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.
 
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...
So you admit that you're not actually an authority on the subject, and that you actually have no factual or theoretical basis for determining how many F-35s are appropriate?
 
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...
So you admit that you're not actually an authority on the subject, and that you actually have no factual or theoretical basis for determining how many F-35s are appropriate?

ETA: I mean, sure, you somehow magically know exactly how many F-35s are enough, but when someone calls you on it, suddenly it's just, like, your opinion, man.

Is there anything I should know about, that would encourage me to take your opinion on this issue seriously?
 
theprestige said:
So you admit that you're not actually an authority on the subject, and that you actually have no factual or theoretical basis for determining how many F-35s are appropriate?

ETA: I mean, sure, you somehow magically know exactly how many F-35s are enough, but when someone calls you on it, suddenly it's just, like, your opinion, man.

Is there anything I should know about, that would encourage me to take your opinion on this issue seriously?
Click to expand...

Well one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is about 2,000 more than would be required to defend us from our only neighbors who are in a position to threaten us with airstrikes, Mexico and Canada.

Or one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is probably about 1,900 more than necessary to take out the entire airforce of Iran (whose top two planes, numerically, are the F-4 Phantom II, and the P-47 Thunderbolt (yeah, really). Number 3 goes to the F-5E.

Or I could go on...
 
GreyICE said:
Well one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is about 2,000 more than would be required to defend us from our only neighbors who are in a position to threaten us with airstrikes, Mexico and Canada.
Click to expand...

As if that was our only (or even primary) security concern or possible need for fighter planes.

Or one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is probably about 1,900 more than necessary to take out the entire airforce of Iran
Click to expand...

This too is irrelevant. Having only enough forces to take on Iran, or any other rogue state, would be a rather stupid move on our part.

And tell me, how many planes do you think we'd need if we went to war with China over Taiwan? You apparently think you can evaluate our military requirements, surely you can answer this question. And when you answer, don't forget that we can't afford to deploy our entire force to that conflict, so make sure you count the planes which we'd keep available elsewhere.
 
Ziggurat said:
As if that was our only (or even primary) security concern or possible need for fighter planes.



This too is irrelevant. Having only enough forces to take on Iran, or any other rogue state, would be a rather stupid move on our part.

And tell me, how many planes do you think we'd need if we went to war with China over Taiwan? You apparently think you can evaluate our military requirements, surely you can answer this question. And when you answer, don't forget that we can't afford to deploy our entire force to that conflict, so make sure you count the planes which we'd keep available elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Zero. BAC is busy arguing in another thread why nuclear weapons make such things impossible, and since you're such bosom buddies, I'm sure you'd agree with him.

In any case, economic and military realities have rendered such a conflict... unrealistic. We're preparing for a war we'll never fight.

P.S. There's the question of why we'd want to.
 
GreyICE said:
Zero. BAC is busy arguing in another thread why nuclear weapons make such things impossible, and since you're such bosom buddies, I'm sure you'd agree with him.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong. My interactions with BAC hardly consist of me defending him.

In any case, economic and military realities have rendered such a conflict... unrealistic.
Click to expand...

The possibility of war with China over Taiwan is hardly unrealistic. I consider it unlikely, but that's not close to the same thing. And guarding against catastrophic events can be worthwhile even if those events are unlikely.

We're preparing for a war we'll never fight.
Click to expand...

Preparing for a war is one of the ways we can help make sure we'll never fight it.

P.S. There's the question of why we'd want to.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, because being ready and willing to do so, and making both the capability and will apparent, is one of the best ways to help prevent China from attacking Taiwan.
 
GreyICE said:
Well one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is about 2,000 more than would be required to defend us from our only neighbors who are in a position to threaten us with airstrikes, Mexico and Canada.

Or one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is probably about 1,900 more than necessary to take out the entire airforce of Iran (whose top two planes, numerically, are the F-4 Phantom II, and the P-47 Thunderbolt (yeah, really). Number 3 goes to the F-5E.

Or I could go on...
Click to expand...
Well, since Mexico, Canada, and Iran are the only other nations in the world besides the United States, I doubt you need to go on. Your entire point is well made already, I should think.
 
But why? Why is it necessary to spend billions of dollars on a contingency even you admit is unlikely?

I mean we could equally say that all sorts of worthless preparation makes sure nothing happens, but I don't think the argument that Feng Shui obviously prevents all the demon problems that it would result if you didn't Feng Shui the room very good.

China isn't going to attack Taiwan anymore. 20 years ago? Sure. But now? Nah. Too much to lose, and they've realized nothing to gain.
 
theprestige said:
Well, since Mexico, Canada, and Iran are the only other nations in the world besides the United States, I doubt you need to go on. Your entire point is well made already, I should think.
Click to expand...

Reading is tech. I know sentences longer than ten words are tough. That's why I keep these short. But really. It's worth reading past the first 10.
 
GreyICE said:
Well one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is about 2,000 more than would be required to defend us from our only neighbors who are in a position to threaten us with airstrikes, Mexico and Canada.
Click to expand...
The buffer of two oceans was rendered irrelevant in 1916, no less 1941. Likewise with airspace, not to mention American policy since about 1941 has been to be engaged globally, and to be a power rather than sit at home and watch the other powers play. Once you get that piece, the rest falls into place.

DR
 
GreyICE said:
But why? Why is it necessary to spend billions of dollars on a contingency even you admit is unlikely?
Click to expand...

First off, because it's not the only contingency which this spending protects us against. And secondly, the worst of these contingencies are made unlikely precisely because of such spending.

China isn't going to attack Taiwan anymore.
Click to expand...

Not everyone agrees with this assessment. Nor is this the only threat. It's merely one example of a case which would require far more air power than tackling Iran would.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not everyone agrees with this assessment. Nor is this the only threat. It's merely one example of a case which would require far more air power than tackling Iran would.
Click to expand...

And the strength of american air power might have a significant influence on the likelihood of such a confrontation.
 
Darth Rotor said:
The buffer of two oceans was rendered irrelevant in 1916, no less 1941. Likewise with airspace, not to mention American policy since about 1941 has been to be engaged globally, and to be a power rather than sit at home and watch the other powers play. Once you get that piece, the rest falls into place.

DR
Click to expand...

No, it really wasn't. Something you seem to forget is that we DIDN'T HAVE all the stuff we fought WW I and II with. We made it. On the spot. Reasonably quickly. With computer-operated factories, robotic cutting instruments, rapid prototyping, etc., there really is no technological barrier to retooling at a pace that would kick the pants off the WWI/II era retooling.

So your justification of your point is pretty much an abject failure. If we need it, we can make it.

P.S. I think we could make quite a few factories with that cash. They could be used to make airplanes if we needed them, and if we didn't, oh look, they can make something useful. Wait, that would almost be a stimulus, which we can't do, we can only spend government money on military pork.
 
Ziggurat said:
First off, because it's not the only contingency which this spending protects us against. And secondly, the worst of these contingencies are made unlikely precisely because of such spending.

Not everyone agrees with this assessment. Nor is this the only threat. It's merely one example of a case which would require far more air power than tackling Iran would.
Click to expand...

When your job is to justify spending, you'd be amazed at how good you become at justifying... spending. The pentagon will always have 9,000 scenarios to explain why we need 18 trillion gizmotos to stop Middle Eastern penguins from eating New Zealand.

Really, we could get by with a lot less if we focused less on being an irrelevant superpower, and more on being a 21st century paradigm, instead of a 20th century one.
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
No, it really wasn't. Something you seem to forget is that we DIDN'T HAVE all the stuff we fought WW I and II with. We made it. On the spot. Reasonably quickly. With computer-operated factories, robotic cutting instruments, rapid prototyping, etc., there really is no technological barrier to retooling at a pace that would kick the pants off the WWI/II era retooling.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to have grasped what I was telling you, so your next statement makes less sense than the above.
So your justification of your point is pretty much an abject failure. If we need it, we can make it.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand the industrial base, and at the moment, I am out of time. Your assertion is fantasy, but I regret that I shall have to give you a better response later.

Until then.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
You don't seem to have grasped what I was telling you, so your next statement makes less sense than the above.
Click to expand...
Okay, care to clarify? Your reference to our enterence dates to WW I/II seems pretty clear to me, so I can't possibly think what else you're referring to. I'll happily admit to occasionally having no clue what you're rambling off about, but that one seemed pretty clear in my book.
I don't think you understand the industrial base, and at the moment, I am out of time. Your assertion is fantasy, but I regret that I shall have to give you a better response later.

Until then.

DR
Click to expand...
The industrial base of what? Cuba? How does this make sense? I guess I'll await clarification.
 
GreyICE said:
When your job is to justify spending, you'd be amazed at how good you become at justifying... spending. The pentagon will always have 9,000 scenarios to explain why we need 18 trillion gizmotos to stop Middle Eastern penguins from eating New Zealand.

Really, we could get by with a lot less if we focused less on being an irrelevant superpower, and more on being a 21st century paradigm, instead of a 20th century one.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your confidence in me and my compatriots.
But we are not miracle workers. To build a competitive aircraft/weapons delivery system takes time--not to mention the testing required. Don't know about you, but I am not willing to risk YOUR life on an untried, untested system, nor are any engineers I know of.
How long did it take us to sweep the air clean during Desert Storm? A weapons system from concept to deployment in <1 week. It is to laugh. You obviously have no idea at the complexity of the systems . Hell, just keeping the electronics from overheating in modern aircraft requires systems that use the fuel for coolant!
The birds flown in WW II were already on the boards when the war broke out. Most of them were very close to flying--the others were improvements on existing designs.
 
GreyICE said:
When your job is to justify spending, you'd be amazed at how good you become at justifying... spending. The pentagon will always have 9,000 scenarios to explain why we need 18 trillion gizmotos to stop Middle Eastern penguins from eating New Zealand.
Click to expand...

The Pentagon doesn't make the funding decisions.

Really, we could get by with a lot less if we focused less on being an irrelevant superpower, and more on being a 21st century paradigm, instead of a 20th century one.
Click to expand...

Your views about what America should be, and probably the consequences of that as well, are not shared very widely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom