F-35

@athousandyoung said
Talk about fighting the last war...

@earl-of-trumps said
not sure what you mean. "the last war". hmmm

@athousandyoung said
Propeller driven planes? Welcome to the jet age! This isn’t 1946!

@wildgrass

and again, WG, your points are well taken by me. This is a darn good thread. very informative. All of you.

@wildgrass said
The jet age was last century. This is the drone / satellite / information age.

If another country had 1,000 F-35s at their disposal they could not have inflicted as much damage on our oil/gas infrastructure as whoever knockout out the Colonial pipeline. After all these posts about what hypothetical powers the F-35 may or may not have we haven't identified a single strate ...[text shortened]... lausible scenario in which we all go "oh, ok, that's why it was worth $1.7 trillion."????

Please.

@athousandyoung said
So where's the drone AWACS to replace the Hawkeye?

@wildgrass said
I don't know. Why are we spending so much money on the F-35?

@athousandyoung said
Because it is an effective plane with many capabilities including communications, electronic warfare, stealth bombing, air to air combat, V/STOL, reconnaissance and drone management.

You are awfully critical of the F35 for someone who admittedly doesn't know much.

@wildgrass said
Is there a price at which you would say "eh, that seems like too much money for an airplane?"

I admit I don't know a lot but the links I've posted include interviews given by the Air Force Chief of Staff and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Those guys DO know what they're talking about, and they agree with what I have been writing here. It's too much m ...[text shortened]... ricts rely on the federal dollars for local industries. The whole corporate welfare thing in action.

@athousandyoung said
Why don’t you forward my questions to them?

@wildgrass said
On the hawkeye replacement (no spared expense), or the financial cost of the F-35? I'm sure they thought about it.

Would $10 trillion be too much for the F-35? Or is it still worth it?

https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-quarterback-us-marine-corps-navy-2016-9


The F-35's integration with Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense platforms, recently proven in a test at White Sands Missile Range, shows that the F-35 can destroy airborne enemies without firing a shot of it's own by leveraging the US Navy's Naval Integrated Fire Control Counterair network (NIFC-CA).

Basically, the NIFC-CA uses a giant network of sensors to create targeting data that can be accessed by several naval platforms, like destroyers and other planes.

But the NIFC-CA is old. Ships first deployed with this capability in March 2015.

In the past, the Navy's E-2 Hawkeye played the "quarterback" role in this system as an "elevated sensor" that could see airborne threats at altitude, in orbit, or flying low like a cruise missile.

However the Hawkeye is an unarmed propeller-driven plane that only launches from aircraft carriers.

Now, the F-35 can do everything the Hawkeye did, and much, much more.

https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2011/01/31/scrap-awacs-jstars-plough-dough-into-f-35

Former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne wants the Air Force to get rid of large surveillance and reconnasisance aircraft such as AWACS and JSTARS, which are vulnerable to attack because of their huge radar cross-sections, and take the money saved and shove it into the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Wynne made his arguments on the website Second Line of Defense, run by the international defense consultant Robbin Laird. I spoke with Wynne this morning. His essential argument is that large aircraft such as these, while possessing excellent capabilities, are so vulnerable in time of war that the enormous amounts of money spent paying the large crews needed to fly and maintain these systems would be better spent making F-35s into the flying intelligence and targeting networks that they are designed to be.

@athousandyoung said
About the planned drone replacement for the Hawkeye...since you have unilaterally decided manned jets aren’t good enough for the job.

Again, the article I posted that you haven’t addressed:

https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-quarterback-us-marine-corps-navy-2016-9


The F-35's integration with Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense platforms, recently prove ...[text shortened]... aircraft carriers.

Now, the F-35 can do everything the Hawkeye did, and much, much more.

@wildgrass said
Unilaterally? Maybe you missed the earlier post but the Air Force Chief of Staff and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee (in the House of Representatives) agree with that assessment.

I think I have addressed your post over and over. The F-35 is super cool and deadly and better than other aircraft. It's also way too expensive, and the budget should be cut.

@wildgrass said
The jet age was last century. This is the drone / satellite / information age.

If another country had 1,000 F-35s at their disposal they could not have inflicted as much damage on our oil/gas infrastructure as whoever knockout out the Colonial pipeline. After all these posts about what hypothetical powers the F-35 may or may not have we haven't identified a single strate ...[text shortened]... lausible scenario in which we all go "oh, ok, that's why it was worth $1.7 trillion."????

Please.