We here at DT had yesterday off so this is our Monday. To start the week off, we thought we’d show you these brand new pics of the F-35.
These cool and slightly awkward looking photos shows an F-35A Joint Strike Fighter flying with external weapons hard points for the first time ever. The jet, out of Edwards Air Force Base in California was armed with two AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles on the outer wing hard points and carried a couple of GBU– 31 2,000-pound bombs and a pair of AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs).
Don’t get too excited though, the plane didn’t fire any weapons on the February 16 flight.
From a Lockheed announcement:
The jet also had mounted four external pylons that can carry 2000-pound air-to-ground weapons. The F-35A 5th Generation fighter is designed to carry up to 18,000 pounds on 10 weapon stations featuring four weapon stations inside two weapon bays, for maximum stealth capability, and an additional three weapon stations on each wing.
Click through the jump for another pic.
{ 204 comments… read them below or add one }
when you say click through the jump….whats a jump, and there is nothing to click on for the next pic.
What he meant was to click on the "continue" link to see the second picture of the F-35
thanks…when i clicked on the story itself instead of clicking on Def Tech itself…there was no continue…thanks.
Yeah, strap on external hardpoints and all that hard paid for stealth goes out the window.
I wonder, would the cost be better to just get a non-stealthy attach platform or have minimal stealht and spend the extra on more F-22s to acheive air dominance and SEAD to knock back the air defene environment?
Just a silly cost benefit question.
bob – isn't it the case you have stealth if you want, eg. internal weapons, for say first strike missions / knocking out enemy aircraft and defenses, then you have the options of additional weapons capacity for follow up missions, like bombing, ground support and so on when you have control of the skies? especially for the B/C versions operating from aircraft carriers, which the F-22 can't do? isn't this a good thing?
But then you have a second day fighter requirement (i.e. cheaper to purchase/fly/maintain) with a first day stealth fighter. Doesn't make a lot of sense fiscally escpecially when we are looking to mothball a lot of A-10Cs which are unquestionably the best aircraft for what the Air Force has been doing for the past 10 years.
It does when you realize they have been flown in combat for 10 years. They are at the end of their service lives. Plus those Air Guard units are changing missions.
If you look at conformal fuel tanks, they are shaped to minimize drag and also don't have the RCS penalty. Opting for a conformal pods that could contain legacy missile hardware might be an option, but would require more expensive R&D.
Something like F117 (first strike, full stealth) + F15 SE (second strike, poor stealth but a lot of missiles) instead the F35 and it's two configurations? Makes sense to me… But wait! We had it 20 years ago…
I'm with Bob and Praetor. If the enemy's air defenses have been degraded to where it's safe enough to fly F-35's in non-stealth configuration, it's safe enough to fly F-16's and F-15E's, both of which have greater range.
I get the impression the F-15/F-16's aren't going to disappear if the JSFs enter the air force. What'll probably happen is that JSFs will be used as "stealth-lites" in the absence of F-22's.
It's going to be years before the JSF replaces all those "teen" squadrons simply due to production rates and training. They're probably going to buy the entire fleet of JSFs over the course of 20 years.
The stealth is important at the onset of an Air Campaign. Once the Enemy Anti-Air Assets have been neutralized the F35 acts like a truck carrying as much ordnance as possible. The cost in Stealth more then pays for itself in Lives and aircraft saved in the opening days of hostilities. As always IMO
what he is saying though is that wouldn't it be more cost effective to just have a proper full stealth aircraft open the engagement, ie: F-22 etc and if necessary perhaps upgrade the strike capability of the F-22. (pity about the F-22B)
then use the non stealth, cheaper, but efficient strike aircrafts we already have like F-15E etc to carry on from there, because these aircrafts obviously is more cost effective if stealth is not needed as far as bomb trucking is concerned than the F-35 with external payload given how expensive a single F-35 is.
But the answer is most likely in the long run and the bigger picture…
The original goal of F-35 is to achieve the cost effectiveness by having just a single aircraft design base rather than dozens of different aircrafts each of which need different resources to an extent, with parts etc. (though we obviously tried to keep as many common parts possible even with the teen series fighters)
The theory is sound… it's just that in practice adapting the single design base into the various requirement prove to be a massive headache and a MUCH higher mountain of challenge to climb than expected, and MUCH more expensive than originally anticipated to overcome.
Stealth technology is really only good against non-technologically advanced countries. High tech countries use over the horizon radar to track the movement of air currents as it is not possible to stop the air flow (straight lines in the sky are hard to hide). At least with current technology.
Eyeballs work well too…..
Isn't just emblematic of the F-35 PR that there are no GBU– 31 or AMRAAMs.
Like the whole program just a lot of hand waving about what could be if a whole pile more money was thrown into the money pit.
It says they are in the internal weapons bay(s)….
The real F-35 cant do half the thing the brochure F-35. bear that in mind when you are quoting the brochure.
Are you kidding?? -My last comment- How stupid thing a stealth plane carrie weapons in pilons. BUY Silent eagle or "silent" hornets. This plane is the Big Steal of the Century. 300Millions a piece and use external weapons points.
I'm no huge F-35 fan but you do have to realize that it does have internal weapons bays, just not very large ones but they are there. This picture is just demonstrating the F-35's capability for carrying external stores on pylons for when stealth isn't an issue.
I'd take the show as an indication of LMT's confidence in having assumed full control of the Pentagon, Congress, and the US mainstream propaganda apparatus so that they can do whatever stupid things they want, charge the government exorbitant fees, and watch with glee as the ignorant US military fans cheer on. It's the same sadistic acts that big players on Wall St. love to do to their clients, the government, and the lesser competitors.
Could anyone here explain how this plane is truly better than a updated F-16 and could it even out-manuvere and F-16 or SU-27/37 in a close in fight.
It wasn't really built for that role though, the sensors/AESA alone make it better then a F-16 at the strike mission, especially in hardened areas where a little bit of stealth might make enough of a difference (JSOW range, etc). It was never meant to turn and burn with a SU, it will always lose that fight. But it does have the ability to track targets at extreme angles with the DAS, it just needs a proper high off-boresight missile to take advantage of that and it won't be stuck in that kind of fight. That is more a of dream then reality at this point and I'm not debating whether this thing has become more costly then acceptable, but your looking at it's mission wrong.
With some love in the right areas, it could become a solid fighter. At this point though, it's pretty god damn expensive for what it is.
Thanks for the info but I hope the air force is'nt making the same mistake like they did in Vietnam with the F4 phantom.They claimed that it would,nt need a gun because its air to air missle tech would make guns obsolete. Then they found themselves in close in dog fights with Migs and the missle's were not reliable or use-less and then they rushed to put a gun on the thing. I think anyone who relies on technology will always be beaten with simple things that works.
Who say it could?
solid strike fighter*, we will always need more F-22s to have any kind of real air superiority against other nations with proper air power.
Well your not getting anymore. Enjoy the 186 you will have.
Looks just as stealthy as an F-16 with that crap bolted to the wings. Why not just buy more F-16's and use the $100,000,000 rebate to pay off our debt to our Chinese masters?
You'd need some more zeroes for that accounting.
Because we'd lose the stealthy strike capability and have to resort to quantity over quality tactics, and then the media would throw a hissy fit if we ever end up in a war with a real opponent…..
If the USA ever ended up in a war with a real opponent, it would have much more to worry about than a media hissy-fit. The size of the budget hole that it took to kick the ass of a p-o-s little country like Iraq? Would look like a dink in the windshield compared to the costs – human and material – of fighting somebody serious.
Exactly. The US is sinking in quick sand as we speak. Most Americans just don't have a clue what's happening to their country.
Oh, no!… The sky is falling!!!
That is if you are a like Chicken Little…
The unsinkable aircraft carrier is definitely not sinking… It got a few shrapnels here and there, which scared the heck out of the new recruits, but as far as history goes, it will prevail…
Now, go back to the hen house and scare them.
I think you fail to realize that if a country like America, hell even China or the EU, fails, pretty much everyone is f**ked. Global markets go a lot deeper then "hey lets import our TVs from there!"
Neither the F-35 nor the F-22 have real "stealthy strike capability" against a real opponent. Radars for detecting aircraft like the F-22 had been developed / deployed at least 7 years ago.
Yeah right! Of course the Russians would try to tell you that when they can't produce a good enough AESA radar to equip their Mig-35 as loudly advertised…
LOL!!!! I guess ignorance is a bliss for you. Why don't you stop posting for a while and spend the time reading up on the air combat history between the USSR and the USA, or between China (post 1949) and the USA.
And for the cost of one F-35 we could buy 1, 000,000 hand grenades! If you throw them all at once we would simply overwhelm the enemy with explosions!
Hurrr
It is a shame the Boeing JSF entry was such a piece of crap. Had Boeing won the competition, Lockheed probably would have done the same thing Boeing did and made a stealth variant of the F-16. It would be much easier to make the F-16 stealthy. The intake already hides the fan from direct view, and it would be easy to put a chine along the sides of the fuselage. There's basically already one there, it just ends in a flat surface now. All they'd have to add is a chine along the radome and forward fuselage.
Oh, and they'd need to go to twin tails. It would not be a big issue to do that. They could pretty much just dust off the old study they did when they designed the airplane. Hell, I think its an AIAA paper.
Wow, the F-35 has a decent load when it carries weapons externally, but the stealth we spent over 300 billion dollars to achieve is now gone. Great. Really impressive.
The F-35 is an overly expensive piece of average performing and highly complex crap. A Super Hornet with external weapons has better all around performance, can hold more armament, and is dirt cheap to operate and maintain in combat while providing the exact same performance as an F-35 with external weapons.
1 F-35C is the same price as 3 Super Hornets and 1 F-35B is the same as 6-7 Super Hornets. These aircraft aren't even finished with the testing yet and we haven't found all of their problems! This is ridiculous!
The Super Hornet with International upgrades is nearly just as good as the F-35. The only advantage the F-35 has over the Super Hornet is that it is stealthy from the sides while the Super Hornet with the International Road Map Upgrades is stealthy from the front. We should cancel this failed fighter program and start buying upgraded Super Hornets, Silent Eagles, and the only workable model of the F-35 series the A-model.
We've been over the Super Hornet stuff before so I'll ignore that and talk about your complaint about external weapons.
Of course such loadouts remove the stealth advantage, but the only time F-35s will fly in such configurations are when the air defense network and front-line aircraft of the enemy have been neutralized. You don't need stealth when the enemy has nothing but small arms, anti-aircraft cannons, and some MANPADS to oppose you.
If an enemy ever tried to swarm you with MiG-21s or something else very cheap but not very capable, I suppose the ability to carry an additional 10 air-to-air missiles externally could be useful.
There are aircraft like the A-10 and A-29 better suited for most roles in COIN warfare but F-15Es, F-16s, and F/A-18s have still seen plenty of use in Afghanistan. In such wars F-35s would be flying in such configurations for the increased payload.
If you don't want to carry external payloads, the only alternative to carry more stuff is to move up to a fighter-bombers (think F-111, FB-22 or FB-23) or something larger (B-1, B-2, B-52). You can't afford those aircraft in the same numbers you can afford fighters.
I don't want you to ignore the Super Hornet stuff. Go ahead and have at it.
Here's a better idea. Why not just buy Super Hornet International Road Map jets with decent stealth and a lot of AGM-88s. That would easily get the same job done at a fraction of the cost. A force of SHIRMs could easily neutralize any air force or air defense system today just as good as an F-35. It might require slightly more tactics, but it would be much easier when you have 3x-6x the amount of aircraft available and every 1 of those planes will always be reliable and on station unlike the super complex and maintenance intensive F-35s. We really don't need the F-35 at all. On top of that what if one F-35 get's shot down at any phase of an operation? All of its advanced technology will up for grabs at the crash site. You'd need more resources to get to crash site and dispose of the aircraft, unless of course you want to risk that tech falling into the hands of the Russians or Chinese. On top of that a single engine fighter for a carrier is and has always been a bad idea. You don't need the F-35 for a job that the cheaper, more reliable, and, in some ways, more capable Super Hornet can do with low risk.
Okay, you just contradicted yourself. First you say the F-35 will fly with external weapons only when the air defense network and frontline aircraft are down, then you say that if they swarm you with Fishbeds it should carry external arms. Guess what? The F-35 can only hold two AMRAAMs internally and only the A-model has a gun. So each F-35 could kill exactly two enemy fighters and then if a third one comes in at close range and has decent IR scanners or heat seeking missiles the F-35 is immediately defenseless (unless it's the A-model which can use the internal 25mm cannon and is probably like bringing a knife to a gun fight). Considering the F-35 numbers will be small due to the drastic and continuing increase in its price and the MiG-21 or the more modern J-7 of the Chinese is roughly around 10 million this is not good.
The answer to this is to make the F-35 carry external weapons, immediately removing the stealth that makes these aircraft so expensive. You know what also carries external weapons and has high performance? The Super Hornet. Not only can the Super Hornet hold a lot more weapons externally (14 total missiles), but it is cheap and can be produced in good numbers that would make it more suitable for war with enemies that have large numbers of weaker aircraft (hint* hint* China and Russian). The F/A-18E/Fs are much better for any scenario that involves a potential conflict with China or Russia than the F-35 will ever be.
Of course another answer to this problem is to get the F-22, but the truth about the F-22 is that we don't have enough of them to do anything effective with them. We also can't always promise that one will be in the area it is needed when a war breaks out due to the extremely small numbers that we have been limited to with them. The F-35 is heading in that same direction.
The only version of the F-35 worth buying is the A-model, which I have actually been convinced can work if we focus on it since it's the least problematic and only costs 2x that of a Super Hornet, which I think is reasonable. However, even if we buy the A-model it still holds the same weaknesses and the same high risks to its tech when used in combat. It could never compete with the reliability, maintainability, cheap cost, or low risk of the Super Hornet.
There's an assumption we will have local superiority. We won't.
Zero-day combat will be with whatever is at hand. It will be the six JSF-B's aboard a LPD/LHD/LSD. SHIRM won't help out here. Or it will be the Harriers or the helicopters that will be used if the JSF-B doesn't pan out and the Harrier is too expensive to operate.
It will be with whatever is aboard a CVN. It is all well and good to have cheaper SHIRMs, but you can't pack twice as many SHIRM aboard the limited space of a CVN as you can JSFs. They will be replaced one to one.
If we are fighting land battles with large bases and there is no scarcity of space to put aircraft, then it may make more sense to focus on quantity. However, we will not always have persistent quantitative superiority at every projected global hotspot.
I don't think I said anywhere that I was assuming we would have local superiority. My assumption was mere that we would at least have assets in an area where instability has broken out.
I know what you're saying, but the problem with that is whether or not we will be able to afford replacing all of our Hornets with F-35Cs. Also, how many and how fast can we get F-35Cs or F-35Bs on our carriers/gators? Apart from that is the bigger question of when will the F-35C and F-35B be done with their testing and how much will their price have increased? The C-model and the B-model we may not be able to build in enough numbers to replace our fleet one-to-one as it is now. The readiness rates for the JSF series are terrible and highly expensive as well and I still see no point in risking highly classified technology in combat with third world states that, given the chance of downing one, could turn that tech over to Russia or China. The Super Hornet is high tech, but the Russian wouldn't gain much from it if it went down since they already have most of its tech developed. The Chinese would have a lot to gain from many things that we use on a regular basis. There is still no real good point to putting the JSF in that mix.
By this theory we should have kept making Phantoms for the last 50 years.
You are entirely taking what I said out of context just to spite me and it wasn't a very good attempt at it. There are numerous differences between when we were replacing the Phantom and now.
First, and more most importantly, we were in a much better economic position. Yes, Vietnam had scarred us, but it hadn't broken us and we weren't in nearly as much debt at the time.
Secondly, all the replacements for the F-4, most notably the F-15, were built right. They were complex for their time, but they didn't have major design flaws that were stupid and expensive to fix and their prices didn't jump nearly as much as the F-35 has now.
Lastly, we had a legitimate need for the replacements of the F-4. The MiG-21 was cheaper and in too many ways better than the F-4. The MiG-21 was being proliferated world wide and when the new MiG-23 was under development we knew that if we didn't make a new fighter better than anything the Communist nations had soon would lose the edge and the F-4 was no longer going to be good enough to get the job done. On top of that we had a legitimate threat from the Soviet Union taking over Europe. China possesses much more of an economic threat than a military one.
The price of the F15 is not close to it's 1975 price. As for being built right? They are all made by the same company.
No, they weren't.
Only two of them were made from the same company. The F-16 was made by General Dynamics and the F-15 and F/A-18 were made by McDonald Douglas. The F-14 was made by Northrop Grumman. They were made by widely different groups that had different plans and different goals for their own fighter. However, each of these aircraft turned out great and were made with few design flaws that were weeded out during testing without increasing the cost to the point where we couldn't make enough of them to be useful. The F-35B and the F-35C are total failures in these terms in that not only are they incapable of doing what they were designed to do (landing on a carrier and vertically taking off without breaking the jet apart), but they have skyrocketed in cost to the point where we could only afford a handful of them. They also did this at a time when we are in massive debt and are being stupid with our money. The JSF is not what we need.
Stealth will be useful to establish air superiority. Once we have it, the external hard points will be useful in reducing their high value targets with fewer sorties.
Wow! I didnt realize that i was in the company of so many fighter/stealth/weapons experts. Maybe Uncle Sam should have hired you guys to create the cutting edge weapons needed to defend our status as the worlds superpower. I assume that all of you making comments about what aircraft is better has personal experience operating these machines. Right?
Another fanboy throws in the towel
Some people on the other hand never know when to give up ;)……
you do have a point. when the f16 was procured people complained excessively, complaining it was a piece of crap. but then again it didn't cost as much as the f15 which it was supposed to augment… I'm sure the F35 will be solid workhorse but an expensive one at that…
Clearly this is the best design a committee could possibly come up with.
yeah goodone superdave,also want to know any test pilot here ?
At this point, aerospace engineers might be more useful to get commentary from.
Flaming posts here won't make those who truely know sensitive information about it's real performance post a response. Touche` on the effort.
In truth the F35 was made so it can hold the extra stores externally. Stealth is not always needed. Get over yourselves. I agree that costs are way to high and for all the extra money we'd better have secret working equipment none of us know about that's separate from the F35 program.
F-35C the Navy model, single engine over water o-dark-thirty, that will give you a nice warm feeling. No internal guns, anyone remember Viet-Nam. And it can't land on a aircraft carrier, the hook won't catch the wire.
This has been gone over before, while the Navy does have a preference for twin engined aircraft it's not like they haven't fielded single engined jets on carriers before. In fact, the Navy has had a long history of using single engined jets on carriers, it's been only been relatively recently that the Navy has gone exclusively twin engine.
The F-35C does have a gun, so obviously they did remember Vietnam.
It has an _optional_ gun pod, same as the -35B. The F-35A is the only one with an internal gun.
Wether it's got an internal gun or gun pod, at 250 rounds it's basically useless either way.
"….at 250 rounds it's basically useless either way."
Please explain you reasoning (if any) behind calling the installation "useless".
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
Yes. But still a gun available nevertheless.
Vietnam may have been an anomaly. Missiles weren't as reliable as they are now. We can't always look to the past and use that to dictate future aircraft…otherwise our aircraft would still have rear gunners.
Post-Vietnam, there was Libya, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, GW1, GW2, Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo, Afghanistan where aircraft were employed. The gun was nice to have, but was it critical to the success and low loss rates of American aircraft pilots?
There are not any weapons on the aircraft. They are just shapes to test captive carry flight characteristics. The only thing real are the pylons and the racks. A go-to-war mission-system configured F-35 is years away. There is no way to cue weapons given the helmet cueing system (the F-35 does not have a HUD) and mission systems software are faulty. PR is no replacement for a squadron-ready jet.
I thought the F-35 was dull looking till I see it with outdoor pylons. It looks cool with AIM-9s on the wings. Alot better looking than a F-16, and 100% better looking than a F-18.
maybe im just dumb and wasnt paying attention but it never crossed my mind that the f-35 didnt have internal weapons. I've been defending this program and its set backs the whole time, but now that i see that the stealth is basically worthless I dont really get it. It doesn't seem like whatever money we spent on R&D has any point. BEFORE I GET BAKED ON THIS CAN ANYONE TELL ME IF IT DOES HAVE INTERNAL WEAPONS AND THESE PICS ARE JUST THE F-35 BEING USED POORLY, OR ARE THESE HARD POINTS GONNA BE IT?
haha nevermind, i just looked it up.
The internal+external represents the max configuration. The internal-only is worse than "gonna be it" you made about external-only.
An unbelievable amount of ignorance in these comments.
The F-35 has two internal weapons bays, each capable of holding a AIM-9 or AIM-120, plus a guided or dumb munition in the 2,000-pound class.
The idea is to use clean, internal carriage F-35s as the new F-117 to knock out radars, SAM sites, and command-and-control nodes in the initial waves, and then fully load them out once the airspace is dominated.
People also seem to be overlooking the jettison factor. An F-35 could conceivably carry an external load – perhaps JASSAMs for AtG or AIM-120s for AtA – and deploy them at standoff range, and then have an effectively clean or near-clean configuration for low RCS upon penetration.
The F-35 is really designed to turn every F-16 into an aircraft that can situationally operate as an F-117, but still carry a respectable warload in low-threat airspace.
Well spoken. This is the bottom line, right here.
After the external weapons are shot or jetttisoned you still have the weapon pylons attached to the underside of the wings ( they are bolted to the wing, hence the term hardpoints ) negating the stealth aspect of the aircraft.
i thought they can be jettisoned too? doesn't the f22 have that ability too?
The F-22 has hardpoints on the wing that could accept bomb or missile racks. As far as I know, they've never been used. That is to say they've never been modified to accept an external stores rack. Airdale is right, you cannot shed the racks once mounted.
The F-22A has flown with external fuel tanks. I believe squadrons up around Alaska often fly with them.
Unless they've changed pylons, if the fuel tanks are jettisoned the whole pylon does (or can) get jettisoned too.
I have no idea if the same pylons are used for external air-to-air missiles or air-to-ground weapons.
The pylons can be jettisoned. Do your homework next time before commenting.
Whats the point in buying that many (expensive) F-35′s if you buy them to do job of the F-117?
“and then fully load them out once the airspace is dominated.”
And why not use newly build Super Hornets for this job? Too cheap?
This plane isn't replacing the F-117. It is not an all aspect stealth aircraft. While it does have a low observable profile that makes it harder to see on radar than legacy aircraft, there is a difference.
Good idea in theory. It is the incompetence of program management that is the problem.
couldn't agree more!!!!
Except we don't use manned aircraft for SEADs and we won't. Stealth was fun but it pretty much came and went in the 90s. China, Russia, pretty much everyone sat up and picked their jaws off the floor after the F117s flew around doing whatever they wanted. Governments poured a lot of cash into detecting stealth.
We and our allies have zero intention of flying these things into unmolested virgin air defense networks. If we did we wouldn't be toying with JSOWers, and the Norwegians wouldn't be developing the JSM, both of which fit in the internal bays. Look at Libya as how we are going to conduct ops. We are going to decimate the fixed SAM, Radar, runways and CnC sites with TLAMs, JASSMs, and various other stand off weapons. When that is done, and only then will manned aircraft fly into enemy air space. By that point we'll be facing mobile SAMs and MANPADs, both of which have limited coverage and range. Both of which can be dealt with via growlers.
If you're up against a p*ssant little country like Libya. Let's hope you are.
Don't really understand what point you are making.
i doubt AF or navy will risk such expensive piece of hardware to wear external hardpoints and become a bomb truck…. once this thing breaks it's stealth, there's no way it can get out from the threat with it's average flight dynamics
Honestly don't see why some people are getting all worked up over this…the external hard points are simply an accessory if needed, doesn't mean they'll always be there…if maximum stealth isn't a necessity in a specific theater, why not have the ability to throw on extra munitions? Out of all the things to complain about concerning the f35, I don't think this is one of them…
I totally agree with you on that brother.
You people are clueless esp the APA patsy ELP.
1. The F-35 carriers more fuel internally than a F-16 does with external tanks.
2. The F-16 has a 600Nm combat radius, and with internal weapons still will reach mach 1.6. You cant Load a F-16 Up with 2kLb weapons and Amraams and pull over 5gs or hit mach 1.2
3. With so much fuel space the F-35 can still be effective at less than 1/2 fuel. In Air field defense mode (Below 7+Lbs of fuel) the F-35 is a 1:1 aircraft. The internal fuel capacity for the F-16 is around 4k.
4. The F-35s Flight control software is programed to handle like a F-16. The plane HAS TO PULL 9Gs mach 1.6 (Fully combat loaded) and Have a 50 degree angle of attack before IOC or Lockheed doesn't get paid.
5. The F-35 cost less than a Euro fighter Typhoon. As the production speeds up the price is expected to fall. http://idrw.org/?p=8302
Note the Italians are assembling the F-35 can building parts for it.
F-15SE $100 Mill
Eurofighter: 79 mill (Note Ive seen projected costs in excess of 200 Mill)
T-50 : target cost 100 mill
J-20 : target cost 100 Mill
F-18E + FUTURE UPGRADES 60 MILLION BASELINE BEFORE THROWING IN NEW ENGINES PODS, AND TESTING.
6. F-16s, F-18s wont last a second against new sams, The F-22 line is closed. and you cant make a F-22 land on a carrier any way. the F-35 is the way forward, DEAL with it.
The bottom line is you have a plane that can Take off from a wasp, Fly the F-117s mission, self escort and jam, Fly counter air, and then land in a crappy FOB.
And that's not worth 100Mill?
Deal with it sure. When the birds flame out and the carriers too far to land.
Your way overating the need for a twin engine.
You're judging the single-engine before it's primetime. It's not like the F-22 has reported single-engine failures that would've brought down a JSF.
LOL!!!! I think you deserve a $100 check from LMT for being such a zealous F-35 cheerleader (I picture you as a young girl in a short skirt, jumping up and down waving a bunch of LMT sales brochures for the F-35).
You're probably picturing yourself winning an air-to-air combat by showing the enemy pilot the F-35 sales brochures mid-air. Gosh I really hope you'll be the first one in history to accomplish such a victory. After all, isn't America a land of dreams?
Yehhhhhhhhhhhh ….
Still smirking like a clown, I see. When you're done with doing the down thumping for the Russians, you would realize who bluffed the most -like claiming the Mach 3 speed for the Mig-25. Obviously, the Kool-aid took effect long ago.
I already know who's been bluffing. There is no gray area when it comes to real air combat results between the USSR and the USA, as well as between China and the USA, in the Korean War and the Vietnam War. The US lost the majority of air-to-air combats. The US also lost more aircraft than all its opponents put together times 2 or 3. You are obviously a misguided cheerleader who mistakes ignorant blind bluffing for patriotism.
Post a link to corroborate that claim.
"The US lost the majority of air to air combats"
Hmm. I guess I'll work on those numbers.
http://mysite.verizon.net/anneled/usloss.html
Gives air to air numbers, as most of the numbers out there are aggregated, and include air losses by ground systems.
The verizon link gives about 211 "aircraft"; though I included reconaissance aircraft (which we all know aren't exactly "air to air" combat), disregarded helicopters, cargo aircraft and the one B-52 bomber.
Wikipedia gives:
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 110
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19 10
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 90
Which is 1:1, or a little worse if you add in the bomber and helicopters. If you subtract out recon aircraft or electronic warfare aircraft, it changes the
ratio. However, it's closer than even I gave the USAF credit for.
Sadly, there are a ton of Phantoms lost, even after they put the gun-pods and then the internal M61…so it can't all go to the lack of the gun.
I hope ur right. I have no idea how this will turn out, but it looks like its gonna get built, and theres no going back.
Good news, now just get the weight down on all of the variants. That's my greatest concern, all of the other troubles encountered (IPP, tailhook, etc.) can be fixed.
What about the price? Not worried about that, I guess.
Some people have a lack of reading comprehension. As the article states, "carried a couple of GBU– 31 2,000-pound bombs and a pair of AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs)". These are in the internal storage. The aircraft is designed to be stealthy when necessary and when they are in a benign environment they can carry external stores. They need to test the ability of the jet to carry these external stores.
I'm glad the "experts" here aren't designing our future weapons systems!
Could be worse. They could be Congressmen…..
In laymans terms the plane is a turkey? No? I been reading how bad this has/is turning out. I would hope our "leaders" do wats best, but theres contractor $, lobbyists etc. It looks doomed to fail. Hope im wrong.
Why am I not suprised that this degenerated into a bunch of squealing for "moar Super Hornets" or "moar F-16s!!!"
The idea that the F-16, F-18, or F-15 can remain viable for the next 20-30 years is sheer lunacy. When two other countries have already flown prototype stealth fighters it is not exactly the time to abandon our last remaining fighter program just to satisfy the egos of those who worship the legacy fighters as unbeatable.
There's that straw man again.
I DON'T think the legacy fighters will be viable for all missions for the next 20-30 years. I think the F-35 is unaffordable in the numbers necessary to meet our requirements. I also believe the F-35 design is inherently flawed by its requirement for 'jointness,' and so won't itself be viable against many modern threats.
Well, the legacy fighters are still useful in bullying / harassing weak, small countries in Africa and South America that have not yet acquired or do not have the money to acquire the Sukhois or its equivalent.
I think the F-15, F-16 & F-18 will remain viable for the next 25-30 years. All are still in production, with backlogs on the F-15 until 2015-2016. If South Korea goes with the F-15SE could be longer. Since the avarage life span of a combat aircraft is about 25 to 30 years, these aircraft will most likely fighting along side our aircraft. In the Super Hornets case they will still be viable because the F-35 will at first replace the legacy F-18's and then later on the Super Hornets. Mabey just mabey
the Guard units will get new built 16's and 15's instead of old airforce hand me downs. I understand that is a pipe dream, but you never know.
Why not improve the F-35 before full rate production begins to handle perceived faults?
1 – Thrust vectoring, adapt the same nozzle from the F-22.
2 – Develop stealth fairings for external stores.
3 – Adapt the Python V for extreme aspect missile engagement.
if you add these features (with significant cost I am sure), most short comings will have been fixed.
The thing is can it out maneuver and Mig, Su-27,30,35 or PAK FA when visually spotted?
When it is visually spotted, it is no longer the plane -it is the pilot that matters. And you better hope that your wingwan is also a kick-ass pilot.
In most cases, the F-35 will rely on its stealth, superb avionics to sneak in, detect and pick out the enemy planes/targets from beyond visual view.
but F35 has no rear stealth to speak of so whena SU is on its six, F35 cannot rely on its performance to outrun the chase. Think thats the weak spot of this aircraft and the enemy willuse this to their advantage
Inside visual range, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 have any stealth. In fact, neither have real stealth outside visual range against a properly trained and equipped enemy fleet. The F-22 might claim some low observable properties against legacy US fighters such as the F-16 or F-15 under the right circumstances.
Do NOT take LMT's claims at face value. Such claims almost never pan out in a real war against a real opponent.
huh?????? Even after the F-35 has been visually spotted, it can still rely on its "stealth"??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA. Seriously, air-to-air combat and fighter jet technology is NOT (repeat, NOT) a topic for school dropouts.
Speaking of HS drop out, you're obviously lacking reading comprehension.
The chance of the F-35 getting visually spotted is little, especially when those enemy planes are already nailed from a distance. If you can't see your target, it does matter how fast you can get there.
LOL!!! Quote: "The chance of the F-35 getting visually spotted is little"
That might actually be true, for reasons you might not like to hear:
(1) the F-35 purchase gets canceled because the US has no money to buy or because the Pentagon finds out the F-35 is an expensive joke.
(2) the F-35 gets grounded because of a constellation of technical problems that are more expensive to fix than buying new ones and China won't lend more money to the US.
(3) these expensive junks are actually used in a war and get blasted out of the sky by enemy BVR AAMs or SAMs because they aren't agile enough to duck.
You would make a much better cheerleader if you would get a clean shave (esp. the face, arms and legs), get in a nice pantyhose, a short skirt, and a pair of high heels, and pass out F-35 sales brochures at your town's most crowded spot.
When you say "visual range", is that within the range of IRST? Still need a missile that can lock on, after all.
Not the PAK-FA, its not designed too. You cant complain about weight and cost and then turn around and add super-cruise, and thrust vectoring and expect the plane to be lighters and cheaper. making the plane a pure nothing but dog fighter would also reduce range.
with that said F-16 Like maneuverability and the Aim9-X missile are enough to deal with a su-30 http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-mult…
The F-16s beat the TVing Su-30s using superior tactics.
JessmoELPSnemesis, you are making things up again. I watched that video years ago. Nowhere did it claim that the F-16s beat the Su-30s with "superior tactics". On the contrary, it says that with competent pilots on both sides, the Su-30 are expected to beat the F-15s and F-16s on a regular basis. In fact, most combat exercises between the Flankers (and its derivatives) and the F-15s since 1992 have confirmed the former's clear comparative advantage.
The F-15s and F-16s are still effective fighters when flown by competent pilots. India is not known for competent pilots, nor competent support/maintenance crew. And the ones participating at 2008 Red Flag were young, inexperienced. India's intention was that those young pilots would benefit more than experienced ones because they had far longer service time left and could better pass their experience to the next generation of recruits.
Did you pay attention to what's said about the improved MiG-21 (a Gen-2 model from the Vietnam War era) when used against America's Gen-3 fighters. Guess not.
Is the jet capable of firing its weapons (from the external hardpoints,) and THEN jettisoning the hardpoints themselves to have a sleek streamlined stealthy outward profile again?
You don't mean hardpoint, that's the attach point on the structure. You mean pylon. Yes, pylons can be jettisoned.
Ah right, pylons – thanks. You are right.
That's good – perhaps the F-35s can carry external fuel tanks to boost their range, and also fire AMRAAMs at BVR range against enemy fighters – and THEN – jettison their pylons before the enemy can fire its own missiles back (or before the missiles arrive) – thus causing the enemy missiles to break lock.
Placing the F-35 as part of our air defenses. Whatever happen to our F-16's and F-18's ? Shouldn't they be part of the defense too? We spend billions on these things from tax payers wallet..
Both F-16s and F/A-18s will be around for a time yet. Gradually over the next 25 years they will be phased out of service. Maybe the F-16 can replace the ancient F-5s our Aggressor units are flying.
The F-35 will only replace the "classic" Hornet and not the Super Hornet. Ideally another aircraft will begin to replace the Super Hornet in a few years, but you'd probably wouldn't see the last Super Hornet retired until 2040.
Yet with the direction our country is going, everything will probably have to serve an insanely long time.
Ok "passingby" you're illiterate. You say the poorly armed guerillas in Vietnam kicked out the US? lol then you haven't truly study the Vietnam War. It was a war that never got ended because the North did not want to give up and the fact is that they were losing more soldiers in every battle from large to small. What they win was a non total warfare. If it was to be a total warfare where the US commit all manpower and resources toward the war then Vietnam is no match buddy and Im a Vietnamese but i must admit the fact. In Korea it was the same case with Vietnam. The US did not commit itself to a total warfare there but North Korea and China pretty much did, but still the US with lesser troops were able to hold on and kept the South Koreans safe till NOW! That's the truth. You brought up complicated examples without discussing them thoroughly. I think you're the 1 who is being brainwashed by the Chinese.
Why not look at example such as the Berlin airlift. Soviet Union blockaded all of Berlin but the USAF was able to fly in and out day and night bringing in supplies without being scared by the USSR? Imagine if it wasn't the US who made the airlift but instead a country like Georgia, Im sure the USSR would have shoot all those planes down without doubt.
And btw your claim of the "Chinese Yuan Dynasty" doesn't sound too smooth there buddy because as I remember the Yuan Dynasty is a Dynasty presided in China around the 1200AD but it was actually a Mongolian Dynasty who conquered the Chinese. So to call it a Chinese Dynasty its inaccurate. Its like your boosting credits for the Chinese because they had such a great Dynasty who conquered so much land but actually in the case of the Yuan dynasty the Chinese were the defeated.
And the VC were poorly armed, up until Tet and when the Ho Chi Minh Trail was more fully developed. Once the VC were gone and the NVA moved in, the supply situation improved considerably. Definitely underequipped compared to American troops, but they pulled out in turn and used armored vehicles for the Easter Offensive. They were laying fuel pipelines south once they had the RVN by the tail, and then used a conventional armed force for the final push on Saigon.
LOL!!! You think that by using "True Historian" as your handle, your BS and lies/propaganda will automatically be taken as "true history"??? You can't even write a coherent post (yours is a mess dotted with blatant falsehoods, propaganda, irrelevant nonsense, and personal prejudice). Your so-called understanding of the Chinese Yuan Dynasty is a complete farce. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor – google the term and read!! OR go find a textbook on the subject.
Read a damn book about Vietnam or Korea and you'd see he's correct. Stop getting info from anti-American YouTube videos and maybe you'd learn something.
LOL. Now I wouldn't even call you "brainwashed" because for that to happen you'd have to have a brain first, which doesn't seem to be the case.
symbiosis between Hollywood and the Pentagon. (food for thought)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Aqgq0_RGxU&fe…
another one, for those with a brain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrX1sJ4ktVk&fe…
the yuan dynasty was a mongolian led dynasty. dont get how thats farce. if what he said isnt true history please provide some instead of depending on retarded statements that just display your inadequacy on these topics. For the rest of us please do.
LOL!!!! jhm (does "jhm" stand for "junior high mongo" or "junior high moron"??)
I never claimed the Yuan dynasty to be led by anyone. My original point was, to aid your poor reading comprehension skills a bit, that the US is nothing compared to the Roman Empire or the Yuan Dynasty, both rose by virtue of their own merit (unlike the US), occupied far larger territories, and then collapsed.
That was to refute some idiot's contention that an influential large country never collapses. Does it matter who "led the dynasty"? LOL!!!!!!!!!
The term "Yuan Dynasty" or "Chinese Yuan Dynasty" has always been used to refer to that particular period of time in history by scholars around the world – it's NOT my coinage. Lastly, both "Yuan" and "Dynasty" are English versions of Chinese words. Just using "Yuan dynasty", you are accepting Chinese designations for periods in Chinese history.
You are pretty darn pro-Chinese and anti-Mongolian in trying to blame the collapse on the Mongolians, jhm (junior high moron?)
False Historian, here is a bit of true history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNVYMmZgrHU&fe…
Russians are probably laughing that the bear hunter who set the bear trap just got snagged in it again.
Reading Porter's HuffPo article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/debunking-the-rationale-f_b_180504.html), I think he's looking at it wrong. When you vacate a cleared area the enemy always attempts to return. For a guy who covered Vietnam, I guess he missed the writing on the wall. Yes, our original rationale of kicking out Al Qaeda has diminished, though the Hekmatayars and the Taliban and perhaps a few AQ guys remain kicking in Afghanistan. I thought the rationale shifted to nation-building (that word so dreaded by Republicans in the '90s but so dearly loved after Bush Jr liberated Afghanistan?) so the Taliban wouldn't return again?
If we could, we would probably bop Pakistan, but it's embarassing to have to bop your ally of a half-century, who kept on the Taliban has a hedge-bet against India and the Soviet Union. That cat has been out of the bag a long time and won't go in quietly.
As for "Although the war in Afghanistan cannot solve the al Qaeda problem in Pakistan, it can accelerate the destabilization of Pakistan"…not so sure. Our war in Afghanistan will destabilize Afghanistan first, which can quietly implode *again* without too much harm to Pakistan. We let Afghanistan implode once before, and it created the Taliban. Pakistan was not destabilized any more than it would have, as radical movements have been gaining steam there for years.
Under Cold War circumstances, we probably would have replaced Pakistani leadership by now and mopped up Al Qaeda with a large body count. However we no longer have a strongman, so we just kind of watch Pakistan implode as they attack the government while the government tries to appease them.
China has openly declared that it will take any attack on Pakistan as one on its own. Not a big surprise there. I don't see any big changes in the status quo coming. Meanwhile the US will continue to be drained in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I anticipate zealous US dis-stabilization efforts in Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon, Iran etc, followed by military invasions under false pretenses, unless the US economy implodes before then.
The "war on terror" has always been phony. The establishment's prerogative to preserve the petro-dollar status and control ME oil fields FAR outweighs any other consideration.
Bradley Manning exposed serious war crimes committed by US military in Iraq. He's a whisleblower.
Those who were part of the war crimes and those who incarcerated and tortured Bradley Manning should have been the ones arrested and charged.
Again, you should be ashamed of yourself as a human being.
More talk, more lies. You're the one who should be ashamed of yourself.
He's just trolling you dude…
Do you argue with the crazys in Time Square….
No! So don't bother here. You'll just feed the troll and they'll just go on forever.
Why not scrap this whole thing and go to UAV's. We can no longer afford this nonsense.
America needs to stop being the worlds Policeman. The Trillion we spend on Defense every year ( 660 Billion we know about plus all the Billions for Black OPS and CIA And Homeland insecurity . Could cure Cancer overnight provide a college Education for free to all our young. We should not spend more than the same percentage of GDP on Defense as USSR or China. I'm a Retired Avionics Engineer W/ 30 YRS Designing Weapons Systems. My lifes work has been a waste.
Because UAV's are not some magic solution to everything and we are not racking up the debt due to procurement, research, and development. We are racking up the debt due to nation-building, social-spending, and trillion dollar attempts to fix the economy.
How about we enable a thriving economy so those who go to college can get a job and pay back their debts like the responsible citizens they are supposed to be? How about we stop paying off people's houses and screwing over those who do pay their debts.
I love how at the bottom of anything about fighter jets everybody pretends to be military strategists or aeronautical engineers.
Tak til U.S. for at bruge så mange penge? på at også hjælpe andre lande – i problemer.
No AIM-9's internally (yet)…
You'd probably know better than I would about these pylons, then. When I was working on the airplane, the wings had structural hardpoints but no plans to use them.
We are not doing a plane for plane replacement. The Force is going to be downsized.
The JSF's big weakness is definitely readiness. The loss of a SHIRM has its own potential tech transfer to whoever shoots it down-not sure if the "they already have most of its tech developed" comment is appropriate for the SHIRM, if fielded.
How quickly we can get the -C and -B out to their respective units is an open question. It is possible they may opt for the "beta testing" model taken with the V-22, and push them despite a possible uptick in deaths and equipment failures just to get them out. The -C won't see carrier service until the tailhook gets fixed for sure. And we owe it to international customers to expedite delivery. I don't know if the international customers are willing to be guinea pigs though.
You call them Failures & they are not yet out of flight test. It's like saying a kid is a failure in life at 5th grade. Can we at least wait till they see Squadron use? Do we need a JSF? Debateable. Frankly, we need a tanker to refuel all these jets. More than worries about fighting MIg's & Sukoi's.
LOL!!! The US is nothing compared to the Roman Empire. Do you know what happened to the Roman Empire, or the Chinese Yuan Dynasty? Probably not, else you wouldn't be BS'ing about so-called "unsinkable aircraft carrier". Well, ignorant yet arrogant morons like you abound in America – but then, there is a reason why countries fail. The USSR, the biggest country by land area, disintegrated with little warning. Feel free to smoke whatever good stuff you can get and hallucinate as often as you want. But you can't escape the tyranny of King Reality. Nobody does; no country does.
Go back to junior high and study harder this time around. OK?
If you think the U.S. "is nothing compared to the Roman Empire" or the Yuan Dynasty of China, then you are a mistaken. Neither of those empires could achieve global power in virtually every aspect of human civilization than the United States. The Roman Empire could never move beyond the Mediteranean and its surrounding landmass, and its economic power didn't affect most of Asia. The Yuan Dynasty was also the similar case in Asia. Both was awesome powers of their time, but the U.S. is the only truly global power with economic/military/culture might to influence virtually every country/race/nationals all over the globe.
It looks like you're still in junior high if you could not fathom that much.
Yes, just keep on smirkling about that history of the USSR, which BTW has fallen due to not able to keep up with the USA.
Go ask the Indians and they would tell you how silly the state of Russian defense industry is. You're probably not aware of the Mig-35's radar problem either, eh?
Well, I say that in relation to the F-18, which carries 500 rounds for its gun. From what I've been told by ordinance friends of mine that work on 18s, that's only good for about two passes on a strafing run. Your out of rounds in seconds. Since the F-35 is supposed to replace the A-10 eventually, they're going to lose the big punch of around 1000 AP rounds from a 30mm cannon to 250 rounds from a 20mm cannon. That's pretty much the consensus from the F-35 ordies that I've worked with also. It's nice for the pilot to have in any case, but it's not likely going to do them much good.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The US has achieved global power? You mean like getting kicked out of Vietnam by poorly armed peasant guerrilla despite having more aircraft, more naval vessals, more tanks, more guns, more bombs, on top of burning almost a Trillion dollars (which led to the US default in gold redemption in 1971)? You mean like getting beat by the poorly armed Chinese volunteers (no navy, no air force, no mechanized troops) in the Korean War and pulling off the largest retreat in US history? You mean like supporting the KMT nationalists in the Chinese Civil War with expensive weapons, military advisers, and numerous other forms of support, just to watch the KMT regulars get annihilated in the millions by ordinary peasants and poorly armed Chinese Communist Red Army???
You've been thoroughly brainwashed by US propaganda. You know nothing about the Roman Empire, other than that there was one. Try to get yourself back to reality first.
Just by talking about the MiG-35, you've given yourself away as a totally clueless, mindless amateur-cheerleader. Why keep BS'ing about something you obviously don't know?? Wouldn't the time be better spent actually studying something for real???
Getting our asses kicked? Are you a moron? American soldiers bested in the Vietcong and NVA in every major engagement. The greatest offensive by the North, the Tet Offensive failed miserably in reality. Yet South Vietnam couldn't get their act together.
Had Washington not been so controlling and foolish, unrestricted strategic bombing could have brought the North to peace talks much earlier. If we had done so, perhaps we could have come to a better agreement, perhaps they would have waited a few years before going on the offensive in South Vietnam. Perhaps Vietnamization would have had some more success.
In Korea efforts were winding down as UN forces pushed towards the Yalu river. MacArthur didn't believe the Chinese would enter the war. He ignored intelligence reports, some of which came from captured Chinese regular soldiers who confirmed that hundreds of thousands of Chinese were pouring into the country. Several battles with the Chinese were ignored prior to their real offensive.
So UN forces not equipped for sustained combat action were caught off guard and driven back by overwhelming numbers. Yet they still inflicted horrendous casualties on the Chinese.
Yet the war waged on and through blood and sweat we drove them back to the DMZ and fought in some brutal static warfare.
The Chinese nationalists got their gear during WWII in order to better fight the Japanese. By the time the Chinese Civil War resumed Western advisers were long gone. The nationalist forces were not well trained and had worse leadership, plus the communists were soon getting aid from the Soviet Union.
But I suppose you must get history from PRC propaganda posters of peasants driving back crack troops with nothing but the spirit of socialism and Chairman Mao's smiling image in the background.
Read a book you moron. I'd first suggest "The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War" by David Halberstam.
Ok you say the poorly armed guerillas in Vietnam kicked out the US? lol then you haven't truly study the Vietnam War. It was a war that never got ended because the North did not want to give up and the fact is that they were losing more soldiers in every battle from large to small. What they win was a non total warfare. If it was to be a total warfare where the US commit all manpower and resources toward the war then Vietnam is no match buddy and Im a Vietnamese but i must admit the fact. In Korea it was the same case with Vietnam. The US did not commit itself to a total warfare there but North Korea and China pretty much did, but still the US with lesser troops were able to hold on and kept the South Koreans safe till NOW! That's the truth. You brought up complicated examples without discussing them thoroughly. I think you're the 1 who is being brainwashed by the Chinese.
Why not look at example such as the Berlin airlift. Soviet Union blockaded all of Berlin but the USAF was able to fly in and out day and night bringing in supplies without being scared by the USSR? Imagine if it wasn't the US who made the airlift but instead a country like Georgia, Im sure the USSR would have shoot all those planes down without doubt.
And btw your claim of the "Chinese Yuan Dynasty" doesn't sound too smooth there buddy because as I remember the Yuan Dynasty is a Dynasty presided in China around the 1200AD but it was actually a Mongolian Dynasty who conquered the Chinese. So to call it a Chinese Dynasty its inaccurate. Its like your boosting credits for the Chinese because they had such a great Dynasty who conquered so much land but actually in the case of the Yuan dynasty the Chinese were the defeated.
I've just proven you don't know history, so go ahead and make some stupid claims about the superiority of Russian or Chinese aircraft for me.
LOL. That's not history; that's delusions of grandeur coupled with mindless regurgitation of brainless propaganda. You are the kind of "patriotic sheeple" that if a bunch of politicians piss at your legs and tell you it's raining, you'll thank them for the heads-up.
"Winning every major engagement and yet lost the war … blahblahblah" – that's almost an exact copy of the Confederacy BS after losing the Civil War. For people with even half a brain, such claims wouldn't pass the smell test.
Do you ever use your brain and question that stuff you're being fed?? Ever heard of "Critical thinking", "Logical reasoning" and the likes??? Guess not.
You didn't read "The Coldest Winter" or anything else for that matter. Until you learn HOW to read, WHAT to read, and HOW to think, your so-called "reading" will be a complete waste of time.
The US government and US military have little credibility:
example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1WCOAUVss0&fe…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dkpZLQPSWA&fe…
Not necessarily. The world didn't end when the Roman Empire collapsed. Same for the British Empire, the USSR …
The American "empire" didn't emerge until WWII but began to fissile out after the Korean War (1951) and the Vietnam War.
Make no mistakes, America WILL collapse – it's already collapsing on the economic and financial fronts. Timing for the final capitulation similar to that of the USSR will be difficult as the variables involved are numerous and complex. As I said earlier, most Americans have no clue what's going on due to sheer lack of real journalism in America (or widespread misinformation/disinformation/distraction/diversion by the propaganda apparatus known as the mainstream media).
LOL. The only thing you've proved is that you're an impostor. You don't know the real history of wars America has made, nor do you know anything about combat aircraft technology. You are just another run-of-the-mill cheerleader and robotic repeater of official propaganda. You are completely out of touch with reality. You are part of the basket of ills and causes for America's decline and eventual collapse.
here is another one: (I can't possibly list even a tiny fraction of the body of evidence for the morally bankrupt US government and the US military.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLzlTvV4U3A&fe…
You speak of me to credibility and you post leftist YouTube videos in support of that cowardly, treasonous Bradley Manning? That coward deserves to hang for leaking countless reports and putting American soldiers and their allies in danger. But of course somebody like you would support him. You can't recognize the real heroes.
I love it when some MORON talks about "critical thinking" and "logical reasoning" as if such statements will make him look smart.
Battle after battle we defeated the NVA and VC and inflicted heavy casualties upon them. The facts don't lie.
I'm sure the PRC wishes every citizen/slave could be as dedicated as you.
An imposter of who? You're a typical worthless America-bashing troll claiming "stealth is dead durrr" and singing praises for Russian or Chinese tech.
This is so funny how all Chinese wanted the US to go bankrupt. I wonder if the US go bankrupt, is it going to hurt the Americans or the Chinese. Remember 1 thing, we Americans are spending money that are hard earned by you Chinese. If we go bankrupt what do we have to lose? Nothing. But you Chinese, hahah will pretty much lose EVERYTHING if we go bankrupt. So the Chinese propaganda have it that they hope the US go bankrupt, but behind the scenes, all the top Chinese leaders get headache everytime there are bad news about the US economy. Not only will you Chinese lose all of your US bonds but your export economy will also lose its biggest trade partner. For example, if Apple runs out of business im sure thousands or even millions of Chinese will be jobless! But if your Baidu company runs out of business what effect does it has on the US? nothing negative beside positive news for Google since it no longer has competition. Remember your Chinese non heavy consumption economy is depended upon the US heavy consumption economy, the US economy is not truly depended upon the Chinese economy.
Also, the Chinese economy doesn't look that bright like what data shows due to misleading info. China economy is not a private economy where individuals own businesses. The majority of the large businesses are state owned. These state owned companies owed trillion of US dollars in debt, how ever it is not being considered public debt in data and statistics, but we all know, these companies are state owned and so its debts also means the government debts. So dont be too excited with your economy just yet.
It's a crap replacement for the A-10, but in AtA your engagement opportunities are so fleeting that it's more about rpm and a quick tap of the trigger more than holding down the trigger and spraying bullets. Alternatively, the gun is supposed to be a 25mm instead of the workhorse M61.
I wish they'd replace the A-10 with a proper aircraft…
The B and C F-35s Do have a gun, in a stealthy pod. here is a great image http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture… the gun is a 25mm cannon. And hey, if the the French can get by with only 180 30mm cannon rounds….
LOL!!! Quote: "Battle after battle we defeated the NVA and VC and inflicted heavy casualties upon them. The facts don't lie." NOW, enlighten me, great one. What's your basis for calling it "facts"???
Yes, I'm calling you out and challenging you to back up your claims that the US won every major engagement and somehow lost the war. You know why? Because I know you can't. LOL!!!
LOL!!! See? You exposed yourself once again not only as a mindless sheeple that feeds on brainless propaganda, but also a morally defunct supporter of proven war crimes.
Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Bradley Manning and his likes are the true heroes and honorable citizens of the world; opposite him are thugs, criminals, murderers and their shameless accomplices and supporters.
No more for you.
True Historian, is that you?? LOL!!!
Just as True Historian is no historian, you are no economist.
How did you come to the conclusion that "all Chinese wanted the US to go bankrupt"???????? What's your basis for calling me a Chinese?? (pssssst, rhetorical questions!!)
Go get an introductory text on economics and read, will ya?!
What? Where and when did I sing praises for Russian or Chinese tech?
Whatever is that you've been smoking, I want some, too!!! (nah, not really. I don't do drugs)
And I don't bash America. I expose it. I know that a lot of people can't handle the truth. But that's not my problem.
Do you not understand politics?
Lets look at the Tet Offensive as an example. Bloody fighting throughout the south. Gritty street by street fighting in Hue and elsewhere. But by the end of it, the North had been driven back with well over 100,000 casualties and the Viet-Cong virtually destroyed.
Yet it became a political victory for the North due to the situation back in the United States and the continued displays of corruption and incompetence in the South Vietnamese government. The war showed no signs of ending and American citizens were tired of it. So we began the long draw-down.
If you want a single battle look at Khe Sahn. The North built up a massive force to attack the base we established there. Through brutal fighting and around-the-clock airpower we halted their attack.
But as a perfect reflection of the ****-up situation that Vietnam was, we just packed up and abandoned the base a few months later.
You can't win a war through causality counts alone, and we couldn't just drive north, take their cities, and topple their government due to the Soviet Union and PRC.
"The US also lost more aircraft than all its opponents put together times 2 or 3"
This might be true in Vietnam, because Vietnam had a tiny air force and a massive, proper air defense system, and we used ours to put dumb bombs on small, heavily defended targets.
Didn't we have a debate about the Thunderchief and its loss rates already?
I did my reading about the Korean War and the Vietnam War around 20 years ago. Mostly books, magazines, documentary films, plus some online and other sources. It's hard if not impossible to re-construct a list of sources.
I don't trust US sources for a good reason – they have proved to be unreliable. For one thing the vast majority of wars started by the US have been for totally illegitimate reasons, i.e. false pretenses. And the US military has had a compelling reason to hide severe casualties to avoid public backlash.
Have you seen this? (mine was a cursory look.)
http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/korea/reports/air/korwal…
Since I already spent a lot of time on this many years ago, I won't be revisiting the same material over and over again. I already know what I'm interested in knowing.
I think right now "serious time" should be spent on preparing for hyperinflation of the US dollar in the coming years.
Well, DTIC is an American source. It's a sad truth that many of the sources are indeed American, whether we like it or not. It's not like Russian sources can be trusted either. That said, your research 20 years ago would also have been built mostly on western sources…since the Soviets, Vietnamese and Chinese weren't exactly talking.
Of course, the 'truths' finally came out from the mouth of 'passingby' who obviously knew nothing about what happened in those corners of the world. What he touted as 'truth' is nothing but pure fictional propaganda concocted by the communists to enoble their cause. But then again, one must not let the mind wander around when there is lack of basis for argument one usually digs up faulty past in order to justify it.__Never mind which side of history you're on, Moron. We are talking about the here and now:__Where is the USSR? Broken and disbanded.__Where is the Yuan Dynasty? Check the dust bin of history.__Which country today has the world's largest economy and military? The USA.__Which country has more inventions that benefited mankind in a wide spectrum of fields the world has ever known? The USA.__Which country has its pop culture/social trends/customs copied by youths the world over? The USA.__Which country has the most people who would risk their lives by any means possible to come to visit/work/live more than all the world combined? The USA.__You haven't seen a person getting shot trying to cross the Berlin Wall to… East Germany, have you?
True Historian,
You're forgetting that Vietnam was /started/ as a clandestine military aid program and was thought of as a sideshow to the Cold War in Europe (but eventually consumed resources well in excess of a "sideshow"). It was never intended to be a war consuming our total resources; and that's why we never really pushed any harder, and thought we could just quietly bleed draftees until things settled down like they did in Korea.
Everyone understood the Soviets were a threat to the safety of the United States, but enough draftee young men and women weren't convinced that that the war in South Vietnam was "worth it". Was domino theory true? Unknown. Was the Republic of Vietnam quite incapable of fighting the war of self-preservation? On many levels. Should we be fighting and dying for the Vietnamese in greater quantities than ARVN? Hmm. The other sub-question was that it took place during the Civil Rights movement: did it seem right to send second-class citizens to die overseas for a country that did not love them as equal sons? There was also the fact that the war was sold as "limited" and then mysteriously escalated over, and over and over again. I imagine the war would have been better conducted if the generals had been more open and honest: that the NVA was resupplying through other countries with their tacit consent or via coercion. The war will be pushed into North Vietnam; and Cambodia and Laos will be "encouraged" to "seal their borders". It was open-ness like this that cracked the Cuban Missile Crisis wide open. If we had attack Cuba merely on the word of Adlai Stevenson, the consequences would have been different. But increasing the demands of a "sideshow" every year just to stay running in place did not appeal to America, especially if the pretext was flimsy and Vietnam did not appear to amount to much in the grand scheme of things.
Vietnam was lost at home (and especially after Congress refused to resupply South Vietnam), though there were a number of tactical encounters that didn't end well for the United States.
Regarding Korea, the PLA sent a "Volunteer Corps" and didn't equip it particularly well in terms of winter boots (though they had winter coats), tanks, aircraft, trucks and the like; even though they had access to Kuomintang stores and Soviet military aid. The Soviets sent limited advisory units and for the north, it was a total war as much as it was for the south.
As for Chinese dynasties, I'm always partial to the Han and the Ming. The Yuan was a titular Mongol dynasty, but was heavily culturally influenced by China until they were expelled. I thought the Qing were idiots.
See? I knew it. Same old BS propaganda and brain dead excuses. Lying, like rewriting history, is a difficult art. You are nowhere close to being qualified. Give it a rest, kiddo.
Looks like your collection of crack pipes has expanded. Thanks to Obama's stimulus package???
The USA is going the way of the former USSR.
You'll be a live witness unless you die of old age, illness or drug overdose in the next 8-13 years.
In fact, people like you are part of the evidence for the coming collapse.
Considering Hollywood has often been very left and anti-war (at least up until 9/11); it's hard to say that Hollywood and the Pentagon are symbiotic. Hollywood feeds demand from the masses. After Vietnam, the population was very much anti-war and anti-military, which has gradually flipped. Hollywood is just meeting demand. No conspiracy here.
This conversation is about the merits of aircraft though, so if he is going to put up numbers that include penetrating an IADS I simply wanted to point out that's an apples to oranges comparison. Although given that he's obviously just a troll it probably isn't worth the effort.
Cool story bro. Maybe try actually responding to my points and people would take you seriously.
DTIC is a US source, and my impression (from a cursory look) is that it's more than many other US sources but fewer than numbers claimed by the USSR, PRC, NKorea. The Soviets, the Vietnamese, the Koreans and the Chinese did publish some numbers, not in English via American media. But the materials had been translated into a few major languages including Japanese, Spanish, French, and German.
The most pathetic and clownish liars in war reporting back then were South Koreans. I speculate that the underlying reason is more than cultural (lying to save face) but involves calculations in military morale, international propaganda, and pressures from the US. Unlike the Chinese, who were almost always employed on the first waves of attacks, the Americans almost always made the South Koreans fight on the very front whenever possible. Chinese generals (most notably Lin Biao) had a very low opinion of American and British soldiers, but high regard for Turkish troops.
Wasn’t it Peng Duhai that commanded the troops in Korea, and not Lin?
"Unlike the Chinese, who were almost always employed on the first waves of attacks"
By the time the Chinese jumped in, North Korean military units had been heavily depleted. The Chinese provided much-needed breathing room.
As for South Korea, nobody was crazy enough to let the locals hang back and let the United Nations do all the dying. There is no free lunch. They deployed as full units during the northern advance, and were the first to be hammered by the Volunteer Corps at Chosin Reservoir. At Choisin, all nations fought on the front line, but weren't a very well integrated fighting force (a mistake rectified by GW1).
Yup agree with your points about the Vietnam War. The US mission or goal there was never to defeat the North because due to restrictions it could not cross the 17th parallel and directly invade the North. Its main goal there was pretty much to defend South Vietnam from falling into the hands of the VC or North. But that got way too costly all thanks to China for sending in excessive supplies to the North.
However, I don't agree with your claim about the Yuan and Qing Dynasty there. The Yuan Dynasty was the 1 who actually didn't get influence much by Chinese culture and they never wanted to integrate themselves. Thats why there were so much differences that lead to rebellions. For the Qing they not only adopted Chinese cultures but they even adopted the Chinese language to use it as the primary language. Thats why that dynasty lasted much longer than the Mongol. Thats also why rebellions that ended the Qing did not claim much about kicking out the Qing minority but rather to end imperial rule in China. Because by that time the Qing Manchurian was being seen or considered a Chinese.
I already did. Perhaps you should put away your crack pipe for a few hours, take a cold shower, and read my post again a few more times.
More importantly, you need to grow a brain and stop defending the power that is robbing the average Americans blind … the US government, Wall Street banksters and the US military industrial complex.
Jesus Christ!
passingby… If only you had some concept of how stupid you look right now… You'd probably lose sleep over it… LOL you look like a compete dunce right now. It's people like you that make reading blogs and news pages worth it. No matter how soundly someone argues against your points… well, you troll on…
"I already did"
FOOL!!!!! LOL!!!! WHERE?!?! YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT! Thanks for the laugh bro… =D =D =D =D =D
Oh… my… god….
It'll be 9/11…. times a thousand!!!
O_o
"And I don't bash America. I expose it. I know that a lot of people can't handle the truth. But that's not my problem."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! You sir are hilarious. =*D
Peng De Huai was the commander in the Korean War. But before that, small operations to "test" the American troops in Korea were directed by Lin Biao. At the end of those (quite successful) operations, Lin Biao's comment to Mao Ze Dong on American troops was essentially that they were arrogant, undisciplined, ineffective and afraid to die.
Lin Biao was allegedly Mao's first choice because of his reputation and track record in annihilating large enemy forces with drastically smaller ones. Lin Biao declined and recommended Peng De Huai.
All I remember of Lin was that he spent much of WW2 benched after an injury in '38, but did good service in the 30's and during the CCW.
Germans in WW2 had similar comments, depending on what units they fought. Also, Chinese preference towards night ops and surprise attacks tended to be disorienting, and would probably cause troops to give ground before standing and fighting.
Well, it's more complicated than that. First of all, things change. Secondly, Hollywood is a very powerful source of influence, arguably more powerful than regular news hour propaganda machines (like Fox) over children and teenagers. Thirdly, to exercise influence, credibility is a big issue. It would be beneficial for Hollywood to assume an anti-war image while producing movies that glorify wars, demonize foreign countries, and promote/justify violence in name of patriotism. Over time, such notions/images will be burned into viewers' subconscious mind and shape their outlook, values, opinions, and standards. Of course, movies / entertainment can help steer the population away from the kind of discipline necessary for pursuit of serious knowledge – the kind that can threaten the establishment (or the shadow government) in the US.
well if we are such dimwits, why haven't you achieved a nice masters degree or phd and become a reasonable weapon system acquirement analysist??? then you could provide real analysis on this matter instead of belittling your opponents in fallacies that skirt the main issue.
In the end, high ROF (but more importantly, zero lag time between trigger pull and rounds down-range) and large rounds are what is called for in AtA dogfighting. The opportunity to land hits will be so tiny that any lag is going to cause problems…and even if you have a rotary barrel weapon, the slightest lag in spooling up may cause a shot to miss. That's probably why the 25mm went with a three (or was it four?) barrel configuration.
For air to ground, you'll need lots of ammunition for sustainable CAS…unless you have tons of JSFs loitering around ready to make their serial attack runs with 200ish rounds of 25mm.
not sure about the multiples in ratio but …
9/11 was an inside job; so is (arguably) the coming collapse.
Lin's head injury cost him dearly. But according to Chinese account, Lin participated in the planning of the Korean War (though Lin was against helping North Korea). Lin also participated in the 1962 border war with India, which ended in a swift, routing defeat for the latter. The summary defeat of India has left a lasting scar in the bilateral relationship between the two countries and continues to be a seemingly insurmountable barrier to a Russian-proposed alliance among China, India and Russia.
edit: meant to say:
Lin participated in the planning of China's entry in the Korean War.
South Korean military had been similarly depleted before the counter-offensive.
But NK forces were physically exhausted and poorly supplied following the retreat to Yalu River.
While we're on the topic of wikileaks:
http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1146487_re-obl-…
"——Original Message——
From: Fred Burton
To: Secure List
Subject: OBL take — quick response needed
Sent: May 12, 2011 15:25
I can get access to the materials seized from the OBL safe house.
What are the top (not 45) questions we want addressed?
–
Sean Noonan
Tactical Analyst"
Within ten days, a well-placed person is ready to talk to someone outside of the military/CIA about it? Unless Stratfor has some mysterious place of trust…
Well, I enjoyed it just as much, if not more.
But if you actually had a clue about what the deeds of the US govt and the shadow power behind it, you wouldn't be so giddy.
edit: meant to say:
… if you actually had a clue about ALL the deeds …
:P LOL.
False Historian in action.
Creating your own history isn't as simple as you might think, fool.
LOL!!!