Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 59 of 59

Thread: The US Air Force Now Wants to Keep the A-10, U-2, and F-15C

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    I dunno I think if I were the enemy I would be more afraid of the f-35 especially one that I could see. I think the whole thing with the f35 is that it has untested stealth technologies and is nuclear capable. I don't think the f35 is deisgned to be a dog fighter, I think its designed to drop WMDs from the air without any one being the wiser.
    They're not capable of dropping nuclear weapons, too heavy.

    ...except tactical weapons, but any 50s era fighter can do that.

    As for stealth, well, we'll see (or not), but they seem to have trouble with flying in rain, so I have my doubts..



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    They're not capable of dropping nuclear weapons, too heavy.

    ...except tactical weapons, but any 50s era fighter can do that.

    As for stealth, well, we'll see (or not), but they seem to have trouble with flying in rain, so I have my doubts..
    Any 50's era fighter has its own radar, untested stealth capabilities and B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb capable? The reports of people who actually fly the plane say its common to end up right behind people because they plan has so much stealth, and they get a 360' view around them. The f-35 flys higher and carries way more weight then what you think. There is an active campaign to make the f-35 seems $#@!ty because we sell it to compete against Russia's plane at the same price point. The capabilities you get are way different though, the Russian planes are known to fall out of the sky, but that could be something we are arranging as well.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb capable?
    That's a small, tactical weapon dating to the early 60s.

    Every US fighter built since that time is capable of carrying it.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That's a small, tactical weapon dating to the early 60s.

    Every US fighter built since that time is capable of carrying it.
    With their own built in Radar system that upgrades the capabilities of every fighter around it. With a stealth system they have to attach fake transponders on because the stealth technology is so classified? I am sure there are lots of planes that can do vertical takeoffs, right? Or maybe there is an incentive for the American's to classifiy the upper end of our military technologies like the top speed of an SR71? Maybe we have an incentive to make it seem less powerful then our other planes so that we don't create some sort of arms race? Maybe we have to make the plane seem like its not as good as it is so that we can sell it for the same price as teh Russians sell there plane.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    With their own built in Radar system that upgrades the capabilities of every fighter around it. With a stealth system they have to attach fake transponders on because the stealth technology is so classified? I am sure there are lots of planes that can do vertical takeoffs, right? Or maybe there is an incentive for the American's to classifiy the upper end of our military technologies like the top speed of an SR71? Maybe we have an incentive to make it seem less powerful then our other planes so that we don't create some sort of arms race? Maybe we have to make the plane seem like its not as good as it is so that we can sell it for the same price as teh Russians sell there plane.
    If we're so obsessed with secrecy in regards to it's capabilities why would we sell them to Israel? you know the country that sold our AWACS plane to China?
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    If we're so obsessed with secrecy in regards to it's capabilities why would we sell them to Israel? you know the country that sold our AWACS plane to China?
    Either our intelligence agencies took over their government decades ago or theirs took over ours, you decide.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    With their own built in Radar system that upgrades the capabilities of every fighter around it.
    Onboard radar is a feature of every fighter built worldwide for decades.

    They're all already "networked" with each other.

    With a stealth system they have to attach fake transponders on because the stealth technology is so classified?
    Every new military technology is classified, doesn't mean it's revolutionary.

    My money says the F-35 is an inferior platform to the F-22, but with newer avionics.

    ...which could, however, have been installed on the F-22, saving the massive development costs.

    I am sure there are lots of planes that can do vertical takeoffs, right?
    The Harrier, any helicopter, my pogo stick - so what?

    That's what you call a bell or whistle.

    Or maybe there is an incentive for the American's to classifiy the upper end of our military technologies like the top speed of an SR71? Maybe we have an incentive to make it seem less powerful then our other planes so that we don't create some sort of arms race? Maybe we have to make the plane seem like its not as good as it is so that we can sell it for the same price as teh Russians sell there plane.
    Maybe Lockheed Martin likes money.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Either our intelligence agencies took over their government decades ago or theirs took over ours, you decide.
    What about Turkey? They are hardly to be trusted.
    Or do you think that they control us as well?
    If we were obsessed with secrecy about the F-35 we would not sell them to anyone for 10-20 years. The F-22 is good enough for our allies and other customers.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Onboard radar is a feature of every fighter built worldwide for decades.

    They're all already "networked" with each other.
    Search Results

    Aircraft Primary
    F 22 U.S
    F 35a U.S
    F 35b U.S
    F 35c U.S

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Search Results

    Aircraft Primary
    F 22 U.S
    F 35a U.S
    F 35b U.S
    F 35c U.S
    I'm not sure what you mean..

    Are you denying that fighters prior to the F-22 had onboard radar?

    If so, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APQ-153

    That's the onboard radar unit for the F-5.

    The F-5 debuted in 1959.

    British, French, Russian, and Chinese (i.e. knock-off Russian) fighters of the same era also had radar.

    This is about as revolutionary as parachutes.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-25-2017 at 09:19 PM.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean..

    Are you denying that fighters prior to the F-22 had onboard radar?

    If so, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APQ-153

    That's the onboard radar unit for the F-5 Phantom.

    The F-5 debuted in 1959.
    Yeah I am sure you can add one of those to a squad of fourth generation fighters and improve the capabilities of them. . Look I am not denying its a waste of money, I wanted to hate it too, then I actually read about it. Most of the negative comments on it stem from people who fantasize about powerful jet engines, you're right the soviets did have better engines then ours, but we got to the moon right, theirs didn't. We even copied their moon design rockets for our rockets we use now. The software that we have though in our planes, the cutting edge technologies, make all the difference. Yeah Iran made a copy of our drone, but have you ever tried to emulate a ps3 game on your computer? I bet you can't do it, and if you can its going to be extremely inefficient and run like $#@!.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    have you ever tried to emulate a ps3 game on your computer? I bet you can't do it, and if you can its going to be extremely inefficient and run like $#@!.
    That is how the F-35's software runs.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  16. #43

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Yeah I am sure you can add one of those to a squad of fourth generation fighters and improve the capabilities of them. .
    The F-22 is a fifth generation fighter, but yes you could.

    That's why the F-16 (1970s design) is still the best fighter in the world (of those which exist in quantity).

    That's why the Saudis and Israelis et al pay billions per year for upgrades.

    If you want to put Sirius radio in a 1912 Rolls Royce, you don't have the company build you a new car, you just install the radio.

    You could put modern avionics in a WWII era prop plane.

    The only thing that's changed is the flying characteristics of the plane body itself, and stealth.

    As to the former, the F-22 is better, period. As to the latter, it's all PR - no one really knows.

    And the F-22 would have been cheaper, and quantity has a quality all it's own.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    What about Turkey? They are hardly to be trusted.
    Or do you think that they control us as well?
    If we were obsessed with secrecy about the F-35 we would not sell them to anyone for 10-20 years. The F-22 is good enough for our allies and other customers.
    I am sure that other governments have their own moles in our cheese. How do you think they jumpstarted their nuclear programs?

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The F-22 is a fifth generation fighter, but yes you could.

    That's why the F-16 (1970s design) is still the best fighter in the world (of those which exist in quantity).

    That's why the Saudis and Israelis et al pay billions per year for upgrades.

    If you want to put Sirius radio in a 1912 Rolls Royce, you don't have the company build you a new car, you just install the radio.

    You could put modern avionics in a WWII era prop plane.

    The only thing that's changed is the flying characteristics of the plane body itself, and stealth.

    As to the former, the F-22 is better, period. As to the latter, it's all PR - no one really knows.

    And the F-22 would have been cheaper, and quantity has a quality all it's own.
    Yeah but its much harder to scare your population into a arms race or get them to fund your arms if the opposition builds 5 planes the media labels $#@!ty versus 50 of "the most advanced fighter ever". I am sure you can even throw some of your upgraded parts in your shiny old box too. Its always good to upgrade your parts and put them in the old box if the box still works, I am sure we haven't seen the full capabilities of the f-35, but I hope we never have to.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Yeah but its much harder to scare your population into a arms race or get them to fund your arms if the opposition builds 5 planes the media labels $#@!ty versus 50 of "the most advanced fighter ever".
    If you mean that's how McCain and other wholly-owned MIC subsidiaries justified the F-35 (and many other MIC boondoggles), you're right.

    I am sure we haven't seen the full capabilities of the f-35, but I hope we never have to.
    Well, that's what makes this whole debate somewhat academic..

    In reality, if there's ever another war, a real war, where air superiority is actually in dispute, it'll probably go nuclear.

    And then the only thing that matters is the several thousand ICBMs, each with a yield at least 10x Hiroshima.

    And then the world ends.

    :-/

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If you mean that's how McCain and other wholly-owned MIC subsidiaries justified the F-35 (and many other MIC boondoggles), you're right. Well, that's what makes this whole debate somewhat academic..
    Yeah you're right saying our military tech sucks and can't compete with our opposition makes Americans empty their wallets. I guess I will just purely hope that somehow our opposition understands this, and doesn't think we have some secret cloaking technology that is capable of going into low earth orbit. I am sure if they think we have it they would gain the motivation to build it.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    P.S. A note on the purpose of conventional warfare in light of MAD

    It may seem senseless to spend even $1 on conventional forces in light of the near-certainty that any real, hotly contested, conventional conflict between MAD states would result in nuclear apocalypse. But it isn't; conventional deterrence is part of nuclear deterrence. Suppose there are two MAD states, one with large conventional forces, and one with no conventional forces at all. The latter would be vulnerable to a "death by a thousand cuts" strategy. Suppose the conventionally strong state used its forces to seize one town: one little town. Is the conventionally weak state going to launch over this? No, of course not, as that would mean MAD, that would be insane; and the attacking state would know that, would not find any threat to launch credible, and thus would not be deterred. And so the conventionally stronger state would eat up the weaker state, piece by piece, for not ever crossing the nuclear threshold. This is the purpose of conventional military forces in the MAD age. If they're ever actually used in a real war with a MAD opponent, the world ends, but they serves to deter such a war, and have to be designed to do so: to defeat probing, "death by a thousand cuts" attacks. Any real war will escalate into apocalypse, and so their job is to ensure that any attack will become a real war and so escalate, in order to deter the attack in the first place.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Yeah you're right saying our military tech sucks and can't compete with our opposition makes Americans empty their wallets. I guess I will just purely hope that somehow our opposition understands this, and doesn't think we have some secret cloaking technology that is capable of going into low earth orbit. I am sure if they think we have it they would gain the motivation to build it.
    Not to worry, they don't have the money to build it.

    Most of the world is still buying Soviet tech from the late 80s, repackaged and shiny (the Russians are good businessmen).

    The only state remotely capable of threatening the US is China, and that not for a couple decades.

    And the threat will be naval, not fighter jets, and it will start with the sinking of a CVN in the Taiwan Straight if we don't reform the navy.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Now you're talking.

    I've said this many times, if we're forever doomed to living in an authoritarian police state, well, damn it, let it be a manly one with cool movies and military parades with frog marching troops and phalanxes of missile batteries.

    The numbing fog of matriarchal, post menopausal, hectoring, nagging Grundyism that is the modern AmeriKan nanny/safety state, is stultifying.
    Trump did want tanks and missile launchers in the inaugural parade.

    Surprised this list doesn't include the F22. They're only a few hundred million each and they're not building any more.

    Also not long ago the movies showed how a WW2 era battleship, manned by a handful of WW2 vets and modern combat soldiers, can stop an alien invasion. How much more manly can get you saving the world from aliens with an ancient battleship? Now if only it had been a good movie.
    Last edited by kpitcher; 05-25-2017 at 10:42 PM.
    “…let us teach them that all who draw breath are of equal worth, and that those who seek to press heel upon the throat of liberty, will fall to the cry of FREEDOM!!!” – Spartacus, War of the Damned

    BTC: 1AFbCLYU3G1dkbsSJnk3spWeEwpqYVC2Pq

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by kpitcher View Post
    Also not long ago the movies showed how a WW2 era battleship, manned by a handful of WW2 vets and modern combat soldiers, can stop an alien invasion. How much more manly can get you saving the world from aliens with an ancient battleship? Now if only it had been a good movie.
    LOL

    I love the old dreadnoughts (or the the old triple-deckers, for that matter), sightly vessels, but the airplane murdered them.

    In the same way (though not yet recognized or appreciated), the submarine and the guided missile has murdered the aircraft carrier.

  27. #53
    Dear Air Force: You're not allowed to get rid of your A-10s, but we're not going to pay for wings for them.

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...acement-wings/
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Dear Air Force: You're not allowed to get rid of your A-10s, but we're not going to pay for wings for them.

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...acement-wings/
    "because the Air Force has not included orders for enough replacement wings in the service's budget request."

    Same old story, the corrupt Air Force is trying to scuttle they A-10 so the can boondoggle a replacement we don't need, congress will probably make them take the money to repair the ones we have.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Dear Air Force: You're not allowed to get rid of your A-10s, but we're not going to pay for wings for them.

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...acement-wings/
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    "because the Air Force has not included orders for enough replacement wings in the service's budget request."

    Same old story, the corrupt Air Force is trying to scuttle they A-10 so the can boondoggle a replacement we don't need, congress will probably make them take the money to repair the ones we have.
    For a slightly different theory:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/congr...t-wings-2017-6

    "The committee chairman's draft of the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act includes $103 million for an unfunded requirement related to the A-10 that the Air Force included in its budget request.

    The $103 million, plus $20 million from this fiscal year, will go toward restarting production of A-10 wings to upgrade 110 of the Air Force's 283 Thunderbolts.
    Defense experts told CNN earlier this month that the Air Force's inclusion of the A-10 wing money in its unfunded requirements was likely a ploy to get Congress to add money for the venerable Thunderbolt on top of the money apportioned for the service branch's budget request."
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    EU or Russian tanks on domestic soil as part of an invasion... How, exactly? Neither entity has the assets necessary to transport their tanks to us. Russia can barely get a single aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean.

    Even assuming that such a mythical risk actually existed, we would be better off spending our money on the Navy or planes that can be used against both ships and tanks. Again, not the a-10.
    US tank production has been shut down, and the one factory factory remaining only does upgrades. It will take a two year lead time to be able to produce 4 tanks a day. It takes 8 years to build an aircraft carrier. The decision is made today as to what military capability the US will have 10 years from now. Undoubtedly, your crystal ball is clearer than mine, and you have a much better view of what the world will look like 10 years from now.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Now you're talking.

    I've said this many times, if we're forever doomed to living in an authoritarian police state, well, damn it, let it be a manly one with cool movies and military parades with frog marching troops and phalanxes of missile batteries.

    The numbing fog of matriarchal, post menopausal, hectoring, nagging Grundyism that is the modern AmeriKan nanny/safety state, is stultifying.
    And we need much better uniforms. At least the Marines are on the right track.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That's a small, tactical weapon dating to the early 60s.

    Every US fighter built since that time is capable of carrying it.
    It is both tactical and strategic.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    US tank production has been shut down, and the one factory factory remaining only does upgrades. It will take a two year lead time to be able to produce 4 tanks a day. It takes 8 years to build an aircraft carrier. The decision is made today as to what military capability the US will have 10 years from now. Undoubtedly, your crystal ball is clearer than mine, and you have a much better view of what the world will look like 10 years from now.
    First, the Lima, Ohio plant has not shut down, it's still in operation.

    Second, Russia can't even afford to build two dozen prototypes of its new tank, and the first unit isn't scheduled to be equipped with them until 2020. We're competing against a country that has to hope that someone else buys their weapons so that they themselves can afford them. Assuming that they manage to somehow produce an army of 21st century tanks, then they'll have to scrape together a fleet of some kind in order to transport their military over here. You think somehow we wouldn't notice?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. The Force of Habit and the Habits of Force
    By Suzanimal in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-24-2015, 07:02 AM
  2. Sally Kohn’s Claim that Force is No Longer Force
    By Suzanimal in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-10-2015, 06:08 AM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-05-2013, 11:51 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-29-2013, 09:32 AM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 05:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •