Are we pricing ourselves out of the war business?

[sunnyside]

But at any rate while I wish we'd do more for the infantryman I have to admit that "zippy" aircraft are probably going to be decisive in any higher intensity action we find ourselves in. (Georgia, Iran, Taiwan)

And they also have more deterrent effect. Send in a swarm of A10s and mounds of infantry and you can get a job done, but you're still taking casualties in return. And few presidents will have the stomach for that. But planes that can get past your SAMs means you know the US can kick your butt Serbia style and it'll be good times for the US. So that probably keeps some conflicts from happening in the first place.

[Graham Kennedy]

I'm not sure we need these super-tech jets any more. Hell they're using B-52s for close air support in Afghanistan. How much would it cost to build something like a B-52 today? A damn sight less than an F-22 costs, to be sure.

[Aaron]

Much as I like Future Weapons, a lot of the stuff the feature never makes it anywhere near the front lines.

Future weapons is interesting (if you can stand Mac) but it's basically a arms trade show on cable.

[Mikey]

I enjoy the show, but you definitely have to take it as the same sort of thing as seeing concept cars at an auto show - there's some damned cool things to see, but you'll only ever find 1 out of 10 in production.

[KuvahMagh]

The problem with predicting the future of Weapons and Military Tech in general is that you never know whats over the horizon. America has the #1 Military in the World but they were woefully unprepaired for an insurgency, which some still dispute even exists which in turn complicates things further since you have so many different theories as to the best way to win...

[Graham Kennedy]

The annoying thing is that the British Army has a massive history of dealing with situations just like the Iraq invasion, and practically begged the Americans to handle it differently. The Americans ignored them.

[KuvahMagh]

The annoying thing is that the British Army has a massive history of dealing with situations just like the Iraq invasion, and practically begged the Americans to handle it differently. The Americans ignored them.

I was thinking that actually lol... But of course, the Americans did give us that lovely Blue Banner on USS Abraham Lincoln...

[sunnyside]

I'm not sure we need these super-tech jets any more. Hell they're using B-52s for close air support in Afghanistan. How much would it cost to build something like a B-52 today? A damn sight less than an F-22 costs, to be sure.

By the time you're flying B-52s into the battle today it means you've pretty well won. Now you're nation building (exception, using the things as cruise missile platforms, but that's something else).

That's why the US isn't really pushing bombers that aren't stealth. We've moved a long way since flak and against reasonably modern Russian systems you've got to be coming in with a strike aircraft that can go low and fast or a stealth aircraft.

F-22's and such are the craft that will keep the Russia backed countries nervous.

[Graham Kennedy]

We're not fighting reasonably modern Russian systems. We're fighting Achmed the Awful and his bicycle, AK-47 and RPG.

[Tsukiyumi]

We're not fighting reasonably modern Russian systems. We're fighting Achmed the Awful and his bicycle, AK-47 and RPG.

Don't forget the '80s era Toyota Pickups...

[Aaron]

Don't forget the '80s era Toyota Pickups...

And the fearsome Donkey Rocket Cart!

[Blackstar the Chakat]

We're not fighting reasonably modern Russian systems. We're fighting Achmed the Awful and his bicycle, AK-47 and RPG.

That reminds me of when we invaded Afgahnistan looking for Osama bin Laden there were two talk show hosts talking about him, or one of his men or something, and said, "if the CIA can see what page of the newspaper you're reading in Central Park, why can't they find a guy riding around the desert on a bike?"

Anyway, the only reason we need to replace older jets is only because they're old. A lot of these more expensive projects were started during the Cold War, and the guys in charge never cancelled them. The F-22 was originally designed to combat the latest russian fighters, specifically the SU-37 which was never put into production.

Interesting fact, The F-22 was actually the cheaper of the two compeating designs. The other design, the YF-23 while slightly supirior was also too expensive to justify the extra cost.

Also, while the F-35 isn't as capable as the 22, it is more versitile with three versions, base version, carrier version, and VTOL version. It's also the first production plane with a helmet-equivilent of a HUD following in the footsteps of the one of the planes it's replacing, the F-16 which was the first plane to have a HUD, one of it's least controversal improvements.

Not sure how much if any of this has been covered already.

[Aaron]

That reminds me of when we invaded Afgahnistan looking for Osama bin Laden there were two talk show hosts talking about him, or one of his men or something, and said, "if the CIA can see what page of the newspaper you're reading in Central Park, why can't they find a guy riding around the desert on a bike?"

Well, you see the USA really sucks at HUMINT.

Anyway, the only reason we need to replace older jets is only because they're old. A lot of these more expensive projects were started during the Cold War, and the guys in charge never cancelled them. The F-22 was originally designed to combat the latest russian fighters, specifically the SU-37 which was never put into production.

If the F-15 production line was available they could simply crank out more F-15E's.

Interesting fact, The F-22 was actually the cheaper of the two compeating designs. The other design, the YF-23 while slightly supirior was also too expensive to justify the extra cost.

IIRC the AF brass was also leery of it because of it's unconventional appearance.

Also, while the F-35 isn't as capable as the 22, it is more versitile with three versions, base version, carrier version, and VTOL version. It's also the first production plane with a helmet-equivilent of a HUD following in the footsteps of the one of the planes it's replacing, the F-16 which was the first plane to have a HUD, one of it's least controversal improvements.

Not sure how much if any of this has been covered already.

You can put a helmet HUD in any aircraft you want, provided you can afford the cost of the retro-fit.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

You can put a helmet HUD in any aircraft you want, provided you can afford the cost of the retro-fit.

Yes, but the I guess the big deal is over that it's the first plane to be be produced with the helmet-HUD as a standard feature.


You know, I can understand the F-22 since it is a kick-ass plane with air-to-air stealth and supercruise, but does the F-35 give us any advantage we didn't have with previous jets or couldn't retro-fit?

[Aaron]

Yes, but the I guess the big deal is over that it's the first plane to be be produced with the helmet-HUD as a standard feature.


You know, I can understand the F-22 since it is a kick-ass plane with air-to-air stealth and supercruise, but does the F-35 give us any advantage we didn't have with previous jets or couldn't retro-fit?

Well it's the first stealth VTOL, which has certain advantages. Honestly though for what's going on now and the forseeable future they may as well have designed a new A-10. Stealth is of limited utility in Afghanistan and Iraq (and can be a hinderance, the aircraft skin materials are very vulnerable to blowing sand), it's not like the Taliban and Iraqi Resistance have any ground based radar or aircraft.