What is so sucky about the F-35. Why all the negative vibes?
What is so sucky about the F-35. Why all the negative vibes?
Guessing the negative vibes are just because the aircraft is so darned expensive, and that the Air Force is crazy enough to think that if could replace the venerable A10 in close air support. The F-35 is in fact a really good aircraft, and a great supplement to the F-22. What it isn't is a close air support aircraft with the ability to loiter for long periods, use slow speed for great targeting ability, the ability to take ground fire the way the flying tank A10 can, and maneuverability to provide added pilot protection.
Lockheed is the king of lobby and pork....
<-----former Lockheed employee
FBHO
Looks like a pregnant Guppy.
Plane was originally designed as a two engine aircraft. To save money the Pentagon idiots scaled it back to one engine, thus it can't climb, can't turn and can't run. Additionally, a software glitch has disabled its main gun...not expected to be fixed until, I believe 2020, if memory serves.
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
F22 uber alles!
"And how we burned in the camps later thinking, what would things have been like, if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain, whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"
All kinds of tech problems and cost overruns, plus weight overruns.
It's not nearly as stealthy as it was supposed to be, and really fucked up is they can't manage to get it certified as safe for a lightening strike! Even a Cessna can pass lightening strike certification.
Add on the fact that it's a short range aircraft. Fact is in the next 20-30 years probably most of the "fighter jets" will be replaced by drones.
The air force has a fight brewing right now. Seems that some of the brass contend that only officers should have the ability to operate drones instead of NCO's. Maybe the officers are trying to justify their existence...? ~shrug~Originally Posted by Kadmos
As far it being over weight....its full of pork just like the LCS.
FBHO
To be honest, I'm for that. At least for armed drones. Drone operators are still legitimate targets, and need to be held accountable for their actions under international law. People joke about how they should get 13 year old boys to fly these things, but these things can do major damage, and are operating on behalf of our country. If it's just surveillance then whatever, but if they have the capability to fire then it should be an officer at the switch.
Although an NCO is better than some contractor tech
Give an enlisted man a stryker and he can cause just as much damage as that officer with a predator which has a hellfire missile....apples to oranges?
FBHO
My daughter works there helping market their specialty items. That is the extent of my learning you on it. It probably wipes your ass when your flying, makes you an expresso, all while being a stealthy $207 million azz kicker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee...5_Lightning_II
I think it is to a degree apples to oranges. Yes the amount of damage inflicted can be similar. But a ground vehicle can be avoided, to a large degree, by civilians. The soldier in the stryker is at risk himself, which changes the dynamic. He might not even fire until fired on, at which point you know he has a legitimate target.
Seems to me there is an ethical dilemma in dropping a bomb on someone from a remote controlled aircraft. I'm not saying it's never right, but there needs to be someone pushing the button who is more than just a kid following orders
The army and soon to be navy drones are and will be flown by enlisted personnel, Apache attack helicopters are flown by warrant officers, who are not required to have college degrees. If you do not trust enlisted people with a plane with two missiles why do you trust them with any weapon capable of taking lives?
How is a 2nd lieutenant one year out of college a better more expended decision maker than someone with 5 or 10 years of actual real world experience.
The best thing you wrote, about just some kid following orders, it is aparent you have never met a junior officer.
Initial Success or Total Failure
An enlisted man in the field is risking life and limb, at the most basic level he needs a gun to defend himself. But yes, a big part of it is the amount of damage he can do. Yes it's possible he might go nuts and decide to "do the whole village". But there is likely an officer, a non-com, or at least a squad leader to rein him in.
With a drone there is the potential to have a private controlling the thing from a trailer in Arizona, with a General on the phone telling him to take the shot...or possibly no one at all.
You can't make military policy on a case by case basis. Sure Master Sargent Smith may have better judgement than 2nd Lieutenant Johnson, but he also might well not.How is a 2nd lieutenant one year out of college a better more expended decision maker than someone with 5 or 10 years of actual real world experience.
The guy who is higher up in rank can't "pass the buck" as easily either. It's about accountability.
My dad was a 2nd LieutenantThe best thing you wrote, about just some kid following orders, it is apparent you have never met a junior officer.
Right now these things might only be carrying a couple missiles, but in the not too distant future they will be carrying much devastating payloads
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks