F35 good or bad? - Page 2
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 115
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,222
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4490
    Likes (Received)
    4378

    Default

    IMO the F35 will eventually be a useful platform but with far fewer built than predicted. In that case its major usefulness would be as a pathfinder disabling air defenses for more conventional aircraft.

    The real hazard then would be if an adversary were to develop a means of defeating the stealth technology, rendering the F35 fleet potentially even more vulnerable than conventional aircraft used in greater numbers. At that point commanders would likely ground these very expensive aircraft rather than risk them and the whole program would have been a huge waste of money vs having developed various cheaper to build models that are less multipurpose.

    Such a technology, Quantum Radar, has been successfully demonstrated on a small scale. China claims to have a working system and if the claims are true the major advantage of the F35 has already been obsoleted.

    More technical details about China’s Quantum Radar claims and quantum radar lab work – NextBigFuture.com

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4030
    Likes (Received)
    12607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    Tell me, if stealth is so useless- why are the Chinese and Russians (among others) investing so heavily in it?
    What one of the three (USA, Russia, China) have the other two want.

    The whole thing becomes pointless if just one of those three presses THE BUTTON.

    U.S. Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries

    U.S. Military Spending vs. the World. The U.S. outpaces all other nations in military expenditures. World military spending totaled more than $1.6 trillion in 2015. The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total.

    Why is spending so much even necessary? North Korea manages with much less. Who's going to attack a country with nuclear that can retaliate with nuclear?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Norfolk England
    Posts
    2,257
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2607
    Likes (Received)
    1672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post

    The whole thing becomes pointless if just one of those three presses THE BUTTON.



    Who's going to attack a country with nuclear that can retaliate with nuclear?
    Do you want to re-think that one?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4030
    Likes (Received)
    12607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by camscan View Post
    Do you want to re-think that one?
    Why would I want to do that?

    "Heel Rover, heel".

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    1,667
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1099
    Likes (Received)
    972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post

    Tell me, if stealth is so useless- why are the Chinese and Russians (among others) investing so heavily in it?
    They may be investing in the technology, but their in reality improving on the technology that's been already stolen from the US.

    The Russians gained access thru good old espionage, the Chinese from engineers of Chinese origin working in the US defence industry.

    The first thing the Chinese do is make a mock up using the stealth technology as they understand it, put it on a pole and aim there radars at it and find ways of detecting the stealth aircraft. The same way the US puts stealth aircraft on poles to find ways of improving the stealthiness of US aircraft.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northern Il
    Posts
    1,312
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    686
    Likes (Received)
    1224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by triumph406 View Post
    They may be investing in the technology, but their in reality improving on the technology that's been already stolen from the US.

    The Russians gained access thru good old espionage, the Chinese from engineers of Chinese origin working in the US defence industry.

    The first thing the Chinese do is make a mock up using the stealth technology as they understand it, put it on a pole and aim there radars at it and find ways of detecting the stealth aircraft. The same way the US puts stealth aircraft on poles to find ways of improving the stealthiness of US aircraft.
    Looks like Lockheed had a related patent back in 2005 on this technology. I'm going to guess that the F35 stealth technology is way beyond what we are thinking. This also is a major factor in what drives the costs.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Norfolk England
    Posts
    2,257
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2607
    Likes (Received)
    1672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    Why would I want to do that?

    "Heel Rover, heel".
    Your words,"the whole thing becomes pointless if just one of those three presses THE BUTTON".
    "Who is going to attack a country with nuclear that can retaliate with nuclear".

    Do you not see the obvious contradiction in those two statements?
    If you cannot see a contradiction then here is a clue.
    They contradict.
    Just goes to show,your dog Rover is smarter than you.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Huron
    Posts
    1,353
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1901
    Likes (Received)
    846

    Default

    One of the Truths in creating a tool is that when you design it to do multiple things, it will do none of them as well as a dedicated tool. I haven't seen reason to disbelieve this applies to jets in any way, all of the multirole fighters have been a compromise for "cost reasons". I fully believe that we won't get military hardware that preforms fully to specifications and is reasonable to purchase until they get rid of the "one tool for all jobs" idiocy. It doesn't do a lot of things well, and it's stupidly overpriced because they keep trying to shove every role and the kitchen sink in there. But it's arguably the best piece of flying hardware in the world at this time, and I think it does fill it's role. Now its actual role may very well be keeping the Chinese occupied trying to copy it's stupidity for decades, because it's doing that pretty well. Maybe someone in there actually knows what they are doing after all...

  9. Likes Scottl, barbter, Trboatworks, J Gilles, Bobw liked this post
  10. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northern Il
    Posts
    1,312
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    686
    Likes (Received)
    1224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winterfalke View Post
    One of the Truths in creating a tool is that when you design it to do multiple things, it will do none of them as well as a dedicated tool. I haven't seen reason to disbelieve this applies to jets in any way, all of the multirole fighters have been a compromise for "cost reasons". I fully believe that we won't get military hardware that preforms fully to specifications and is reasonable to purchase until they get rid of the "one tool for all jobs" idiocy. It doesn't do a lot of things well, and it's stupidly overpriced because they keep trying to shove every role and the kitchen sink in there. But it's arguably the best piece of flying hardware in the world at this time, and I think it does fill it's role. Now its actual role may very well be keeping the Chinese occupied trying to copy it's stupidity for decades, because it's doing that pretty well. Maybe someone in there actually knows what they are doing after all...
    That reminds me of what went on with the XB70 program and the Russians.

  11. #30
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4030
    Likes (Received)
    12607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by camscan View Post
    Your words,"the whole thing becomes pointless if just one of those three presses THE BUTTON".
    "Who is going to attack a country with nuclear that can retaliate with nuclear".

    Do you not see the obvious contradiction in those two statements?
    If you cannot see a contradiction then here is a clue.
    They contradict.
    Just goes to show,your dog Rover is smarter than you.
    Would you have a life if you didn't read everything I post?

  12. Likes triumph406 liked this post
  13. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Norfolk England
    Posts
    2,257
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2607
    Likes (Received)
    1672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    Would you have a life if you didn't read everything I post?
    Surely that isn't your best shot. Perhaps you saw the contradiction and don't know how to wriggle.

  14. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1953
    Likes (Received)
    2161

    Default

    I wonder in the long run if the development program carries value even if a viable aircraft is not produced.
    Isn’t the engineering/research progress essential, the 35 just the context for that progress.

    I also question in a absolute sense if the ideal of a singular “super weapon” is that important to the outcome of a major conflict.
    It seems sufficient technology produced in numbers but successfully brought to the field of battle being key.
    So integrated action of allies, sufficiently robust manufacturing, training and logistical structures to prosecute long conflicts.

    Germany had better weapons and superior tactics (at least initially).
    War is something of a stress test to a society- there is much required behind the ‘pointy end’ to prevail eh?

  15. Likes Jashley73 liked this post
  16. #33
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4030
    Likes (Received)
    12607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    I wonder in the long run if the development program carries value even if a viable aircraft is not produced.
    Isn’t the engineering/research progress essential, the 35 just the context for that progress.

    I also question in a absolute sense if the ideal of a singular “super weapon” is that important to the outcome of a major conflict.
    It seems sufficient technology produced in numbers but successfully brought to the field of battle being key.
    So integrated action of allies, sufficiently robust manufacturing, training and logistical structures to prosecute long conflicts.

    Germany had better weapons and superior tactics (at least initially).
    War is something of a stress test to a society- there is much required behind the ‘pointy end’ to prevail eh?
    It's all a bit like this sub forum. What could and should be rational discussions too often turns into heated arguments.

    Looking at current world events then things aren't getting better either.

    YouTube

  17. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    2,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    999

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    IMO the F35 will eventually be a useful platform but with far fewer built than predicted.
    Useful for what ? Bombing Syria and creating several million refugees to overwhelm Europe ?

    The fucking things are stupid. Expensive stupid. Take the braindead ignorant army and jam it up Congress' ass. Keep the submarines as a valid "nukular deterrent" and shitcan the rest. It's WORTHLESS. They can't find their ass with both hands in a dark room but we get to pay a trillion dollars a year for this shit.

    This is idiocy.

  18. Likes 9100 liked this post
  19. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northern Il
    Posts
    1,312
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    686
    Likes (Received)
    1224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    I wonder in the long run if the development program carries value even if a viable aircraft is not produced.
    Isn’t the engineering/research progress essential, the 35 just the context for that progress.

    I also question in a absolute sense if the ideal of a singular “super weapon” is that important to the outcome of a major conflict.
    It seems sufficient technology produced in numbers but successfully brought to the field of battle being key.
    So integrated action of allies, sufficiently robust manufacturing, training and logistical structures to prosecute long conflicts.

    Germany had better weapons and superior tactics (at least initially).
    War is something of a stress test to a society- there is much required behind the ‘pointy end’ to prevail eh?
    It ultimately breaks down to is winning more painful than losing. Rather simple equation that covers most of the peripheral issues.

  20. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Country
    SPAIN
    Posts
    3,409
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1903
    Likes (Received)
    1242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Useful for what ? Bombing Syria and creating several million refugees to overwhelm Europe ?

    The fucking things are stupid. Expensive stupid. Take the braindead ignorant army and jam it up Congress' ass. Keep the submarines as a valid "nukular deterrent" and shitcan the rest. It's WORTHLESS. They can't find their ass with both hands in a dark room but we get to pay a trillion dollars a year for this shit.

    This is idiocy.
    It keeps a lot of people in work though.
    I wonder if Lockheed actually makes money on it...

  21. #37
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4030
    Likes (Received)
    12607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barbter View Post
    It keeps a lot of people in work though.
    I wonder if Lockheed actually makes money on it...
    It's big business. Very big business. Be nice if all that knowledge and expense was used for making something useful.

    Arms industry - Wikipedia

    Here are the top 10 countries exporting weapons around the world - Business Insider

  22. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,552
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    453
    Likes (Received)
    1816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    I wonder in the long run if the development program carries value even if a viable aircraft is not produced.
    Isn’t the engineering/research progress essential, the 35 just the context for that progress.
    F-35's have flown combat missions in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. The Brits have flown them alongside Typhoon in combat missions against ISIS, and Israeli F-35's have flown over Tehran.

    In Red Flag, the F-35 scored a 15:1 kill ratio against F-16 aggressor squadrons.

    USMC F-35B's just completed their first operational deployment on the Essex.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    I also question in a absolute sense if the ideal of a singular “super weapon” is that important to the outcome of a major conflict.
    It's not a "super weapon". It's a ground pounder. F-35 is the "low" in our hi-lo mix.

  23. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northern Il
    Posts
    1,312
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    686
    Likes (Received)
    1224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    It's big business. Very big business. Be nice if all that knowledge and expense was used for making something useful.

    Arms industry - Wikipedia

    Here are the top 10 countries exporting weapons around the world - Business Insider
    Actually it does. The Cold War and The Space Race did much to advance technology that is in common use around us today. Even the Internet is a result of DARPA though not very useful in the beginning. GPS is another. These are both consumer benefits-products. Now when you get into metallurgy,electronics, machining, and fabrication, there are even more examples such as the origins of CNC technology, satellite communications, etc.

    I had this discussion one night with my boss. We were debating, "Which is better for the economy and society as a whole, spend money on social programs or spending money on defense projects?" This does get complicated in practice and most all would agree that killing people and breaking things is not good however there is a beneficial side to this that often gets ignored in discussions.

  24. Likes Jashley73 liked this post
  25. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California, Central Coast
    Posts
    3,547
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2187
    Likes (Received)
    1371

    Default

    I like my auto darkening welding hood.

  26. Likes Scottl, Bobw liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •