Home The Lodge

F-35B aircraft: Is it worth the cost?

13»

Replies

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,039 Senior Member
    Sorry Stev but I was referring to the harriers. Does it cost a trillion dollars to maintain them?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,039 Senior Member
    Primelies wrote: »
    How long before the chinese or any other potential adversary have technology that is similar?

    We spend more on our military than the Chinese and the Russians combined. Actually quite a bit more.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • slenonslenon Senior Member Posts: 148 Senior Member
    Sorry Stev but I was referring to the harriers. Does it cost a trillion dollars to maintain them?

    The same logic and logistics apply to Harriers. They are old and technologically inferior.

    China is benefiting from their acquisitions of hardware and software that is illegal to export. But greed seems to overcome both nationalism and ethics.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    slenon wrote: »
    As for my reasons to justify the expenditure, I've been on the ground in need of TAC AIR. At that time, there was nothing available in our arsenal that wasn't justified. .

    This is the kind of thinking that leaves a country spending $1 trillion a year on defense during times of peace. The kind of thinking that allows your only enemy to collapse, but results in no cut in defense spending. I won't buy into it.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    We spend more on our military than the Chinese and the Russians combined. Actually quite a bit more.

    actually at this point in time ... direct defense and defense related spending ... we spend more than the rest of the planet combined

    as far as the Chinese having similar technology?

    as long as we have an agenda that demonizes education (and the educated) as well denies even the most basic of science concepts and throws out reason and replaces it with 'beliefs' then the answer to Primelies is, "not very long if at all"

    I'll backtrack and ask again ... is winning the technological battle even practical? taking a lesson from military history, the Germans were far more technologically advanced with respect to all sorts of weapon systems and it simply didn't matter ... they were outnumbered and out produced ... the concept of preparing to go up against China at some point may produce some tactical succsesses but strategically is it wise? or even realistic? the answer comes back (at IMHO) a definitive 'No'

    at some point in our thinking and approach to the world the age of conquest and colonization needs to give way to the age of commerce ... we need to stop thinking along the lines of Global Military Dominance as the only way to be 'secure' ... gunboat diplomacy was 19th century and even practical but in this day n age in which continents are seperated militarily by minutes is it economically sound?

    and in fact a country like China while maybe not our technological equal on the battlefield, they at least understand they don't have to be or throw the finances away trying to be in order to beat us

    like I said being numba wun in military technology may end up being a pyrrhic victory if economically we are a disaster
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 5,747 Senior Member
    Primelies wrote: »
    How long before the chinese or any other potential adversary have technology that is similar?

    China
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20
    Russia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_LMFS
    India
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Medium_Combat_Aircraft\
    and a joint Indian/Russian project
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi/HAL_FGFA

    are all working on multi-role, 5th generation fighters incorporating stealth technology, with the Russian Sukhoi flying, and the Chinese supposedly flying also. The Indian offering, the Mikoyan, and the joint project are planned/in development.

    What is a cause of concern with regards to all three offerings is not necessarily that they will be used by their home countries, but possible procurement by another country and use against the U.S. Much like Soviet armaments have been used against the U.S.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,039 Senior Member
    monkeydoes wrote: »
    actually at this point in time ... direct defense and defense related spending ... we spend more than the rest of the planet combined

    as far as the Chinese having similar technology?

    as long as we have an agenda that demonizes education (and the educated) as well denies even the most basic of science concepts and throws out reason and replaces it with 'beliefs' then the answer to Primelies is, "not very long if at all"

    I'll backtrack and ask again ... is winning the technological battle even practical? taking a lesson from military history, the Germans were far more technologically advanced with respect to all sorts of weapon systems and it simply didn't matter ... they were outnumbered and out produced ... the concept of preparing to go up against China at some point may produce some tactical succsesses but strategically is it wise? or even realistic? the answer comes back (at IMHO) a definitive 'No'

    at some point in our thinking and approach to the world the age of conquest and colonization needs to give way to the age of commerce ... we need to stop thinking along the lines of Global Military Dominance as the only way to be 'secure' ... gunboat diplomacy was 19th century and even practical but in this day n age in which continents are seperated militarily by minutes is it economically sound?

    and in fact a country like China while maybe not our technological equal on the battlefield, they at least understand they don't have to be or throw the finances away trying to be in order to beat us

    like I said being numba wun in military technology may end up being a pyrrhic victory if economically we are a disaster

    Yes even if they had sticks a rocks a billion man army wins unless we use tactical nukes.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member

    "Carlo Kopp has suggested that the J-20's overall stealth shaping is "without doubt considerably better" than the F-35

    According to recent pictures from the internet, two small dark diamond shaped windows can be seen on both sides of the nose, which could house certain EO sensors, such as MAWS and/or IRST. Two additional windows are seen underneath the rear fuselage, plus two more on top of the forward fuselage above the canard wings, suggesting a distributed situational awareness system similar to the EODAS onboard American F-35 was installed providing a full 360° coverage."


    Maybe it's time to start figuring out ways to 'just be friends' ... of course we'd have to shed our tendancy to judge not same-same with our moral superiority trip laden with a baggage train full of hypocrisy ... cue the 'better dead than Red' crowd (you know ... the ones who've never put on a uniform - glancing towards FNC)
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 5,747 Senior Member
    Like I said, I don't think that we need to worry about open conflict with the Chinese (maybe economic, but most all nations do that.)

    But, what influence can we have as to who they sell the jet to? Furthermore, do we have a right to try and influence those decisions?
  • TomTom Senior Member Posts: 253 Senior Member
    are all working on multi-role, 5th generation fighters incorporating stealth technology, with the Russian Sukhoi flying, and the Chinese supposedly flying also. The Indian offering, the Mikoyan, and the joint project are planned/in development.

    Yeah but, none of them have a decepticon hidden in their biggest waterworks project, providing them with unlimited reverse engineering potential.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,039 Senior Member
    Who out there is going to be able to afford enough to be a threat?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 8,664 Senior Member
    Diplomacy and cooperation should come first where applicable. China is a good example where we would be better off avoiding a fight.
    monkeydoes wrote: »
    Maybe it's time to start figuring out ways to 'just be friends' ...
    I'm doing my part. I ordered some more Chinese stuff for my camera off eBay. And in name of friendship, China can send there lonely hotties here.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • slenonslenon Senior Member Posts: 148 Senior Member
    Jamespio wrote: »
    This is the kind of thinking that leaves a country spending $1 trillion a year on defense during times of peace. The kind of thinking that allows your only enemy to collapse, but results in no cut in defense spending. I won't buy into it.

    There was a huge decrease in Military spending after the Soviets crumbled. the Bush wars ran the costs back up as you know.

    Still, if we are going to field anything more than a banana republic army, it must keep current with technology.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    I've got a question for everyone who wants to gut the DOD and dump it all into education (not trying to disagree our education system could use some reform here).

    So I have a good education. I have a MS in mechanical engineering that I busted my a$$ to get. I had scholarships for a large chunk of my undergrad work and was a teaching assistant while getting my MS as well as being an unfunded research assistant to pay my way.

    Anyway I am employed by one of these evil defense contractors. You know, the ones that only provide overruns and milk the government for every last dime and don't really give a $hat about the military (okay I digress there).

    I am far from alone in the industry. My guess would be that at least 25% of my colleagues have MS, probably 5% have PhDs and pretty much everyone else has a BS.

    So here we have an extremely well educated portion of our society. And now we want to tell them to hit the road so that we can pay to educate more folks. So I ask what are those that are currently employed in the defense industry to do with their education and what is the next crop going to do with theirs?
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 8,664 Senior Member
    I don't think anybody here wants to "gut" the DoD. They want the government to make better economic decisions while providing for defense. Simply put, don't waste money. Where there is a need for upgrading technology and/or a need to increase production of existing tools for our defense, then there isn't a problem with spending the money.

    Some things like the F35B can be paid for, at least in part, by cutting elsewhere. I'm sure military aircraft use fasteners like the Dzus. They are used in civil aviation. How much does DoD pay for Dzus fasteners and how much does the maintenance departments of airlines pay for them? If there is a deference, I'd bet the airlines pay less. They are in business to make money, so wasting money is dumb. Why wouldn't the DoD seek the same kind of costs? This is just one small example of a way to cut costs, but if applied where ever applicable, then it starts to add up.

    I'm sure we waste money many other ways, possibly too numerous to discuss in the thread. Cutting waste can pay for the systems that keep those educated people working for defense contractors. Now some will lose their jobs, but unless they are very specialized, then they could find jobs in other industries as long as we improve our economy. An electrical engineer working for Boeing could find a job with Ford. A mechanical engineer working for Lockheed could work for Trane.

    As long as we destroy the economy, everybody's jobs are at stake.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    are you telling us engineers can only build things to blow **** up? that's all they're capable

    folks don't want to gut defense and dump it into education and giveaways etc ... that is simple talk radio hyperbole ... that we out spend everyone else all put together is a little over the top and didn't you read the article posted in which it's been determined that on a per capita basis defense spending isn't the most efficient job creation vehicle ... seems engineers could be put to work in solving an energy situation (that is if the status quo of coal and oil were to ever let that happen) or find more economical ways for space or undersea exploration (still a lot of the planet left unexplored) ... there are ways ... even the buggy whip designers found new industries
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    BTW ... $100 billion a year in obsolete and unneccessary weapon systems and logistics

    there's a trillion right there from just the last decade ... you know when fiscal 'conservatives' ruled the land?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,039 Senior Member
    Actually I do want to gut them. I want them to account for every penny and I want the revolving door from defense purchasing to defense contractor stopped immediately. I want to stop building helicopters, and transport planes the military doesn't even want just because they are built in Senator Grassley's district. I want us to stop buying newer better and more expensive just because it is newer better and more expensive. While troops go to war with the "Army we have and not the Army we wish we had." If it is mission critical, I could agree, however I am not convinced it is. I am sick and tired of throwing money down a hole just so people don't look like they are weak on defense.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.

Advertisement