U.S. should consider F-35 fighter cuts, a study suggests

Again you're shifting this to Lockheed. Why? I clearly told you it is the PENTAGON I'm Piss with.

Give Lockheed a break, will you?

Hmm, I agreed with you. I did not shift it to Lockheed so why are you assuming I did so?

If you ignore trends, how did you get to the conclusion that stealth will be a part of future warfare?

I don't think that trends exist! Tell me about these trends instead of using fancy words. What is a trend why is it a trend how are trends born? I know that stealth will be apart of the future! I am not studying silly trends but I am simply noticing the fact that it reduces the chance of getting shot down. That's all I need to know. You don't have to study "trends" for 10 years to know this

To reach that conclusion without making a blind guess, you needed to study patterns in war to see the effects of stealth. Stop playing the hypocrite card and stay with one argument. The expansion of the jet engine is another example.

Patterns? What patterns, don't use fancy words if you can't prove they actually exist.

Jet engines are Universal in aviation, the civilian 747 is jet powered. Stealth on the other hand is a Specialized military application meant for use in highly specific missions! You will Never see a stealth replacement for the 747.

I don't wanna see a stealthy 747, there's no point having one. But having many stealthy warplanes is a totally different question, don't you agree. Let's not mix up civil with military aviation.

Don't lecture me on science, I've spent 10 years studying stealth and its effects!

You keep telling me this but where are the hard facts. Just because you have read about this for years doesn't mean that you know better than Pentagon. I want hard facts not your resume. Besides it's a totally different thing to study things during spare time than to actually work with it every day. So you know better than staff in Pentagon?

For the Record, Low Observability (LO)or Stealth is the military science of designing weapons and platform to be very hard to detect with Radar, IR, and other forms of electronic tracking. Theses systems are NOT invisible(contrary to popular belief)! While the science has come a long way since it's beginnings in the 1940's and 50's, It still involves compromises in design!

Tell me something I don't already know. I am not 5-years old. I know these things. Don't mix me up with those people who think that stealth is unbeatable, I know it's not! But I also know it reduces the chance of getting shot down. That makes it safer to fly in hostile areas.

What you're promoting is the equivalent of training Every soldier in the US Army to be in Delta Force! Now are you getting the point about why the F-35 is a bad idea?

Would an army of Delta Soldiers not beat an army of regular soldiers? The F-35 is build to reduce the losses by the use of stealth. It's not only there to "help the fighters infiltrate an area" but also to protect the plane from enemies which could see them thus shooting the plane down.

Finally, tell me about your own designs. You oviously know better than the spoiled kids in Pentagon? Why is your design so good, and how did you come up with it. Studying trends or using science?


[edit on 5-7-2007 by Figher Master FIN]

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Hmm, I agreed with you. I did not shift it to Lockheed so why are you assuming I did so?

I started off complaining about a Pentagon project, and you keep falling back to the tired old line: "The engineers that design and built the plane are the best in the world at what they do"

If you don't believe me, reread your last few posts! What am I supposed to think?

I don't think that trends exist! Tell me about these trends instead of using fancy words. What is a trend why is it a trend how are trends born? I know that stealth will be apart of the future! I am not studying silly trends but I am simply noticing the fact that it reduces the chance of getting shot down. That's all I need to know. You don't have to study "trends" for 10 years to know this

Look at the last few wars and see what is going on: Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq 2! You see a pattern if you really look.

Patterns? What patterns, don't use fancy words if you can't prove they actually exist.

See above!

I don't wanna see a stealthy 747, there's no point having one. But having many stealthy warplanes is a totally different question, don't you agree. Let's not mix up civil with military aviation.

Yes, but again you're missing the bigger picture!

You keep telling me this but where are the hard facts. Just because you have read about this for years doesn't mean that you know better than Pentagon. I want hard facts not your resume. Besides it's a totally different thing to study things during spare time than to actually work with it every day. So you know better than staff in Pentagon?

If your asking about the technical details, No! I don't work with aircraft, and have Never even had a security clearance.

I guess you can say you got me on that point.

Tell me something I don't already know. I am not 5-years old. I know these things. Don't mix me up with those people who think that stealth is unbeatable, I know it's not! But I also know it reduces the chance of getting shot down. That makes it safer to fly in hostile areas.

The more you expose it to the enemy, the greater the chance that it could be lost (like the F-117). I believe in using less of stealth airplanes to decrease the number exposed to the enemy. It the same as why they don't use F-117 in daylight. Obviously the night doesn't make them invincible, but it increases the odds in their favor.

Would an army of Delta Soldiers not beat an army of regular soldiers? The F-35 is build to reduce the losses by the use of stealth. It's not only there to "help the fighters infiltrate an area" but also to protect the plane from enemies which could see them thus shooting the plane down.

Yes, but the point is Delta is highly specialized. Would you call a SWAT Team to write a speeding ticket, after all they are Police?

Finally, tell me about your own designs. You oviously know better than the spoiled kids in Pentagon? Why is your design so good, and how did you come up with it. Studying trends or using science?
[edit on 5-7-2007 by Figher Master FIN]

I'm not a scientist, I'm a Special Ed Teacher for children.

I think this is going too far. My argument is that I believe the F-35/JSF is a waste of money. The closest I've ever seen the F-35 was at Andrews AFB, on Armed Forces Day!

Ok, give it a rest, you're taking my opinion of the Joint Strike Fighter way too far. If you don't think my beliefs are contributing a point of perspective to this topic, you don't have to reply to them.

Just wondering (since you started this side line) for the record, what is Your Expertise: A scientist, Aerospace Engineer, Military Analyst, Strategist?

Tim

[edit on 7/5/2007 by Ghost01]

I started off complaining about a Pentagon project, and you keep falling back to the tired old line: "The engineers that design and built the plane are the best in the world at what they do"

If you don't believe me, reread your last few posts! What am I supposed to think?

Yes the couple few times, but not the last post! I am starting to agree with you.
Pentagon bad Lockheed good.

Look at the last few wars and see what is going on: Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq 2! You see a pattern if you really look.

Can you give some examples? Not just tell me that patterns exist.

The more you expose it to the enemy, the greater the chance that it could be lost (like the F-117). I believe in using less of stealth airplanes to decrease the number exposed to the enemy. It the same as why they don't use F-117 in daylight. Obviously the night doesn't make them invincible, but it increases the odds in their favor.

Yes USA will lose more stealth aircraft if there were more of them. But less than if non were stealthy.

Yes, but the point is Delta is highly specialized. Would you call a SWAT Team to write a speeding ticket, after all they are Police?

good one. But think of it like this. You have just discovered the war helmet. It's great in fights and protects the soldier alot. It's an insuranse policy just like stealth is for fighters. Now you won't just give it to those in the frontline because they will meet the bullets first right?

I'm not a scientist, I'm a Special Ed Teacher for children.

Respect

I think this is going too far. My argument is that I believe the F-35/JSF is a waste of money. The closest I've ever seen the F-35 was at Andrews AFB, on Armed Forces Day!

Ok, give it a rest, you're taking my opinion of the Joint Strike Fighter way too far. If you don't think my beliefs are contributing a point of perspective to this topic, you don't have to reply to them.

Yeah maybe it has got a little out of hand The point is I don't think your posts are useless and stupid. I wouldn't even reply to them if they were. The thing is you have started a good discussion worth noticing and if anything you should continue. In a way you have already converted me. In future discussions I won't be all on the F-35 but also understanding the dowsides. That's all thanks to you. But the thing is I do think they know something at Pentagon even though they are spoiled. We can't think of them as being silly. I love debating and you sure gave me one.

I am not an engineer nor a scientist but that was my whole point. I did not question or call the real engineers dumb. Whereas you gave me the impression that you knew more than them. I have to defend them because I think they are right. They have studied this, and therefore know more. Plain and simple. I don't know more than you Tim, but I do think that the engineers know more than you and I ever combined

[edit on 6-7-2007 by Figher Master FIN]

Finn, I am glad to see that you finally got your point across. To be honest if you had stated a lot of what you said at the begining I (and probably Tim?) wouldn't have jumped all over you as harshly as I did. I do not agree with everything you have said and you could have put your argument much earlier and clearer. This certainly would have saved you and Tim from chasing each others statements around for the last few days. Just bare in mind that politicians are inheritantly stupid, military brass ambitious, bureaucrats entrenched, engineer's single minded no matter how smart they are, and all will duck for cover when things with the F-35 go wrong.

Tim, don't ever change . You are without doubt one of the most dogmatic debaters on ATS. I don't always agree with you but you have NEVER left me wondering as to what your philosophy and technical beliefs are.

To be honest guys I was tempted to jump back in on this one on one you were having over the last few days, but it was too fascinating to interupt. What can I say, it must be the forum voyeur in me? Point is you both lived up to the best traditions of this website, debated out your thoughts and we are all probably better for it. Now can we all kiss and make up and agree that the issue here is that the F-35 is probably a reasonable design, but that the way it will be employed and the philosophy it is based on is what sucks?

LEE.

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Yes the couple few times, but not the last post! I am starting to agree with you.
Pentagon bad Lockheed good.

Welcome to my page Mr. Fin! You see now that I have issues with the the people in the Defense Department are doing. The opinion I'm trying to share
is that the DoD is making poor choices on what it chooses to invest it's money in. I think the Joint Strike Fighter is a good example of a poor Concept to invest in.

Can you give some examples? Not just tell me that patterns exist.

With pleasure! As I listed before: Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq war 2.

Look at the fighting that is going onin these wars. These are mainly ground and Counterinsurgency/guerrilla type of fighting. We aren't seeing the big air wars like Viet Nam and Desert Storm. What is happening is that we are seeing quick air wars that die down and evolve into guerrilla tactics on the ground.

When you aren't expecting months or years of intense air wars with high threats, it doesn't seem like such a good investment to make an all-stealth or nearly all-stealth fleet. Unless you are counting on a Desert storm type opening night where the Triple A and SAM's are trying to eat you alive for 2 weeks or more, do you really need to spend so much on an all-stealth fleet?

In my opinion, the answer is NO! I prefer a smaller fleet of B-2 and Possibly F-117 type aircraft to knock out the air defense network in an opening "Blitz" attack. Once the vast majority of these defenses are gone, you are better off with F/A-18 type aircraft where you trade away the stealth features for extra payload, and other assets that provide other advantages to you. It's about balance within the fighting forces. Always have more than one trick in you bag to surprise an enemy with. Wait until he's sure he knows what coming, and then hit him with the one thing he Thought you didn't have to throw!

Yes USA will lose more stealth aircraft if there were more of them. But less than if non were stealthy.

I Agree 100%!

The value of stealth isn't in the individual plane as much as it is in what you do with that 1 plane.

My Friend war is all about Strategy! It's not the weapons you have and use that determine if you win or not, It's how well you can use your resources to your Advantage.

Let's look at the first Gulf War again, and I'll show you what I mean:

The F-117 was a key asset in winning the war (We can agree on that, can't we?). Now look where and How it was used:

The F-117 bombed Key Air Defense and C3 Targets. The rapid destruction of these targets helped to bring the Iraqi surrender. Now the F-117 can hit almost anything with its laser guided bombs if the conditions are right.

Could the F-117 have been sent to bomb tanks? Sure! However if they had used the stealth fighter against tank in stead of command and control, I assure you that they would not have had the same effect on the war as they did by bombing Command Centers.

Wouldn't you agree?

You looking at the plane on it's own, not the overall strategy for winning. Good strategy requires balance. All I'm saying is that the Pentagon is ignoring the need for balance and going to extremes with this plane.

good one. But think of it like this. You have just discovered the war helmet. It's great in fights and protects the soldier alot. It's an insuranse policy just like stealth is for fighters. Now you won't just give it to those in the frontline because they will meet the bullets first right?

Interesting perspective on the issue! Now I really see where you are coming from here. You are looking at how stealth helps the individual airmen in doing his job, while I'm trying to see how all the pieces of the military function as a whole.

In that light I believe in reducing venerability through the use of LO technologies across the board. However, not every plane has to be a stealth to use some LO. Look at the SR-71 or B-1. Both aircraft have low RCS, but neither are stealth aircraft in the sense of the F-117 of B-2. The F/A-18 Super Hornet uses some LO technology, but not as much as the F-35. This brings us back to the issue of balance, how much becomes too much?

You raise a critical point here. There are different degrees of LO technology. What we should really be focusing on is: How much should be used for what mission?

Agreed! I learned some good things from this debate too!
I am not an engineer nor a scientist but that was my whole point. I did not question or call the real engineers dumb. Whereas you gave me the impression that you knew more than them. I have to defend them because I think they are right. They have studied this, and therefore know more. Plain and simple. I don't know more than you Tim, but I do think that the engineers know more than you and I ever combined

[edit on 6-7-2007 by Figher Master FIN]

I never meant to give the impression that I thought the engineers and scientists were dumb. I was trying to say that I think the pentagon has gone overboard with their use of stealth. Sorry if I gave you (or anyone else) the impression that I thought the scientist were dumb, as I never thought such a thing!

Thanks for a great debate, and some super lessons in using technology. I've learned a lot from this thread!

Tim

Originally posted by thebozeian
Finn, I am glad to see that you finally got your point across. To be honest if you had stated a lot of what you said at the begining I (and probably Tim?) wouldn't have jumped all over you as harshly as I did.

Tim, don't ever change

. You are without doubt one of the most dogmatic debaters on ATS. I don't always agree with you but you have NEVER left me wondering as to what your philosophy and technical beliefs are.

Quite Right! I have always had great respect for Finn. Even when our philosophies on how Air Power should be used differ, I look to him to learn and expand my thinking.

From the start, I saw Finn leaning on a very important point. However, the idea still needed some development to help it make a solid impact. I pushed him hard to develop his thought so we could all learn from them. He did exactly what I hoped for: He developed a strong base for his ideas and backed them up well.

Well done Finn! You proved what it takes to stand your ground and Deny Ignorance. It was a pleasure to debate this with you and learn along the way.

Tim

The pleasure is all mine. I've learned so much during this thread. I could write an esse here but I don't feel that it's necessary. Simply put, thank you, for a wonderful lesson!

Let's do it again someday.