|
Post by Life's too short. on Jun 18, 2009 15:42:12 GMT -5
Not as impressive as the F-22. Don't seem to be as big either.
|
|
BAmaMAn
Senator
RTR&MGB!!!
Posts: 3,378
|
Post by BAmaMAn on Jun 18, 2009 16:20:02 GMT -5
Isn't the F-35 called the Joint Task Fighter (JTF)? I remember reading about a single engine jet fighter that was to be used by all the branches of the armed forces, plus our Allies would use it also.
|
|
|
Post by Life's too short. on Jun 18, 2009 16:32:12 GMT -5
Isn't the F-35 called the Joint Task Fighter (JTF)? I remember reading about a single engine jet fighter that was to be used by all the branches of the armed forces, plus our Allies would use it also. That would be it. It's a watered down fighter compared to the F-22, but cheaper to build. The Air Force has taken a "Hi-Lo" approach to fighter aircraft for decades. An example would be the F-15/F-16 pairing. The F-15 was an expensive, high-capability fighter that could go in and take out the opposing interceptor aircraft, then the F-16 could come in in large numbers and clean up and make ground strikes. The same was the published intention of the F-22/F35. Now the bureaucrats that are always fighting the last war instead of the next one have made the call that we should terminate the current model and re-calibrate everything to fight the asymmetric/insurgent style of warfare where air superiority is unchallenged. Forget Russian threats, forget North Korean threats, forget Chinese threats, hell, even forget Indian threats (India has recently joined several international cooperatives aimed at undermining U.S. dominance in international affairs, including "BRIC" this week - ("B"razil, "R"ussia, "I"ndia, "C"hina)). It's one thing to be prepared for the current conflict (in which the existing aircraft are more than capable or cheaper additional orders for new units can be ordered), but it's another to consider the expected life-span of these 5th generation fighters and to assume we'll go 30-40 years without facing off against a country with a modern air force. I'm just regurgitating things I've seen on the topic through looking stuff up and from my time working with Lockheed and Northrup people while at Citibank. There's guys on here that obviously know more about the situation, like Whamil, who could set me straight on some of this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Jun 18, 2009 16:43:48 GMT -5
I am with you Sad.
Similar to the way the Army thinks...or at least its senior leadership thinks. We swing the pendulum too far one direction or another. Following Vietnam we placed all of our eggs in the conventional basket, "hoping" that we never would have to fight a dirty, difficult to define war again. With Rummy and company we resisted the conventional approach in favor of non linear and technology driven solutions to save on Soldiers and conventional equipment. We paid dearly in Afghanistan early on and again in Iraq by having far too few boots on the ground.
What we need is a proper mix of unconventional, special operations capabilities AND a strong and sustainable conventional force to meet all the potential threats we face. N. Korea, Iran, and potential foes again China and Russia have large conventional forces in addition to special operations capabilities.
But we can never afford to do it right in peacetime so we suffer in blood when war time comes along.
|
|
|
Post by NCBulldawg on Jun 18, 2009 20:54:56 GMT -5
Well.... I let a few "F-bombs" go today while at work, but that is another story. Always liked the drive past Lancaster and heading up to Mammoth as the fly-bys were always impressive to me. Enjoy your weekend ahead, Mr. Sad, sir.
|
|
|
Post by mauigator on Jun 18, 2009 22:14:26 GMT -5
Did it have a chemtrail behind it?
|
|
|
Post by Life's too short. on Jun 19, 2009 6:37:35 GMT -5
Did it have a chemtrail behind it? ?
|
|
|
Post by mauigator on Jun 19, 2009 11:38:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Life's too short. on Jun 19, 2009 11:52:36 GMT -5
That's hilarious!
|
|