNewest U.S. Stealth Fighter ‘10 Years Behind’ Older Jets
Americas $400 billion, top-of-the-line aircraft cant see the battlefield all that well. Which means its actually worse than its predecessors at fighting todays wars.
When the Pentagons nearly $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter finally enters service next year after nearly two decades in development, it wont be able to support troops on the ground the way older planes can today. Its sensors wont be able to see the battlefield as well; and what video the F-35 does capture, it wont be able to transmit to infantrymen in real time.
Versions of the new single-engine stealth fighter are set to replace almost every type of fighter in the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps inventoryincluding aircraft specifically designed to support ground troops like the A-10 Warthog. That will leave troops in a lurch when the F-35 eventually becomes the only game in town.
The F-35 will, in my opinion, be 10 years behind legacy fighters when it achieves [initial operational capability], said one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program. When the F-35 achieves [initial operational capability], it will not have the weapons or sensor capability, with respect to the CAS [close air support] mission set, that legacy multi-role fighters had by the mid-2000s.
more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html
I'm sure a $$$$$olution will be found
bemildred
(90,061 posts)One throws more and more money at the problem, and gets less and less for it.
Until eventually every dollar you spend makes it worse.
father founding
(619 posts)It wasn't built to support the troops, it was built to support the stockholders.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)There are two major problems with the Air Farce*:
1. The leadership is run by fighter pilots and the only things that they want to buy are aircraft that can be called fighters. Everything else is secondary to that and I think allowing the Air Farce to be an independent service after WWII was a major mistake.
2. The legacy aircraft the article refers to are the F-15, F-16, A-10, F/A-18C, any variants and to a lesser degree the F-18E, which is an enlarged, improved F/A-18C with more range. All of the basic designs date back to the mid 1970's with them entering regular service in the late 1970's and 1983 for the F/A-18. While they have upgraded the electronics and improved the engines some, the basic design of the airframe is about 40 years old. While brilliant designs, they are showing their age and need to be replaced.
The problem with replacing the legacy aircraft is that advances in airframe designs, electronics, engines and the requirement to handle far more advanced weapons then were ever considered possible in 1970, along with the increase in salaries to the workers who make all of the above and the need for the aircraft to remain in service for the next 30-40 years means we can not longer use several designs to replace the existing legacy aircraft. The means a multi-role aircraft for the Air Farce, the Navy and the Marine Corps and any multi role design is a compromise, in this case resulting in the F-35 which is inferior to the existing legacy aircraft in the specific roles those aircraft were designed for, but superior to the legacy aircraft as a whole. As an example, while the A-10 is a far superior CAS aircraft, it is a lousy fighter. The F-35 is a better fighter, but mediocre in the CAS role.
The other problem is that we have invested so much time and money, both American and allied money, that canceling the F-35 is no longer a military decision, but a financial and political decision in the hands of Congress, the State Department and the President.
*In general I respect the individuals that serve in the Air Farce, it's the institutional mindset that I have serious problems with.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)easychoice
(1,043 posts)what a cool fuel hog.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)of service?
One of the best planes ever built. Period.
Brother Buzz
(36,412 posts)Hell, the KISS Warthog is so simple and bulletproof, even an Army mechanic can keep their bestest 'friend in the sky' flying
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)I suppose we could lump General Dynamics in there. And Boeing. And Colt. And Bath Iron Works. Maybe a myriad of government contractors. And a whole bunch of other companies that work in our Defense Industry. That's not even considering the rest of our corporate structure that pays its executives way too much fucking money for cutting people's jobs. Somehow we've managed to lump the more than 30% of the population into this 1% bracket we keep talking about.
The 1% problem our country faces isn't the root cause of all problems everywhere. I feel like people just throw out a 1% accusation, and any real discussion of the issue ceases. That's not the case here.
The Air Force wanted to modernize it's fighter force, which was mostly designed in the 1970's, and it is something that needed to be done. Some idiot came up with a "versatile platform" that can fulfill many the requirements. What's happened here is that they've built a decent airframe that can do everything decently, but excels at nothing in particular.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I am actually deeply concerned that one day we will end up fighting a legitimate, valid, just war with another great power and we will get our rears kicked because our planes, ships, and vehicles are shit designed to enrich the defense contractors, and not actually fight wars.
The only silver lining to such a debacle would be that it so de-legitimizes the establishment that we have an honest to God revolution in this country.
imthevicar
(811 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Success is always based on perspective.
Mustellus
(328 posts)... its called a drone.
Stealth is not an enabling technology for time in combat:
You can't fly during the day
You can't fly above or below a moonlit cloud deck
You can't fly in rain
You can't fly under any condition where you leave a contrail (here I am. here I am.. here I am.. )
Stealth is about pilot survival.
For the same money we could probably buy 50,000 Mig-21's... but we'd have to accept some combat losses.
And we have the perfectly safe fighter airplane. Its called the drone.
JohnnyRingo
(18,623 posts)Drones are only cost effective after air superiority has been achieved.
In that regard, we already have updated systems available like the F-15 and F-16. I get the impression that the F-35 was intended as a do everything replacement similar to the role of the Navy's F/A-18 Hornet with the addition of stealth technology, but logic follows that that would require much compromise.
I don't believe aircraft guidance will be completely replaced by on-board electronics for some time, but drones have a great lower cost role after enemy air forces are defeated and the skies over the battlefield are already owned. Their only threat are ground based AAA systems.
While the cost of stealth seems excessive, that's because it's based on a unit cost that includes development. Each B-2 stealth bomber costs as much as a nuclear aircraft carrier, not only because they're so exotic, but because the Pentagon didn't need many and the high cost of design is divided among those ordered. I'm guessing the F-35 is expensive for the same reason and was green lighted because of lobby efforts in the states deigned to produce them. Voters love when their congressmen bring home the jobs.
It's interesting to note that not one B-2 was risked in either Iraq war (as far as we know). Soon after the first war began, it was sadly discovered that F-117 stealth fighters caused an anomaly as they passed cell phone towers. This allowed the enemy to at least track their course and guess their target and time of arrival. While stealth technology is extremely expensive to develop, defeating it is often not. That's why I believe old fashioned mach+ manned fighters and bombers will be needed for the foreseeable future. I'm just not sold on the idea that the F-35 is the solution to expensively trained pilot loss.
EX500rider
(10,835 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Operational_history
JohnnyRingo
(18,623 posts)Perhaps they deployed them until they were found to be at risk, or decided to send them after I heard that they would not be used. Maybe it was classified at the time. Thanx for the correction.
As expensive as the were ($4b per), it's understandable that commanders have to be reasonably assured of survival. That sure can buy a shitload of drones and Buffs.
kchamberlin25
(84 posts)When you call the Air Force the Air "Farce", it makes you sound just like Limbaugh when he uses "Dingy Harry", for one example.
We are better than that.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)was too low then the fault was obviously insufficient "I"
GE, Raytheon, Douglas, Northrop, Rockwell, Martin Marietta, Boeing, Lockheed, IBM--whenever you lowered their budget they'd yell you were endangering the future of country and species, that you hate freedom and science, und so weiter
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)First, of course, we have to find a scary, hairy, bogeyman to justify it.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,365 posts)Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16 talks about why the F-35 is such a bad idea;
The quote starts at about the 7:20 mark
https://m.
For the sake of fairness, here's a piece from a guy who disagrees somewhat with Pierre.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)down the same rathole.