F22/f35
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F22/f35
Well, the writings on the wall:
http://news.aol.com/article/defense-chief-proposes-weapons-cuts/416028?cid=12[/font]
http://news.aol.com/article/defense-chief-proposes-weapons-cuts/416028?cid=12[/font]
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might want to correct your title... the F-35 is getting more money, not less.
Some programs would grow.
Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet. That program could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes.
Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet. That program could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, VH-71A to bite the dust on the basis of this.
The real question is whether the US will kill F-35B, and focus only on the USAF F-35A and the USN F-35C - this could save some serious cash. It would also force the UK to convert the QEII class of CV to CTOL, so that it can be more useful if it ever enters service.
Pls, pls, pls kill the F-35B - and buy off the Brits with funding the GE/RR F-136
engine programme.
S41
The real question is whether the US will kill F-35B, and focus only on the USAF F-35A and the USN F-35C - this could save some serious cash. It would also force the UK to convert the QEII class of CV to CTOL, so that it can be more useful if it ever enters service.
Pls, pls, pls kill the F-35B - and buy off the Brits with funding the GE/RR F-136
engine programme.
S41
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a chance of killing F-35B!
Cancel the primary variant for the only level 1 partner (UK)?
The variant Italy is planning to make half of its buy... and just built a ship specifically for?
And the variant Spain just built a ship with the capability for?
Not to mention the ONLY variant the USMC wants... and the USMC has a very great influence in Congress?
There are scheduled to be more B variants built altogether (and for at least 4 nations) than C variants (for only 1 nation).
The F-35C has a far greater chance of being canceled than the F-35B!
Some people like to stick to their fantasies regardless of reality, it seems.
Cancel the primary variant for the only level 1 partner (UK)?
The variant Italy is planning to make half of its buy... and just built a ship specifically for?
And the variant Spain just built a ship with the capability for?
Not to mention the ONLY variant the USMC wants... and the USMC has a very great influence in Congress?
There are scheduled to be more B variants built altogether (and for at least 4 nations) than C variants (for only 1 nation).
The F-35C has a far greater chance of being canceled than the F-35B!
Some people like to stick to their fantasies regardless of reality, it seems.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,959
Received 2,858 Likes
on
1,225 Posts
Fox News are reporting the US Defence Secretary Gates has cancelled the F-22 program after the next four aircraft are completed. Also cancelled is a lightweight tank for the Army.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-22 is the best combat aircraft ever and to cancel it is insane. The F-35 is pretty crap and is nothing compared with the Raptor. However I would consider the B could be killed off! After all the UK is only going to get 66 which is a waste of time! So much for the 150 odd we were 'supposed' to get!
It would be a shame to lose USMC fixed wing when the Harrier is retired but what else could we do!? We cannot afford to lose the US Navy and its real carriers!
I guess this goes to show what a useless fool Obama is. A man with totally no experience being put in the job! Now he seems to want to get rid of nukes! Assuming the whole world did ditch nukes and one day we face an asteroid impact or even the fact that someone like Russia or China had hung onto a dozen warheads or so it could make things interesting! If only McCain had won! God forbid but I think even President Sarah Palin would have been better than this!
It would be a shame to lose USMC fixed wing when the Harrier is retired but what else could we do!? We cannot afford to lose the US Navy and its real carriers!
I guess this goes to show what a useless fool Obama is. A man with totally no experience being put in the job! Now he seems to want to get rid of nukes! Assuming the whole world did ditch nukes and one day we face an asteroid impact or even the fact that someone like Russia or China had hung onto a dozen warheads or so it could make things interesting! If only McCain had won! God forbid but I think even President Sarah Palin would have been better than this!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right Ronald. Fancy you yanks putting someone in the Whitehouse with NO experience at all of nuking asteroids.
Obviously you should have elected Bruce Willis
Obviously you should have elected Bruce Willis
Last edited by ProM; 7th Apr 2009 at 15:01.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asteroid/comet impact is a real threat! A threat which unlike the terrorist issue could actually wipe us all out and possibly even all life on the whole planet! Nuclear weapons are one of a few methods we could use to destroy/alter the course of an approaching object with. There are other methods but many of these would take years or decades to work. If we were to discover an obect at short notice then the nuke option would possibly be our best and only option available. Or we could sit back and let it hit!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed it is a lot of money. But I would imagine a 10 to 20 year war in Afghanistan which we probably will not ever win is going to be even more costly! How long can we stay there? I guess until someone runs for office who will remove our troops! Please don't get me wrong I fully support our troops and detest the enemy. While we are there the troops deserve every bit of kit we can afford. Though probably best to leave asap! But in this capitalist world where only money matters can we really win? Also how do we define winning? Our leaders also assume we are not going to face any other coflicts other than Afghanistan! Now going by the track record of how crap our government has been in almost every respect and the same can be said of current and past American administrations please forgive me if I don't trust their judgement or word on any issue!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Killing Dave-B
GK121
As has been rehashed around here ad infinitum, the issue is that F-35B carries two-thirds the bombload half the range of the F-35C, or alternatively half the bombload two-thirds the range of F-35C. Dave-B can't carry the largest bombs internally, and it has bring back "issues", hence the UK interest in RVLs to meet key user requirements.
So, if you're in the Administration, then you need to make difficult choices - and though I appreciate that the Marine Expeditionary Unit concept currently relies on organic AV-8Bs - I would ask when an MEU went ashore in a combat role without fast air off a CVN. And when would you do it in future?
Personally, I don't see the case for it, and would give the USMC F-35Cs off CVNs as they currently fly F-18C/D. IMHO, the UK would jump at a deal swapping the long-term funding of the F-136 engine for Dave-B, and I can't imagine that the US will determine its procurement decisions on possible future purchases of small numbers of Dave-B by Spain and Italy (you may also add Thailand and Israel, too).
But then it's not my decision. The Dave-B is a nice idea, but it's not as useful as Dave-C; with the economy, it's time to bin it. I would continue with F-22 procurement, however.
S41
As has been rehashed around here ad infinitum, the issue is that F-35B carries two-thirds the bombload half the range of the F-35C, or alternatively half the bombload two-thirds the range of F-35C. Dave-B can't carry the largest bombs internally, and it has bring back "issues", hence the UK interest in RVLs to meet key user requirements.
So, if you're in the Administration, then you need to make difficult choices - and though I appreciate that the Marine Expeditionary Unit concept currently relies on organic AV-8Bs - I would ask when an MEU went ashore in a combat role without fast air off a CVN. And when would you do it in future?
Personally, I don't see the case for it, and would give the USMC F-35Cs off CVNs as they currently fly F-18C/D. IMHO, the UK would jump at a deal swapping the long-term funding of the F-136 engine for Dave-B, and I can't imagine that the US will determine its procurement decisions on possible future purchases of small numbers of Dave-B by Spain and Italy (you may also add Thailand and Israel, too).
But then it's not my decision. The Dave-B is a nice idea, but it's not as useful as Dave-C; with the economy, it's time to bin it. I would continue with F-22 procurement, however.
S41
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shirley,
The F-35 B is a lot more versatile, though an advanced Harrier ( as now with Sniper ) would seem quite up to the job ?
If the UK can suddenly come up with £400 Billion to save bankers - a rhyming slang if ever I heard one - what's the snag with £ 4 Billion for a couple of carriers, + the F-35B could use assault ships ?
As for shooting asteroids a la Hollywood, isn't that asking a bit much of any aircraft including the supposedly banned F-15 ASAT, while there are other systems which could ( hopefully ) do the job !
The F-35 B is a lot more versatile, though an advanced Harrier ( as now with Sniper ) would seem quite up to the job ?
If the UK can suddenly come up with £400 Billion to save bankers - a rhyming slang if ever I heard one - what's the snag with £ 4 Billion for a couple of carriers, + the F-35B could use assault ships ?
As for shooting asteroids a la Hollywood, isn't that asking a bit much of any aircraft including the supposedly banned F-15 ASAT, while there are other systems which could ( hopefully ) do the job !
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: England
Age: 45
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would a nuke detonated in space have less of an effect though? In a vacuum I'm assuming you wouldn't get the overpressure/vacuum and air rushing back in as there is no air anyway?