But, you get what you pay for. I suppose in todays warfare where you're more likely to be fighting some separatist/insurgency. A MiG would do. IdunnololDilbert_X wrote:
One is not good enough, the other is too expensive.
I'd buy MiGs.
agreed.Kmarion wrote:
Their both a waste of money.
IE:Parker wrote:
agreed.Kmarion wrote:
Their both a waste of money.
its not like our enemies can even get in the fucking air, much less compete with the latest technology.
Dilbert_X wrote:
I'd buy MiGs.
I debated this out awhile ago. It's not as if we are ever going to be fighting Chinese over the Siberian forest.Parker wrote:
agreed.Kmarion wrote:
Their both a waste of money.
its not like our enemies can even get in the fucking air, much less compete with the latest technology.
Kmarion wrote:
The military buys Ferrari's when the family really needs a Minivan .
You are inventing possible threats that most likely will never happen to justify a new toy. Meanwhile you end up paying much more for an aircraft that does little more to protect you here in the real world (You get less of what you need).The Navy insists the program is within budget, but maintains its numbers only by deferring problems. The F-22 Raptor, a supremely-unnecessary air-superiority fighter, is over budget $667 million years before the first plane has been produced for combat. The contractor, in a wonderful blackmail effort, has warned that costs will shoot higher if the Air Force does not continue to buy an unwanted aircraft, the C-130J, to keep assembly lines open. The final aircraft, the Joint Strike Fighter, is lagging in development, but being rushed forward. Its purchase will force an annual doubling of the aircraft procurement budget, even if costs do not increase one dollar beyond current projections. Yet, in an air campaign such as those in Yugoslavia or Iraq, it offers little more than planes we have.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/featur … itary.htmlWe are buying the future force the generals and admirals, Congressmen and contractors want, not the one we will need. This is waste just short of treason.
They don't really need replacing though.mikeyb118 wrote:
F-35 A - Replaces F-16
B - Replaces Harrier GR9
C - Replaces FA-18
F-22 replaces the F-15E
True, but airframes do have age limits.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
They don't really need replacing though.mikeyb118 wrote:
F-35 A - Replaces F-16
B - Replaces Harrier GR9
C - Replaces FA-18
F-22 replaces the F-15E
Actually, I'm pretty sure the F-15E is staying in service, the F-22 will be replacing F-15C/D models.mikeyb118 wrote:
True, but airframes do have age limits.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
They don't really need replacing though.mikeyb118 wrote:
F-35 A - Replaces F-16
B - Replaces Harrier GR9
C - Replaces FA-18
F-22 replaces the F-15E
F-35A replaces F-16 and A-10mikeyb118 wrote:
F-35 A - Replaces F-16
B - Replaces Harrier GR9
C - Replaces FA-18
F-22 replaces the F-15E
Did you not hear about this? Just one of many stories.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
They don't really need replacing though.mikeyb118 wrote:
F-35 A - Replaces F-16
B - Replaces Harrier GR9
C - Replaces FA-18
F-22 replaces the F-15E
While I agree the F-22 is heinously expensive, nobody's "inventing possible threats...to justify a new toy". Unless the Indians are in on it.Kmarion wrote:
You are inventing possible threats that most likely will never happen to justify a new toy. Meanwhile you end up paying much more for an aircraft that does little more to protect you here in the real world (You get less of what you need).
We can only hope that our potential adversaries take your sage advice.Dilbert_X wrote:
One is not good enough, the other is too expensive.
I'd buy MiGs.
Why do you say that? The F/A 18 is the newest airframe on the list to be replaced, and that is still 20 years old. Plus, reducing the different types of aircraft simplifies maitenance and logistics concerns, lowering costs of upkeep, which far outstrip the original price over the life of the aircraft.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
They don't really need replacing though.mikeyb118 wrote:
F-35 A - Replaces F-16
B - Replaces Harrier GR9
C - Replaces FA-18
F-22 replaces the F-15E
There has been a lot of talk about the F-35 taking over the A-10's mission. I had the opportunity to talk with one of the project managers last year, and he made it clear that there was some intent to take a large portion of the A-10's mission. He also stated some opinions which contradict most current AF thinking, so I don't know how widely accepted his ideas are.motherdear wrote:
Feos, the f35 will not replace the A-10, it might accompliment it but it will not take over the role it has at the moment, it simply does not have the same advantages (heavier cargo loads, the ability to take serious amounts of punishment to the airframe, slower flying speed making it better for the CAS role).
but as other people said in here the airframes (harrier etc) does not need replacement, in my true opinion i believe that that is absolute bullshit, for every plane you have to have different replacement parts, pilots, mechanics and a whole lot of technicians for each plane, if you only have one plane (but with different types) they will safe money on maintainance and training of pilots etc. saving a lot on the defense budgets.
also one of the major reasons why the F-35 is cheaper is because the amount that is produced (supply and demand) which makes it cheaper, also the materials it is produced with are in some cases cheaper (but not weaker, but since there is a time difference between each developed airframe you are able to incorporate different materials into the airframe and systems that were not possible to be used on earlier airframes)
and last but not least, if you think that you have adequate products eventually other corporations/nations will overtake you eventually. if you just think that because you have a good aircraft it will stay that way you are very wrong, if you do not keep developing and advancing your products they will eventually lose. so research and development is very important and you must keep upgrading to stay on top.
it makes sense to take over some of the missions, but with the new upgrade pack for the A-10 coming up (making it much, much more efficient) it seems very unlikely that it will take the A-10's missionRAIMIUS wrote:
There has been a lot of talk about the F-35 taking over the A-10's mission. I had the opportunity to talk with one of the project managers last year, and he made it clear that there was some intent to take a large portion of the A-10's mission. He also stated some opinions which contradict most current AF thinking, so I don't know how widely accepted his ideas are.
