i dont like him, but with military preparedness he is good.
he has said this stuff before.
he’ insane, but he’ right here.
is this how a nation gets undone? spending half a trillion on a plane that is a disaster?
i know i know, dogfights dont matter any more, i’ve been told. still would have been nice if it didn’t lose to everyone.
i admit lack of knowledge about military hardware, so without insults, please make me happy and tell me i’m wrong.
“i admit lack of knowledge about military hardware, so without insults, please make me happy and tell me i’m wrong.”
You’re wrong. :-)
At more length, the F-35 should be a good plane once the various systems are fully functional. One of the main delays has been around various software components, which aren’t easy to develop and integrate.
The $400 billion for 2,457 planes figure is a bit deceptive. There are two different ways to calculate the cost of an aircraft. One is “unit cost”, where the entire cost of the program is divided by the total number of planes. By that metric, the F-35 is $162 million per plane (if the $400B number is accurate). However, all of the R&D/engineering costs are “sunk costs” once the work is done. In other words, the government’s not going to get its money back if the program is cancelled. The point being that if the plane is good, one might as well go ahead and produce them if the “flyaway cost” is reasonable.
The flyaway cost is the incremental cost to produce the next airplane (just the cost of manufacturing, no R&D costs figured in). Right now the F-35A flyaway cost is about $100 million per plane. It is dropping due to increased manufacturing efficiencies and is expected to hit $80-$85 million per plane by 2019. That is in the ballpark of the Super Hornet, one of the aircraft it’s intended to replace - one which doesn’t have stealth or many other high-tech features of the F-35.
I think ultimately the F-35 will be a competent dogfighter, but that isn’t its main role. It’s primarily an attack aircraft that can also handle air-to-air, suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD), electronic warfare and close air support (via smart weapons). In the air-to-air role, the main way it’ll be employed will be at longer ranges, preferably before the enemy knows its in the area. This is possible due to stealth.
Well, that was more of an essay than I set out to write...
How many times did McInsane vote for it?
I know airplanes, jet propelled or otherwise, have two basic ways of landing and only one of them is good.
Therein lies the sum total of my knowledge concerning aircraft.
I was hoping someone with detailed knowledge of the aircraft would chime in as to whether it’s a good deal or a high states taxpayer boondoggle.
Problem is, the son and grandson of US Navy Admirals has ridden his one trick pony into the ground.
As much as he may be a “defense hawk”, thereby doing *some* good, how much damage has he done with his “reach across the aisle” love of liberals?
I say too much damage to allow him to continue.