Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mikeespo

OT: F-35 lightning II

Recommended Posts

Plenty of fights still take place within visual range, though they're not WWIIesque dogfights. Early F-4s had no guns, but the pilots demanded it, so they added some.

A fortress plane air force doesn't make a lot of sense quite yet. As it stands, our current fighter designs are the most effective for the tech level we have. In time though, your concept might work. Just not in this decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gunless F4s were a disaster, the pilots demanded cannons because not having them was a train wreck.

 

The problem with the B-52, even a super B-52, is it requires absolute control of the airspace to function.  In order to control the airspace, you need a superiority fighter, an air-to-ground penetrator to disable AAA, and usually a large number of reconnaissance assets as well.  So that B-52 becomes significantly less "cheap" in practical application than a single stealthy strike aircraft that can penetrate hostile airspace and prosecute its mission without such a large scale support system.  This is the main criticism of the A-10, by the way, it is perfectly capable of defending itself from airborne threats (including fighter aircraft) while in controlled airspace because recon assets can identify incoming hostiles and the A-10s can turn to fire missiles.  The issue is that an A-10, like a B-52, cannot survive in enemy controlled airspace and thus requires a very large support structure to function.

 

The counter argument is that the USA does not prosecute war in a manner that allows hostile powers to control airspace.  Aside from political-strikes, those BS limited bomb runs that accomplish no more than a sound bite and a few people killed, the US military insists on total air superiority in any area of engagement.  So a stealthy strike fighter is just a much, MUCH more expensive and much less capable version of an A-10 or B-52 under the circumstances in which the USA actually fights wars.

 

Lastly, I find it frustrating that so many people espouse the "we don't need armaments, because nobody is a threat to us" argument.  The reason nobody can threaten us is because of our overwhelming military advantage, which of course would go away if we didn't purchase and upgrade our armaments.  It's like saying we don't need to grow food anymore because we aren't hungry, if you do that then you will most assuredly become hungry at some point.  It is true that the USA is so ridiculously much more powerful militarily that a reasonable argument can be made that we are spending far more than we need to, but at the same time simply stopping research, development, and deployment of new systems is not a viable answer.

Edited by KineticOperator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lastly, I find it frustrating that so many people espouse the "we don't need armaments, because nobody is a threat to us" argument.  The reason nobody can threaten us is because of our overwhelming military advantage, which of course would go away if we didn't purchase and upgrade our armaments.  It's like saying we don't need to grow food anymore because we aren't hungry, if you do that then you will most assuredly become hungry at some point.  It is true that the USA is so ridiculously much more powerful militarily that a reasonable argument can be made that we are spending far more than we need to, but at the same time simply stopping research, development, and deployment of new systems is not a viable answer.

Well it's a good thing I'm not that stupid and never said that. We're overarmed, significantly. We could cut our spending in half and still spend more than Russia and China. I'd never say we need to outright stop building our military.

But, for scale's sake, the second largest air force in the world is the US Navy, the first being the US Air Force. We also have flat out, the biggest navy as well.

Meanwhile our troops are using crap rifles and inadequate armor, and not getting all the supplies we need.

We're spending it in the wrong places, and we're spending too much of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lastly, I find it frustrating that so many people espouse the "we don't need armaments, because nobody is a threat to us" argument.  The reason nobody can threaten us is because of our overwhelming military advantage, which of course would go away if we didn't purchase and upgrade our armaments.  It's like saying we don't need to grow food anymore because we aren't hungry, if you do that then you will most assuredly become hungry at some point.  It is true that the USA is so ridiculously much more powerful militarily that a reasonable argument can be made that we are spending far more than we need to, but at the same time simply stopping research, development, and deployment of new systems is not a viable answer.

Well it's a good thing I'm not that stupid and never said that. We're overarmed, significantly. We could cut our spending in half and still spend more than Russia and China. I'd never say we need to outright stop building our military.

But, for scale's sake, the second largest air force in the world is the US Navy, the first being the US Air Force. We also have flat out, the biggest navy as well.

Meanwhile our troops are using crap rifles and inadequate armor, and not getting all the supplies we need.

We're spending it in the wrong places, and we're spending too much of it.

 

 

The fact that we are building an F-35, when we have the F-22, A-10, etc., is proof of your point.  Unlike the F-22, the F-35 does not advance the technological envelope, it is a refinement of the F-22 5th generation of fighter aircraft (of which there is only the F-22 in operation, all other aircraft worldwide are at best a generation behind and many non-US operational aircraft are 2 generations behind).  Even the proposed but not yet operational "5th Generation" Russian and Chinese aircraft have performance on par with US 4th Generation fighters such as the US F-15 and F-16 (that because of upgrades like Stealth materials, thrust vectoring, and AESA are referred to as generation 4.5, export models are still generation 4).

In the meantime, we have cancelled the "Future Soldier" program that would have allowed wireless communication on the battlefield for infantry, and dramatically improved the armor, weaponry, and logistical support for those troops.  Why?  Because the future soldier program would have cost Billions, which instead will buy 2 or maybe even 3 F-35s.  :-(

Edited by KineticOperator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Lastly, I find it frustrating that so many people espouse the "we don't need armaments, because nobody is a threat to us" argument.  The reason nobody can threaten us is because of our overwhelming military advantage, which of course would go away if we didn't purchase and upgrade our armaments.  It's like saying we don't need to grow food anymore because we aren't hungry, if you do that then you will most assuredly become hungry at some point.  It is true that the USA is so ridiculously much more powerful militarily that a reasonable argument can be made that we are spending far more than we need to, but at the same time simply stopping research, development, and deployment of new systems is not a viable answer.

Well it's a good thing I'm not that stupid and never said that. We're overarmed, significantly. We could cut our spending in half and still spend more than Russia and China. I'd never say we need to outright stop building our military.

But, for scale's sake, the second largest air force in the world is the US Navy, the first being the US Air Force. We also have flat out, the biggest navy as well.

Meanwhile our troops are using crap rifles and inadequate armor, and not getting all the supplies we need.

We're spending it in the wrong places, and we're spending too much of it.

 

 

The fact that we are building an F-35, when we have the F-22, A-10, etc., is proof of your point.  Unlike the F-22, the F-35 does not advance the technological envelope, it is a refinement of the F-22 generation of fighter aircraft (of which there is only the F-22 in operation, all other aircraft worldwide are at best a generation behind and all non-US operation aircraft are 2 or 3 generations behind).

In the meantime, we have cancelled the "Future Soldier" program that would have allowed wireless communication on the battlefield for infantry, and dramatically improved the armor, weaponry, and logistical support for those troops.  Why?  Because the future soldier program would have cost Billions, which could have bought 2 or maybe even 3 F-35s.  :-(

 

God. F*cking. Dammit.

We need to stop screwing our troops over. It really pains me to see our men and women wearing kevlar and using M4s, while things like the ACR, 6.8x43mm, Dragonskin, and so on.

Our administration and such is so focused on this, "No boots on the ground" idea- this stupid, "Remote warfare" when it doesn't even work like that. That, and the collateral damage using missiles to take out soft targets causes.

I am so fed up with our government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the F35 has the more advanced electronic package. The HUD is one of the main cost overruns.

They were actually going to put a 10kw laser on it, but they didn't think they would ever have the software for targeting inbound missiles while the jet is preforming high speed maneuvers done, so it was scraped. But yeah, they plane itself was finished YEARS ago. Compiling the code and working out "bugs" took a while.

Don't want to have the glitch where if you bank and roll at the same time, your windshield wipers activate and the engines explode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lastly, I find it frustrating that so many people espouse the "we don't need armaments, because nobody is a threat to us" argument.  The reason nobody can threaten us is because of our overwhelming military advantage, which of course would go away if we didn't purchase and upgrade our armaments.  It's like saying we don't need to grow food anymore because we aren't hungry, if you do that then you will most assuredly become hungry at some point.  It is true that the USA is so ridiculously much more powerful militarily that a reasonable argument can be made that we are spending far more than we need to, but at the same time simply stopping research, development, and deployment of new systems is not a viable answer.

Well it's a good thing I'm not that stupid and never said that. We're overarmed, significantly. We could cut our spending in half and still spend more than Russia and China. I'd never say we need to outright stop building our military.

But, for scale's sake, the second largest air force in the world is the US Navy, the first being the US Air Force. We also have flat out, the biggest navy as well.

Meanwhile our troops are using crap rifles and inadequate armor, and not getting all the supplies we need.We're spending it in the wrong places, and we're spending too much of it.

 

The fact that we are building an F-35, when we have the F-22, A-10, etc., is proof of your point.  Unlike the F-22, the F-35 does not advance the technological envelope, it is a refinement of the F-22 generation of fighter aircraft (of which there is only the F-22 in operation, all other aircraft worldwide are at best a generation behind and all non-US operation aircraft are 2 or 3 generations behind).

In the meantime, we have cancelled the "Future Soldier" program that would have allowed wireless communication on the battlefield for infantry, and dramatically improved the armor, weaponry, and logistical support for those troops.  Why?  Because the future soldier program would have cost Billions, which could have bought 2 or maybe even 3 F-35s.  :-(

 

God. F*cking. Dammit.

We need to stop screwing our troops over. It really pains me to see our men and women wearing kevlar and using M4s, while things like the ACR, 6.8x43mm, Dragonskin, and so on.

Our administration and such is so focused on this, "No boots on the ground" idea- this stupid, "Remote warfare" when it doesn't even work like that. That, and the collateral damage using missiles to take out soft targets causes.

I am so fed up with our government.

Woah man, you sound like you have some pent up rage!

Just take a deep, calming breath and remember that there is nothing you can do.

Unless you have massive amounts of money, then you can buy yourself a few politicians and make some changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the F35 has the more advanced electronic package. The HUD is one of the main cost overruns.

They were actually going to put a 10kw laser on it, but they didn't think they would ever have the software for targeting inbound missiles while the jet is preforming high speed maneuvers done, so it was scraped. But yeah, they plane itself was finished YEARS ago. Compiling the code and working out "bugs" took a while.

Don't want to have the glitch where if you bank and roll at the same time, your windshield wipers activate and the engines explode.

Or your air supply stops like in an F22.

Most peolple fail to grasp how many lines of code goes into modern plans. The new HUD will be amazing once it is finished. The ability to see through the plan will be amazing. It will also come with more advanced passive scanners and jammers. And I expect a lot of the technology to end up on the F22.

And give the laser time, we're getting there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...

 

Something interesting to keep in mind for those of you aircraft and technology buffs.  The US has said it intends to deploy directed energy weapons on its aircraft by 2030 (that is deploy as in have it on aircraft and operational, not begin development).  

 

For perspective, a one megawatt laser could cut through 20 feet of steel in one second, that is over 6 meters.  The production of power for such a laser has always been a rub, but the power plant on the F-35 is capable of putting out an utterly ridiculous 20 megawatts.  That could power around 20 THOUSAND homes in a US City.  Even if a laser has an efficiency of only a few percent, you are looking at laser weapons that will easily destroy any target they come in contact with instantly.  They won't require "burn times" like we have seen in the past.

 

It is difficult for most people who aren't deeply involved in Defense to fully comprehend the enormous gap in capability between US military technology and civilian technology (or other military technology), but this is a good example.  Even I dismissed that number for the F-35 power plant when I first saw it as unbelievable, but it has been confirmed even in open source.  Not only that, this is information on a current aircraft, not the prototypes that are flying in early development stages.  What a fascinating modern age we live in.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/11/02/did-lockheed-martin-just-reinvent-the-laser-gun.aspx

Edited by KineticOperator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 100kw laser on a f35 would be stupid and broken as ****. A megawatt laser shouldn't exist on a fighter aircraft, pretty sure there is a few human right violations going on their. Besides, you only need 100kw anywyas, as the technology gets better, the more milage out of the photons they get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

We need to stop screwing our troops over. It really pains me to see our men and women wearing kevlar and using M4s, while things like the ACR, 6.8x43mm, Dragonskin, and so on.

Our administration and such is so focused on this, "No boots on the ground" idea- this stupid, "Remote warfare" when it doesn't even work like that. That, and the collateral damage using missiles to take out soft targets causes.

I am so fed up with our government.

 

Small-arms and armor are things that are near and dear to my heart (literally and figuratively), so let me discuss a couple of the items you mentioned.

 

I know by "kevlar" you mean "body armor" in general, but kevlar itself in a military context is fairly useless. It stops shrapnel and pistol-caliber threats. The average engagement distance is 150-200m in Afghanistan, meaning you're far outside the effective range of a pistol... and the threats there don't even have pistols. Shrapnel, splatter, spall, and other fragments of metal can be stopped by kevlar, but there's usually an explosion to go with that which doesn't care if you're wearing armor or not. What we need to do is go to light weight plate carriers that just carry 4 ceramic plates and no kevlar. Kevlar is heavy, bulky, expensive, and unneeded.

 

M4s in particular and the AR-15 family of weapons in general are very very good weapons. Many non-American SOF organizations have their choice of any weapon system in the world to use as their primary rifle, and they go to the AR-15 FOW. The ACR, SCAR 16, and others don't provide much benefit, if any at all, over an M4. They still spit out 5.56mm rounds at the same velocity. Ergonomics may be marginally better on the ACR and similar on the SCAR. They're not necessarily more reliable. The AR-15 FOW got a bad rep in the Vietnam-era because some guy (Secretary McNamera) decided that the barrel didn't need to be chrome lined, that they should use ball powder instead of stick, and that the AR-15 did not need to be cleaned. Those were three terrible choices. A modern M4 can fire 20,000+ rounds with only a few squirts of oil now and then and essentially no cleaning, although cleaning in a humid environment is a good thing to prevent rust on the limited steel components (outer surface of the barrel, front sight base, sights, fire control group, etc). Essentially the cost-benefit of replacing the M4 and M16 with another rifle would be a waste of tax-payer money.

 

6.8 SPC is a fine round, but we use 5.56 because it's the NATO standard. It allows the US to theoretically swap ammo with allies and alleviate the supply train of having a billion types of ammo. Modern Hague-legal 5.56mm ammo (Mk262 for long range and Mk318 for everything else) is extremely effective from 0-300m or so, and is still accurate to about 800-900m (when Mk262 goes subsonic out of an 18" barrel). Honestly it'd be better if NATO started with that, but it's not worth it now to switch over, even if the M4 was also switched out for another rifle.

 

Dragonskin had problems from stopping threats at different angles and the scales themselves delaminating and shifting position under certain situations, namely with 120+ degree heat (which isn't uncommon in Iraq) or certain chemicals. If a scale delaminated and shifted, it'd leave a hole in the protective ability of the armor where it used to be... which is terrible. It's also about 3 times the cost of conventional ceramic ESAPI plates. And finally, dragonskin also only certified as Level III armor, while ESAPI plates are Level IV. In regular terms, ESAPI plates are rated to stop armor-piercing 7.62x54R, for example, while dragonskin is not. 

 
Looking at all of this from a strategic level, most enemy casualties are caused by high explosives - artillery, bombs, and very large caliber guns (like the 25mm on the Apache). Most American casualties are caused by rifle rounds and IEDs. In terms of armor, light plate carriers with the current plates are perfect. As far as hitting back, according to the average range of firefights, the 5.56mm round is perfectly acceptable and isn't in need of change. And the M4 is fine as well... the main reasons being the A1 upgrade of the H2 buffer and full-auto FCG, the proliferation of Magpul magazines and much better followers for aluminum magazines, and the better ammo. The only upgrade I'd consider worth-while to the M4 is a better rear sight and a better optic. The M68 CCO is ok and the ACOG is also ok, but a variable 1-6x would be perfect. Darpa is developing something to address that actually. But any upgrade to a squad rifleman's firepower is going to be a lot of money for little benefit at a strategic level. Upgrading the squad's machine gun, DM rifle, and embedding more JTACs are far better uses of money. 
 
 

 

 

It is difficult for most people who aren't deeply involved in Defense to fully comprehend the enormous gap in capability between US military technology and civilian technology (or other military technology), but this is a good example.  Even I dismissed that number for the F-35 power plant when I first saw it as unbelievable, but it has been confirmed even in open source.  Not only that, this is information on a current aircraft, not the prototypes that are flying in early development stages.  What a fascinating modern age we live in.

 

In some cases, yes, the military has a huge technological advantage over what's commercially available. In other cases, you'd be appalled at some of the things that are still in service. There are countless examples of technology currently use by the US Military that was cutting edge 40 years ago and has essentially seen no changes. I'm not talking about the B-52, which internally is a very different beast from the original B-52. I mean there are many vital pieces of military hardware that literally (I use the world literally literally) haven't been upgraded since the 70s.

Edited by Koshinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I meant Kevlar. I am not so stupid that I call every body armor type Kevlar. I know the differences between an M-16A2 and an A4. I know what the men we're fighting use. Old AKMs and rags, with the occasional rocket or other munitions. Our kevlar won't do anything more than small shrapnel and small rounds. It's worthless for military use.

Completely worthless. You're better off without it.

M4s, M16s, they're alright. But they're horrible for the environments we use them in. Jungle? Awful. Desert? Awful. Put the thing underwater, take it out, the receiver damned explodes. They're great for urban combat and long range, they're accurate and everything about them is lightweight, low recoil. Honestly that's fantastic for something like a police force.

Dreadful for a military, however.

The ACR and SCAR all have 7.62x51mm NATO variants. They also have 6.8 variants as well, a round very much proving itself to be extremely effective in many situations. I'd argue 6.5, 6.8, should become the global standard for infantry weapon rounds.

Know why we use 5.56x45mm NATO. We use it due to the STANAG magazine, NATO, and so on. We use it for flexibility purposes. "Oh hey you have a 5.56 NATO STANAG mag? Wonderful, that'll work in my gun too!" which is just dandy except for the fact that 5.56 doesn't cut it.

Armor wise, I didn't know about ESAPI. That's much better than Dragonskin.

But trust me when I say I know a lot of these things.

I write Science Fiction. In my work, for a long time in a long-standing draft, ballistic weapons were used, and I studied modern weapons quite a bit. I've not yet decided if they'll still be used, but it doesn't matter. The point is, I studied the living crap out of this stuff. I know the pros and cons to many of these things. I also know that you don't want any dirt in your M4.

If anything the US Military / Govt. could simply switch over to the HK 416 and everybody would be better off for it. It's an issues-ironed-out AR-15 variant co-developed by Heckler & Koch, a weapons manufacturer that really knows how to do their job.

In regards to military hardware tech differences, yeah. There's some amazing things, but it's never in the right places.

Our men and women deserve better than they have. Significantly better. The fact we're still using, for the most part, Vietnam Era Technology for our infantry, really bothers the crap out of me.

Sorry if I come off as standoffish or defensive. I'm not some CoD player that bases his knowledge off how the guns operate in the game nor a battlefield player. I've spoken to servicemen and researched these weapons quite a lot- all I've not done is used them personally. (I have fired only handguns, this is mainly due to a lack of opportunity and finances. I'm quite the firearms enthusiast. For reference, I come from a conservative background.)

I just want to see our soldiers treated better than they are.

Because right now the administration values dead metal and lines of code more than hearts and minds, and that bothers me.

EDIT: It should also be noted that I am an advocate of the M-14, which, while an older weapon, is far more suitable to the environments we engage these insurgents in. Longer range, higher firepower, and while they have shallower magazines, they're hardier and less finicky. And we've no shortage of 7.62x51mm NATO rounds for those guys to use, not in the slightest. Also incredibly, the wooden ones are just as viable as the modern ones, and it is also noteworthy that the, "Juggernaut Rogue" chassis modification to make it bullpup (Something I strongly advocate) is seeing more use by operators of the weapon system.

That's what the staple of our military should be.

Not a weapon that is responsible for many allied deaths by flaw of design in its first war.

Edited by Captain Lackwit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow how Did i miss THIS post??  first off I was in the Airforce for 24 years and was a Crew chief. (Aircraft mechanic) worked on F-15s/16s/4s and a-10s. and dabbled on F-111s when i was in "R&R" for a short time...

        EVERY new aircraft has teething problems i remember folks saying the same thing about the 15 and 16 when they first came out almost 30 YEARS ago! and that's the problem folks, airframes don't have unlimited life. sure you can keep low stress airframes flying for longer periods of time (B-52) but in the fighter world things wear out and need to get replaced! Is the F-35 perfect? No not even close. but OTOH ANYTHING that's NOT stealthy is NOW a target.

        I LOVE the A-10 it was great at what it did and is still good in some unique circumstances. the problem with it is its SLOW and yeah its got Armour but as was mentioned earlier it is NOW a target due to the fact that it IS slow and non stealthy. Ever watch an a-10 make a strafing run? it takes FOREVER!!! granted it does have that freaking awesome gun but that's about it.. Meanwhile every two bit terrorist with a shoulder launched IR missile is targeting it! in the OLD days when IR missiles were just primarily rear aspect it was kind of survivable. but now the NEW missiles are ALL aspect and much harder to decoy some even use target recognition now or use both the IR and VISIBLE spectrums to lock on to a target.

        Only two things keep an aircraft alive in the modern battlefield. SPEED and stealth. speed reduces your time in the engagement area and allows you to disengage when its preferable; A-10s don't have that option. While stationed in Germany I remember our base getting "attacked"  (war games) by an F-104, an aircraft considered obsolete even then. However it did have one thing going for it. SPEED!!! (I hear Jeremey Clarkson in my head when i type that), all i heard was a BOOM and saw it as it went streaking by.Matter of fact I think the F-104 still holds the low altitude speed record. But i digress..

        Now while stationed at Shaw A-10s would routinely "Attack" us. during war games.. You could hear them coming from way off then watch as they leisurely approach and commence with the mock attack. Yeah they can jink and juke great but they are still SLOW, and are NOT going to out juke and jink any modern missile!

        The F-16 and 15 are OLD and need to be replaced they are currently outclassed by the newer Migs and Sukhoi aircraft. Along those same lines a crappy aircraft with a great missile system is waaaay better than a crappy missile system on a great aircraft. but neither combo is as effective as a great missile system on a stealthy airframe. Think of the F-35 as a stealthy version of the 16 and the 22 as the stealth version of the 15.  Now if they would make a stealthy "Attack" aircraft that would be cool. but its a role the F-35 was all ready designed to accomplish.

        As for drones they have their place but unless they are autonomous they can be subject to jamming. and the autonomous ones are mainly used for recon and have a limited autonomous capability.

        Oh one of my College majors was economics so i am quite familiar with the old "Guns vs Butter debate" what folks tend to forget is that the folks that make "guns" can afford GOOD butter AND use them to prevent others from taking your butter!!!... sorry for the book report..lol 

Edited by Swedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow how Did i miss THIS post??  first off I was in the Airforce for 24 years and was a Crew chief. (Aircraft mechanic) worked on F-15s/16s/4s and a-10s. and dabbled on F-111s when i was in "R&R" for a short time...EVERY new aircraft has teething problems i remember folks saying the same thing about the 15 and 16 when they first came out almost 30 YEARS ago! and that's the problem folks, airframes don't have unlimited life. sure you can keep low stress airframes flying for longer periods of time (B-52) but in the fighter world things wear out and need to get replaced! Is the F-35 perfect? No not even close. but OTOH ANYTHING that's NOT stealthy is NOW a target. i LOVE the A-10 it was great at what it did and is still good in some unique circumstances. the problem with it is its SLOW and yeah its got Armour but as was mentioned earlier it is NOW a target due to the fact that it IS slow and non stealthy. ever watch an a-10 make a strafing run? it takes FOREVER!!! granted it does have that freaking awesome gun but that's about it.. meanwhile every two bit terrorist with a shoulder launched IR missile is targeting it! in the OLD days when IR missiles were just primarily rear aspect it was kind of survivable. but now the NEW missiles are ALL aspect and much harder to decoy some even use target recognition now or use both the IR and VISIBLE spectrums to lock on to a target. only two things keep an aircraft alive in the modern battlefield. SPEED and stealth. speed reduces you time in the engagement area and allows you to disengage when it preferable,, A-10s don't have that option. while stationed in Germany I remember our base getting "attacked"  (war games) by an F-104. an aircraft considered obsolete even then.. however it did have one thing going for it... SPEED!!!  all i heard was a BOOM and saw it as it went streaking by... matter of fact I think the F-104 still holds the low altitude speed record.. but i digress.. now while stationed at Shaw A-10s would routinely "Attack" us. during war games.. you could hear them coming from way off then watch as they leisurely approach and commence with the mock attack. yeah they can jink and juke great but they are still SLOW.And  the F-16 and 15 are OLD and need to be replaced they are currently outclassed by the newer Migs and Sukhoi aircraft. Along those same lines a crappy aircraft with a great missile system is waaaay better than a crappy missile system on a great aircraft. but neither combo is as effective as a great missile system on a stealthy airframe. think of the F-35 as a stealthy version of the 16 and the 22 as the stealth version of the 15..  Now if they would make a stealthy "Attack" aircraft that would be cool. but its a role the F-35 was all ready designed to accomplish. As for drones they have their place but unless they are autonomous they can be subject to jamming. and the autonomous ones are mainly used for recon and have a limited autonomous capability.Oh one of my College majors was economics so i am quite familiar with the old "Guns vs Butter debate" what folks tend to forget is that the folks that make "guns" can afford butter AND use them to prevent others from taking your butter!!!... sorry for the book report..lol

This would probably be awesome to read if it were in paragraphs, as is its a wall of text that will get ignored, could you go back and hit the space bar a few more times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if we spent that money on ensuring impoverished individuals could get health care, right?

 

He's a Commie! Lynch him!! :P

 

 

*ahem*

But yes, it's always confused me how the US can have such a hard-on for socialised military, but be so dead set against socialised medicine.

 

Edited by nekomatafuyu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion.

Swedge has a point, but Captain Lackwitt has a point too.

My native country has been decreasing funding on health care, childcare, schools, public transport, pensions, and the list goes on.

They cut back on defense too (no way it reaches 2% of budget)

But then they DO decide to buy a fighter in development-stage and spend millions on co-development without the rights of receiving the fully kitted out version. Added to this is the fact that for the same billions they are going to pay, they no longer receive 84 F-35's, but only 36. Yes, you read that correctly. The entire Air Defense and strike capability of The Netherlands is going to consist of a whopping 3 squadrons of Stealthy Fighters. Though we might wonder if that is bad. By the time it has reached any effective altitude it flies in Germany. By the time they get the news someone attacks them, the enemy is already flying back home.

And now my new home country has decided on massive budget cuts in, you guessed it, health care, child care, schools, public transport, pensions, and the list goes on. But then Belgium will spend 5 billions on a new jet-fighter. The main contender being...

The F-35

Do we need defense? Sure! Of course!

But do we need an F-35?

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you/we NEED it? only if you have something worthwhile to protect...  

 

 

wow how Did i miss THIS post??  first off I was in the Airforce for 24 years and was a Crew chief. (Aircraft mechanic) worked on F-15s/16s/4s and a-10s. and dabbled on F-111s when i was in "R&R" for a short time...EVERY new aircraft has teething problems i remember folks saying the same thing about the 15 and 16 when they first came out almost 30 YEARS ago! and that's the problem folks, airframes don't have unlimited life. sure you can keep low stress airframes flying for longer periods of time (B-52) but in the fighter world things wear out and need to get replaced! Is the F-35 perfect? No not even close. but OTOH ANYTHING that's NOT stealthy is NOW a target. i LOVE the A-10 it was great at what it did and is still good in some unique circumstances. the problem with it is its SLOW and yeah its got Armour but as was mentioned earlier it is NOW a target due to the fact that it IS slow and non stealthy. ever watch an a-10 make a strafing run? it takes FOREVER!!! granted it does have that freaking awesome gun but that's about it.. meanwhile every two bit terrorist with a shoulder launched IR missile is targeting it! in the OLD days when IR missiles were just primarily rear aspect it was kind of survivable. but now the NEW missiles are ALL aspect and much harder to decoy some even use target recognition now or use both the IR and VISIBLE spectrums to lock on to a target. only two things keep an aircraft alive in the modern battlefield. SPEED and stealth. speed reduces you time in the engagement area and allows you to disengage when it preferable,, A-10s don't have that option. while stationed in Germany I remember our base getting "attacked"  (war games) by an F-104. an aircraft considered obsolete even then.. however it did have one thing going for it... SPEED!!!  all i heard was a BOOM and saw it as it went streaking by... matter of fact I think the F-104 still holds the low altitude speed record.. but i digress.. now while stationed at Shaw A-10s would routinely "Attack" us. during war games.. you could hear them coming from way off then watch as they leisurely approach and commence with the mock attack. yeah they can jink and juke great but they are still SLOW.And  the F-16 and 15 are OLD and need to be replaced they are currently outclassed by the newer Migs and Sukhoi aircraft. Along those same lines a crappy aircraft with a great missile system is waaaay better than a crappy missile system on a great aircraft. but neither combo is as effective as a great missile system on a stealthy airframe. think of the F-35 as a stealthy version of the 16 and the 22 as the stealth version of the 15..  Now if they would make a stealthy "Attack" aircraft that would be cool. but its a role the F-35 was all ready designed to accomplish. As for drones they have their place but unless they are autonomous they can be subject to jamming. and the autonomous ones are mainly used for recon and have a limited autonomous capability.Oh one of my College majors was economics so i am quite familiar with the old "Guns vs Butter debate" what folks tend to forget is that the folks that make "guns" can afford butter AND use them to prevent others from taking your butter!!!... sorry for the book report..lol


This would probably be awesome to read if it were in paragraphs, as is its a wall of text that will get ignored, could you go back and hit the space bar a few more times.

 

Done..  with out a TAB function i might add!!  Oh the Humanity!!  

Edited by Swedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every country has something to protect. People, heritage, economy, you name it. But European countries have a tendency to look to the US to save the day. It gives to us citizens the view our politicians are willing to be puppets. We buy US weapons for a high price and without the full options, the US comes along and fights, we say thank you. Of course we do send some token support so the President (no disrespect intended) can say we punched above our weight (it is the line he used in every small european country he visited the last two years) So we send some marines, paratroopers, a ship, or 6 F-16's.

I don't think the low countries should have large conventional armies. I think it is logical to specialize. Make any invader pay, because we can't stop them anyway, and deliver quaility back up to the larger ally, we don't have much choice. So no more tanks, sure. No more large squads of infantry, sure. But I am not sure what kind of asset the F-35 is going to be...

Enough politics:

Back to X-wing. An E-wing?

I am not thrilled about it. I do prefer the more resilient B-Wing if offered a choice. An E-Wing seems to be nice, but you would have to kitt it out with al kind of upgrades which makes it expensive pointwise. Now if it could use a cloaking device, then I might try..;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL it is not the Governments job to provide health care.  Get a job, stay in shcool, come up with a great idea, build your own business, do something other than depend on an undependable Gov that ruins everything it touches.  Government always corrupts what it is involved with.  The founding fathers of this USA would vomit on the spot if they could see what our society is like today. 

 

All signs right now are pointing to the F-35 making vast improvements.  However I do agree with your argument that it the cost overuns are crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a fun discussion when it concerns the new aircraft and tech, less so when it comes to politics.  No matter how much is spent or not spent on defense, there will be those who think it is too much or too little.  However, let us inject some reality here.  The idea that the USA is unwilling to spend money on education, alleviating poverty, or providing healthcare is insane.  The USA spends more money per person on all of these things, and by a very, very wide margin.  The USA goes through money like water, the problem is that we fail so utterly to get value for the money we spend.

 

On the subject of small arms and tech for infantry soldiers, the AR platforms have been perfectly adequate, as is our body armor.  Dragonscale armor generally performs far better than the current body armor, and there have been major questions about the testing process used to eliminate it from consideration (do a Google search on it, it was extremely dodgy) and legitimate concerns that the purchasing process was pure cronyism.  Having said that, modern US body armor is actually quite sturdy, its primary drawback is the extreme weight.

 

IMO, small arms of the future will go the same way that the larger weapons have, namely smooth bore.  With ammunition technology advancing apace, accuracy for smooth bore weapons is greater than for rifled weapons (obv with the correct ammunition).  With the smooth bore, specialized ammunition can be carried that allows a single weapon to perform multiple roles currently filled by multiple weapons without compromising function.  A 10mm smooth bore weapon can fire 5mm FSDS rounds with greater range, accuracy, and power than an equivalent 7.62 round with comparable recoil to a 5.56, or 10mm "shotgun" rounds that would allow it to fire four 9mm equivalent rounds per shot (quadrupling its output for suppressive ability), or 10mm grenades, frangibles, etc.  Further, smooth bore weapons are a fully mature technology, so we don't have the spectre of unforeseen problems arising during the development stage.  The only real barrier (and it is a big one) is that switching to a completely new technology like this would require the replacement of the entire logistical chain, an enormously expensive and time consuming endeavor.

 

There are new body armor types in development, the most interesting of which (and the most likely to be developed fully) are powered armor.  As sci-fi as that sounds, basic powered armor consisting of assisted "legs" and a spinal framework allow a soldier to carry the enormous loads expected from a modern soldier (100 plus pounds) without the stress injuries and fatigue suffered by soldiers currently.  With increased weight capacity, real armor capable of stopping modern small arms rounds becomes practical.  Development cycles being what they are, we are not likely to see deployment of powered armor for at least a decade and more likely two, but because it is on the horizon there will be dramatic resistance to making major changes in the interim.

 

Having said all that, it is clear the real push in US military technology is drone warfare.  By the time any of these weapon or armor technologies become practical, the US plans to provide the majority of its air and ground combat capability with drones.  Even the F-35 has been described as "the last manned fighter the USA will ever build".  The deployment of fully autonomous (or optionally autonomous) robotic weaponry is something that is as frightening as it is inevitable.

Edited by KineticOperator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...