24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041
R
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
R
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
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.


Bingo!


Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals".
____________________

My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
BP-B2

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,609
A
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
A
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,609
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Quote
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.


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.

Last edited by antelope_sniper; 11/21/14.

You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 415
H
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
H
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 415
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Quote
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.


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.

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,605
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,605
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...


A serious student of the "Armchair Safari" always looking for Africa/Asia hunting books
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,489
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,489
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.


A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
IC B2

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,609
A
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
A
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,609
Originally Posted by jorgeI
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.


You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,192
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,192
Originally Posted by jorgeI
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.

Pretty sure that was the F20


















Joined: May 2005
Posts: 415
H
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
H
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 415
Originally Posted by Tracks
Originally Posted by jorgeI
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.

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.

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by Snyper
Quote
The question is, do we need as much advantage as the F-22 & 35 have.

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?


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

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

I don't carry a $99 Jennings 25 either


Last edited by Snyper; 11/22/14.

One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,489
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,489
Originally Posted by Tracks
Originally Posted by jorgeI
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.

Pretty sure that was the F20


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


A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
IC B3

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,831
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,831
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by JoeBob
A single F-22 might be worth ten F-15s but 2,500 F-15s beat 180 F-22s all day.


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.


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.


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.

Last edited by pira114; 11/22/14.
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,609
A
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
A
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,609
Originally Posted by Snyper
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by Snyper
Quote
The question is, do we need as much advantage as the F-22 & 35 have.

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?


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

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

I don't carry a $99 Jennings 25 either



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


You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,230
T
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,230
Originally Posted by jorgeI
... tactically and strategically, we're better off building 2000 F-16s v 100 22s/


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

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,586
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,586
Our military could have everything they wanted or dreamed of.. if congress would just switch the welfare budget and the Pentagon budget....

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,572
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,572
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by Jcubed
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?


Neither.

The correct answer is the T-34.


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


"Don't believe everything you see on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,609
A
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
A
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,609
Originally Posted by Cheyenne
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by Jcubed
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?


Neither.

The correct answer is the T-34.


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


You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
F
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
F
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper


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.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,936
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,936
All I know at age 62, is every time democrats cut our military, and their budget, we pay dearly for it............

Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
97 members (10gaugemag, 16penny, 257_X_50, 338Rules, 444Matt, 13 invisible), 1,731 guests, and 720 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,727
Posts18,400,720
Members73,822
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.103s Queries: 16 (0.004s) Memory: 0.8993 MB (Peak: 1.0714 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 07:32:34 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS