Trump keeps delivering BEFORE taking office! - F-35 cost to be "aggressively reduced"

a reply to: Vector99

Then you've not been paying attention. If someone like myself, with almost zero knowledge in the field, can see the complete superiority of this system over anything currently even being thought of, much less being brought on line...why can't the detractors?

a reply to: pirhanna

The stealth bomber flew publicly for the first time in 1989.

It still is the industry standard for stealth nearly 30 years later.

Do we have something else? Hell yes we do.

Are we pursuing antiquated tech? IMO yes we are, space is the new future of defense. Reagan started it with the star wars idea.

a reply to: Vector99

Name a satellite that can get radar and ISR images on call.

Name a satellite that can give airborne radar data, the transmit it to other aircraft.

Name a satellite that can target for other aircraft, hundreds of miles away, while flying over the target and not being seen.

It's amazing how you just wave away staggering capabilities that are probably a decade ahead of anyone else in the world, because you've decided you don't like it.

a reply to: Vector99

So you're still using computers from the 50s and 60s?

You're talking about systems that give battlefield situational awareness God would envy, and you say there's no functional advantage? In what world?

a reply to: seagull

What does it do that satellites don't?

It's a kick ass plane for war, don't get me wrong, but the development cost has completely exceeded itself many times over, and we are selling these planes to the world already.

It's a failed attempt at aerial superiority which we already have. All Russia has to do is put things in space and OMG these planes become worthless.

a reply to: Vector99

Im sure theres some "ufo" type craft they keep in their back pocket, but they dont want to reveal it.

I think the ability to deliver missiles directly to a target is near or at the top of important current aspects of warfare. Satellites and satellite weaponry cant really fill that hole at present I wouldnt think, since we arent in the star destroyer orbital bombardment phase yet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The F-22 doesn't have these capabilities?

The Ruskies and China-men don't have the ability to copy them?

What car is going to have a better lifetime, a Lamborghini or a Toyota?

The f-35 is kick-ass, but also unnecessary, the F-22 has it covered.

That is why we spend 500+billion annually on tech.

a reply to: Vector99

So leave the F-15, which by the way falls out of the sky at times, the F-18, which by the way we've lost seven in the last year, and the F-22, of which we have 187 total, to keep doing the job, while potential opponents are rapidly advancing their technology.

Got it.

originally posted by: pirhanna
a reply to: Vector99

Im sure theres some "ufo" type craft they keep in their back pocket, but they dont want to reveal it.

I think the ability to deliver missiles directly to a target is near or at the top of important current aspects of warfare. Satellites and satellite weaponry cant really fill that hole at present I wouldnt think, since we arent in the star destroyer orbital bombardment phase yet.

Then we should be spending money on subs, not planes. The 30 minute window is out the door because both the US and Russia have nuclear armed subs off the coast of eachother.

The midwest of America will have the biggest notification time of maybe 15-20 minutes.

That is the reality of the US and Russia actually fighting.

20 minutes tops

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes!

They have to catch up first off.

Second they have to MATCH it when they do catch up.

3rd no one is going to spend that kind of money for rudimentary options when there are more cost effective manners.

Isn't the MIG still the fastest fighter jet that can be converted to a bomber?

a reply to: Vector99

If the F-22 had those capabilities, they wouldn't need the F-35. Electronically the F-35 is a vacuum cleaner. The F-22 is a great fighter, and can do some of the same things an F-35 can, but the F-35 pulls more information in. They're developing a new datalink specifically because of all the information the F-35 pulls. The data packets are so big they're turning current datalinks into dialup modems trying to transmit it all. The F-22 never came close to that level.

The F-22 is a great fighter, but during development the saying was "not a pound for air to ground". That changed some, but they can only carry a fraction of the Air to Ground weapons the F-35 can.

a reply to: Vector99

The F-15 was surpassed years ago. It's a 40+ year old design, and 30 year old aircraft. You really should read up on some of the Russian equipment out there. Instead of laughing it off, read some honest opinions. When Germany unified, they tested the MiG-29 against everything in the West. At short-medium and short range, it owned every aircraft flown against it, no matter how good the pilots were.

The Su-33 and beyond are even better. When it comes to fourth generation, Russia and China HAVE caught up.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I understand the capability of the 35, I really do. I also do believe much of what it can achieve can be achieved via satellite without the risk of a pilot.

It's a badass plane that's 20 years behind US tech standards.

a reply to: Vector99

I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.

What satellites can do information gathering on call? Which can give a real time God's eye view of a battlefield and transmit that, in real time to other aircraft? What satellite can target for aircraft hundreds of miles away, in real time? What satellite can do that, while not being predictable and easy to shoot down?

I get that you think the military is years ahead of us, but in many areas they aren't. They deliberately kept older systems that aren't as vulnerable as newer systems.

a reply to: Vector99

True.

The F35 is meant to never be seen, and to strike first against hardened defensive targets while also dealing with air to air threats. I think.

I wouldnt have funded it, but it seems to have a specific role and it may be very good at it. Im just curious. It may have some very interesting capabilities that are top secret for all we know.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vector99

Name a satellite that can get radar and ISR images on call.

Name a satellite that can give airborne radar data, the transmit it to other aircraft.

Name a satellite that can target for other aircraft, hundreds of miles away, while flying over the target and not being seen.

It's amazing how you just wave away staggering capabilities that are probably a decade ahead of anyone else in the world, because you've decided you don't like it.

This post Zaph, Seriously?

A google satellite could probably be programmed for such a task.

A military satellite programmed with specific orbital data and specific recording aspects?

Google earth can almost give you a high res pic of an intersection, you think we don't have satellite communication that could supersede ANY fighter jet?

a reply to: Vector99

The satellites, obviously, can not drop bombs.

As has been pointed out, not just here by Zaph and others, but in the literature available all over the place, that the information utilization/gathering ability of the F35 is leaps and bounds superior to the F22. They're both totally different aircraft with totally different areas of intent. F22 is an air superiority fighter, and it's the best in the business ever. The F35 is an attack fighter that will be, once development is done, the best in the business ever. Both can, sort of, do the job of the other, but not to the point of being the best ever...not even remotely.

As for cost? It's the most sophisticated aircraft ever built. Naturally, it's going to cost several pretty pennies to produce. But...it's dropping steadily. Already the price per unit is less than the price per unit of a flock of F16's just built, or will be, for the UAE. F35 is somewhere just over 80 million per, those F16's were something like 100 million per...and a generation behind in technology and capability. So the Lightning isn't, in any way shape or form, too expensive by any reasonable standard.

For the next decade, the US and its allies--some of 'em anyway--will have the best attack aircraft ever built.

I'm just hoping that someone, somewhere, in the US defense industry is designing its replacement. Because it's just about past time to be considering replacing it with the sixth generation.

a reply to: pirhanna

Anti missile systems don't work beyond medium range missiles, and even there they're pretty much at their limits with some of the newer missiles. An ICBM is travelling too fast to have long to target it, especially once it enters the terminal phase. They're getting better, but the ground based missile defense has been a debacle that's only been deployed because Congress critters want the money for their districts.

a reply to: seagull

The satellites, obviously, can not drop bombs.

Um? Yes they could, in both senses of informational and physical.

The f35 does indeed rely on satellite data as well, it literally cannot work without it.

a reply to: Vector99

Satellites can't gather real time radar data of aircraft in the air.

Satellites require a ground station to transmit to, and can't transmit in real time to aircraft.

They can't target ground based targets for other aircraft.

They are completely predictable and easy to shoot down. Both China and Russia have new ASAT missiles in testing that have been fired recently.

If the balloon goes up, your satellites, that already can't do what you think they can are the first to die.