Support NeoGAF

[The Purple Pill]

Should have Given NASA those 400 billion dollars.

Seriously, what's up with this laughable budget handling towards NASA? It's far more in the interest of humanity's future, long being than spending it on a fighter plane that doesn't even look cooler than the F-22 Raptor, nor have the same/better capabilities.

EDIT: Also SU-50 looks a lot prettier, while still having more to offer, and costed 30 billion in budget. Something is seriously wrong with US defence budgets.

 

[reckless]

The ships the Marines rely on operate closer to the coast and often on their own (not counting the escort ships). They operate as mini-carriers and some do operate alongside carriers. However, the purpose of the jets on the ships is that if it were alone away from the carriers, it can defend itself. If it doesn't have jets, the only thing it has are Phalanx defense weapons which are not as effective as a jet shooting down missiles and enemy jets/ships.

In a major assault or combat operation, they would use the jets on the Carriers. The USAF jets would be in the US or fighting over land and not sea. But alone, they would have nothing but choppers to defend the thousands of marines on board. Normal carriers have the same problem, if it weren't for jets they would have little to no defense or offensive capabilities and thousands of sailors onboard would be easy targets.

Realistically the only time this is actually a concern is if we were fighting a country like China or Russia, in any other case the enemy's air force and ships would have been destroyed before the Marines got close enough for it to be a problem.

 

[TheJLC]

Realistically the only time this is actually a concern is if we were fighting a country like China or Russia, in any other case the enemy's air force and ships would have been destroyed before the Marines got close enough for it to be a problem.

Yup, but the jets the rely on with VTOL capability also support the Marines during landing operations in any country. They were used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and would be used in any close air support combat role that involves Marines. The USAF only has the A-10 that performs this role and they have been trying for decades to get rid of it. AC-130 is only for night and special operations and easy to shoot down. The jets the Marines rely on need on those ships are to support them.

USAF = Air-to-Air combat, Nukes, Precision stealth bombing.
NAVY = Air-to-Air combat, Sea operations/patrol, Precisions bombing.
MARINES = Close Air support.

F-35 = Supposed to be all in one.

 

[nOoblet16]

Drones are the end plan for most but the technology isn't there yet. Hell Iran was able to hack and land an RQ-170, one of the most advanced at the time without much fuss.

Plus there's the lag between the drone operator issuing commands and the drone performing those actions, which I don't think can really be solved.

Should have Given NASA those 400 billion dollars.

Seriously, what's up with this laughable budget handling towards NASA? It's far more in the interest of humanity's future, long being than spending it on a fighter plane that doesn't even look cooler than the F-22 Raptor, nor have the same/better capabilities.

Oh but you know NASA gets too much money and it's a waste. $400 just so happens to be about half the money the US has spent on NASA since the late 1950s

 

[GameGuru59]

In a major assault or combat operation, they would use the jets on the Carriers. The USAF jets would be in the US or fighting over land and not sea. But alone, they would have nothing but choppers to defend the thousands of marines on board. Normal carriers have the same problem, if it weren't for jets they would have little to no defense or offensive capabilities and thousands of sailors onboard would be easy targets.

Not only this, but in a major conflict, it would take way too long to launch a ton of jets conventionally to defend the ship from other airplanes.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Plus there's the lag between the drone operator issuing commands and the drone performing those actions, which I don't think can really be solved.



Oh but you know NASA gets too much money and it's a waste. $400 just so happens to be about half the money the US has spent on NASA since the late 1950s

Have the pilot in a high-altitude balloon above the drone.

 

[BubbaMc]

I heard that the naval version will never be able to land on a carrier because the distance between the rear wheels and the arrestor hook is too short, i.e. a major design oversight that was discovered too late in the development process - unable to be fixed.

Anyone know if this is still the case?

 

[BubbaMc]

Should have Given NASA those 400 billion dollars.

Seriously, what's up with this laughable budget handling towards NASA? It's far more in the interest of humanity's future

This!

 

[nOoblet16]

Have the pilot in a high-altitude balloon above the drone.

How would you get the pilot up there without being seen? High altitude balloons are pretty big and you can't really direct its movement so how would you get the pilot close to the operation area? And if you do find a way to get the pilot close to the operation area so as to launch the balloon, why bother with the balloon at this point?

 

[TacticalFox88]

I heard that the naval version will never be able to land on a carrier because the distance between the rear wheels and the arrestor hook is too short, i.e. a major design oversight that was discovered too late in the development process - unable to be fixed.

Anyone know if this is still the case?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA4vpvQR_m0

You tell me.

 

[akira28]

wasnt the JSF some stupid NATO 'lets all chip in' boondoggle anyway? No one liked this thing other than the people trying to sell it and the people making it.

 

[reckless]

Yup, but the jets the rely on with VTOL capability also support the Marines during landing operations in any country. They were used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and would be used in any close air support combat role that involves Marines. The USAF only has the A-10 that performs this role and they have been trying for decades to get rid of it. AC-130 is only for night and special operations and easy to shoot down. The jets the Marines rely on need on those ships are to support them.

USAF = Air-to-Air combat, Nukes, Precision stealth bombing.
NAVY = Air-to-Air combat, Sea operations/patrol, Precisions bombing.
MARINES = Close Air support.

F-35 = Supposed to be all in one.

As far as I know the F - 35 can't really fill that role very well though. It doesn't carry enough fuel to just circle around, it can't carry many weapons without giving up its stealth, its pretty vulnerable to enemy small arms fire.

And then because its trying fill this role, its become a lot worse at all of the other roles its supposed to be taking over.

Not to mention how much this thing has cost that will end up being average at all of its tasks,

 

[FyreWulff]

The Defense Department hopes to buy 2,443 of the new stealth jets in three versions—one for the Air Force, one for the Navy, and one for the Marines

god damn can we end the stupid fucking seperate branch bullshit?

unify the damn military already

 

[akira28]

god damn can we end the stupid fucking seperate branch bullshit?

unify the damn military already

no, just do proper spending oversight. too many of these defense manufacturing developers have their hands directly up the asses of staff chiefs and department heads. They get access to trillions of dollars over decades. And no one knows exactly what is going on, just that a lot of cash goes to pay for shit that we "need".

 

[TheJLC]

As far as I know the F - 35 can't really fill that role very well though. It doesn't carry enough fuel to just circle around, it can't carry many weapons without giving up its stealth, its pretty vulnerable to enemy small arms fire.

And then because its trying fill this role, its become a lot worse at all of the other roles its supposed to be taking over.

Not to mention how much this thing has cost that will end up being average at all of its tasks,

Yup and that's where the problems are coming in. It's trying to do too much and it can't do it effectively. It was supposed to be cheaper than creating a jet for the USAF, NAVY, and Marines. Instead we have an expensive F-35 that can't do close air support, has mediocre stealth, underpeforms in Air-to-air, and is super expensive.

In the end, it might have been cheaper to have created three different jets if costs keep going up and delays keep happening.

 

[nOoblet16]

Not only this, but in a major conflict, it would take way too long to launch a ton of jets conventionally to defend the ship from other airplanes.

VTOL isn't really fast though, especially compared to CATOBAR or STOBAR where you can launch an aircraft in 15-30 seconds. VTOL takes far more time than this.

 

[FyreWulff]

no, just do proper spending oversight. too many of these defense manufacturing developers have their hands directly up the asses of staff chiefs and department heads. They get access to trillions of dollars over decades. And no one knows exactly what is going on, just that a lot of cash goes to pay for shit that we "need".

we're buying too many of these things, but the pointless triplicate redundancy to everything costs us even more money and training time

There is no reason to have separate branches of military anymore.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Yup and that's where the problems are coming in. It's trying to do too much and it can't do it effectively. It was supposed to be cheaper than creating a jet for the USAF, NAVY, and Marines. Instead we have an expensive F-35 that can't do close air support, has mediocre stealth, underpeforms in Air-to-air, and is super expensive.

In the end, it might have been cheaper to have created three different jets if costs keep going up and delays keep happening.

Can you elaborate on "mediocre stealth"?

 

[TheJLC]

we're buying too many of these things, but the pointless triplicate redundancy to everything costs us even more money and training time

There is no reason to have separate branches of military anymore.

We do, they each have a different purpose and goal.

Even if it were a unified force, it wouldn't equate to buying less equipment. The number of jets and equipment bought goes to different parts of the world where it used by our servicemen. Some also goes into storage for spare parts and reserves.

We have thousands of jets at sea. Even if the Navy were combined with USAF, we would still need thousands of jets at sea for each ship. We would still need thousands of jets at bases in the US and other countries. An aircraft carrier doesn't mean we no longer need airbases.

Can you elaborate on "mediocre stealth"?

According to researchers it is not as stealthy as the F-22 and other stealth jets because it keeps getting modified. While a third world country can't detect it easily, second and first world countries might be able to with advancing of radars and tech.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/...d-navy-need-growlers-boeing-says-50-100-more/
http://www.wired.com/2009/01/report-joint-st/

 

[Nikodemos]

VTOL isn't really fast though, especially compared to CATOBAR or STOBAR where you can launch an aircraft in 15-30 seconds. VTOL takes far more time than this.

'VTOL' aircraft actually aren't. The more correct classification would be STOVL. Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing.

Though I can't understand why the Marines haven't added skijumps to their ships (especially since the new class of LHAs was designed well after the Harriers entered USMC service). They make a definite difference in terms of payload and fuel used on take-off, as the British, Russians, Italians, Indians and Chinese have found out.

 

[GameGuru59]

VTOL isn't really fast though, especially compared to CATOBAR or STOBAR where you can launch an aircraft in 15-30 seconds. VTOL takes far more time than this.

It does? The aircraft can be taxied, attached to the cat, and launched in 15-30? Moreover, it should be easier to launch multiple aircraft nearly simultaneously with VTOL.

 

[Prinz Eugn]

Sure. And a one-legged guy completely crushes a legless one at hopping. That doesn't make either good at running.

There a fundamental problem with the argumentation, namely the premise. My personal take on the matter is that STOVL is bad, useless and unacceptably degrades the performance envelope of an aircraft design.

Well... you're the one who shifted the premise away from the specific "lifting solution" being "crap" to apparently implying all STOVL solutions are inherently bad since you believe the basic concept is bunk. That's essentially a different argument than you started out with. If you assume STOVL is bad, then obviously the F-35B is bad, but if you want STOVL, like several services obviously do, then it's actually pretty great.

STOVL I think is probably not worthwhile for the Marine's constant daydream of forward deployment on small or temporary airstrips, but to get capable jets on small ships it's basically the only way.

According to researchers it is not as stealthy as the F-22 and other stealth jets because it keeps getting modified. While a third world country can't detect it easily, second and first world countries might be able to with advancing of radars and tech.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/...d-navy-need-growlers-boeing-says-50-100-more/
http://www.wired.com/2009/01/report-joint-st/

More like according to Boeing, whose solution is to buy more aircraft... from Boeing. The second article is from Danger Room, quoting Air Power Australia, which were/are heavily invested in a very biased, multi-year anti-F-35 narrative (I could dig up pages of interweb drama on it if I had to). In fact, the F-35 is even stealthier than the F-22, at least according to General Mike Hostage, who would presumably know:

“The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets,” says Hostage, leaning forward. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/...he-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

 

[akira28]

More like according to Boeing, whose solution is to buy more aircraft... from Boeing. The second article is from Danger Room, quoting Air Power Australia, which were/are heavily invested in a very biased, multi-year anti-F-35 narrative (I could dig up pages of interweb drama on it if I had to). In fact, the F-35 is even stealthier than the F-22, at least according to General Mike Hostage, who would presumably know:

unfortunately we can't exactly presume this at face. you know how these pentagon battles go. He could just as easily be on the list of advocates. He's definitely an experienced political warrior, so his support could be fact based, or it could be crafted through 'gathered data', which could mean anything.

I have read a little bit about complaints that the modular nature of the f35 calls for sacrifices in other areas. It sounds plausible, or worth consideration at least, if someone were to include that in their argument against completely relying on these new battle systems.

 

[lastplayed]

Is there really a need for a fighter jet with vtol capabilities? Can't it just take off from the carriers like other fighter jets?

Yeah, it's the F-35C. Which has bigger wings among other differences.

 

[nOoblet16]

It does? The aircraft can be taxied, attached to the cat, and launched in 15-30? Moreover, it should be easier to launch multiple aircraft nearly simultaneously with VTOL.

Yea 20 seconds seems to be a good estimate but I don't find it to be making any significant difference from just traditional take off from carriers. And about the multiple aircrafts being launched simultaneously, I do not think it would be safe to launch multiple VTOL aircrafts simultaneously cause it would clog up the air traffic above the carrier. But I might be wrong.

Also one of the problems of the Harrier was that the concentrated blast for take off/landing would usually melt asphalt and if taking off or landing on dirt it would kick up lots of dirt particles and other things into the aircraft.

'VTOL' aircraft actually aren't. The more correct classification would be STOVL. Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing.

Though I can't understand why the Marines haven't added skijumps to their ships (especially since the new class of LHAs was designed well after the Harriers entered USMC service). They make a definite difference in terms of payload and fuel used on take-off, as the British, Russians, Italians, Indians and Chinese have found out.

What do you mean STOVL would be correct classification, correct classification of what? Unless you are saying only helicopters are correctly classified as VTOL and and the aircrafts like harrier and 35B are STOVL (which is confusing to me)

 

[dalin80]

In UK service the 35 is actually STOSRVL as it is rolling for both launch and landing.

 

[Prinz Eugn]

unfortunately we can't exactly presume this at face. you know how these pentagon battles go. He could just as easily be on the list of advocates. He's definitely an experienced political warrior, so his support could be fact based, or it could be crafted through 'gathered data', which could mean anything.

I have read a little bit about complaints that the modular nature of the f35 calls for sacrifices in other areas. It sounds plausible, or worth consideration at least, if someone were to include that in their argument against completely relying on these new battle systems.

Maybe, but he stated it so flatly that it I would be really surprised that it wouldn't be at least partially objectively, true. Usually there's a lot more weasel words like vague "capabilities" if something is only sort-of true, or true in only a very limited context.

Here, at worst I think he might be thinking of stealth within certain frequency bands that the F-35 might actually be better at, thanks to coming along with two more decades of research behind it. There's also the matter of what aspect you're talking about, so maybe the F-35 has a lower frontal RCS but a higher side RCS than the F-22, for example.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In terms of fighting a conventional war? Probably. Many lives were spent in WWII clearing islands so fighters/bombers of all stripes could land. In more recent wars, alot of work goes into securing airbases for our aircraft. Now we don't have a need to do that if we ever fight another large scale conventional war. That will help the Marines greatly in terms of close air support.

I thought the whole point of our fleet of aircraft carriers was to take our airbases with us everywhere so we didn't have to clear ground areas behind an offensive to land aircraft.

 

[lybertyboy]

Why is it not possible to upgrade some of those outdated equipments, but those other older jets can? That's terrible engineering. What a waste of money.

It's absolutely possible to upgrade select component to within the F-35. Though the F-35 program has had its struggles, this article reads like someone had an axe to grind with someone in the program and leaked this info. It's only their perspective and likely doesn't provide all the info.

 

[Nikodemos]

Well... you're the one who shifted the premise away from the specific "lifting solution" being "crap" to apparently implying all STOVL solutions are inherently bad since you believe the basic concept is bunk.

whynotboth.gif

I think STOVL is a fundamentally flawed concept, and the lifting fan (as found in the Yak-38/41 and the F-35) design is a poor implementation of it.

STOVL I think is probably not worthwhile for the Marine's constant daydream of forward deployment on small or temporary airstrips, but to get capable jets on small ships it's basically the only way.

What do you mean by "small ship"? The America-class are definitely not small ships. They have almost the same dimensions and displacement as the Vikramaditya and are considerably larger than the Foch (which is still in service with Brazil). Ships their size could operate cheaper STOL planes in STOBAR configuration with no loss of capability. I don't think any ship over 40.000 tonnes can be called 'small'.

What do you mean STOVL would be correct classification, correct classification of what? Unless you are saying only helicopters are correctly classified as VTOL and and the aircrafts like harrier and 35B are STOVL (which is confusing to me)

Well, yes. The Harrier and F-35B are STOVL, since they can't take-off vertically with a full combat load (technically they could but 1) they'd need an emergency refuel immediately afterwards; 2) their engines would have to be removed for repair after landing due to mechanical stress).

 

[dalin80]

whynotboth.gif

I think STOVL is a fundamentally flawed concept, and the lifting fan (as found in the Yak-38/41 and the F-35) design is a poor implementation of it.
.

A little different, the Yak used a pair of jet engine stationed towards the front making it a very awkward and flammable beastie.

 

[kame-sennin]

400bn$ is absolutely crazy. As a non-US citizen, how is there not more uproar over this!! That money could have been well spent somewhere else. Then yet they are still pumping more money into a fighter jet, which will be technologically inferior to fighter jets around now! Absolutley crazy I think.

The companies that build our weapons also own or fund our major news outlets.

 

[Always-honest]

Shit.. This sounds like a real big fuckup.
And i think my country ordered a bunch of these things some ages ago.

 

[Slayer-33]

What a damn waste

 

[GodofWine]

I want to see a military simulation where they use the modern day budget to build as many WWII era weapons as possible.

I'd like to see modern defenses try to stop a raid of like 5000 P47 thunderbolts and 1000 B27s. Probably be way cheaper too. Maybe just use some modern day munitions to bust armor.

 

[Hrothgar]

And yet my useless goverment continuous to support the F35, while having to reduce the numbers from 100+ to 50 something due to the ever increasing price.

Should have just bought the Gripen NG/Eurofighter.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I want to see a military simulation where they use the modern day budget to build as many WWII era weapons as possible.

I'd like to see modern defenses try to stop a raid of like 5000 P47 thunderbolts and 1000 B27s. Probably be way cheaper too. Maybe just use some modern day munitions to bust armor.

There's no point in that.

The systems built during WWII were ridiculously simple compared to today. Everything nowadays needs to be tested, as computer systems need patches upgrades, and the like

That's why a conventional war would last a year TOPS. Everything destroyed isn't easily replaced and targeting systems nowadays can strike inside windows without destroying the building. That kind of precision was considered Science Fiction 70 years ago.

The Scale of WWII is pretty much a one-time in history thing.

 

[sarcastor]

i was just thinking about this debacle and saw this recent news article
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/firs...tdo-a-10-in-battlefield-capabilities-1.340143

Marine Corps pilots of the first F-35 joint strike fighters scheduled to begin flying this summer will not be able to use night vision technology or carry more than four bombs and missiles

the first variant aircraft will have a range of lingering shortcomings when it goes into operation and will not be able to best the capabilities of the 1970’s era A-10 Thunderbolts it was designed to replace

Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., said some critics have called for the costly development project to be scrapped. “However, we are past that decision point. We just need to make this program work,” she said.

We already spent $400 billion. What's another $100 billion?

 

[commedieu]

i was just thinking about this debacle and saw this recent news article
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/firs...tdo-a-10-in-battlefield-capabilities-1.340143







We already spent $400 billion. What's another $100 billion?

buh buh .0000014% of Welfare fraud! Refridgerators!!! STEAk!!! LOBSTER!!!!! And single mothers...


SINGLE MOTHERS!!!!!!!!!


and immigrants... They are all draining us poor... No this, bullshit. And by my recollection, we've spent a Trillion on the f35.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-is-a-disaster-2014-7

And we also blew 10 Billion on a useless missile defense system.

http://graphics.latimes.com/missile-defense/

Gee, people that just plain ole` aren't working hard enough, are the problems with this country.

 

[smurfx]

i was just thinking about this debacle and saw this recent news article
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/firs...tdo-a-10-in-battlefield-capabilities-1.340143







We already spent $400 billion. What's another $100 billion?

100 billion and then another 500 billion to replace this jet.

 

[Cameron122]

It's time for mechs

Macross/robotech if lockheed is feeling frisky.

 

[Pestilence11]

I can't believe this project is still a thing and they're mothballing the way cooler A-10 Warthog.

 

[Poodlestrike]

FFS. Just scrap the project already. We've gotten by this long with what we have, we can last long enough to start from step 0 and design something that actually works.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I can't believe this project is still a thing and they're mothballing the way cooler A-10 Warthog.

I'm amazed the A-10 has lasted this long.

The very newest one in the fleet was built in 1984.

Well over 30 years ago.

 

[lastplayed]

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-builds-ship-for-f-35-ship-needs-months-of-upgrade-1697523492

The Navy’s USS America, the first of her class, was controversially optimized to handle the F-35, leaving out the multi-purpose well deck traditionally found on ‘Gator Navy’ flattops. Now, just months after her commissioning, she already needs 40 weeks of upgrades just to handle the very aircraft she was designed for.

The F-35 is like one of those people at work who just creates more work for everyone else.

 

[commedieu]

It's time for mechs

Macross/robotech if lockheed is feeling frisky.

For what enemy? America dominates with old tech. We just have a shit ton of it, and its everywhere. And in the meantime, we have black projects that will double down on the domination that already exists.

Any new development, is sold to all of our allies, then it falls into the hands of others, not singling you out Saudi Arabia, but there is no point to tech when arms dealers sell it to the open market, OR, knock offs with the original plans.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

What in the name of sweet jesus

This is an absolute scam from Lockheed.

It sure is. Complete waste of money. This is just a case of rich people hooking up their rich friends with defense contracts.

Pretty sure the F16, F18, and A10, are capable of handling any fighter jet need today and for the foreseeable future.

 

[HariKari]

I can't believe this project is still a thing and they're mothballing the way cooler A-10 Warthog.

The military isn't interested in past fights, or current fights. They want to chase hypothetical boogeymen like China and Russia. You don't need to spend $400 billion on an aircraft to have it be effective at fighting ISIS. The main reason the AF keeps giving for the phasing out of the A10 is that it "wouldn't survive against modern air defenses." Okay, how many conflicts do you realistically see the U.S. getting into against opponents with modern defenses? And of those countries, how many are such a big deal that the other numerous tools in the toolbox (B1, B2, F22, Super Hornet etc...) can't handle it?

The military industrial complex in the US is broken as fuck. At least in the past, it produced great stuff for the absurd amount of money being given. Now, they can't even get most projects out of the concept stage (FCS, as an example). Those that do are horribly over budget and behind schedule.

Why do the Marines even need a VTOL version launched from a pocket carrier? Because the armed forces can't share assets/capabilities and despise each other. Completely dysfunctional.

 

[IISANDERII]

i was just thinking about this debacle and saw this recent news article
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/firs...tdo-a-10-in-battlefield-capabilities-1.340143







We already spent $400 billion. What's another $100 billion?

Incredible. Thanks for the update about this.

Military Industrial Complex so good

 

[Retrocide]

It's amazing how far behind this thing is. When I was in the Air Force in 2004 the rumor was that the F-35 was going to replace the aging F-15c's we had (from 1978). The Air Force announced that the rumors were true in 2006, and in 2015...they still haven't been delivered.