re: F-35 cost $400 billion and can't carry the weapons system it was designed for

quote:

---

Those worked pretty well on Libya in the 80's.

Used them a bit in DESERT STORM too.

---

Oh, you saw some flying off of aircraft carriers? Because the original intent was for the USAF and USN to share the airframe. Geez.



1968.



"McNamara's political career was doomed by many elements (not least the groundswell of opposition to the Vietnam War), but particularly by the problems of the F-111 program, which he'd made a cornerstone of his policies. He resigned as Secretary of Defense on February 29th, 1968, and almost immediately Congress decreed the end of the F-111B (although allowing the USAF's F-111A to continue in production). One of the F-111B prototypes conducted successful trials aboard the USS Coral Sea in July 1968... However, success was only achieved by having the aircraft carry no weapons at all, and load minimum fuel, to save weight. Immediately after completion of the trials, the F-111B program was terminated."

Canceled.

quote:

---

how soon will we be stuck starting a new program to replace is sorry arse?

A new weapon system like this would take 20+ years to go from requirement/idea to full rate production and fielding..

---

When the B-1 was in the pipeline, someone pointed out that there were contractors in all 50 states.

The wings were built at AVCO in Nashville.

These programs are unkillable.

A worse dogfighter than an F-16.

A worse air-superiority fighter than an F-15, much less an F-22.

A worse ground-attack aircraft than an A-10.

More expensive than all of the above. Combined. Amazing.

quote:

---

But at almost $500B in, we're pot committed.

---

Agreed. Unfortunately.

quote:

---

A worse dogfighter than an F-16.

A worse air-superiority fighter than an F-15, much less an F-22.

A worse ground-attack aircraft than an A-10.

More expensive than all of the above. Combined. Amazing.

---

Supposedly it is the situational awareness it can give the pilot, the ergonomics its gives the pilot, and a lot of other stuff that makes it worthwhile. But once it is out of missiles it is out of missiles.. Seems like four F-16s is a better buy.

It's too late to scrap the program. It's still an excellent plane but we have to learn from our mistakes and finish up production. Alot of the criticisms you hear about the F35's technical aspects are hyperbole propped up by those that are ignorant about the systems.

Medicare expansion better use of resources.

This is why we cant have ...

quote:

---

A worse dogfighter than an F-16.

---

This is a myth based on a misunderstood exercise that pitted a handicapped f35 against a fully equiped f16 flown by a highly experienced pilot.

quote:

---

A worse air-superiority fighter than an F-15, much less an F-22.

---

Its manuvering isn't quite as good as an F15, but its electronics and weapons systems makes it superior to the F15. It was never intended to out perform the F22 in a dogfight.

quote:

---

A worse ground-attack aircraft than an A-10

---

If you restrict comparison to gun runs against armored targets yes-- everything else related to close air support the f35 is superior.

quote:

---

More expensive than all of the above. Combined. Amazing.

---

It's expense is due to the fact that it is a multirole fighter foolishly included things such as VTOL. Combine that with stealth and advanced weapon systems and of course its going to be expensive. The cost comparisons, like the above popular myths, are disingenuous at best. When you account for inflation, exponential increases in military tech cost due to things like stealth (Russia and China can barely afford to produce half assed versions of the f22), and end of life mass production cost per plane-- it is not as bad as you are suggesting.