US Air Force, are we reaching too far?

After reading this article: http://www.businessinsider.com/sandra-i-erwin-air-force-finding-budget-for-these-aircraft-2014-11
Got me thinking, are we stretching beyond what our economy is capable of supporting?

Just one F-22 cost as much as 14 F-16�s, and I don�t know that ANYONE would call the F-16 a second rate fighter. It MIGHT be second rate next to a Russian stealth fighter (SU-PAK) if the stealth abilities of the Russian aircraft turn out to be good, but those are still in the prototype stages, they�re not even deployed. We have a massive edge in aircraft technology and even numbers if we�re talking true 4th generation aircraft.

I truly believe we need stealth aircraft, but do we need aircraft with this much of a technological edge, at the cost that we�re paying per aircraft?

The F-35 is not quite half the price of the F-22, which is still over 4x as expensive as the most costly 4th generation fighter, the F-15 Strike Eagle. The Strike Eagle would just punish the SU-27 in an air superiority role, and then turn around and drop bombs on ground targets afterwards.

Our fighters cost 4 � 8 times what the last generation fighters cost, yet we�re expected to deploy them in roughly the same numbers as the previous generation fighters. This in a severely beat up economy and at a time when our foreign entanglements are shrinking. I just don�t see how this is doable. At the prices we�re paying for these fighters, we�ll have to get 100 years of service out of these airframes for the investment to make sense.

As for China, the US Navy could strip China of all aircraft by itself. Or at least deny them the ability to leave their SAM protection.

I love the technological edge, but do we need THIS much of a technological edge at this point in time?

The last time we had a second rate air force was the late 30's-early 40's. Was it not for code breaking, the Pacific war might have been a lot longer.

That's what I've been trying to tell you ad-infinitum. While we need to keep the technological edge on R&D, tactically and strategically, we're better off building 2000 F-16s v 100 22s/

Me personally, I would rather see the money spent on F-22's than on social programs.

Yeah, but we both know that will never happen. The DOD budget is what it is.

F-16's will wear out at some point, but we can always build more.

What I'm wondering is if we can build a fighter a bit like the mindset with the French Rafael. Basically a good, solid 4th gerneration fighter with some stealth technology that makes it harder for missiles to lock on or to be located in the first place, and a reduced IR signature. Something we could keep down in the $60-80 million range.

GG, we are no longer building F-22's. The production line's already closed down. We have enough to ensure Day One air superiority over any opponent for the next 20-30 years. On day 2, we can bring in the Bomb Trucks, i.e. the F-35's and F-16's etc.

our economy can support damn near anything the Military wants or needs. What we CANNOT support, is the welfare state, and the influx of a third of the mexican population.

I think that if the USMC requirement for VSTOL had been left out we could have had something close to that price and capability in the F-35. I think that it would have been cheaper to retro fit our amphibious assault ships with angled flight decks and catapults so they could use the naval version of the F-35, and scrap the requirement for the VSTOL version. Let the Marines fly the F-35C.

Other countries decided that stealth was something that was too easily defeated to justify spending the stupid sums of money it required and the developmental headaches it brought. We bet the farm and we are down to our last hand having already lost the cows and all the equipment.

With more than a decade of war, our 4th generation stuff is ready to start falling out of the sky and we have no replacements. It is crazy because there are only two or three potential adversaries out there right now in the whole world who couldn't defeated with Vietnam era equipment.

We've worn out our high dollar aircraft using them to do jobs that literally any fighter bomber made since 1960 could have done nearly as well. And of course, our brilliant solution is to build even higher dollar and more technically complex aircraft to do the same jobs.

Once you're the toughest guy on the block, you can never turn your back or let your guard down, because everyone else on the block is ready to take you down. There's no standing still. Stay ahead or get trampled by the herd.

KC

The F-22 isn't, or wasn't, terribly expensive to build by aerospace standards. The staggering unit cost reflects the 30 odd billion dollars that they spent on development amortized over a drastically reduced production run that couldn't realize economy of scale at 2 copies a month.

Build 150 copies a year like the F-16 and they'd be exactly that $60-80 million a pop.

I think you�re right. If the cost of the VSTOL development never happened then my bet is the cost of the Air Force version of the F-35 would be right around $100 million. That would have been something.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating not staying ahead. I'm questioning if we need to be THIS far ahead? The F-22 & F-35 are SO far in advance of even anything anyone else has on the books, that it's likely we'll never lose one to an enemy aircraft ever.

So the question isn't should we stay ahead, that's a given. The question is, do we need as much advantage as the F-22 & 35 have.

The F-15 can deal with as many SU-27's as it carries missiles, without much threat of the F-15 being shot down.

The F-22 can deal with as many F-15's as it can carry missiles without much of any threat of ever being shot down.

They would be cheaper, but you wouldn't cut the price by a factor of 10; not even close. That's why the program was stopped, they realized the costs would never come down to anything sustainable. So they stopped the program and doubled down on the F-35 because the F-35 does most of what an F-22 will do at a fraction of the cost.

This is how I feel also. Im sick of democrats and liberals trashing our country. They want this flood of Mexicans just so they can get overwhelming votes. I wish Hispanics would wake up and stop being patsies for the democrats.

Do you carry a 22 for self defense?

Do you "NEED" as much advantage as you get from a larger caliber?

Do you realize how silly your question sounds?

Geek, you're overlooking a number of salient points here. Technology is a force multiplier. The size of our military is quite small in comparison to days gone by and our current opposition. Judging the value of a given weapon system in military action has not a thing to do with purchase price.

The F15 had a shocking sticker price when new, but unless I'm misinformed there have been none shot down due to enemy air action or ground fire. As I recall, the last time I heard anything about its kill ratio it was 160:0 and that includes action by the Israeli Air Force.

Are you REALLY advocating not having every possible advantage in a life and death struggle?

And advocating that point at the expense of those who serve our country and are willing to give up their very lives?

Does your carry piece cost $100 million dollars? Do you realize how silly your question sounds?

Wow, just wow. You apparently don't understand scales...

One more thing. I don't like a fair fight.

KC

Should never be such a thing...

And you apparently don't understand economics and completely miss the point. Wow, just wow. The dumbassitude is great with you.

The point is, and it always is WITH EVERYTHING IN LIFE, is can you afford the very best? And in this instance, you can add the question of what is the very best? Because the F-22 is gone. The tooling is destroyed. There will never be another one built. It is water under the bridge. So, have we harmed ourselves with building fewer than 200 of them when we could have built scores more generation 4.5 aircraft?

And given that the F-35 is going to be astronomically expensive as well and appears to be infinitely more troubled, will it ever be procured in numbers needed to make up for the numerical superiority of the enemy.

A single F-22 might be worth ten F-15s but 2,500 F-15s beat 180 F-22s all day.

Well, we already bought the F-22s, and we aren't buying anymore, so it's a mute point. I believe we do need some very high end capability (you never know...) but we don't need an entire Air Force of F-22s. The F-35 is questionable in my mind right now. We could replace F-15E and F-16s with improved variants/sensors and have a tremendous capability at a fraction the cost. But I think that ship has sailed. The big issue I see is we are at a fiscal point where training is being slashed. That is a BIG mistake.

The Air Force appears to be cannibalizing itself to get the F-35 operational.

In addition technological superiority is a huge deterrent. In Iraq, the few capable fighters Saddam had choose to bolt for Iran vs. stand and fight against our superior technology. A similar thing probably occurred in Libya when Kadaffi chose to surrender his nuclear program vs face our air-power.

Now we can put more munitions on target, and break more toys for less money then ever before.

[/quote]

Wow, just wow. You apparently don't understand scales... [/quote]

And you apparently don't understand economics and completely miss the point. Wow, just wow. The dumbassitude is great with you.

The point is, and it always is WITH EVERYTHING IN LIFE, is can you afford the very best? And in this instance, you can add the question of what is the very best? Because the F-22 is gone. The tooling is destroyed. There will never be another one built. It is water under the bridge. So, have we harmed ourselves with building fewer than 200 of them when we could have built scores more generation 4.5 aircraft?

And given that the F-35 is going to be astronomically expensive as well and appears to be infinitely more troubled, will it ever be procured in numbers needed to make up for its numerical superiority.

A single F-22 might be worth ten F-15s but 2,500 F-15s beat 180 F-22s all day.[/quote]

So you are saying sacrifice US Airmen with numbers?

I usually agree with you posts but you bring in economics...how much is a military member's life worth in dollars?

The lack of tooling etc is a Congressional/.gov problem. That doesn't mean we shouldn't equip our military with the very best equipment available.

And you apparently don't understand economics and completely miss the point. Wow, just wow. The dumbassitude is great with you.

The point is, and it always is WITH EVERYTHING IN LIFE, is can you afford the very best? And in this instance, you can add the question of what is the very best? Because the F-22 is gone. The tooling is destroyed. There will never be another one built. It is water under the bridge. So, have we harmed ourselves with building fewer than 200 of them when we could have built scores more generation 4.5 aircraft?

And given that the F-35 is going to be astronomically expensive as well and appears to be infinitely more troubled, will it ever be procured in numbers needed to make up for its numerical superiority.

A single F-22 might be worth ten F-15s but 2,500 F-15s beat 180 F-22s all day.[/quote]

So you are saying sacrifice US Airmen with numbers?

I usually agree with you posts but you bring in economics...how much is a military member's life worth in dollars?

The lack of tooling etc is a Congressional/.gov problem. That doesn't mean we shouldn't equip our military with the very best equipment available. [/quote]

Money doesn't come from a money tree. It comes from tax payers and the federal reserve at interest. You might not like it, but yes, a pilot's life is worth a finite number of dollars. Everything is a balance between the best you can afford and what is needed to accomplish the mission. Always has been and always will be.

By the way, the Air Force has done this before. It is SOP for the Air Force. When they build a new base, the last thing built after they have built the housing, infrastructure, and everything else is the runway. That way, they can go back to Congress and say, "See, you've got to give us more money, we have all this stuff built and no runway."

It is the same thing here. They have deliberately killed off all RD of aircraft that might compete with the F-35, they are prematurely retiring other aircraft, they are nixing needed upgrades, they are cutting personnel and training, all so they can say, "See, we just have to have the F-35 because we don't have anything else at this point."

The golden bullet that downs the worlds best aircraft, might never have been fired if a flock of less able fighters were in the air.

1. Don't assume

2. I see you are you now talking about the F-35

3. Glad to see you have come back to earth after the "dumbassitude" comment.

4. In any economic discussion regarding our country, Constitutionally speaking, our military should receive the very best.

What is the very best, 1500 Tigers or 50,000 Shermans?

You assert that, but do they really?

2500 F-15's require 2500 pilots,

Per flight hour maintance cost on an F-22 are about 68k per hour vs the F-15's 42k per hour. If you figure an average 200 flight hours per pilot per year, your plan cost the tax payers an extra 33 billion per year just in flight hours, not counting initial pilot training, pay, benefits, and facilities cost for the extra 2,320 airframes.

So when you consider the total cost of ownership for the capabilities imparted, your "cheap" F-15's are not looking so cheap any more.

The R&D has already been done.
The delta wing f-16..

..... The wing and rear horizontal control surfaces were replaced with a cranked-arrow delta wing 120% larger than the original wing. Extensive use of carbon fiber composites allowed the savings of 600 lb (270 kg) of weight but the F-16XL was still 2,800 lb (1,300 kg) heavier than the original F-16A.

Less noticeable is that the fuselage was lengthened by 56 in (1.4 m) by the addition of two sections at the joints of the main fuselage sub-assemblies. With the new wing design, the tail section had to be canted up 3�, and the ventral fins removed, to prevent them from striking the pavement during takeoff and landing. However, as the F-16XL exhibits greater stability than the native F-16, these changes were not detrimental to the handling of the aircraft.

These changes resulted in a 25% improvement in maximum lift-to-drag ratio in supersonic flight and 11% in subsonic flight, and a plane that reportedly handled much more smoothly at high speeds and low altitudes. The enlargements increased fuel capacity by 82%. The F-16XL could carry twice the ordnance of the F-16 and deliver it 40% farther. The enlarged wing allowed a total of 27 hardpoints:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL

dave

Thanks AS...

Your eloquence is something I should work on....

Neither.

The correct answer is the T-34.

I find it ironic that when it comes to one's own defense of life and property, money is no object.

But when it comes to someone else's life suddenly economics play a role...some of y'all need to read some Kant and understand it.

I don't disagree with all that, but tell Congress. Tell the taxpayer. I figure we don't need that many aircraft anyway. Like I said in another post, there are only two or three potential adversaries in the whole world who couldn't be soundly defeated today with the air force we took to Vietnam.

Why would you say that? Cost is definitely a factor for me. I don't hire private security. I don't have an extensive security system. I don't have a panic room. I don't have a Wilson Custom Combat stashed in every room. Would all that make my life and the lives of my family safer and my property more secure? Undoubtedly, but it is cost prohibitive.

Carry on then...I forgive you for the "dumbassitude" comment

Two were shot down at the beginning of Desert Storm. One by a SAM, the other by AA fire...

The problem with the DoD budget is the Generals and DoD forget where the money comes from. They think it grows on trees It comes from us, the people and they have no concept on how to spend it wisely. The same is happening with the A-10 and the Blackhawk verses the Huey. The money comes from we the people and the DoD and the Generals need to make due with what we have before they get anymore.

kwg

This is where Jimmy Buffet sings "Why don't we get drunk and screw?"

You miss some points. I never said anything about giving up a technological advantage, I just think the advantage we have gained is akin to a 3 year old stepping in the ring with George Foreman. Now if that edge came cheap, that's wonderful. But the F-22 is 8x the cost of our most expansive 4th gen. And our 4th gens have an overwhelming advantage over anything else out there. I'm simply saying perhaps we didn't need to reach quite so far.

The F-35 will come in at somewhere between 150 - 400 mil. At 150, we could live with that, at 400 mil I wonder if the level of overkill is necessary especially given the cost. These aircraft are horrendously expensive and way more capable than we actually need.

You are taking my points as black and white, you talk like I'm advocating giving up our tech advantage and that's not what I'm advocating at all. I'm merely talking about significantly lowering cost for greater numbers of aircraft that are still many times more capable than anything our enemies have.

Hell, they need to be making new A10s, as nothing does what that does... Jorge, correct me if I am wrong, but is there a real world replacement for the job the F 14 TomCats or the A6 Intruder did?

We only have 100 B 52s left in inventory.. darn things are 50 plus years old...over 740 were built... why aren't we building those things again...

drones are great, but I don't see them replacing Piloted A/C totally by a long shot...

and growing up in the cold war as a military dependent, I have spent a lot of time on military bases in my life...new technology was constantly being made and entering inventory...

but it was afforded because, this nation wasn't spending billions annually for people to sit on their living room couch and watch TV all day and get fat and get stoned...and not contributing a thing to society...

Before the program is all said and done, it will be closer to the 150mm number. You have to remember how .gov computes the cost, which includes the amortization of all R&D and development costs across the number of aircraft built. The MARGINAL cost of each additional aircraft is even less then the 150mm number. Likewise if we kept building more F-22's the cost per airframe would of been reduced by this effect as well.

It's called an F/A-18 Hornet and a lot better than anything the French would ever dream of building (and everyone knows how much I despise the Hornet)

Not even close as a fighter.

no sir. The F/A-18 F is in my view an F-14D with less capabilites and there's nothing out there that replaced the A-6E, then again, munitions technology has alleviated some of that (although in Yugoslavia, the absence of the A-6 and FB-111s seriously degraded our all-weather capabilites), but we really blew it financially with the A-12 (and now the F-35). What we should have done (in 1996) was continue to build the F-14D with the Tomcat 2000 follow on, the A-6F and maybe Hornet Es, then continue the R&D for their eventual replacements. What happened, the A-12 was a disaster, basically leaving the Navy with only F/A-18s (and it's variants) as the only game in town, that even today, they can't match what a Tomcat was capable of.

once again, government efficiency at its finest...

waste a lot of money and end up with something inferior to what it is suppose to be superseding...

There is no reason that the money spent on development of new A/C should cost a fraction of what it does.. ( re $600 hammers and $1200 toilet seats type of expenses)...

and here we have had plenty of good A/C that technology hasn't advanced beyond, for the job they do.. and the development and tooling costs were already paid for...yet instead of making new ones, they spend how much upgrading high mileage airframes...

and this one A/C theory for multiple roles.. McNamara tried that way back in the 60s trying to develop the F 111 to be used by the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines...to save a buck.. and that turned out to be a financial disaster instead...

they never learn...

meanwhile our pilots end up with high buck junk that is a jackoff of all trades and master of none, yet costs a fortune to maintain...

Seafire: A couple of points to ponder: The infamous 600 dollar hammer is the fault of the Congress to be precise, and I'll illustrate: When they Navy approached Grumman to build the F-14 (or any other airplane by any other service applies), the cost of the airplane is offered either singly or for a volume buy.

Although the navy wanted and purchased 1200 plus Tomcats, the Congress would only allow for YEARLY purchases of say 40-50 units, with no follow on gurantees, so the price of the jet practically tripled. And even more expensive is the required logistics parts train, that would have been infinitively LESS expensive in a larger bulk buy.

As to the aircraft, remember that one of the most (if not THE most) successful jet fighter of all time, the F-4 Phantom served both the Navy and USAF very well, not to mention over two dozen air forces and the Royal Navy as well.

But not all the services had a hand in, or more accurately a finger in the pie, of its development. It was a Navy aircraft that the Air Force decided it liked. Even the Air Force versions still had the things like the heavy gear and the tail hook. It is easier to go from an aircraft developed for naval use to air force use than vice versa.

All the services getting involved in the initial development of an aircraft is a recipe for disaster.

The F-15 line is still open too. The best F-15s ever built are being sold to the Saudis and a few others right now. Upgrade the engines, the avionics, and add a few goodies like thrust vectoring and the F-15 would be the equal of the F-22 in most ways except stealth and have the advantage of being the most proven fighter air frame in service right now.

Thanks Jorge...

I am familiar with the lower expenses by buying in volume.. covering Government Accounts for years ( although not selling military jets... )

the comment on the $600 hammer is just an "example" or almost a saying to describe governmental waste....

I pretty much grew up around the F4 Phantom on Air Force bases, so I know them well...but the Phantom was an A/C that was ordered by the Navy that the Air Force ended up ordering afterwards....

In the case of the F 111, the Air Force was ordering those first and McNamara wanted to make the Navy take them also, instead of whatever A/C they actually wanted...

So the point I poorly attempted to make in my analysis, is that Naval Requirements can easily fit or be adapted to Air Force needs, but not the reverse....

The Air Farce has long runways.. the Navy has to have something they can fly off a carrier deck...

But my opinion has always been, that Naval Aviators are statistically superior to the average Air Force pilot... I am sure Air Force jocks will argue that point all day long...

A/C should be developed for Naval use first, if they want to save money and make multiple services use the same basic airframe...

Besides as the world is changing, the Air Force is going to become the Chair Force with all the drones and their capabilities.. missiles etc...

Where as the Navy, still has the need for airpower, operating from Carriers anywhere in the world...if we are going to maintain being a world power, although I believe Obama is trying to undermine that as much as he can...

And as someone else was posting on the A10s, the Air Force complained about them all the time.. where as the Army would love to have those babies, and I bet the Marines would also...

The importance of the Air Force being a separate service is quickly becoming obsolete...

excuse me now while I put on my flame suit and wait for all the Air Force vets on the Campfire here to show up and lynch me on line here...

I kind of doubt that. Maybe in the grand scheme of things. But in this day and age of shrinking budgets, probably not. The logistical hurdles and all the money that would have to be spent would probably make it too expensive for the army.

Now, if they were to allow the army to field something like the Super Tucano that could be operated from most of the fields on army posts already and could be much more easily serviced? Yeah, they would probably go for that.

I realize the F-4 was a Navy initial buy, so was the A-7 but yes I agree multi-service buys are a recipe for disaster, enter the F-35..

You read about some of the exercises we've done with some of the Europeans and the Indians and the like with the latest types. There is some chatter that they had done very well against the F-22. Of course, the chatter from our side says differently but it is also always followed up with the refrain, "Well, so what. In real combat the F-22 would have killed those guys before they even knew it was there."

Okay, so it seems that most of the advantages of the F-22 and almost all of the advantage of the F-35 lie in their BVR capabilities. Well, whoop-de-fricking-do. We have never fought an air war where we allowed our aircraft to shoot down potential enemies without making visual identification. The F-14 could shoot down aircraft at 100 miles in the 1970s, but that capability was of little use in anything short of Armageddon against Russian bombers because of our rules of engagement.

So, are we really going to send our F-22s and F-35s out to hot spots to get into knife fights with Su-27s and the like where most of their advantages are gone?

It would seem to me that the original High/Low mix we had envisioned needs to be tweaked. They didn't build enough F-22s. So, the F-35 is going to have to take over some of the High mix. Really, what we need is a High/Middle/Low mix with the F-22 on top, the F-35 in the high middle/ and something like an upgraded F-15 on the low.

The F-22 as a knife fighter has no equal. NONE. BVR is nice and there's just no comparison between the 1970's Phoenix (bomber only)and today's AAMRAM. ANd I am still of the opinion we need to build more quantity than super expensive-sophisticated stuff ONLY. Then again, I'm just a Johnny come lately...

I prefer foreign interloper these days. I think it is how I shall refer to you with your permission, of course.

Sure!but you forgot "statist". Time to change back my avatar..stand by.

As to your point about the F-22 being a knife fighter, well, I'm sure that is true, but there aren't enough of them. The plan with the F-22 as I always understood it was to whittle the adversary down at BVR so that he runs away or is in manageable numbers when the knife fight starts. As it stands with rules of engagement we have and their very limited numbers, they could find themselves overwhelmed. They are so few that normal maintenance redlines, a few lucky shots, a few getting damaged in normal accidents that always happen, could put a quarter or half of them out of business. There is no margin for error.

Bingo!

The F-15's being sold to the Saudi's are NOT the best. We see them a downgraded export version, and keep the best electronics and avionics for ourselves.

As for European Aircraft doing well in exercises vs. the F-22, you have to understand how those exercises were run. While I was in Japan, our F-16's would participate in exercises vs. the Japanese Mitsubishi F-1's. There is absolutely no comparison between the capabilities of these two aircraft, so in order to make the exercises "fair", The F-16's were prohibited from using their best radar and ECM capabilities, and were prohibited from using their afterburners. Today, Similar restrictions are places upon the F-22 during exercises, partially because we don't want uninvited spectators seeing their full capabilities.

As for a low-level mud fighter, we have one. It's called the F-16.

The point you made vis a vis the Saudi F-15's being sold with inferior systems is kinda moot.

They can go on the international market and acquire systems easily as capable as a stock US version. Its just an upgrade is all and they have plenty of $.
The Israelis do it all the time. In fact in many cases their versions are better. F-15 and F-16's.
Newer better tech these days comes along quick.

I suspect that a lot of this discussion is futile as the capabilities of the F-35 are NOT all out there for public consumption. Or the F-22's for that matter.
Classified info.

However the die appears to have been cast so prudence would dictate the politicians get off their asses and put the F-35 into full scale production and not the batch buy version. Bring the costs down thru volume buys.

Letting politicians/services run these deals is a recipe for disaster. The recent track history has been a series of fiascoes in so many different programs. Huge waste of $'s.

Jorge l'm sure can attest to that.

Set up a independent org. to poll the services and get what they need done in the most timely and efficient manner with an eye to practicality and keeping costs in line.

Political feather bedding just kills the process.. period. Senators fighting to get the programs or portions thereof in their backyards regardless of how it affects the costs.
There are a lot more issues besides that one...but l'm sure you get the picture.

Jorge, curious your thoughts on something like th old F-5 series....cheap, easy to fix, and due to its small size and high maneuverability one hell of a lil dogfighter....think some program like this would be ideal for our needs.....especially given its ability to use chitty runways would think SOMETHING along these lines would be handy in places like Afghanistan where troops on the ground seem to benefit from someone buzzing around providing some close air support...

rattler, maybe the likes of PRM will chime in but if memory serves, the F-5 ( Tigershark?)lost to tje F-16? that said, I'm all for more of the lower priced jets and combined with our training, will still allow us to retain the edge over any adversary.

The F-16 has twice the max take off weight and all we have to do if we want to make more is flip the switch.

Pretty sure that was the F20

Yep
F-20 Tiger Shark
It was a totally new aircraft but looked very similar to the F-5.
It was a gamble that lost out to the F-16 for foreign sales.

Boeing says they can keep the Super bug line open till 2020 (F-18 F+G models)

But Lockheed announced today that another block of F-35's were sold.

The Pentagon's F-35 program office said the deal includes 29 jets for the United States and 14 for five other countries: Israel, Japan, Norway, Britain and Italy.
Once production of those jets is completed, more than 200 F-35s will be in operation by eight countries, according to the office that runs the $399 billion F-35 program for the Pentagon.

If it had as many parts as an F-22 it probably would

I don't carry a $99 Jennings 25 either

Thanks, I knew they were similar, just couldn't remember. The F-16's a great airplane for the money.

But what happens when those two or three adversaries join forces? And then add a dozen more smaller adversaries?

It's not like coalitions of countries are unheard of in recent history.

Alot of guys here do have $1,000+ carry pieces, and load it with defensive ammo that is a buck a round.

If we had 100 F-22s, how many would be ready to fly on any given day?

Our military could have everything they wanted or dreamed of.. if congress would just switch the welfare budget and the Pentagon budget....

How about a gazillion drones flown by 6th graders who will work for a free supply of Mountain Dew. That is the future.

That is exactly what the future holds. Well maybe not the part about 6th graders, but much of today's youth is trained from the time they hold a controller for such a conflict.

Take the pilot out of the plane and we can go from pulling 9 to 16 or 20 G's sustained. The Air force is now examining how to build flying drone carriers.

Imagine this: In the future, when we have a real president, some third world stink hole pisses us off. Within hours, maybe one, maybe a handful, (depending on how pissed off we are) modified C-5's skirt their coast, releasing their payload, 24 stealth drones, each with a 1500 pound load out. Supporting Command and control aircraft could coordinate near simultaneous across said stink hole. After each gamer, errr I mean pilot empties his ordinance bay, he sends it back to the drone carrier via auto-pilot, or sets it to a reconnaissance mode to identify additional targets of opportunity. he then and picks up control of a second platform and continues his attach right where he left off.

Stink holes chastised: 1
American lives at risk: 0

That's exactly where we are headed..... And it's wrong. It's not worth going to war unless it's worth losing your own son.

All I know at age 62, is every time democrats cut our military, and their budget, we pay dearly for it............