Posted on 08/13/2015 11:23:54 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
It can’t really climb, can’t turn, got really short legs.
Coffee, keyboard etc....HA!Ha!
Have you flown it? Tell me more!
“How does stealth help you when you are just whacking ISIS bastards with no aircover? For that you want cheap, slow flying, bullet proof bomb and bullet trucks.”
No you don’t “want cheap, slow flying, bullet proof bomb and bullet trucks”. You want ordinance accurately hitting the targets (designated by troops, drone or fast-mover), without the aircraft getting hit.
Helicopters, drones and strike aircraft (F-15, F-16 and F-18) all fill that role nicely.
“We’ve put all our eggs in one very expensive basket.”
Hardly.
So much for that radar signature the size of a crow.
They should have built the gianormicus “Strike F-22” that Lockheed proposed. That is essentially what the Chinese are doing with their stealth aircraft - building strike platforms.
Its single engine has more thrust than the Super Hornet's two engines, and its range is greater than the Super Hornet. It's true that its thrust to weight ratio is less than the Super Hornet's with full internal fuel, but it carries a lot more internal fuel. It will also get external tanks in the future.
It'll also carry more total ordinance than the Super Hornet when using both internal and external stores.
I'm not a great fan of the F-35, and I think we should have built at least double the number of F-22s. That said, I think it'll be a capable plane in the end, which is good since we're absolutely committed to building it at this point.
The chart on this page is a good comparison with some of the F-35's competitors. In particular pay attention to the F-18 column.
The SR-71 was painted with a radar-absorbent coating. Don’t know how well it worked.
And what is stopping an A10 from using precision weapons?
At one third to one fifth the price we could flood the zone.
“And what is stopping an A10 from using precision weapons?
At one third to one fifth the price we could flood the zone.”
Nothing, however there’s also nothing particularly great about the A-10 as a CAS platform either. Its 30mm gun is optimized for killing tanks, not terrorists.
If you want low, slow dedicated 30mm antipersonnel CAS I recommend the Apache. On the other hand, the F-16 carries a wide variety of precision ordinance, can respond more quickly on the battlefield, is cheaper to fly, and also performs air-to-air roles.
The A-10 is an outdated tank killer that would be toast in short order on the modern battlefield against even second-tier opponents.
Then design a purpose built “cheap” ISIS killer. Do we really need an entire fleet of fifth generation when the grunt work will be killing terrorists for the next 100 years.
“Then design a purpose built “cheap” ISIS killer. Do we really need an entire fleet of fifth generation when the grunt work will be killing terrorists for the next 100 years.”
I’m fully on board with the idea that the F-35 is overpriced, and so far its performance looks mediocre. We’d better hope for the best though, as too much is on the line to cancel the program. I’ve said from the beginning that we should have bought at least double the number of F-22s, and cut the F-35 buy.
As to what we’ll be doing for the next hundred years, don’t fall into the trap of always fighting the last war.
That said, I already pointed out three “cheap” anti-terrorist options - Apaches, drones and F-16s. If you find a really worthwhile concentration, call in a B-52 or B-1 strike. We have plenty of capability, and the future is wide open as far as drones go. The Apache E costs $35 million a copy, and is very capable - plus it can be forward based near troops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.