Air Force looking at losing entire fleets

reply to post by D_Mason


You need to find sources other than anti F-35 sites and take an objective look instead of following what is said about it.

Program costs are dropping significantly. By LRIP 8 the A will be under $100M per aircraft, and by 11 all versions will be.

The F-22 took twenty years for IOC and doesn't do half the things it was supposed to either, but it's considered one of the most advanced aircraft in the world and is raved about.

This was not a no-bid project. LM and Boeing were the two finalists because they have the most experience with this type of aircraft.

reply to post by Zaphod58

I liked the YF23 better.
I would call for them to build a VSTOL ucas built around the Avenger again.It would solve issues and with our computerized soldiers The Airforce can't bitch about a drone.The FAC could work with the drone pilots.

Zaphod58
reply to post by D_Mason

 

You need to find sources other than anti F-35 sites and take an objective look instead of following what is said about it.

Program costs are dropping significantly. By LRIP 8 the A will be under $100M per aircraft, and by 11 all versions will be.

The F-22 took twenty years for IOC and doesn't do half the things it was supposed to either, but it's considered one of the most advanced aircraft in the world and is raved about.

This was not a no-bid project. LM and Boeing were the two finalists because they have the most experience with this type of aircraft.

I was being objective. The F-35 was sold on many things. A good number of which still aren't reality ten years later. The plane isn't even operational yet. It is a huge waste of money, and a joke of an aircraft.

I am not one of those people who tout unproven technologies. Lackluster programs like the JSF program drain resources that could be used for other things, and the product when it finally comes out, won't give any great edge over our main adversaries. It very well could cost us lives when the plain under performs.

The F-22 is raved about in certain circles, in others it is trashed. It's speed, and super cruise capability, give it certain advantages that other current jet fighters don't have. On the other hand, what use is that advantage if the AMRAAM it is armed with, is just another piece of hardware that doesn't really work as well as touted? I hate to see billions of dollars put into systems that aren't doing what the manufacturer touts they can do.

reply to post by D_Mason


So you would rather give up any advantage, fly our F-15s and F-16s that are already approaching 30 years old, and ready to fall out of the sky, and start over, on ANOTHER 20 year development program, instead of trying to fix the problems with the F-35. Makes perfect sense to me.

Zaphod58
reply to post by D_Mason

 

So you would rather give up any advantage, fly our F-15s and F-16s that are already approaching 30 years old, and ready to fall out of the sky, and start over, on ANOTHER 20 year development program, instead of trying to fix the problems with the F-35. Makes perfect sense to me.

What advantage? If half the things that these systems are sold on, never come to fruition for the system anyway, where is the advantage? In ten years, the F-35 will offer little to no advantage over opposing systems fielded by non-third world countries. Sure it will probably be able to handle Syrian Mig 21s, but compared to Russian, Chinese, French, British, German etc. will it really offer real advantages? and don't tell me it is upgradeable, because after ten years they still can't get half the crap to even work.

Sure money grows on trees. Fix problems that are financially not feasible to fix. I have a better idea, hold companies accountable when they sell you expensive trash that doesn't work.

This crap was going on back in 2009 so I dropped my retirement papers... no parts to be had, a significant airframe upgrade (A-10A to A-10C), low manpower support, supervision ham-stringed by operational requirements with zero HHQ support... I saw the writing on the wall and bailed. Now the finest, most capable Air Force that the world has ever seen is being degraded, gutted and grounded by an administration without a single clue... We can still command an air-power advantage against anyone in the world, but for how long??

reply to post by D_Mason


Half the "crap" as you call it has never been done before. That means setbacks in testing, and problems making it operational. Would you prefer we stick with F-15s and F-16s then? Since we know they work and everything on them works? We'll just let everyone else develop stealth and say screw it, it's not worth it because it's hard to make it work. We'll stick with our 4th generation fighters, and pray that no one ever bothers us, and we don't need to fight anyone.

If you have your way, we're going to have to stick with F-15s until they're at least 50 years old (the operational ones, not the design), while they develop something new to replace them with. The rest of the world will move on, and we'll be stuck in the 70s, but by god you'll get your wish and maybe they'll build something that works the way you want it to.

Zaphod58
reply to post by D_Mason

 

Half the "crap" as you call it has never been done before. That means setbacks in testing, and problems making it operational. Would you prefer we stick with F-15s and F-16s then? Since we know they work and everything on them works? We'll just let everyone else develop stealth and say screw it, it's not worth it because it's hard to make it work. We'll stick with our 4th generation fighters, and pray that no one ever bothers us, and we don't need to fight anyone.

If you have your way, we're going to have to stick with F-15s until they're at least 50 years old (the operational ones, not the design), while they develop something new to replace them with. The rest of the world will move on, and we'll be stuck in the 70s, but by god you'll get your wish and maybe they'll build something that works the way you want it to.

I would prefer if huge fund draining contracts weren't awarded based on the fictitious abilities of the system. The system shouldn't have been bought until it's touted abilities were proven to be a reality. After ten years of inability to make those touted abilities a reality, the contract should be cut, and Lockheed sanctioned for Fraud. Especially in light of the fact that Lockheed already lied about some of the abilities of it's previous money drainer the F-22. Lockheed screwed the Pentagon, as well as the American people. The Super Hornet's and late Model F-15s, 16s can carry the load for a few more years. They are more than enough for the Syria's, Iraq's, Aganistans etc. If there is a confrontation with a more formidable power, the JSF will be a moot point as it's fictitious advantages likely wouldn't work against more modern and complex radar systems anyway. We know what the F-18, 16, 15 can do, and can't do. I would rather have them upgrade the Raptor system, and expand it's role abilities, to support our conventional war planes. That JSF program needs to be cut.

You make no sense. Money doesn't grow on trees, and the system still can't do half of what it was sold on. Sure, keep dumping a Trillion and change into a broke system that may not ever reach 100% operational readiness.

reply to post by D_Mason


You say you're being objective, ok, take an objective look at the status of the air force and come tell me how the F-15s can go "a few more years". You never plan to fight the weakest enemies around and build your force on that plan.

As of five years ago the F-15s were in their mid to late twenties. As of this year, 90% have flown over 90% of their planned service life. They are all G and mach limited.

The F-16 fleet had 25% with cracks in either the bulkheads or wings.

So you know the radar signature of the F-35 and how well it's stealth works? Where'd you find that out, an anonymous report? Considering accurate RCS data is at best extremely hard to come by, and in the case of most stealth systems classified.

Zaphod58
reply to post by D_Mason

 

You say you're being objective, ok, take an objective look at the status of the air force and come tell me how the F-15s can go "a few more years". You never plan to fight the weakest enemies around and build your force on that plan.

As of five years ago the F-15s were in their mid to late twenties. As of this year, 90% have flown over 90% of their planned service life. They are all G and mach limited.

The F-16 fleet had 25% with cracks in either the bulkheads or wings.

So you know the radar signature of the F-35 and how well it's stealth works? Where'd you find that out, an anonymous report? Considering accurate RCS data is at best extremely hard to come by, and in the case of most stealth systems classified.

Hell, make new F-15s as a stop gap.

Does it work in the rain yet? or can it only attack with clear skies? Is it really all that stealthy in a real hostile environment. Classified stealth info didn't stop that F-117 from being painted and downed by a mid tier system operated by people who knew what they were doing over Serbia during the NATO bombing. As stealth has progressed, so have radar systems that can defeat stealth. Due to the manufacturers lack of truthfulness and military propaganda, we don't know whether it will really work, until it gets into that real world environment against our main adversaries. I wouldn't want to be in the plane, and have to attack targets guarded by a late model S300, or 400 air defense system, with later model SUs in the air.

D_Mason
Classified stealth info didn't stop that F-117 from being painted and downed by a mid tier system operated by people who knew what they were doing over Serbia during the NATO bombing.

Do you even know the details of that shoot down? The ONLY shoot down of a stealth aircraft despite thousands of combat missions through some of the more heavily defended airspace around?

Here's a hint, he was on the same route for the third night in a row, and was hit with bomb doors open just after releasing weapons. Stealth doesn't mean crap when you repeat Vietnam with the same take off times, and the same routes over multiple nights.

As stealth has progressed, so have radar systems that can defeat stealth. Due to the manufacturers lack of truthfulness and military propaganda, we don't know whether it will really work, until it gets into that real world environment against our main adversaries. I wouldn't want to be in the plane, and have to attack targets guarded by a late model S300, or 400 air defense system, with later model SUs in the air.

Well hell, why bother even building it then? Funny how the Chinese and Russians, both of whom everyone says have more advance SAM systems than the US think stealth is worth it after seeing what the US has done with it to date.

You think the military just takes something and says "Oh, you say it will work. Ok, we'll take your word for it." Seriously? Why do you think they've bought S300 systems, and others, and test the hell out of them with real world scenarios? Do you REALLY think they're that stupid? Obviously you think they're stupid, but you really think they're THAT stupid?

reply to post by Zaphod58


You don't know the real details either. You know what they want you to know. Of course when it gets shot down, they will make excuses as to why.

Zaphod58, the bottom line is that the JSF system is over priced junk, and is draining funding from other programs that work. Selling a system on things that it still can't do ten years later is total bull#, and a waste of tax payer dollars. If I made a list of all the issues with the system, and asked intelligent people, is this something that the government should be wasting money on? The answer would be a resounding no.

Zaphod58

D_Mason
Classified stealth info didn't stop that F-117 from being painted and downed by a mid tier system operated by people who knew what they were doing over Serbia during the NATO bombing.

Do you even know the details of that shoot down? The ONLY shoot down of a stealth aircraft despite thousands of combat missions through some of the more heavily defended airspace around?

Here's a hint, he was on the same route for the third night in a row, and was hit with bomb doors open just after releasing weapons. Stealth doesn't mean crap when you repeat Vietnam with the same take off times, and the same routes over multiple nights.

Seems to me like they got cocky, flying over sam sites thinking nothing would happen.

reply to post by D_Mason


And if you really look objectively at it, and all the details of it, you will see how much it has improved in the last year, and how fast things are starting to work. Yes it's taken longer than it should, but you know who chose the "crap" on it as you call it? The military. They put out the RFP with the requirements, and the contractors are expected to make it work.

But you're right, let's use 1970s designs that are going to be next to useless in the next 5-10 years for another 20 years while we develop something totally new. If we build new ones of them, then it will suddenly make them much more effective.

You don't know the real details either. You know what they want you to know. Of course when it gets shot down, they will make excuses as to why.

Really? So all those reports from the Serbs about how the plane had flown over the same location three nights in a row, and they moved their missiles into that path because of it are lies? The reports from the pilot that they had flown that route several times and he was hit right after bomb release are lies? "They" got to all the information and scrubbed it, huh.

Zaphod58
reply to post by D_Mason

 

And if you really look objectively at it, and all the details of it, you will see how much it has improved in the last year, and how fast things are starting to work. Yes it's taken longer than it should, but you know who chose the "crap" on it as you call it? The military. They put out the RFP with the requirements, and the contractors are expected to make it work.

But you're right, let's use 1970s designs that are going to be next to useless in the next 5-10 years for another 20 years while we develop something totally new. If we build new ones of them, then it will suddenly make them much more effective.

You don't know the real details either. You know what they want you to know. Of course when it gets shot down, they will make excuses as to why.

Really? So all those reports from the Serbs about how the plane had flown over the same location three nights in a row, and they moved their missiles into that path because of it are lies? The reports from the pilot that they had flown that route several times and he was hit right after bomb release are lies? "They" got to all the information and scrubbed it, huh.

Yea, hopefully they fixed that leaky wing flap, the first one delivered this summer had. I witnessed it in formation with several F-18s, low altitude, and at low speed. It seemed to have something wrong with its right wing or wing flap, as it was venting some type of vapor intermittently as it flew over. I have seen numerous low speed low altitude fly overs from numerous fighter jets, including the Raptor. The F-35 was the only one that seemed to be leaking.

Again, the F-15, Super Hornet, and F-16 aren't, and won't be useless against the Syria's, Iraq's, Somalia's, Yemen's, Agfanistan's etc. We won't be going to war with Russia or China any time soon. And if we did, it would be the Super Hornets taking off from Carriers, as the VTOL type seems to have a problem with high temperature thrust from the nozzle, melting the deck among other issues.

We agree to disagree man. I see too many flaws in a system that was touted as being able to do many things. It can't do half the things ten years later. In the future a system prototype should be proven to work and do what it was sold to do, before a Trillion dollar purchase of a faulty program is made.

reply to post by D_Mason


So basically because you saw an F-35 leaking once the whole programs doomed?

Every program had teething problems, even the f-16 and f-15, but as you said they work fine now and so will the F-35 eventually.

reply to post by D_Mason


Wow, a plane had a leak. It happens. I've forgotten how many planes I've had come in, our come back leaking. Brand new ones, old ones, it didn't matter. They break. It's a fact of life.

Zaphod58
reply to post by juspassinthru

 

Yes because all the military is for is mass rape and murder. In fact once you get to Tech School you can take Advanced Rape and Murder.

I've been listening to people like you too going in about how evil the military is. Try telling that to all the people the military has rescued after a disaster, or the people of Kuwait after being liberated from Iraq. Oh wait that was our fault too wasn't it.

I'm sure the people around China would love the US to go away so China could take their territory and resources. Oh wait, if it wasn't for us China wouldn't need them right?

I went to tech school in the military for a year. Never saw ARM classes. But, I hear that torture was taught at some schools. I also hear that we did field death squads and advisors in some theaters. Don't wave the freakin' flag at me because I know damn well what the military is about.

You can't build and maintain an empire without war. The US simply sidesteps liability for illegal aggressive war with multiple battlefields (military, corporate games, IMF, World Bank, etc) and political games. The US is also covering Israel for massive numbers of crimes and war crimes.

reply to post by juspassinthru


Oh yeah, we have a massive empire. It's at last as big as the British Empire was.