A Weapon That Costs More than Australia

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Very true. To be fair, where those jobs are located will of course dictate how certain lawmakers will vote on authorizing these expenditures.

Exactly. Law makers think of getting votes first, and the big picture (what's good for the entire country) ...later...or even NEVER.

[Ban Hammer 13,545]

i think they should fire up production on the f-14 through 16 again. think of all the money saved.

[Pooky 3,830]

Its awesome alright.

Ummmmmm, no it's not.

The F-35 Thuderpig is overpriced, overweight, underpowered, lacks the internal carrying capacity to keep it stealthy and doesn't excel at anything. Plus it's late, right now the whole test fleet is grounded (again) and one of its major overseas customers (UK) pulled out of the STOVL variant, which will only increase the unit flyaway cost.

There are some air forces, including the US in a limited capacity, who want to use it in an air-to-air role. Trouble is, a number of the 4th Gen air-to-air assets will take it on and beat it, especially the European and Russian types (Typhoon, Rafale, Flanker, Pak-FA). Remember, even Venezuela flies the Sukhoi Su-30MK Flanker, an outstanding plane in well-trained hands, so it's not just major nations who possess aircraft the Thunderpig will find to be lethal.

In the air-to surface role, it simply does not have the internal carrying capacity to be useful. The main advance of the Thunderpig over what else is out there is the limited stealth capability (which is not even close to that of the F-22 Raptor). But if it can't carry anything internally, you need to hang things from the wings and the fuselage, which immediately negates whatever stealth the aircraft had in the first place

So, basically, it's not as good as Lockmart want the world to believe. And pay money for.

But is it an expenditure we need?

However, there is another problem. The current USAF assets are closing on their airframe design life at an alarming rate. The entire F-15 Eagle fleet has already been grounded twice for structural failure issues, the most dramatic being when an F-15C model broke its back in mid-air. The intensive use of air assets in Afghanistan and Iraq has increased the pace at which the F-15s and F-16s are approaching the end of their airframe life and there will be a capability gap, even if the F-35 meets its current in-service date. The only question at this point is how big the capability gap will be.

Whatever the DoD and the USAF does now, they will need to spend money. I don't think the Thunderpig is the right way to do it. The F-22 Raptor is a better, more capable, more survivable aiframe, which is already proven and in service. The way things are going, it might also end up cheaper.

I think they should fire up production on the F-14 through 16 again. think of all the money saved.

New production F-15s and F-16s are still viable against more modern competition, so as an interim solution, either, or both, would work. The F-14 Tomcat? It was a pig to fly and had serious aerodynamic issues which are better left in museums.

[james&olya 1,121]

We won't know whether we need it or not until we actually need it. And if we wait till we actually need it, it's too late.

In the past they say that we always prepared for the next war by looking backwards at the last war instead of forwards to new evolving threats. I think this is worse! The last major war was the 'cold war' and our adversary lost by allowing its economy to collapse, partly due to excessive military spending. But we are not content to declare victory and move forward. We continue to spend vast sums we don't have in an apparent attempt to see if we, too, can lose that war! If our economy collapses as a result of our continuing budgetary indiscretion who will be the winners? The ChiComs? What purpose does an air-superiority fighter serve now that we use cruise missiles and unmanned drones to deliver ordnance? Even that doesn't really deal with the evolving threats of economic and cyber-warfare. The weapon we need to survive the next century is a healthy economy and this does the opposite to us!

[^_^ 5,021]

. The weapon we need to survive the next century is a healthy economy and this does the opposite to us!

Exports are important, yes?

[james&olya 1,121]

Exports are important, yes?

Not if what we are exporting is our wealth and our jobs!

[^_^ 5,021]

Not if what we are exporting is our wealth and our jobs!

I meant our jets.

[Pooky 3,830]

What purpose does an air-superiority fighter serve now that we use cruise missiles and unmanned drones to deliver ordnance?

It's not an air-superiority fighter. It's the Joint Strike Fighter - the one-size fits-all only plane you'll ever need to take into a fight.

The UCAV question is quite pertinent. Personally, I would rather have a man in the cockpit making decisions on the spot, rather than a tech back in the USA with a short timelag. Not only for the split-second advantage, but to give the generals pause for thought before committing men and materiel, to think about the body bags if things go South, rather than just the dollar value of the hardware.

[Zero Sum 305]

Ummmmmm, no it's not.

The F-35 Thuderpig is overpriced, overweight, underpowered, lacks the internal carrying capacity to keep it stealthy and doesn't excel at anything. Plus it's late, right now the whole test fleet is grounded (again) and one of its major overseas customers (UK) pulled out of the STOVL variant, which will only increase the unit flyaway cost.

There are some air forces, including the US in a limited capacity, who want to use it in an air-to-air role. Trouble is, a number of the 4th Gen air-to-air assets will take it on and beat it, especially the European and Russian types (Typhoon, Rafale, Flanker, Pak-FA). Remember, even Venezuela flies the Sukhoi Su-30MK Flanker, an outstanding plane in well-trained hands, so it's not just major nations who possess aircraft the Thunderpig will find to be lethal.

In the air-to surface role, it simply does not have the internal carrying capacity to be useful. The main advance of the Thunderpig over what else is out there is the limited stealth capability (which is not even close to that of the F-22 Raptor). But if it can't carry anything internally, you need to hang things from the wings and the fuselage, which immediately negates whatever stealth the aircraft had in the first place

So, basically, it's not as good as Lockmart want the world to believe. And pay money for.

However, there is another problem. The current USAF assets are closing on their airframe design life at an alarming rate. The entire F-15 Eagle fleet has already been grounded twice for structural failure issues, the most dramatic being when an F-15C model broke its back in mid-air. The intensive use of air assets in Afghanistan and Iraq has increased the pace at which the F-15s and F-16s are approaching the end of their airframe life and there will be a capability gap, even if the F-35 meets its current in-service date. The only question at this point is how big the capability gap will be.

Whatever the DoD and the USAF does now, they will need to spend money. I don't think the Thunderpig is the right way to do it. The F-22 Raptor is a better, more capable, more survivable aiframe, which is already proven and in service. The way things are going, it might also end up cheaper.

New production F-15s and F-16s are still viable against more modern competition, so as an interim solution, either, or both, would work. The F-14 Tomcat? It was a pig to fly and had serious aerodynamic issues which are better left in museums.

I can attest to the aerodynamic prowess of the Tomcat. I have been driven off roads by waving low-flying Tomcat pilots. At least they were nice in saying hello. The F15 fleet we have has what? Another 5-10 years of use before they start dropping?

I say keep the F22 until the F35's issues can be resolved. Technical and financial.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

One thing to consider, this program employs thousands of private sector workers. It isn't just a black hole we throw money into. Maybe we need it or maybe we don't but understand that cutting the program is also either cutting a lot of jobs or not creating a lot of jobs.

So, it's a stimulus program where private sector jobs are created on the backs of the American taxpayer? We should see to it that those workers who are at the end of the day on Uncle Sam's teat, those workers who rob taxpayers of their hard earned money are getting some cut-backs just like any other public employee. They are not all that much different except the taxpayer also has to pay CEOs and shareholders on top of the workers. Where are all the stimulus enemies when you need them? Here are hundreds of billions worth of stimulus money that can be slashed. And if that costs taxpayer funded jobs, then - to say it in the Speaker's own words - 'so be it'.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

So, it's a stimulus program where private sector jobs are created on the backs of the American taxpayer? We should see to it that those workers who are at the end of the day on Uncle Sam's teat, those workers who rob taxpayers of their hard earned money are getting some cut-backs just like any other public employee. They are not all that much different except the taxpayer also has to pay CEOs and shareholders on top of the workers. Where are all the stimulus enemies when you need them? Here are hundreds of billions worth of stimulus money that can be slashed. And if that costs taxpayer funded jobs, then - to say it in the Speaker's own words - 'so be it'.

Your duplicity is breathtaking. If you don't see the difference between wasted stimulus and government handouts with a defense contract then you have no hope of any real understanding beyond political hackery. I have no idea if we need this particular aircraft or not but it is not the same as the wasted stimulus. If we need it then we need it. If we don't then it should go. But it isn't analogous to stimulus. You just lost all credibility with that inane comparison.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Your duplicity is breathtaking. If you don't see the difference between wasted stimulus and government handouts with a defense contract then you have no hope of any real understanding beyond political hackery. I have no idea if we need this particular aircraft or not but it is not the same as the wasted stimulus. If we need it then we need it. If we don't then it should go. But it isn't analogous to stimulus. You just lost all credibility with that inane comparison.

And we all know how there's not much waste in government defense contracts. It has a track record in it's own special category.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Your duplicity is breathtaking. If you don't see the difference between wasted stimulus and government handouts with a defense contract then you have no hope of any real understanding beyond political hackery. I have no idea if we need this particular aircraft or not but it is not the same as the wasted stimulus. If we need it then we need it. If we don't then it should go. But it isn't analogous to stimulus. You just lost all credibility with that inane comparison.

Sorry but it was you that opened that door here with your post saying pretty clearly that whether this program is needed or not but considering that cutting the program means cutting jobs. That should not be the issue at all. On that argument, you'd be hard pressed to find any program that can be cut because any cut to most any program will inevitably also reduce employment that is supported by such program.

One thing to consider, this program employs thousands of private sector workers. It isn't just a black hole we throw money into. Maybe we need it or maybe we don't but understand that cutting the program is also either cutting a lot of jobs or not creating a lot of jobs.

Again, you brought up the fact that this program creates a lot of private sector jobs. That should be a non-issue when considering defense contracts. The decision ought to be made on the merits of the product that is to be procured. If one of the considerations in awarding large contracts for products that stand on their own metits is where such procurement creates jobs then that's fine - I'd rather have these jobs here than overseas.

But to run around blasting government spending that has been undertaken to stabilize an economy and job market that were in free fall and then turn around and defend potentially useless defense contracts on the basis that they create jobs is quite dishonest. Funding education and public safety is not exactly throwing money into a black hole either. We need both as there will otherwise soon be nothing left worth defending.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Sorry but it was you that opened that door here with your post saying pretty clearly that whether this program is needed or not but considering that cutting the program means cutting jobs. That should not be the issue at all. On that argument, you'd be hard pressed to find any program that can be cut because any cut to most any program will inevitably also reduce employment that is supported by such program.

One thing to consider, this program employs thousands of private sector workers. It isn't just a black hole we throw money into. Maybe we need it or maybe we don't but understand that cutting the program is also either cutting a lot of jobs or not creating a lot of jobs.

Again, you brought up the fact that this program creates a lot of private sector jobs. That should be a non-issue when considering defense contracts. The decision ought to be made on the merits of the product that is to be procured. If one of the considerations in awarding large contracts for products that stand on their own metits is where such procurement creates jobs then that's fine - I'd rather have these jobs here than overseas.

But to run around blasting government spending that has been undertaken to stabilize an economy and job market that were in free fall and then turn around and defend potentially useless defense contracts on the basis that they create jobs is quite dishonest. Funding education and public safety is not exactly throwing money into a black hole either. We need both as there will otherwise soon be nothing left worth defending.

Adding reading comprehension problems to political hackery are we? I said "one thing to consider" not "we can't cut this because". It is called a discussion. And I find it amusing that you continue to defend the stimulus as something that worked. It didn't save jobs, it didn't help companies recover and it didn't make the economy recover. It was wasted money. There is no longer any debate about that. Your idea that it stopped a freefall in the economy just does not work since it fell anyway. Your political hackery is amazing. It seems you can't see anything but the far left talking points. You have no credibility and are now in the same category as Steven. Do me a favor and just stop responding to anything I say. I really don't care about your opinion any more.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Adding reading comprehension problems to political hackery are we? I said "one thing to consider" not "we can't cut this because". It is called a discussion. And I find it amusing that you continue to defend the stimulus as something that worked. It didn't save jobs, it didn't help companies recover and it didn't make the economy recover. It was wasted money. There is no longer any debate about that. Your idea that it stopped a freefall in the economy just does not work since it fell anyway. Your political hackery is amazing. It seems you can't see anything but the far left talking points. You have no credibility and are now in the same category as Steven. Do me a favor and just stop responding to anything I say. I really don't care about your opinion any more.

You said "Maybe we need it or maybe we don't but understand that cutting the program is also either cutting a lot of jobs or not creating a lot of jobs." That says that even if the program isn't needed, we need to understand that jobs depend on it. That should be irrelevant altogether - if you keep it going for no reason other than a lot of jobs depending on it then it's money down a black hole. The rest is just your old tirade about the stimulus package which is not actually backed by anything. If nothing else, common sense tells you that pouring a few hundred billion into an economy will obviously have an effect on that economy and hence the job market. Otherwise, we're saying that money just evaporates.