close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Why hasnt the F-35 been cancelled yet?

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Slug71, Mar 16, 2012.

  1. Slug71

    Slug71

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,499
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Oregon - U.S.A
    The project is just a money pit now. The cost per plane has sky rocketed and the "partner" nations have just about all if not all threatened to pull out. Im sure at least one of them will.
    We cant afford those planes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
  2. Highspeedlane

    Highspeedlane NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,345
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    New England
    My guess? There's nothing better to replace it with. The 15 is aging to its breaking point and the 22 doesn't totally fulfill the objective of a joint service platform with capabilities and technology to keep the US ahead for the foreseeable future.

    Not to mention the money already invested. I suspect they view the cost overruns as a fixable issue, with more wrangling between the services, congress and the manufacturer to come.
     

  3. Restless28

    Restless28

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    16,152
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Solsbury Hill
  4. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    18,378
    Likes Received:
    2,123
    Location:
    Alaska, again (for now)
    What would canceling it net us?

    The truth is, we need the F-35. So it will survive.
     
  5. bunk22

    bunk22

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    3,849
    Likes Received:
    531
    My guess is too much invested both by us and buyers overseas.
     
  6. 686Owner

    686Owner NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,917
    Likes Received:
    1,860
    Location:
    KY
    You think starting from scratch would be cheaper? Or that we don't need any new manned fighters?
     
  7. 220-9er

    220-9er

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    1,070
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    North of Atl
    Politics. How many congressmen have a piece of the pie in their district? Or owe a favor to some other congressman that does.
     
  8. wjv

    wjv

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Messages:
    14,577
    Likes Received:
    2,572
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    And what would they then use to replace all of the 30+ year old airframes that are currently in service?
     
  9. larry_minn

    larry_minn Silver Member Millennium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 1999
    Messages:
    10,129
    Likes Received:
    1,377
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I can see that airplanes/fighters NEED to be "cutting edge" in order to complete mission, keep the pilots alive.

    In rifles the Newest M-4 is not (that much) advanced from the 2nd mod of origional M-16. Current military missions wouldn't suffer (greatly, they could adapt) to fixed stock M-16 vs m-4. (not saying folks would enjoy it, stocks would have to be shortened for body armor, issues..... Just that its not as HUGE a deal.

    Aircraft if you are not at/close to cutting edge you are unlikely to survive. (Yes the Pilot matters) You need speed, ability to climb,dive, change direction quickly. Also you need ability to know if you are being targeted, from where,what, how to jam signal, divert it, and heck avoid being noticed in first place.

    I remember reading about Battle of Midway. They sent pilots in outmodeled aircraft against the carriers. Those US pilots were killed in large numbers BUT it caused the Japaneese carriers to have to rearm,refuel, make changes so when our carrier fighters attacked they did NOT have a "fighter screen" and they also had bomb on deck to rearm next Japaneese wave. What I took from story is older planes were used as "cannon fodder" against newer Jap Zero's (IIRC) to wear them down. Some claim that changed the direction of the war.
    Now IF the pilots had newest, (normally faster, better armed,....) planes would more have survived? I seem to recall some US planes used had less speed in level flight then Zero in a climb.

    I am no pilot, have never done anthing regards planes, fighters. etc. Just had a interest. I really enjoy aircraft museums, listen to older folks talk about the planes they flew, issues,..
    That and it makes sense that this is one area where even forgetting pilots life. Having the airframe getting more then one combat mission out of it makes $$$$

    Then again I still think the F 15E is the plane I would love to catch a ride in... Long before Top Gun I saw a AF airshow. No disrespect to Blue Angles (or was it T Birds? I have seen both) but that F 15E stole the show for me....
     
  10. Santa CruZin

    Santa CruZin RIP Mr. Mayor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2000
    Messages:
    9,181
    Likes Received:
    280
    Location:
    Dixie
    I would have rather seen the F-22 survive. I'm not against the F-35 mind you, it's just my preference between them.
     
  11. vikingsoftpaw

    vikingsoftpaw DEPLORABLE ME!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Location:
    Willoughby, Ohio USA
    The F35 is required to fill the void that will be left of retiring aging aircraft. The USMC Harrier, F-117, older F-16 Models, as well the older F18's. We haven't been needing air superiority in recent conflicts, just a lot of air support.

    They will find away to lower the F-35's cost, if our military requires it in the numbers that they say that they do.

    There have also been rumors of a 'Stealth Eagle', restarting F-15 production to augment Air Supremacy fighter numbers. Seeing as the F-22 was too expensive.

    It was also a divebomber vs. torpedo bomber issue. The letter of the two require a low and slow attack pass. High risk of being shot down.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
  12. Glotin

    Glotin

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    948
    Likes Received:
    53
    Because we need it, that's why.

    It baffles me that people will sit around and complain about military spending that is necessary (not to mention called out for in the Constitution) when there are literally hundreds of other programs that should be cut that we don't need.

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Provide defense, secure liberty; promote welfare. It seems as though in recent times we have started to get that backwards.

    Was the F-22 designed to handle the stress of landing on a CVN? No? The F-35 is more necessary than the 22.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
  13. HollowHead

    HollowHead Firm member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    2,342
    Location:
    Where the buffalo roam
    Why don't we just buy a bunch of J-20s from China? It would the military's version of going to Walmart... HH
     
  14. chris in va

    chris in va

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,887
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Louisville KY
    They'll cancel the F-35 and up the bailout and Obamacare deficit. Dems do that sort of thing.
     
  15. Slug71

    Slug71

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,499
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Oregon - U.S.A
    Whats wrong with the F/A-18? Or F-16 Block 60? Build new F-15s....

    See above...

    We cant afford it!! There is cheaper options. The partner nations cant afford these. So who's gonna be stuck footing the bill once again?
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
  16. 220-9er

    220-9er

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    1,070
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    North of Atl
    We are already way ahead of the competition and technology is changing faster than they build major weapons systems.
    Existing fighters are more than capable of defeating our adversaries planes now so making an updated version of an existing plane that is much cheaper would work fine and be ready sooner.
    Unmanned aircraft are replacing some of the functions now and we probably have anti-aircraft counter measures that have not been publicized that could help too. We really haven't faced a true equal enemy aircraft in ages and by the time we do things will have changed so much the F35 & 22 will probably be obsolete too. Besides, they cost so much we can't afford to deploy enough of them to be sure they would be available everywhere we might need them.
    They are really just major jobs programs for high tech industries at this point with a strong lobby in Washington.
     
  17. czsmithGT

    czsmithGT

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Messages:
    11,787
    Likes Received:
    2,161
    From your lips to God's ears.

    Unfortunately this is the great fallacy of the supporters of the Military-Industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.
     
  18. SC Tiger

    SC Tiger Big, educated kitty cat!

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    20,399
    Likes Received:
    5,604
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Agree. It would also probably be very expensive to re-tool and make more F-15s (which aren't cheap), Harriers, etc.

    These newer planes are also cheaper to operate in many ways as well. I believe when one squadron switched from the F-15 to the F-22 the amount of equipment that had to be moved when they deployed was cut down by half. Plus, if we lose fewer then fewer have to be built to replace them.

    I like the comparison (or contrast) to the change from the M-16 to the M-4. I look at it this way: Would a replacement to the M-4 be significantly more deadly to the enemy than the M-4 (bearing in mind we still use 5.56 NATO)? I don't think so. Will a more advanced fighter significantly add to the abilities of our AF, USN and USMC pilots? If it can, then it is worth pursuing.
     
  19. Gino

    Gino Millennium Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 1999
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    65
    Location:
    Clermont, FL USA
    It really gets me when someone brings up our "aging airframe" problems. The F15 and F16 are both still in production, right? Let's just buy new F15/F16 planes and upgrade the engines and avionics.

    Time to start tightening our belts in a meaningful way. Like ending corporate welfare...
     
  20. Highspeedlane

    Highspeedlane NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,345
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    New England
    I was a 2W1X1 (weapons) on the F15 from 2002 to 2008. I hear what you're saying about budget sensibility, but truthfully, the 15 was beginning to show it's age, capability-wise, in the past several years.

    In about 2006 I remember reading a review on a joint exercise the US participated in with some allies (can't remember all the nations, but India was in there).

    The 15 got waxed in dog fights to an extent that sent alarm bells through the AF leadership. This is what pushes the pursuit of new technology more than simply the age of the airframe.

    It's all about offensive capability and air superiority. Without air superiority, there is no offense.