Should the F-35 be scrapped?

[NWO Sentryman]

For the military buffs here:

Should the F-35 JSF be scrapped?

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

To be replaced with what?

They scrapped the F-22 (future procurement of the F-22 anyway). The JSF should be a cheaper, more versatile plane. It's also being backed by several other countries, so no, I don't think they should -- and would be surprised if they did.

 

[WildCat]

No.

 

[a_unique_person]

Those drones seem to be getting the real work done.

 

[WildCat]

Those drones seem to be getting the real work done.

Let me know when a drone takes out an enemy aircraft.

 

[Taarkin]

Let me know when a drone takes out an enemy aircraft.

Let me know when we're threatened by a country with a modern-ish air force.

 

[WildCat]

Let me know when we're threatened by a country with a modern-ish air force.

Yes, that would be the time to take our fighter fleet out of moth balls and start production on the F-35. I'm sure we'd have several years to do this...

 

[a_unique_person]

I hear the Russians have got some decent, cheap fighters that are good enough for now. They will even barter for them.

 

[geni]

Let me know when a drone takes out an enemy aircraft.

Hasn't been much in the way of an opportunity yet. In fact I'm not sure there has been a clash between a UAV with arial combat ability and a maned aircraft since the Gulf War.

 

[geni]

For the military buffs here:

Should the F-35 JSF be scrapped?

Can't keep updateing the F-16 forever. The harrier is also seriously starting to show it's age. There is a slight lack of alturnatives to the JSF at the moment.

 

[WildCat]

Hasn't been much in the way of an opportunity yet. In fact I'm not sure there has been a clash between a UAV with arial combat ability and a maned aircraft since the Gulf War.

What UAV has aerial combat ability?

 

[geni]

What UAV has aerial combat ability?

Anything you can stick a AA missile on. RQ-1 Predator has enough lift capacity. From 2002:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/tech/main551126.shtml

Limited to flying SAM sites at the moment mind.

 

[WildCat]

Anything you can stick a AA missile on. RQ-1 Predator has enough lift capacity. From 2002:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/tech/main551126.shtml

Limited to flying SAM sites at the moment mind.

There's a lot more to aerial combat than being able to carry a missile.

 

[theprestige]

Let me know when a drone takes out an enemy aircraft.

Last time I checked, there were several categories of autonomous and semi-autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles that were designed specifically to engage and destroy aircraft.

There's also a whole other set of drone categories, designed specifically for engaging and destroying targets on the ground.

Most of them tend to be rocket-powered and single-use, but the principle is the same.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There's a lot more to aerial combat than being able to carry a missile.

But people will keep trying to boil it down to that, see the F4 Phantom.

 

[geni]

There's a lot more to aerial combat than being able to carry a missile.

That depends on your tactical doctrine. Obviously the flying SAM aproach has proven less than successful but it does exist (and considering the relative costs are you sure you can manage an 18:1 kill ratio against someone trying it?). If someone with a fair number of UAVs went up agaist someone with a decent number of aircraft I would expect to see some UAVs getting some kills. However it hasn't happened yet so the waiting for one to shoot something down is not a reasonable standard for the foreseeable future.


None of this makes them replacement for manned aircraft yet though. If they will be by 2016 is a more complex question.

 

[leftysergeant]

We pretty m,uch have air supremacy now. We DON'T have a hell of a lot of money to spend on new weapons systems. Mothball it or just let those countries that do have the need for a better ground-attack aircraft subsidize us to keep the production lines viable should we ever decide we need it. It would take a while for any potential enemy to arm up to the point that we need it.

Remember what Eisenhower said about spending money on the armaments industry when you have other needs.

Weapons production is good for the ecconomy only when you sell weapons to other users.

 

[geni]

We pretty m,uch have air supremacy now.

F-35 is not meant to be the US's Air supremacy fighter.

We DON'T have a hell of a lot of money to spend on new weapons systems. Mothball it or just let those countries that do have the need for a better ground-attack aircraft subsidize us to keep the production lines viable should we ever decide we need it.

Not going to be availible for sale until 2016 and if the US drops out other countries will go elsewhere.

It would take a while for any potential enemy to arm up to the point that we need it.

Actualy it would take about a week. Some of the more problematical saudi arabia senarios see to that.

Remember what Eisenhower said about spending money on the armaments industry when you have other needs.

Weapons production is good for the ecconomy only when you sell weapons to other users.

The F-35 is sellable to quite a number of non US users.

 

[leftysergeant]

Not going to be availible for sale until 2016 and if the US drops out other countries will go elsewhere.

]QUOTE]The F-35 is sellable to quite a number of non US users.[/QUOTE]

These two remarks do not seem consistant with each other.

If the US remains involved at all, it should be to produce planes for export.

 

[geni]

]QUOTE]The F-35 is sellable to quite a number of non US users.

These two remarks do not seem consistant with each other.

If the US remains involved at all, it should be to produce planes for export.[/QUOTE]

Development costs are such that if the US doesn't make a purchase that covers a significant chuck of them everyone else will look for a cheaper option.