Posted on 02/25/2021 4:07:10 PM PST by maddog55
> Forbes was sold to a Hong Kong company and is now controlled by the Chi-coms. <
I wish more people knew about that. From Wikipedia’s page on the magazine:
Isaac Stone Fish wrote in the Washington Post, “Since that purchase, there have been several instances of editorial meddling on stories involving China that raise questions about Forbes magazine’s commitment to editorial independence.”
Forbes would like to continue fighting small wars around the globe. To that end they are right — the USAF would need more “low-end” aircraft to bomb the snot out of the locals. But aircraft like the F-16 would not last in a high-threat environment like Syria, guarded as it is with the latest Russian SAM systems. A squadron of F-16’s would probably last 3 days.
The F-16 was supposed to be a light, cheap fighter.
Three of them “flying wing” on an F-15.
” And now America needs a new fighter to solve that F-35 problem, officials said”
Ummm the F22? Some Politicians / Military Paper Tigers should go to prison for destroying the means to produce more F22’s. McCain is already dead, next?
My son-in-law works for Rolls Royce on the lift fan package for the F35B. He’s made some good money on that job so my tax dollars aren’t totally wasted.
But we can still sell them all over the globe.
We should be building drone aircraft that can be piloted remotely or within a swarm.
I was lucky enough to work the F-16 program from inception and it was initially looked down upon as a low cost disposable asset to free up F-15s for the glory.
Surround an F-35 with a swarm of low cost agile fighters and you will kick ass. In many ways it sounds like the USAF is learning again the lessons from the 1970's. Keep it simple and small. The F-16 has matched the F-15 for fear and respect in our enemy's eyes. Excellent bang for the buck and a valuable lesson learned..
I may have corresponded with you here on that beautiful, stylish plane. Had a scale model when I was a kid and some books with info and pictures.
The needs and strategies keep changing. Supposedly missiles from subs, silos and mobile launchers on land made a pilot staying in the air for hours to go to the enemy and drop bombs obsolete. Until Mutual Assured Destruction meant use of any nuke missile would destroy civilization. So B-52s are amazingly still in flight. And others that come and go according to changing situations like the F-35.
No. The F22 is an air superiority fighter. I had the honor of working on the F35, in a small way, from 2007 thru 2015. The F35 was designed as a fighter/ground attack do everything bomb truck. Actually it does everything it was designed to do, Very well. But its fundamental performance is somewhat compromised by its do everything mission. Its true outstanding feature is its survivability.
This is a good article, but I disagree with the notion that it is a failed program. It became a bloated program and the price tag is horrific, but the platform has some amazing capabilities.
The past few years our Air Force (including the Israelis) and those of our allies who purchased the F35 have began to talk a lot about one or two F35’s “controlling” larger numbers of older aircraft on strike and air superiority missions. The sensors and software on these things turn them into a QB in the sky and it is very capable of flying far ahead of legacy aircraft in high threat environments, protecting them, and directing their ordnance on to targets at distance minimizing risks.
I was pretty vocal in questioning the wisdom of having a one plane to do everything role and feared the F35 would fail because of it. The aircraft itself is pretty amazing and the capabilities of it are two generations ahead of the F16 and F15 in many ways, but its simply too expensive and the author is right as to why....
This was the same problem the UH60 Blackhawk program and Army aviation had. At some point, “most” missions call for a flying truck and nothing fancy. They packed so much stuff on rotary airframes that the price tag limited the numbers far below what they needed and wanted.
The F15X (Boeing’s new offering) cost almost as much as the F35 (it’s just below 80 million) and it will likely be about 10-15k less a flight hour), but remember that is the sales pitch. The Air Force rarely gets the “expected savings” based on what the manufacturer claims just as the Army rarely sees it in the promises from manufacturers.
At 80 million for an F15EX vs the approximate price of 100 million for the F35 at projected numbers I am not sure the F15EX (as good as it is) is the answer. 20% savings, but you have an aircraft that is much less survivable in a high threat environment against a near peer adversary.
Anyone who thinks the Air Force will end up with a 60 million dollar air-frame to replace the F16 is going to be disappointed. They are incapable of it. Even the proposed drones in the future that will be controlled by the F35 will likely be around that price tag.
The F35 was compromised back in 2009. The WSJ had a story on it. The ChiComs likely have all the secs for the planes, and when we go to war with them after they EMP and bioweapon us to 90% dead in a “surprise” attack, the planes will fall out of the sky with a flip of a switch because Chang will be able to disable the chinese made parts remotely.
If you had an updated 4th Gen Fighter like the F-16 the inflation adjusted dollars would be in the ballpark of the F-35.
Another reason that the F-35’s number is larger is that the USAF changed their accounting methods. It’s a cost-of-ownership number based on the spares, fuel and so forth. It’s not just the plane youre looking at.
Air force: we need a new fighter.
Congress: fine, here’s money to buy the F-16.
Air force: but it only has one engine. Can we have another, but this time with two engines?
The F-16 needs more range.
Congress: ok fine, here’s some money for the f-15. Are you doing be done with the F-16 then?
Air force: no, we’re going toa bunch of pods on the outside so it can fly longer.
Congress: ok, fine.
(A few years pass)
Air force: can we have a new fighter?
Congress: well it has been a few years... But do you really need a new fighter?
Air Force: two words: stealth technology.
Congress: ok, here’s a wad of cash for the F-22 and some stealthy stuff.
Air force: and we want one more
Congress: more money?
Air force: no. Another fighter. With one engine this time.
Congress: didn’t we go through this forty years ago but you wanted an extra motor?
Air force: we need something multi role.
Defense contractors: hold up Zoomie, I know what we need to do (proceeds to bribe every congressional district)
Congress: well, I guess we can do this, but we have to stop production on the F22.
Air force: fine by us. Destroy the tooling if you want. Heck, retire the A-10 while you’re at it. Nobody likes that thing anyway.
Congress: actually, the troops love the A-10. We’re gonna keep it.
Air force: but m-u-l-t-i role! The F-35 can do it all.
Congress: we’re keeping the A-10. Are you guys done with the F-15 and F-16 yet by the way?
Air force: we have to keep them going until the F-35 is totally fielded. Also, probably a small thing but we feel it’s worth mentioning, the F-35 isn’t doing what we said it could just yet. We could also use some money to replace the old F-15’s and f-16s.
Congress: sigh. I guess it’s ok so long as the bribe checks keep coming.
Air force: kind of embarrassed to ask right now, ... but could we have a new fighter?
Good luck to the USAF getting any money from the Democrats now for new toys. I hope the woke USAF brass enjoy their forthcoming Democrat budgets.
An elephant is a mouse designed to MILSPEC.
Indeed.
After the "Hong Kong" based group bought Forbes back in 2014, shortly thereafter they canned writers Gordon Chang and Claudia Rosett who were often critical of China. [1]. Just one example of their censorship.
The basic principle that you have missed is that when the basic need arises, it is too late.
One other item that you need to understand; with today’s manufacturing infrastructure and capacity we would lose world war two.
There are some other things you should know. Can you handle the truth
“The F35 was designed as a fighter/ground attack do everything bomb truck.”
Wasn’t that the A-10’S Warthogs specific mission? :)
The F-22 did it’s job well. The Pentagon is so corrupt they needed to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to make things worse.
The Pentagon could have solved its problems for less than $100. That’s about what the ammo would cost for an adjutant to double tap any general who tried to sabotage the F-22. Eventually the top brass would realize treason for profit just wasn’t worth it.
“Finally.. the truth comes out.”
Truth, I think you would get that from the pilots and they love flying an airplane that kills everything around them in every “war games exercise” the F-35 has been involved in.
The vintage and still great F-15’s that have won over a hundred real air combat contacts without a single loss can’t even detect the F-35’s before their eagles are destroyed in these exercises by the F-35’s.
These are just the absolute provable numerical facts and have nothing to do with who is paying who for what at the top levels of our government.
But if you want to depend on hear say so be it.
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.