• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Should the F-35 be scrapped?

daenku32 said:
About 2000 more planes than we need. That kind of money could have been put into something more productive & beneficial.
Click to expand...
Even 2000+ is very tight, considering the amount of airspace that the US will try to control.
 
AWPrime said:
The B-52 is subsonic, those last longer, but even now its getting risky.
Click to expand...


The wink in my comment was intended to show I made my point with tongue in cheek, since clearly it is not entirely fair to compare a strategic bomber to an air superiority fighter. But as a technical point, the B-52 has been around quite a bit longer than thirty years.
 
B-52s are solid 'rugged' designs, this saved them from the scrapheap (unlike many of their contemporaries). But I would advice building new ones.
 
daenku32 said:
About 2000 more planes than we need. That kind of money could have been put into something more productive & beneficial.
Click to expand...
Argument from authority. Please present your credentials as an extensively-trained, highly-experienced, and well-informed military strategy analyst, qualified to assert how many F-35s are needed and how "productive & beneficial" they are compared to other spending options.

Or retract your claim.

KTHXBAI
 
theprestige said:
Argument from authority. Please present your credentials as an extensively-trained, highly-experienced, and well-informed military strategy analyst, qualified to assert how many F-35s are needed and how "productive & beneficial" they are compared to other spending options.

Or retract your claim.

KTHXBAI
Click to expand...

Argument from Authority? I think you need to re-read the definition:
Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

I didn't do any of that. I made an opinionated statement.
 
daenku32 said:
Argument from Authority? I think you need to re-read the definition:
Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

I didn't do any of that. I made an opinionated statement.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it is 2000 more planes than we need? Are you aware that those 2000 will be replacing some 3500+ planes?
 
Ove said:
Couldn't you persuade them to scrap it NOW...? It seems that my goverment, inticed by a bunch of GUNG-HO fighter pilots that would love to get their hands on a "new toy" will decide to buy this billiondollar "wondertoy".
It would be a very expensive failure because the plane is much much too complex to the simple tasks we need a fighterplane for and FAR too expensive. The decision is to be taken in a couple of months but the manufacturer has alleready signed contracts with Danish companies for co-production, something that smells avfully IMHO.

The Swedish "JAS Gripen" is far more suited to our needs and much cheaper.
Click to expand...

Seconded.
It looks like our military is being reconfigured as an "expeditionary force" it would make more sense to buy something like the Gripen that can be operated from a less than perfect airfield, and where you get more planes for the money.
 
Toke said:
Seconded.
It looks like our military is being reconfigured as an "expeditionary force" it would make more sense to buy something like the Gripen that can be operated from a less than perfect airfield, and where you get more planes for the money.
Click to expand...
With these "less than perfect" airfields (highways), just how do all the support apparatus get there? You know, fuel, mechanics, spare parts, weapons, radar, housing, etc etc.

A runway is a tiny percentage of an air base, fine for an emergency landing I guess but what about everything besides that?

The Gripen is only moderately less expensive than the F-35 ($25 million or so) and far less capable. You probably wouldn't need as many F-35s as Gripens. When all is said and done the Gripen is still a quarter-century old design.
 
WildCat said:
With these "less than perfect" airfields (highways), just how do all the support apparatus get there? You know, fuel, mechanics, spare parts, weapons, radar, housing, etc etc.

A runway is a tiny percentage of an air base, fine for an emergency landing I guess but what about everything besides that?
Click to expand...
I do realize that the "airfield support in a truck"* is not the same as a real one. I imagine that the Gripen can fly several sorties from highway+truck before returning to the workshop for checkups.
*I guess the trucks can drive from nearest port to the highway bit in question. And the Gripen can fit on a flat rack and maybe take off from the pier or nearest road.

The Gripen is only moderately less expensive than the F-35 ($25 million or so) and far less capable. You probably wouldn't need as many F-35s as Gripens. When all is said and done the Gripen is still a quarter-century old design.
Click to expand...
Yes, less capable.
But what capabilities are needed and at what price?
How expensive an airplane do you need to drop a bomb on a house?


ETA: I may have a shipping bias, I work on one of the RO/RO ships chartered by SOK for military transports.
 
Last edited:
Toke said:
Yes, less capable.
But what capabilities are needed and at what price?
How expensive an airplane do you need to drop a bomb on a house?
Click to expand...
1 F-35 can do what it would take 2-3 Gripen to accomplish as far as "bombing houses" goes because the F-35 can carry far more ordnance than the Gripen can. Couple that with stealth and it's no contest. Far less likley an F-35 will get shot down than a Gripen. If you're looking for bang for the buck the F-35 wins and it's no contest. 2-3 times the capability at just 30% higher cost.

Cut the fleet by a third and you have more capability at the same cost.
 
WildCat said:
1 F-35 can do what it would take 2-3 Gripen to accomplish as far as "bombing houses" goes because the F-35 can carry far more ordnance than the Gripen can. Couple that with stealth and it's no contest. Far less likley an F-35 will get shot down than a Gripen. If you're looking for bang for the buck the F-35 wins and it's no contest. 2-3 times the capability at just 30% higher cost.

Cut the fleet by a third and you have more capability at the same cost.
Click to expand...

Or you could pay at worst 2/3 for planes that can be operated in the theaters where you need them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom