User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:07:56 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're right. http://archive.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20110314/NEWS/103140319/More-Marines-fly-carrier-variant-JSFs Right now I don't think there's any Marine F-18 squadron's on carriers, I know that a few years back the Marines pulled their F-18's off the boat since they did not directly support the Marine mission. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I suspect it is to replace USMC hornets which are supplementing the current CVW's. You're right. http://archive.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20110314/NEWS/103140319/More-Marines-fly-carrier-variant-JSFs Right now I don't think there's any Marine F-18 squadron's on carriers, I know that a few years back the Marines pulled their F-18's off the boat since they did not directly support the Marine mission. There's a VMFA squadron in CVW-1 deploying next spring with TRSG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:11:38 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The MV-22 for the CH-47.  . No
53K is a few years away too... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:15:57 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I looked at the Navy CVW web pages and there were no USMC F-18 squadron in the airwings. Google says there are. I guess you didn't start with 1. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:10:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
. No
53K is a few years away too... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The MV-22 for the CH-47. . No
53K is a few years away too... Damn it, I meant the CH-46. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:15:37 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I looked at the Navy CVW web pages and there were no USMC F-18 squadron in the airwings. Google says there are. I guess you didn't start with 1. http://i60.tinypic.com/rlbbjk.jpg I did, I missed it. Thanks! http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/cvw1/Pages/default.aspx Strange that they would keep a Legacy Hornet squadron in the wing when the rest of the squadrons are Superhornet squadrons. What's another TMS to take care of on cruise. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:17:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Does anyone else here realize that the f-35 is a completely failed program? The aircraft is slower, has less range and payload capacity and also lacks the maneuverability of many fourth generation fighter aircraft. I understand technologically speaking it is highly advanced and has raam/stealth capabilities. However with the amount of money and research spent on this aircraft development we could have bought hundreds of f-22s which are far superior. The marine core doesn't need fixed wing aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:20:38 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did, I missed it. Thanks! http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/cvw1/Pages/default.aspx Strange that they would keep a Legacy Hornet squadron in the wing when the rest of the squadrons are Superhornet squadrons. What's another TMS to take care of on cruise.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I looked at the Navy CVW web pages and there were no USMC F-18 squadron in the airwings. Google says there are. I guess you didn't start with 1. http://i60.tinypic.com/rlbbjk.jpg I did, I missed it. Thanks! http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/cvw1/Pages/default.aspx Strange that they would keep a Legacy Hornet squadron in the wing when the rest of the squadrons are Superhornet squadrons. What's another TMS to take care of on cruise.
If they want Marine air, than they get legacy aircraft. That was one of CNAFs and NAVAIRs big selling point for pushing the Marines for Super Hornets for the last several years Because of the USN rotational model and training cycle, they cannot cover all deployment requirements without Marine TACAIR |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:26:19 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because of the USN rotational model and training cycle, they cannot cover all deployment requirements without Marine TACAIR That and the Navy didn't replace all of the F-14 squadrons with Superhornet squadrons. Some of them are being recycled into F-35 squadrons. Still, it's strange that after the Navy went to great lengths to standardize the carrier flight deck with Superhornets that they would keep legacy Hornets on board the carriers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:26:47 PM EDT
[#9]
Not to mention the dementions of the f22 meet the requirements for carrier operations. If we made a navy varient of that aircraft and used external hard points on it it would be the best multirole naval aircraft in history. All the money spent on the f35 program could have easily accomplished this task. The corps doesn't need fixed wing aircraft. They are part of the dept. Of the navy. If you had a couple Nimitz class Carriers packing modified raptors they would be more then happy with the support they receive on the ground. And with what has been spent on the program we would still have a lot of change to spare. Seems self explanatory to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:27:31 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does anyone else here realize that the f-35 is a completely failed program? The aircraft is slower, has less range and payload capacity and also lacks the maneuverability of many fourth generation fighter aircraft. I understand technologically speaking it is highly advanced and has raam/stealth capabilities. However with the amount of money and research spent on this aircraft development we could have bought hundreds of f-22s which are far superior. The marine core doesn't need fixed wing aircraft. 
Tell us oh great one what the marine core needs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:30:25 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to mention the dementions of the f22 meet the requirements for carrier operations. If we made a navy varient of that aircraft and used external hard points on it it would be the best multirole naval aircraft in history. All the money spent on the f35 program could have easily accomplished this task. The corps doesn't need fixed wing aircraft. They are part of the dept. Of the navy. If you had a couple Nimitz class Carriers packing modified raptors they would be more then happy with the support they receive on the ground. And with what has been spent on the program we would still have a lot of change to spare. Seems self explanatory to me. You need to go back to the books, if you don't understand what the Dept of the Navy is and is not. Being a separate, co-equal service within a military department seems something about 90 percent of posters on this board are ignorant of the implications. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:30:41 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does anyone else here realize that the f-35 is a completely failed program? The aircraft is slower, has less range and payload capacity and also lacks the maneuverability of many fourth generation fighter aircraft. I understand technologically speaking it is highly advanced and has raam/stealth capabilities. However with the amount of money and research spent on this aircraft development we could have bought hundreds of f-22s which are far superior. The marine core doesn't need fixed wing aircraft. Im just here to read the comments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:36:51 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did, I missed it. Thanks! http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/cvw1/Pages/default.aspx Strange that they would keep a Legacy Hornet squadron in the wing when the rest of the squadrons are Superhornet squadrons. What's another TMS to take care of on cruise.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I looked at the Navy CVW web pages and there were no USMC F-18 squadron in the airwings. Google says there are. I guess you didn't start with 1. http://i60.tinypic.com/rlbbjk.jpg I did, I missed it. Thanks! http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/cvw1/Pages/default.aspx Strange that they would keep a Legacy Hornet squadron in the wing when the rest of the squadrons are Superhornet squadrons. What's another TMS to take care of on cruise.
Most wings have legacy Hornet squadron(s). FDNF is all Supers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:38:14 PM EDT
[#14]
All I was trying to say is that traditionally where the marine corps is, the Navy is. I understand the are equal but as far as fixed wing aircraft why use something like the f-35? The marines aren't really in the business of conducting air to air operations and if they wanted to have land based support aircraft why not give them a ton of a10s? They are cheap and highly effective for ground support and easy to maintain. I understand the want for VTOL aircraft but why use carrier space for something like that when you could modify f22 raptors for naval use and use they're external hard points for fuel and weopons? Then have the navy run support. Or if you really think the corps needs it gibe them f22s instead of the f35. All I am saying is take a cheaper route and provide more impact on the battlefield.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:44:20 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All I was trying to say is that traditionally where the marine corps is, the Navy is. I understand the are equal but as far as fixed wing aircraft why use something like the f-35? The marines aren't really in the business of conducting air to air operations and if they wanted to have land based support aircraft why not give them a ton of a10s? They are cheap and highly effective for ground support and easy to maintain. I understand the want for VTOL aircraft but why use carrier space for something like that when you could modify f22 raptors for naval use and use they're external hard points for fuel and weopons? Then have the navy run support. Or if you really think the corps needs it gibe them f22s instead of the f35. All I am saying is take a cheaper route and provide more impact on the battlefield. You do realize there are a whole bunch amphibious assault ships that only take VTOL/STOVL aircraft and the Marines have used those as jeep carriers in the past allowing our FA-18s and purple air to support the joint force while Marine AV-8s supported the MEFs We also brought the AV-8s forward and used FARPS on captured run ways and roads to do rapid turns to in both ODS and OIF 1. one of the best parts of being a MEU FSO was I had my own strike and CAS assets, I did not have to put the JTARS in and hope the CAOC approved them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:49:14 PM EDT
[#16]
OK I understand your point. The only problem is simply the aircraft. It has cost way too much money to research and develop and it still isn't even working right. It doesn't preform well enough for it to deserve being used by the corps. Or any other branch of the US military. Look at the future technology of Russian sukoi fighters like the pak fa. The f35 is going to get us in a huge mess if we get into a major conflict in the future. They either need to update the harrier or streamline support between the navy and marine corps for CAS missions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:49:26 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We also brought the AV-8s forward and used FARPS on captured run ways and roads to do rapid turns to in both ODS and OIF 1. How many OIFs were there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:52:47 PM EDT
[#18]
P.S. I always wanted to be part of a MEU. I think they are rad and I am jealous.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:53:27 PM EDT
[#19]
3 right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:53:28 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:when you could modify f22 raptors for naval use Can you support that statement? You complain about F-35 cost. Do you understand the support cost of the F-22 in pristine USAF hangars and what would happen to that cost at sea? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:55:16 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many OIFs were there? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We also brought the AV-8s forward and used FARPS on captured run ways and roads to do rapid turns to in both ODS and OIF 1. How many OIFs were there? II think we made it to OIF 10 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:56:18 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
II think we made it to OIF 10 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We also brought the AV-8s forward and used FARPS on captured run ways and roads to do rapid turns to in both ODS and OIF 1. How many OIFs were there? II think we made it to OIF 10 I gotta start paying more attention
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:56:34 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many OIFs were there? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We also brought the AV-8s forward and used FARPS on captured run ways and roads to do rapid turns to in both ODS and OIF 1. How many OIFs were there? pretty sure another just began 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:58:31 PM EDT
[#24]
gasbolt, you're making some pretty pointed commentary. Are you just an armchair general or do you have actual experience with aviation in some form? You should know that you're debating a complex subject with some of arfcom's resident experts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 10:59:24 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
pretty sure another just began Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We also brought the AV-8s forward and used FARPS on captured run ways and roads to do rapid turns to in both ODS and OIF 1. How many OIFs were there? pretty sure another just began Sumer (Sept 10th, I had to google it) of 2010 OIF became OND |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:03:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Well the F35 program is predicted to cost 1.5 trillion dollars over its 55 year run. It is quite simply the most expensive military program in history. It costs an avererage of about 80 million per aircraft to produce, however that isn't counting the cost of the R&D. point is we've already produced the f22 and worked out most of its bugs. For a fraction of the cost of the f35 program the navy would already be operating squadrons right now. Besides, what do you tell an aviator she. He goes up against a sukoi that is faster, more maneuverable, carries twice the payload, has stealth and almost twice the range of the f35. We will littrrally loose an air war in the future because of this aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:09:11 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well the F35 program is predicted to cost 1.5 trillion dollars over its 55 year run. It is quite simply the most expensive military program in history. It costs an avererage of about 80 million per aircraft to produce, however that isn't counting the cost of the R&D. point is we've already produced the f22 and worked out most of its bugs. For a fraction of the cost of the f35 program the navy would already be operating squadrons right now. Besides, what do you tell an aviator she. He goes up against a sukoi that is faster, more maneuverable, carries twice the payload, has stealth and almost twice the range of the f35. We will littrrally loose an air war in the future because of this aircraft. If you attempted to navalize the F22 you would run into the same problems you see with the F35, lets face it the service have unique requirements and to try to build one aircraft to meet all the requirements than you drive up cost and slow down the program. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:10:14 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for that reminder. But its such a small number. That is going to be the bastard community in marine aviation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The real question is why is the USMC buying a disproportionate amount of less capable, more expensive F-35Bs to Cs than its amphib commitment would lead you to believe it needs. the marines were originally going to buy zero Cs RON can explain the politics behind this. and it is politics. marines are buying so few cs, I have no idea what they are going for. It's for TACAIR commitment. From a pilots perspective - and the most lethal option - the best game plan would be to buy as little F-35Bs as you actually need to fulfill the commitment to manning amphibs and then buy F-35Cs or As (I could see reasons for both) even if they will never go to the boat. Unfortunately the extra lethality of having more A/Cs is outweighed by the fact that we are borderline incompetent at managing our aircraft and need to get better at advocating for the resources that we need to properly train and equip our units, and buying majority F-35Bs makes managing the fleet easier. I can't even imagine how many times the laws of physics have been willfully broken and the amount of "expeditionary" koolaid that has been consumed in order to justify buying all these Bs. Yep, Navy manning for carriers is contingent on Marine participation in TACAIR integration. Additionally the navy from 10-13 was trying to back out of the F35 and buy more Super Hornets; by committing to buy Cs we kept them in the program. Thanks for that reminder. But its such a small number. That is going to be the bastard community in marine aviation. The Marines DID NOT want to buy F-35Cs. Gen Amos looked like someone pissed in his coffee mug the day he signed the MOU agreeing to buy those 80 F-35Cs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:12:11 PM EDT
[#29]
I have no need to refer to my credentials. Anyone who studies the facts knows that the F 35 is a seriously expensive technological wonder. But the air frame is crap. Its a single engine fighter, its slower carries less ordinance is less maneuverable and has a shorter range then even an F-15. You are telling me that stealth outweighs the need for all of these things? No. In no way. Missile and tracking technology is developing at the same rate if not faster then future air power is. Not to mention our enemys focus on air superiority fighters and are testing platforms as we speak that are comparable to the F22. And if anyone here knows anything about aircraft they know that the f22 is twice the plane the f35 is. I'm just saying why are we spending so much to develop something that isn't as good as what we already have. We could have hundreds more f22s right now and still would have saved money. Why is anyone even arguing this point with me?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:17:03 PM EDT
[#30]
It wouldn't cost nearly as much to navalize the f22 as it has costed for r&d of the f35. Not even close. We have a working template.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:20:34 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:we've already produced the f22 and worked out most of its bugs. For a fraction of the cost of the f35 program the navy would already be operating squadrons right now. So, can you support any of your assertions? What would the cost estimate for a navalized F-22 be? Awfully expensive to try to add this Navy-unique requirements in after the fact. Tell us about the comparison of maintenance man hours per flight hour required to maintain RCS between the F-22 and F-35. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:21:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It wouldn't cost nearly as much to navalize the f22 as it has costed for r&d of the f35. Not even close. We have a working template. What was Lockheed's estimate? NAVAIR's? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:23:29 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sumer (Sept 10th, I had to google it) of 2010 OIF became OND Sumer because Mesopotamia? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:28:18 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That and the Navy didn't replace all of the F-14 squadrons with Superhornet squadrons. Some of them are being recycled into F-35 squadrons. Still, it's strange that after the Navy went to great lengths to standardize the carrier flight deck with Superhornets that they would keep legacy Hornets on board the carriers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because of the USN rotational model and training cycle, they cannot cover all deployment requirements without Marine TACAIR That and the Navy didn't replace all of the F-14 squadrons with Superhornet squadrons. Some of them are being recycled into F-35 squadrons. Still, it's strange that after the Navy went to great lengths to standardize the carrier flight deck with Superhornets that they would keep legacy Hornets on board the carriers. The legacy squadrons are only legacy because they're waiting to transition to the F-35. They'll be gone as soon as the F-35 is ready. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:28:40 PM EDT
[#35]
So you are saying the Hornet drivers are wanting to fly F35Bs?
It seems that the harrier mafia won the battle. I grew up around Hornet pilots since my father was one, and none of them wanted to touch VSTOL with a ten foot pole. Buying the 35C to replace the baby hornets makes a bunch of sense (in a bizzare world.) Id just buy Superhornets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:32:17 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What was Lockheed's estimate? NAVAIR's? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It wouldn't cost nearly as much to navalize the f22 as it has costed for r&d of the f35. Not even close. We have a working template. What was Lockheed's estimate? NAVAIR's? The navalized F-22 was an unstealthy swing wing abortion. It nothing in common with the F-22, except the sub-systems and the designation F-22. The Naval F-23 had even less in common with it's AF brother, but was actually stealthy , practical and still looked cooler than the 22s. The blueprint pictures of the F-22 NATF have never been released for obvious reasons, but the F-23 NATF has been. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:35:40 PM EDT
[#37]
The f35 variants cost an average of about 38,000 USD to operate, the F22 costs around 45,000 per flight hour. So really in the scope of things not that bad. It is true that the F22 is more expensive to make, but keep in mind the R&D is finished on it and that is where the vast majority of the money is spent. A navalized f22 would probubly cost between 150-200 million USD Per unit. But you wouldn't be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on R&D, so you could produce hundreds of them, maintain them and still save half a trillion dollars. Facts are facts. And you still get a way better aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:39:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The f35 variants cost an average of about 38,000 USD to operate, the F22 costs around 45,000 per flight hour. So really in the scope of things not that bad. It is true that the F22 is more expensive to make, but keep in mind the R&D is finished on it and that is where the vast majority of the money is spent. A navalized f22 would probubly cost between 150-200 million USD Per unit. But you wouldn't be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on R&D, so you could produce hundreds of them, maintain them and still save half a trillion dollars. Facts are facts. And you still get a way better aircraft. When you consider that the F-16 costs around $12,000 per hour and the F-18 around $18,000, the F-35 costs +2X as much to fly. That's unaffordable! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:39:44 PM EDT
[#39]
I'd doesn't have to be swept wing design.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:43:12 PM EDT
[#40]
overpriced garbage imho
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:43:44 PM EDT
[#41]
Yeah its expensive. But when you consider the huge advancements in Sam systems around the world utilizing stealth technology is absolutely imperative in order to maintain air superiority. So the cost is going to go way up. Our enemy's focus on defence and we focus on the latter. So yeah we have to spend way more money then they do but that keeps us on the top of the food chain. I'd rather spend the money then see a communist country do it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:43:56 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd doesn't have to be swept wing design. It was the only way Lockheed could figure out how to get the big F-22 sized plane down to a safe carrier landing speed while retaining rapid acceleration and high supersonic performance. The F-35C is only nominally supersonic and it takes forever to get there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:45:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The f35 variants cost an average of about 38,000 USD to operate, the F22 costs around 45,000 per flight hour. So really in the scope of things not that bad. It is true that the F22 is more expensive to make, but keep in mind the R&D is finished on it and that is where the vast majority of the money is spent. A navalized f22 would probubly cost between 150-200 million USD Per unit. But you wouldn't be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on R&D, so you could produce hundreds of them, maintain them and still save half a trillion dollars. Facts are facts. And you still get a way better aircraft. Just fucking stop already. The F22 and the F35 are two aircraft that have different roles. If you said we should buy more Superbugs to save money, sure i'd be right there with you, but bolting a tailhook on an F22 and calling it a day shows everybody you are talking out of your ass. Also, unless you have an EGA on your arm, you can stop telling the Marine Corps what it needs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:50:19 PM EDT
[#44]
Wow, I didn't say in any way bolt a tail hook on it and call it a day. At all. And no there is no EGA. SO RAH.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:53:02 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, I didn't say in any way bolt a tail hook on it and call it a day. At all. And no there is no EGA. SO RAH. Kinda hard to land an F22 on a carrier without one wouldn't you say? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:55:55 PM EDT
[#46]
Kamakazi bro. It would stop just fine right? Because the idea is completely nonsensical instead of producing a complete pos that costs way to much to develop and doesn't even work. Its a good idea. It could be done.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:56:41 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you are saying the Hornet drivers are wanting to fly F35Bs? It seems that the harrier mafia won the battle. I grew up around Hornet pilots since my father was one, and none of them wanted to touch VSTOL with a ten foot pole. Buying the 35C to replace the baby hornets makes a bunch of sense (in a bizzare world.) Id just buy Superhornets. If I could choose to fly any of them it would be the A model, then C, then B. Everyone knows the Super Hornet would be the best near term option, but long term the F-35 is better. I haven't seen or heard a valid argument for the F-35B beyond needing to man amphibs. I hear things like "distributed STOVL operations" with FARPs being close to the front lines, and F-35s till STO then hit the Osprey tanker, then the entire FARP will relocate every X time interval. As soon as you start asking critical questions the idea starts to spring leaks. How much fuel can a F-35 STO/VTO with a couple GBUs, gun, and AIM-120s? How many Ospreys are needed to support a section of F-35s? What sort of security from the ground combat element does this whole thing need? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 11:59:59 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah its expensive. But when you consider the huge advancements in Sam systems around the world utilizing stealth technology is absolutely imperative in order to maintain air superiority. So the cost is going to go way up. Our enemy's focus on defence and we focus on the latter. So yeah we have to spend way more money then they do but that keeps us on the top of the food chain. I'd rather spend the money then see a communist country do it. what stealth???? the f-35 can be picked up by all known radar post 92 there is no advantage to this aircraft at all |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 12:00:31 AM EDT
[#49]
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 12:02:10 AM EDT
[#50]
I was reffering to the f22. The f35 has "stealth". Or so they say.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
