F22/f35
 

Well, the writings on the wall:

http://news.aol.com/article/defense-chief-proposes-weapons-cuts/416028?cid=12[/font]

And the US101 too...

You might want to correct your title... the F-35 is getting more money, not less.

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

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.

Just after the N Korea launch?
That might be a tough sell

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.

He should have called for canceling the V22 as well.

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 is the seventh of April isn't it, and not the first?

Obama has sold us out! The asteriods are waiting for us to drop our guard. But I've got my gun under my bed, and if they come knocking they'd better be waving white flags.

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

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!

This should be fun!

6% of GDP is a lot of money Ronald. Especially when you're facing the current economic problems.

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!

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

Perhaps Flap62, but I don't think I have the energy

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 !

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?

Squirrel,

No Marine is allowed to even speculate on getting any F-35Cs let alone make a case for that option despite aircraft life issues between Harrier and Hornet. Not much notice nor many comments on the fact that the San Diego crash Hornet was a D and traps was about all it had left in it and that was all that it could be used for.

Actually the Harrier has deployed in combat from gators with no CVNs in the vicinity. Gators can travel and turn a few gator squares without drawing any attention while everyone pays attention to CVNs. The less press the better. Probably do it again when gator air will meet the requirement(s).

S/F, FOG

Nuke the stars
 

Going back to the earlier point, would nuking asteroids help? As was mentioned earlier, in a vacuum you wouldn't get the added affect of air pressure fluctuation would you? Does the same apply for the use of thermobaric weapons and 'conventional' cruise missiles or ICBM's? Although here obvious problems with range and flight patterns and angles occur...

If, per chance, an asteroid did strike Earth. Would we notice? Millions of asteroids must have impacted the earth over the billions of centuries. After all, without asteroids the earth wouldn't have had the majority of the water it does now. And in recent centuries, lumps of 'space rock' are continually colliding with the Earth. However if you are talking about an Asteroid with the magnitude and capability to change the way we live on Earth, would nuclear weapons be of any use? Or even have an affect, after all this isn't futurama... :=

Please would someone with more 'knowledge' or 'experience' clear some of these questions up for me? :confused:

I am interested in this to. From what I can gather some of the other options include using lasers to push the asteroid away, attaching a solar sail, attaching low powered rocket to adjust its course and there are others. These are all so long term and may not work. I have seen scientists mention using nukes but the results will depend greatly upon the material the object is made from. We could turn one large object into many smaller objects and be hit by a kind of 'shot gun blast'! However we could then nuke the swarm of smaller objects. Being hit by several small 'city killers' is still better than being hit by the 'doomsday rock' though. The fatal error in the doomsday movies is we only fire one nuke and one rocket! When it fails we do nothing! We may have to be prepared to fire several nukes at it. Possibly either impacting with the object or near it to try and push it off course. The nuclear option is not the only option but would be the entire planets only hope for an object discovered in the short to medium term. What fun if all nukes had been destroyed!
I to would like an experts opinion on the effects of a nuclear explosion in space. I hope the boys in charge look into these issues! Sadly I imagine they only think about the next 5 years and winning votes! The number one issue to many is the economy but the topic here is of far more importance!

I thought this was about F22/F35. Instead I seem to be reading the rejected plots to Armageddon:confused:

Shut your eyes and hope for the best...
 

If kinetic energy is equal to 1/2 mass * velocity squared, and the mass is a very large lump of rock of god knows what weight, or even more importantly, goodness knows what density relative to its size, and its impact velocity is pretty large (which is a given for any asteroid/celestial object that makes contact with the earths surface) then the resulting impact is going to have a mildy irritating impact on the planets population to say the least.

Now think about how a solar sail, or impulse engine, or rocket or any other of our means of propulsion in space is going to effect said object and its trajectory in space.

Just to give some of you a clue, Force = Mass * Acceleration, and our solar system, and our planets', gravity well will not be helping us, and solar sails and impulse engines take a long time to get going.

Mods, can I officially request you withdraw this thread? Asteroids and nukes have absolutely nothing to do with my original post. I am sure somewhere on this internet thingy there has to be a startrek board.

If you go to your original post, you can delete it. The whole thread then magically disappears, as if smothered by a Klingon cloaking-device.

Its (cyber)space, Jim.

But not as we know it.

Asteroid threat! What does that have to do with the cancellation of F-22! Interesting debate on the various F-35 models! Maybe the asteroid distraction, and all its associated exclamation marks, could be taken elsewhere!

Forget the new carriers and F-35, spend the dosh on the guys in Afghanistan.

We could "go halves" with the US Navy 'Norfolk based ' carriers and do a job share now the 'two presidents' are big buddies.

Hang on, what's that I can see off Spithead? That was quick :cool:

For the trekkies

How to save the world from an asteroid impact - space - 25 March 2009 - New Scientist

Maybe we could heave an F-35 (either flavor) at one of those sky rocks?







And just for the record, I'm a doctor, dammit, not an astrophysicist...

FOG,

Thanks for your input - very interesting. I'd not heard about the Marines going in unaccompanied, and if possible would welcome some more detail. I'm not surprised that the Marines are forbidden from thinking / discussing end of the F-35B - but if I were OC USMC I'd say the same thing - but this doesn't mean that the political leadership ought not to be thinking about it.

Here's a link to Sec Gates' remarks: DefenseLink News Transcript: DoD News Briefing With Secretary Gates From The Pentagon

Gutsy stuff in terms of taking on vested interests: but no word on canceling F-35B. However, F-22 goes and C-17 production stops, too.

S41

Squirrel,

The USMC definitely wants and needs the F-35 as the Hornets are being used up quite rapidly. The discussion is best over some tequila (Scotch is reserved for calming enjoyable times so…).

USMC works around the globe in small detachments quite often, just less advertised than our counterparts in other services. The Harriers off gators attached to MEUs have been used at least a couple of times. Their use has not been denied just not noticed nor advertised. Another discussion best left face to face but with some Scotch (Talisker or Laguvalin) and a Camacho 11/18.

S/F, FOG

Did initial US involvement in Somalia have the full shooting match or was it cobras and Harriers?

FOG....and a little highland water I hope.

Surely this is an argument for more F35s? maybe designated F35D... or F35 AS (for Asteriod).
Presumably piloted by the USMC... Or the RAF based out of their Q sheds? (probably wouldn't be called out that often but would make a change from the North Sea type intercepts)

Rather reminds me of the 'Skylab' protection hats they were selling in Oz when it was due to re-enter way-back-when.

Flug

FOG...

The question is whether the things that Harriers/Gators have been used for will be done much better (or even as well) by a much bigger and more expensive machine that offers supersonic speed and stealth. In CAS, for instance, those qualities make as much sense as attaching a mowing deck to your Porsche 911 when you want to cut the grass.

When you do need those qualities, the CV will be present.

Flaps,

Somalia limits were political. Not very many folks were versed let alone worked on urban CAS during the Somalia time period. The MEU had Harriers and Marine pilots versed in urban CAS but from my understanding the briefers higher up the food chain were unfamiliar with urban CAS and thus severe limits were placed upon the use of the Harriers.

Guzlin,

Knuckle draggers enjoy Scotch neat.

LO,

The only people who think the Harrier has performance equal to a Hornet (let alone a F-35) are the Harrier bubbas. Having said that there places for the gators. Keeping a CVN off of the coast of XXX that has a MEU doesn't make much sense and the USN has not done it.

In Somalia a CV would have been a large negative. CAS, especially urban CAS is not deep strike or battle field interdiction. Using planes and crews untrained for CAS except notionally to support ground forces in an urban environment is a recipe for disaster of both blue and red.

A CV draws more attention. LO, supersonic, and lots of ordnance at 15-20 minutes often means less than 4 mk 82 equivalents at 5-10 minutes. That is if a CVN is in the area.

S/F, FOG

Nuclear Detonation in space.
 

Careful mate, you're actually more likely to inadvertantly release three criminals from outer space who would then be free to use their superhuman powers on earth...unless of course some bloke who got changed in the wrong order could stop them.

Shhh.... you mustn't talk about the AA (Anti-Asteroid) capability of Dave.... the asteriods probably read Pprune too, and will adjust their tactics.....

Anyway, back to the sideshow of the actual debate.

FOG,

Thanks for you courteous and informed responses - always a pleasure. Very interesting on the Somalia situation, but this goes to the heart of the matter. With the right kit (e.g. F-18s currently doing urban CAS) and more importantly, the right training, it must be possible for Dave-C to adequately do the Marines' job - accepting that you need to send a CVN.

Hence my question of without Somalia (which to the cynical outsider looked like a benefit concert for the USMC in its' initial stages), where has an MEU required fast air and only had organic AV-8Bs? This is my point - if the answer is that there haven't been any in which a CVN wasn't - or couldn't - have been available, then I guess I'd be more sympathetic. But unless there are some (in fact, quite a lot), then I'd still come down on binning Dave-B on the grounds of cost.

(And then the RN can get Dave-C, too! Hurrah! ;) )

S41