The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Colonial-Marine]

Ahem... these guys are cheaper to buy and to operate to a F-35 at the moment.

Unlikely. The last several orders of new F-15E variants cost over $100 million per unit. By the time Canada gets their CF-35s the logistics network and maintencence procedures will be well established. There is no way it's going to cost as much or more to operate as one of those later F-15s. The Russians may sell the Flanker for cheaper, but I'd imagine the O&S costs are on the same level as the F-15, and of course there is the whole matter of needing to "Westernize" the avionics and the fact that such a purchase would be political suicide.

 

[bobbymike]

As we cut defense unauthorized spending on the 'climate change' agenda is enough to have purchased 1400 F-35s

http://therightscoop.com/sen-inhofe-for-the-money-obama-has-spent-on-on-environmental-agenda-we-could-have-1400-f-35s/

Decline is a choice.

 

[Triton]

As we cut defense unauthorized spending on the 'climate change' agenda is enough to have purchased 1400 F-35s

http://therightscoop.com/sen-inhofe-for-the-money-obama-has-spent-on-on-environmental-agenda-we-could-have-1400-f-35s/

Decline is a choice.

Not surprising comments from the "call girl" for "big oil". Who knows where he pulled the $120 billion figure for the "climate change" agenda. I am surprised he didn't bring up Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and Obamacare.

 

[sferrin]

As we cut defense unauthorized spending on the 'climate change' agenda is enough to have purchased 1400 F-35s

http://therightscoop.com/sen-inhofe-for-the-money-obama-has-spent-on-on-environmental-agenda-we-could-have-1400-f-35s/

Decline is a choice.

Not surprising comments from the "call girl" of "big oil".

At least with "big oil" you get something for your money. All Zero's got with his $120 billion is a whole lot of nothing. (Well, he did reward his cronies so I guess it wasn't "nothing" for those guys.)

 

[Triton]

At least with "big oil" you get something for your money. All Zero's got with his $120 billion is a whole lot of nothing. (Well, he did reward his cronies so I guess it wasn't "nothing" for those guys.)

Sen. Inhofe didn't say how he calculated the $120 billion, but here are some of the things that he calls "the President's climate agenda":

During the second round of questions, Inhofe also highlighted areas where the Administration is spending defense dollars to prioritize the President's climate change agenda ahead of an adequate national security strategy that addresses looming global threats. A few of the examples he provided are as follows:

$120 million for a solar farm at Fort Bliss. $75 million in fiscal year '14 appropriations for alternative energy research. $160 million the Navy contributed towards biofuels initiatives, retrofitting and building refineries in both FY'12 and FY'13.

Inhofe continued, "Now, when you start adding all this up, you're talking about really serious money… It's not you guys. It's the administration that doesn't have the priorities that you have stated, Mr. Secretary, that they have in terms of defending America as the number one priority."

So Sen. Inhofe is against any energy alternatives to big oil or any plans to reduce consumption. :

 

[bobbymike]

At least with "big oil" you get something for your money. All Zero's got with his $120 billion is a whole lot of nothing. (Well, he did reward his cronies so I guess it wasn't "nothing" for those guys.)

Sen. Inhofe didn't say how he calculated the $120 billion, but here are some of the things that he calls "the President's climate agenda":

During the second round of questions, Inhofe also highlighted areas where the Administration is spending defense dollars to prioritize the President's climate change agenda ahead of an adequate national security strategy that addresses looming global threats. A few of the examples he provided are as follows:

$120 million for a solar farm at Fort Bliss. $75 million in fiscal year '14 appropriations for alternative energy research. $160 million the Navy contributed towards biofuels initiatives, retrofitting and building refineries in both FY'12 and FY'13.

Inhofe continued, "Now, when you start adding all this up, you're talking about really serious money… It's not you guys. It's the administration that doesn't have the priorities that you have stated, Mr. Secretary, that they have in terms of defending America as the number one priority."

So Sen. Inhofe is against any energy alternatives to big oil. :

Seriously? In an environment (pun intended) of reducing defense spending ANYTHING not explicitly for the warfighter to win wars should have ZERO priority for the DOD.

This is friggin the security of the nation you want this crap FUND IT elsewhere.

They are cutting 5 BCT's while spending money on this crap what an absolute disgrace and an affront to the brave men and women in our armed services.

 

[Sundog]

Has Inhofe even figured out how to land on runways that aren't closed yet? He should have had his license revoked, but he's a Senator. He's another one of the Comic Book Guide to reality kids. I'm shocked anyone is dumb enough to take anything he says seriously. He must really hate the Pentagon, because the Pentagon thinks Climate Change is the greatest threat we face. I wonder how the F-35s are going to fight that, regardless of numbers?

He must be planning to use their stealth features to sneak up on Mother Nature and take her out. Supporting life on Earth, take that lefty Commie out!!!

 

[bobbymike]

Has Inhofe even figured out how to land on runways that aren't closed yet? He should have had his license revoked, but he's a Senator. He's another one of the Comic Book Guide to reality kids. I'm shocked anyone is dumb enough to take anything he says seriously. He must really hate the Pentagon, because the Pentagon thinks Climate Change is the greatest threat we face. I wonder how the F-35s are going to fight that, regardless of numbers?

He must be planning to use their stealth features to sneak up on Mother Nature and take her out. Supporting life on Earth, take that lefty Commie out!!!

Do you really believe this is what the Pentagon thinks, no politics involved? 'Climate Change' give me a break what happened to global warming? Oh the earth hasn't warmed for 17 years QUICK change the name.

Quick tell me what the annual average temperature of the USA should be? Come on we say its too hot or too cold I need to know the EXACT temperature the US is supposed to be.

Next tell me the EXACT public policy needed to achieve the perfect temperature? And I need China and India to go along with these policies.

Greenpeace founder I am sure he is in the pocket of Big Oil as well

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/greenpeace-cofounder-patrick-moore-tells-us-senate-there-is-no-proof-humans-cause-climate-change-9159627.html

 

[sferrin]

Has Inhofe even figured out how to land on runways that aren't closed yet? He should have had his license revoked, but he's a Senator. He's another one of the Comic Book Guide to reality kids. I'm shocked anyone is dumb enough to take anything he says seriously. He must really hate the Pentagon, because the Pentagon thinks Climate Change is the greatest threat we face.

Yeah, and we know who gives them their marching orders don't we? Exactly what do you think would have happened to those in charge at the Pentagon if they'd said, "Climate Change doesn't have **** on nuclear weapons. Using Pentagon resources on even commenting on Climate Change is a waste of money."

 

[Triton]

Ah jeez, I didn't know that President Barack Obama was such a tyrant that he could fund $120 billion on the "climage change" agenda without the approval of Congress. But he is feckless on standing up to the Russian Federation. Sen. Inhofe doesn't even document how he came up with the $120 billion, he could have pulled the number out of his ass.

 

[sferrin]

Ah jeez, I didn't know that President Barack Obama was such a tyrant that he could fund $120 billion on the "climage change" agenda without the approval of Congress.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

 

[SOC]

As we cut defense unauthorized spending on the 'climate change' agenda is enough to have purchased 1400 F-35s

http://therightscoop.com/sen-inhofe-for-the-money-obama-has-spent-on-on-environmental-agenda-we-could-have-1400-f-35s/

1400? For $120 billion? This guy get drug tested recently? He's a nutjob anyway, perfectly representative of what's wrong with the Republican party.

He must really hate the Pentagon, because the Pentagon thinks Climate Change is the greatest threat we face.

Then why does the 2014 QDR label it as "another significant challenge" instead of the greatest threat?

And actually, looking at this from the outside for a second, this "$120 million for a solar farm at Fort Bliss. $75 million in fiscal year '14 appropriations for alternative energy research. $160 million the Navy contributed towards biofuels initiatives, retrofitting and building refineries in both FY'12 and FY'13" actually does seem to line up with some of what the QDR mentions. So not only can Genius not do math, but he possibly doesn't understand what he's talking about.

Bet he gets re-elected though, we're awesome at not changing people who are useless. Hence Obama for 8 years.

 

[sferrin]

Bet he gets re-elected though, we're awesome at not changing people who are useless. Hence Obama for 8 years.

I REALLY wish there was a way to mandate that in order to propose or vote on a law/measure/whatnot in Washington that one must have demonstrated they understand what the hell they're talking about. Youtube is full of examples of politicians of every stripe babbling on barely more intelligently than your average Youtube commenter - on any subject one can dream up - and then passing legislation based on their "knowledge".

 

[SOC]

Youtube is full of examples of politicians of every stripe babbling on barely more intelligently than your average Youtube commenter - on any subject one can dream up - and then passing legislation based on their "knowledge".

Fine, so they're proven idiots. At that point, I no longer blame them, as their intelligence is a known commodity. The fault for the problems they create lies solely at the feet of the people who keep re-electing the idiots.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

I'm a big F-35 supporter, but I don't think conflating it with climate change and partisan political grandstanding is a good strategy. Raising it in this context is going to draw negative attention imo. These are two separate and unrelated issues. That money was never going to go into defense anyway.

 

[sferrin]

Youtube is full of examples of politicians of every stripe babbling on barely more intelligently than your average Youtube commenter - on any subject one can dream up - and then passing legislation based on their "knowledge".

Fine, so they're proven idiots. At that point, I no longer blame them, as their intelligence is a known commodity. The fault for the problems they create lies solely at the feet of the people who keep re-electing the idiots.

Oh, I totally agree. My 2nd decree would be politicians have 1 year to make good on their promises or the trapdoor opens beneath them. How often do we see pols lie their a$$es off to get elected and then do an about face? In the end though it's still our own fault. How could anybody in their right mind have voted Obama President of the United States? What experience did he have? Almost all previous Presidents had at least been state governors and had a clue. Sure, that's not a guaranteed home run (look at Carter) but damn.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I've got a few:

1. They cannot pass a law until they demonstrate the Constitutional Authority to implement it.

2. Balanced Budget Ammendment that requires a 3/4 vote in both houses to override for "National Emergencies".

3. Fair Tax


btw, the 1400 for $120 billion are quoting the $85 million Full Rate Production price for the F-35A. Right or wrong, at least he is using an official number.

 

[Racer]

btw, the 1400 for $120 billion are quoting the $85 million Full Rate Production price for the F-35A. Right or wrong, at least he is using an official number.

You mean "official guess" on future possible cost numbers? Because the official numbers are different.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-details-five-year-spending-plan-396901/

"The US Air Force on 11 March released a detailed budget proposal showing how much it intends to spend in the five-year period to fiscal year 2019 on current and next-generation aircraft programmes.

The plan calls for an investment of almost $28 billion over five years to purchase 238 Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighters, at an average flyaway cost of about $107 million each."

 

[RyanC]

The STOVL requirement gets a lot of blame but if that wasn't there, what would the USAF do differently?

What they're doing now; filling the empty space where the lift fan was with more fuel.


The true impact of STOVL requirement is programmatic; there was only so much money and manpower to go around in the program for both the airframe and powerplant -- and STOVL capability sucked away a lot of that in return for a marginal return on investment.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The plan calls for an investment of almost $28 billion over five years to purchase 238 Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighters, at an average flyaway cost of about $107 million each."

That is the average cost for the next five years.

He was taking about the cost to buy the Australian F-35As during FRP not American LRIP F-35s.

 

[sferrin]

The STOVL requirement gets a lot of blame but if that wasn't there, what would the USAF do differently?

What they're doing now; filling the empty space where the lift fan was with more fuel.


The true impact of STOVL requirement is programmatic; there was only so much money and manpower to go around in the program for both the airframe and powerplant -- and STOVL capability sucked away a lot of that in return for a marginal return on investment.

A rather LARGE margin at that. 11 additional flight decks at sea operating stealth fighters is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[kcran567]

The F-22 isn't for sale. Even if it were in production. Which it isn't.

Yeah I know about the F-22s status but my point was do the Canadians know that LockMart doesn't think they need the level of air superiority that the Raptor provides? Are the Canadians going to get the easy missions?

They might beg to differ.

What? You think Lockheed Martin is dictating what Canada buys? For real?

What other choice is available to Canada? The only allied source of aircraft available to them is US made equipment and the F-35 is a must for Lockheed to sell at this point, so yes, Canada will be force fed the F-35 and complaining about it the whole time.

I think it is a highly relevant comment. How is the F-35 going to achieve air superiority in a high threat environment without the F-22? And what government is going to want to pay some big buck serious mega-cash for a fighter that is lackluster in the air-superiority role?

How has Canada's F/A-18 done it without the F-14 Tomcat providing the high end for the last 30 years? Do you have any actual evidence that the F-35 is "lackluster" in the air-superiority role?

What evidence do you have that the F-35 is going to viable in the air to air role especially considering its high price? This has already been gone over so many times I'm not going to rehash the whole list of deficiencies that make the F-35 hardly an air to air superiority fighter vs. its projected threats. Its a strike fighter/light bomber, the main role it was designed for. The F-35 was built to not be a threat to the F-22, and again, the F-22 is cancelled. The F-35 could have been designed to be a very good lightweight fighter the air to air role, but politics and threats to other programs always seem to limit the low end fighter to mainly the strike role. So the best solution is to sell the F-35 as a highly capable air to air fighter.

 

[Dreamfighter]

whole list of deficiencies that make the F-35 hardly an air to air superiority fighter vs. its projected threatsble air to air fighter.

Let's go 20+ years back in time;
I would never imagine the West sending F-16s or F/A-18s to try to go gain air-superiority over squadrons of Su-27s and MiG-31s, unless no better options (F-14, F-15, Tornado ADV) are available at a certain moment.
Viper and Hornet weren't air-superiority fighters either, at least not against contemporary higher-end opponents. Every NATO-nation equipped with F-16s or F/A-18s (Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Spain, ...) would have depended on assistance by US F-14s and F-15s for killing off Flankers and Foxhounds, let's not fool ourselves the job would have been accomplished without them.

 

[sferrin]

What evidence do you have that the F-35 is going to viable in the air to air role especially considering its high price? This has already been gone over so many times I'm not going to rehash the whole list of deficiencies that make the F-35 hardly an air to air superiority fighter vs. its projected threats. Its

Yes, it has. Which makes one wonder why people keep trotting out the "OMG F-35 sux in combat" old saw. Pilots actually flying the thing say it will be great. Please, tell us your sources who know more than the pilots actually flying the thing. All ears.

 

[sferrin]

Viper and Hornet weren't air-superiority fighters either, at least not against contemporary higher-end opponents. Every NATO-nation equipped with F-16s or F/A-18s (Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Spain, ...) would have depended on assistance by US F-14s and F-15s for killing off Flankers and Foxhounds, let's not fool ourselves the job would have been accomplished without them.

It's amusing that those whining about the F-35 not being an F-22 when it comes to air combat like to pretend that, somehow, F-16s and F/A-18s were actually F-15s and F-14 in the air combat mission.

 

[sferrin]

What other choice is available to Canada? The only allied source of aircraft available to them is US made equipment and the F-35 is a must for Lockheed to sell at this point, so yes, Canada will be force fed the F-35 and complaining about it the whole time.

Complete BS. Canada could buy the Super Hornet, F-15, or any of 3 flavors of Eurocanard. There are 5 non-Lockheed Martin options right there.

 

[Radical]

As we cut defense unauthorized spending on the 'climate change' agenda is enough to have purchased 1400 F-35s

http://therightscoop.com/sen-inhofe-for-the-money-obama-has-spent-on-on-environmental-agenda-we-could-have-1400-f-35s/

Decline is a choice.

I'm of the opinion that Obama is a rather ineffective president, but Senator Inhofe makes the president look downright saintly. Nowhere does he mention how he got $120 billion out of, though I suppose he is somewhat correct in using the projected FRP cost of 85 million per F-35. Then again, take a look at some of his other statements.

"...global warming is the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state."

This is the best part.

"Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

I'm sorry, but the fact that he defers to the Bible when talking about the science of Earth's climate is just absurd. This is a guy I just can't take seriously.

 

[Dreamfighter]

"... the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state."

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]So these are the words of a US senator? I wasn't aware the Taliban had infiltrated the US Senate...
[/font]

... what He is doing in the climate..."

Smoking heavy tobacco in Chinese atmosphere? Experimenting with marihuana above north-west Europe past week?

 

[kcran567]

What evidence do you have that the F-35 is going to viable in the air to air role especially considering its high price? This has already been gone over so many times I'm not going to rehash the whole list of deficiencies that make the F-35 hardly an air to air superiority fighter vs. its projected threats. Its

Yes, it has. Which makes one wonder why people keep trotting out the "OMG F-35 sux in combat" old saw. Pilots actually flying the thing say it will be great. Please, tell us your sources who know more than the pilots actually flying the thing. All ears.

Pilots are notorious for being excited to fly the latest aircraft. I know if I were a pilot I would be espousing how great the F35 is. That and I doubt any pilot is going to say anything contradictory to the standard talk about how great it is. That being said must the F35 require the F22 to protect it on its missions where there are enemy air superiority fighters and how is the F35 now is an air superiority fighter now that the F22 is cancelled?

 

[Dragon029]

This is somewhat opinion, but as previously mentioned, it's because of a difference in standards.

Is there an aircraft that can seriously challenge the F-22? Pretty much no (if the PAKFA lives up to all it's expectations, then it may present somewhat of a threat).

Is there an aircraft that can seriously challenge the F-35? Sure; the PAKFA, J-20, J-31, the Su-35S, etc are all competent machines with a lot of capability.

Are they greater than the F-35? In some areas, particularly kinematic areas, certainly.

Will they be more survivable and capable than the F-35? The answer is uncertain due there not having been a war to put the relevant systems head-to-head, but according to the leader in air supremacy and aviation doctrine, the F-35 will be superior in combat when fielded in a realistic and operational manner.

With that, keep in mind that as a couple have stressed, the F-35 is but a system within a system. The aircraft never kills the enemy (so to speak), it's always the bullet / missile, guided by the aircraft, controlled by the pilot, informed by his sensors, directed by early warning and C3 systems, etc.
Each is a multiplier of force projection, and if you don't develop each one without thinking of the others, then you're not doing yourself a favour. The F-35 is a case where they have put a lot of thought into system integration.

 

[sferrin]

Is there an aircraft that can seriously challenge the F-35? Sure; the PAKFA, J-20, J-31, the Su-35S, etc are all competent machines with a lot of capability.

Two things: 1. It remains to be seen to what degree either the Russian or Chinese *actually* have expertise in stealth. 2. If they're a challenge to the F-35 imagine how dominant they would be over the 4th gen.

 

[sferrin]

Pilots are notorious for being excited to fly the latest aircraft. I know if I were a pilot I would be espousing how great the F35 is. That and I doubt any pilot is going to say anything contradictory to the standard talk about how great it is. That being said must the F35 require the F22 to protect it on its missions where there are enemy air superiority fighters and how is the F35 now is an air superiority fighter now that the F22 is cancelled?

Pilots are not excited to be flying crappy airplanes, new or not.

That being said must the F35 require the F22 to protect it on its missions where there are enemy air superiority fighters and how is the F35 now is an air superiority fighter now that the F22 is cancelled?

You are aware there are 180+ F-22s in service right? Secondly, how is this different than F-15's and F-14s flying top cover for F-16s and F/A-18s?

 

[bobbymike]

Pilots are notorious for being excited to fly the latest aircraft. I know if I were a pilot I would be espousing how great the F35 is. That and I doubt any pilot is going to say anything contradictory to the standard talk about how great it is. That being said must the F35 require the F22 to protect it on its missions where there are enemy air superiority fighters and how is the F35 now is an air superiority fighter now that the F22 is cancelled?

Pilots are not excited to be flying crappy airplanes, new or not.

That being said must the F35 require the F22 to protect it on its missions where there are enemy air superiority fighters and how is the F35 now is an air superiority fighter now that the F22 is cancelled?

You are aware there are 180+ F-22s in service right? Secondly, how is this different than F-15's and F-14s flying top cover for F-16s and F/A-18s?

I so wish we were building the original 700 F-22 fleet :'(

http://freebeacon.com/stolen-f-35-secrets-now-showing-up-in-chinas-stealth-fighter/

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Topic is 290 pages long. Closing for a rest.