This is why the deficit is out of control for fucks sake wake up my fellow Americans this is just obscene.....
We can do better.
We can do better.
631 Billion dollars for military and thats a cut????
- Thread starter zeeblofowl_1969
- Start date
The total defense expenditure budget is well over 1.2 trillion dollars. I made this chart from different sources. But you can find articles on the web about the "real" U. S. defense budget. The easiest way to cut defense spending is stay at home, and not get involved in wars, along with huge cuts in military personnel. But that just not going to happen any time soon. We really shouldn't make mass cuts to procurement spending (new weapons) . Weapons are so complex now, that we fall behind it that ton money to catch with our enemies. I forgot about the black project military budget. It used fund projects that wants to keep secret for national security reasons. Most experts think its atleast 30 billion dollars yearly.
Budget breakdown for 2012
Defense-related expenditure 2012 Budget request & Mandatory spending
DOD spending $707.5 billion ( Operations and Maintenace (Wars, World deployments, Military Salaries, and Procurement-New
Weapons, Food, uniforms, and etc. are biggest parts of the budget in that order.)
FBI counter-terrorism $2.9 billion
International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion
Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion (Designs tests new nuclear weapons)
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion
Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion
Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion
ApolloBalboa
Was King of the Board for a Day
This won't be a problem when Skynet becomes self-aware.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Yes, you can do better.
Areas where you should NOT cut funding:
Military personnel (well trained and highly motivated troops are worth MUCH more than their equivelant value in machines.
Especially some of the machines used by the american military.)
Veteran's pensions.
Really? REALLY? Isn't it enough that many don't survive to claim their pension? You want to abandon them after they fought for their country.
How do you think that will motivate the next generation of soldiers? That kind of thing will result in 99% of the volounteers for the army only volounteering because they can't do better, which means you'll get the chaff, not the wheat, which defeats the purpose of a volounteer army.
Areas where you SHOULD cut funding:
Senior officers (IE generals, highly placed rear-echelon staff who don't get stuck in with the troops. If you don't believe they exist, I can tell you that they do in the British army; we've had guys directing the war from the comfort of their London "palaces".) pay (enough of them supplement it by purchasing atrocities like Stryker on behalf of the forces anyways.)
Bottom line: Reward the guys doing the work.
Project funding.
As a general rule of thumb a project which is overtime and over budget delivers poorly.
Many projects are constantly looking like they're just about to deliver a wunderwaffe for many years until they're cancelled.
Railguns have been the next big thing since about 1901 if memory serves.
The U.S. Navy is talking about their next generation of ships using them as a primary armament. Anybody wanna place a bet as to when the next generation of conventionally armed ships will apear in the inventory of the U.S. Navy shortly after a very quiet press release stating that they will NOT be armed with railguns?
Bottom line: There should be a pre-set time limit on every project which ensures it is automatically cancelled if overrun.
The bidding company should not be allowed to proceed with a similar project for the next 20 years (to avoid debacles like the Marine's EFV, which was renamed from something else if I remember correctly).
Private Military Companies.
They frequently deliver poorly and excacerbate the situation.
The purpose of a professional army is to have well motivated and professional soldiers. Mercenaries may well have been that once, but are no longer that (as a rule of thumb).
In Afghanistan G4S ran over a small child with a heavy vehicle (accidently). The British Government payed the bill.
The question is why; shouldn't a company be responsible for it's own mistakes? Maybe the bill was paid because the G4S vehicle was percieved by the Afghans as being part of British forces.
If that is the case then this is a clear case of a G4S damaging the reputation of the coalition and working to defeat the goal of winning the hearts and minds of the populace.
Think about that for a minute;
All that good work by professional soldiers risking dangerous soft hat patrols to win the locals over wiped out in an instant by a piss-poor company. G4S can't actually do ANYTHING other than make money. Primary example; providing security for the British Olympics.
So what ARE Private military companies good for? Answer: Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Skynet was probably built with a focus on maximum profit, probably barely works and will doubtless never become self aware.
Nice reference though.
There will not be any massive cuts to the U. S. military budget anytime soon. I just gave areas that i think would get massive cuts, if U. S. goverment ever cuts defense spending.
Military personnel
I know how value experienced and well trained soldiers our to a millitary. But its easier to cut personnel then research and development of new weapons. As said before, weapons are really complex and expense. News organizations are bringing up the threat of the China to the U.S. But in reality the Chinese will not be threat to U. S. military for atleast a decade. The U. S. well ahead of China in weapons research and development. A country can't build expensive military weapons overnight.
Veteran Pensions
I'm a veteran and been deployed. So know I what our troops, go threw on a day to day basis, while being deployed to place like Iraq and Afghanistan. I would never cut pensioss or veteran services.
Generals and Admirals
There're just over 400 General and flag officer posts in the U.S. military. Yeah we could cut some positions, but that would be drop in the bucket.
Project funding
Its really unrealistic to cancel defense programs, due to cost overruns and setting a time frame for them. Weapons systems are really complex, so they're going to be overruns in some projects. The EFV did not live up to the Corps project specifications, that's main reason it was canceled, along with the fact the project was overbudget. Look at F-35 it will be the biggest defense project in U.S. history. It has had a ton cost overruns, and the program is well behind schedule. But it would just be stupid to cancel the program, since its going replace 2,443 fighter/attack aircraft in the U. S. inventory. The same lengthy, and probably equally costly process of development, and testing of new aircraft would start all over again. Your plan banning the bidding company from having a similar project for 20 years is unrealistic. In the U. S. most major defense new weapons are techincially open to foreign defense contractors. But in reality they are closed because national security reasons. The U.S. government controls the selling of U. S. taxpayer funded weapons U.S companies. The U.S. doesn't want foreign defense companies selling U.S. funded to our weapons to our enemies. So limiting defense contractor bids would increase the problem of overbudgeting.
Private Military Companies
Some are good, but many do average work. But they're cheaper than properly training and euipping more troops. That's why governments use defense contractors in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
It may be easier to cut personnel than projects, but only if you're stupid enough to signcontrats with severance fees (I'm looking at you, British military).
You can certainly hire troops easier, but it takes time money and effort to give them the training and experience they need.
In a pinch it's quicker and easier to build more of a weapons system already in use than to train an army.
A lot of R&D is misplaced bullshit.
Look at the Stryker MGS: It uses the gun pedestal (not turret) from the expeditionary tank of the '80s.
Still costs a lot, even though the research was done way back then.
Why? Because most of the time R&D on shiny new weapons isn't about making more effective weapons; it's about making more money.
People talk about stealth aircraft tech as though it was some hallowed cape of invisibility.
The truth is that when the Soviet Union evaluated the work of Pyotr Yfimtsev and stealth back in the 70's they decided it was not cost effective.
The americans, obsesed with shiny new gadgets as ever, deployed F117s in the Kosovo conflict and one got shot down.
By a modified 60s era Soviet radar.
Commanded by a country that was pretty busy fighting itself.
So if stealth fails against a divided country because a commander modifed a system older than the F117 it downed, what good is it against a unified 1st or 2nd world country in a nation state war?
Last but not least, lets loo at the B2 and F117; both are hangar queens, the B2 needing air conditioned hangars and one being less stealthy in the rain.
As for the F22...
Well, when it gets a combat record, we'll evaluate it as a combat system.
Until it participates in combat, it's simply an excercise in moving vast amounts of money from the pockets of the average hard working american to lazy cheating corrupt arms manufacturers.
If you want a cost effective army first put your money into the grunts. The grunts make the army.
Then put your money into proven tech.
Then slowly develop and evaluate new tech, integrating it piece by piece onto proven systems to make sure it works.
Only develop a new platform from scratch when necessary and even then, go with proven tech and keep gradually upgrading.
If you throw entirely new tech onto an entirely new system then you guarantee that something, if not most things will fail.
Not only that, but you lose parts compatibility with existing weapons systems.
Now, on the subject of not canceling overdue weapons development and stealth;
Funny, isn't it, how the OBOGS (On-Board Oxygen Generator System) of the F-22 doesn't seem to work, despite over 20 years of R&D?
That doesn't seem to be an issue in the OBOGS systems used in other fighters, like the Rafale, Gripen, Mig-35, Su-35, J-10, and dozens of others --- to say nothing of PAST aircraft, like the Su-47 Firkin and F-20 Tigershark.
Even funnier is that not long after this was announced...;
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20110921.aspx
...THIS was announced!;
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/20111025.aspx
And all this, after rust problems..;
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Rust-Grounds-the-F-22-Fleet--6-25-2010.asp
...defective stealth materials...;
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...er-to-sue-lockheed-for-stealth-design-329025/
...jammed canopies...;
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2006/04/why_is_this_man.html
...stuff coming unglued...;
http://gizmodo.com/373205/f+22-raptor-airframes-falling-apart-due-to-bad-glue
...and unexplained crashes...;
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/18/stealth-crash-in-alaska-pushes-accident-rate-higher/
...all while delivering only 189 of 750 planned aircraft, in a completely different configuration than originally planned, over 10 years behind schedule, out of an aircraft built in the 2000s, refined in the 1990s, planned in the 1980s, and conceived in the 1970s --- as a means to protect America's discos from the Soviet Union.
It was all going so well!
You're right; China is not a major military threat. That's why they resort to economic warfare.
Glad to hear it about the pensions.
You have a point about generals and admirals.
Forgive me, here in Britain we have WAY too many chiefs and too few Indians in our military.
F35 is awful. Just awful.
What you wanna do is build new F16s and upgrade them.
Hell, build new F15s and upgrade them. You can even build the F15SE if you really want.
As concerns F35:
Re: Not sure if you already know of this...
The JSF Debacle just keeps getting worse and worse --- it's a case study in Overengineering; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overengineering
The main ailment that the JSF and many similar disasters are symptomatic of is the US military's fetish for Complexity, which is far more effectively explained by Franklin "Chuck" Spinney than by an amateur like myself;
http://snuffysmithsblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/domestic-roots-of-perpetual-war.html
Also, even assuming that there are no developmental problems with the F-35 whatsoever, it's STILL a massively-inferior design. Look no further than a comparison between the stats of the F-35A, and the F-16C it "replaces";
===== F-35A Lightning II Vs F-16C Fighting Falcon =====
(F-35A on the right --- F-16C on the left)
Role: Tactical Fighter --- Tactical Fighter
Unit Price: $400 Million --- $20 Million
Crew: 1 --- 1
Size(LxWxH): 51.3x35x14.2ft --- 49.33x31x16.33ft
Wing Area: 460ft2 --- 300ft2
Empty Weight: 29300lbs --- 18800lbs
Internal Fuel: 18500lbs --- 7100lbs
Payload: 13000lbs --- 17000lbs
Max. T/O Weight: 50000lbs --- 42300lbs
Wing Loading: 63.69lb/ft2 --- 59lb/ft2
T/W Ratio: 1.19 --- 1.51
T/W Ratio, Full Internal Fuel: 0.95 --- 1.16
Fuel Fraction: 41% --- 27%
Range: 850 miles --- 500 miles
Ceiling: 60000ft --- 50000ft
Cruise Speed: Mach 1.1 --- Mach 1
Top Speed: Mach 1.6 --- Mach 2
Climb Rate: 50000ft/min --- 50000ft/min
Initial Turn Rate: 30 degrees/sec --- 30 degrees/sec
Continuous Turn Rate: 20 degrees/sec --- 20 degrees/sec
Max. G-Load: +9/-3 --- +9/-3
Sensors: AN/APG-81 AESA Radar, IRST, RWR --- AN/APG-68 Pulse Doppler Radar, RWR
Scan Range (F-35A): 150 miles @ 35 Degrees (15 miles @ 45 dergrees for IRST)
Scan Range (F-16C): 35 miles @ 30 degrees
Look Down: Yes --- Yes
Shoot Down: Yes --- Yes
Propulsion (F-35A): 1× P&W F135 Low-Bypass Turbofan w/28000lbs Military Thrust, 35000lbs/AB
Propulsion (F-16C): 1x GE F100 Low-Bypass Turbofan w/17800lbs Military Thrust, 29100lbs/AB
Thrust Vectoring: No --- No
Weapon Stations (F-35A): 1x GAU-22 Equalizer 25mm cannon w/180rds, 1x Internal Bay w/4000lb Capacity, 2x Auxillary Bay w/400lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/3000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/1000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/400lb Capacity
Weapon Stations (F-16C): 1x M61A1 Vulcan 20mm cannon w/500rds, 1x Centerline Hardpoint w/3000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/3000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/2000lb Capacity, 2x Underwing Hardpoint w/1000lb Capacity, 2x Wingtip Missile Rail w/400lb Capacity
ECMs: Chaff/Flares (30/30rds), ASPJ --- Chaff/Flares (30/30rds), ASPJ
FBW: Yes --- Yes
RCS: 7ft3(?) --- 20ft3
Stealth: Yes --- No
Tailhook: No --- No
Catapult Hitch: No --- No
Drag Chute: No --- Yes
AAR: Yes --- Yes
Other (F-35A): Polyuerothane Clamshell Canopy, HOTAS, Zero-Zero Ejection Seat, Contoured Seat, LCD 3-screen MFD, Oxygen Generator, HMD, VCI, Laser Altimeter, LRF
Other (F-16C): Bubble Canopy, HOTAS, Zero-Zero Ejection Seat, Contoured Seat, LCD 3-screen MFD
There's a few things that should be noted about these stats...
- The featured F-35A price-tag is my own prediction of what it's unit cost will be when (if) it enters service. This fear is not unfounded; behold the FGR-17 Viper rocket launcher promised to cost just $87, that upon it's cancellation, was offered for $1100. For the cost of one F-35A, you can buy twenty F-16Cs.
- Despite having a 30% smaller Wing Area, the F-16C has a slightly-lower Wing Loading (which determines an airframes maximum possible potential for Maneuverability --- the lower the Wing Loading, the higher the overall Maneuverability).
- The F-35A is only slightly larger, but weighs 2x as much --- this, with an even percentage of low-weight composites in it's construction than the F-16C.
- With less than 50% of the Internal Fuel, the F-16C has a range 60% of the F-35A's. Smaller loads of Internal Fuel also mean faster refueling --- and by extension, a faster turn-around time.
- Because the F-35A has a less-than-40% increase in range, it's 100%+ increase in Internal Fuel is not a bonus --- it's a crutch.
- Despite weighing half as much, the F-16C carries 5000lbs more payload.
- The larger Max. T/O Weight of the F-35A is useless, because it doesn't have the payload to exploit it.
- With Full Internal Fuel, the F-16C has nearly the same T/W Ratio as an empty F-35A.
- The much-larger Fuel Fraction of the F-35A is not actually an advantage, in context with the fact that it's weight and drag require an enourmous amount of fuel to be expended to reach supersonic speeds, before throttling-back to Superbcruise --- which defeats the WHOLE POINT of Supercruise (to save fuel).
- The F-35A's higher Service Ceiling is not as much of an advantage as it's advocates would suggest, because flying that high and fast is extraneous for a Tactical Fighter. Though nice to have, there's no use for it in the F-35A's missions, so it was a waste of time and effort to add it.
- The F-16C's cruise speed is nearly as fast, and it's full speed is considerably faster. Though this feature is extraneous as well, there was no extra money charged for it (unlike the F-35A's higher service ceiling).
- The turn rates and G-loads of both aircraft are about the same; the only difference is the price charged for a virtually identical capability.
- The F-35A's engine is much more powerful, but also more fuel-hungry --- and because it has vastly-greater weight and drag, and advantages the F135 may have had are instantly canceled-out.
- The F-35A's sensors are indisputably better than those on the F-16C, but they could probably be back-fitted to the latter aircraft as well. This is, after all, how the AN/APG-68 used in the F-16 got there in the first place.
- The F-16's gun has enough ammo for nearly 2x as many kills, and more weapon stations.
- Though the F-35 *is* stealthier than the F-16C, this is yet ANOTHER advantage without meaning. I say that because advances in radar that immediately follow the development each generation of Stealth Technology render said stealth features obsolete, and the F-35's stealth tech is far in excess of 15 years old --- by the time the F-35A is fully in-service, it's stealth will be more than 30-years-too-old to protect it.
- The ECMs of both aircraft are basically the same; the only difference is the price.
- Though the F-16C's Drag Chute is a necessity, due to it's long aft fuselage overhang (which will scrape the runway if the pilot flares too much), it also provides a shorter landing run than the heavier F-35A.
- The F-35A's many additional Bells & Whistles may all be back-fitted to an F-16C --- some of which HAVE been, in foreign air forces.
- The F-16's Bubble Canopy offers rear visibility; the F-35A's Clamshell Canopy does not. This is a truly spectacular display of bald-faced ignorance toward the priorities of fighter design on the F-35 Development Team's part, because combat lessons in World War 2 dictated the elimination of Clamshell Canopies in favor of Bubble Canopies --- compare a pre-war P-47A (Clamshell Canopy) to a mid-war P-47D (Bubble Canopy), and accounts of the advantages offered by the F-86's Bubble Canopy in battle during the Korean War. These experiences were rejected in the 1950s and 60s, when the US military decided (based upon single-factor numbers without context) that speed was more important, and dogfights were gone forever --- the Vietnam War proved them wrong, and the Bubble Canopy returned on the F-16. Now they're dismissing combat experience in favor of unfounded fantasy AGAIN.
Here's a presentation on the F-22 that describes many similar problems to those stated above;
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/stevenson f-22 brief.pdf
So there you have it. The F-35 is a waste of space. There's no reason for it to exist, and if the whole program were canceled and de-funded tomorrow, it would be no loss for US National Security.
If you'd like to see how it's stats compare to any other warplane, let me know).
Cheaper yes, but are PMCs counter productive?
The Stryker MGS is armored fighting vehicle, which only few thousand will be made unlike cars and trucks, so its going to cost much to make. Yes, the U. S. Defense industry wastes a ton of money on new weapons programs. But the system isn't going change anytime soon. B-2 and F117 have very good combat records. The F117 opened the attacks of Saddam in the First Gulf War over Baghdad. Baghdad was one of the most heavily defended airspaces in the world at that time. All the F117 returned to base that night and we didn't lose any doing the war. The F22 is air superiority fighter not a bomber and very expensive to operate, so thats why its not being deployed in the two wars. The F22 has gone up against F15 in training, and one F22 has consistently up 8 F15 in training. The F22 came into service a decade early, but it works.
About F-35
Go to the underdvelopment section. China, Russia, India, Turksy, and South Korea are developing stealth aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft
well the defense budget cuts can't be too high, the banks and corporations have to keep using the US military and the UN to continue their liberation of conquering countries, installing puppet presidents and using them to takeover the natural resources of the country while the people continue to suffer
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
So the fact that the Stryker MGS is a modified LAV 3 related to the rest of the LAV series not to mention all other Strykers shouldn't be expected to help lower costs?
So the fact that the system is extant and prevalent excuses it's awfulness?
Please tell me what's so great about the combat records of those two aircraft?
You think success against Saddam is some kind of achievement? The tyrant so monopolistic with power that his forces were immobilised?
Iraqi tanks were dug in, defeating their mobility (a tank's raison d'etre. If you want a pillbox then build one. Much cheaper than a tank. Also, rather stupid to dig in lighter weight Russian armour which was designed with a lighter weight for greater tactical and strategic mobility than comparatively heavier Western armour.)
If Saddam was SUCH a threat, then how come his forces (if memory serves) the 5th largest in the world at that time, with the most tanks in the world at that time and a large air force, were defeated so easily?
How come Iraqi tans were destroyed on mass when Balkan tank commanders were able to continually hide and relocate their tanks while using dummies to soak up NATO munitions?
Come on. Victory against Saddam is easy. His best quality stuff was moneky models and his troops didn't know how to use them.
We didn't need stealth to take Saddam.
So, the american military would never lie about the combat effectiveness of any of it's systems, right?
I'm sure they're strictly honest about the F22s performance.
I'm equally sure there was no valid reason for not testing their latest shiny new toy to help iron all the bugs out in the low threat environment of Iraqi airspace...
As for under development, what happened to Japan? Have they cancelled their stealth fighter?
You do know that the F35 has reduced sealth compared to F22 right?
You do know that export models for friendly states will have their stealth reduced even further to the level where it's closer to LO than stealth, right?
You know what, let them develop stealth fighters, all you need to do is take a capable and proven fighter (I'm looking at you Fs 15 and 16 - we Brits have no capable and proven fighters large enough to do this) and mount a radar that can see stealth (A la Irbis-E) on it.
:iloveyou:
:iloveyou:
If memory serves more F117s than F16s were lost in Iraq.
The Stryker MGS unit costs are similiar to vehicles of its type.
The F117 had excellent combat record during the First Gulf War. Only one F117 has ever been lost in combat. It went up against one of the best air defense networks in world in 1991. Yeah, in 2003 the Iraqi military was a mess and was nonthing but a pushover for the U. S. Military. Winston Churchill said this "Thank God for the French Army" when Hitler came to power in 1933. He said it because the French had one of the biggest and best equipped Army in the world. But they used static World War I strategies. The Germans on the other hand where the first ones to use combined arms in modern war. Basically massing fast moving units of tanks and mechanized infantry combined with artillery and airpower. The French used old WWI tactics and did not mass their tanks, so they were picked off by massed less equipped German tanks. Saddam thought the American military couldn't cross the Iraqi desert in force. The Iraqis did not know about our GPS, if they did they would,ve changes their strategy. And his tanks were no match for western tanks, their models of T 72 had hand cranked turrets. And our E-3 and Jstars surveillance, command, control and communications aircraft gave the U.S. complete control skys during that war. Basically the First Gulf War would've lasted much longer, if Saddam did his homework.
Again, F22 is a air superiority fighter. It has thrust vectoring and other things the F35 will not operate. Basically the F35 will take the F16's role as a bomb truck, it was designed to have less stealth then the F22. Yes, mostly new AESA radars and radars like Irbis-E can see stealth aircraft but at much shorter ranges then normal targets. You still would not be able to see stealth aircraft at longer ranges, but they can see you. And thanks to long range air to air missles, you would be shotdown before you could get a shot off. The foreign buyers F35 will've the same level of stealth as American F35s, but they will not have access to the F35 computer software source code. A enemy country could get access to combat systems of the F35, and see how it performs by stealing the computer code. Only the British are being given access to the computer software source code.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
As for the Stryker, I believe it to be substantially more expensive than comparable vehicles.
The Iraqi military was a mess in Desert Storm; commanders weren't allowed to use their initiative.
I'm familiar with the failure of the French in regard to Hitler.
I'm also familiar with just how awful the tanks (not to mention munitions) supplied to Saddam were.
If memory serves Schwarzkopf himself said that Saddam was not a general but was a pushover.
The Gulf war would've lasted much longer if Saddam did his homework and let his troops work. He is notable for his similarities to Stalin and Hitler.
Air supremacy fighter it may be, but I don't see why it shouldn't have been combat tested.
I could be pedantic and point out that the F35 STOVL does have TV, but it wasn't intended for combat, so I won't (but I just did, like an annoying little pedant
)As for taking the F16's role as bomb truck, the F16 was designed as a dogfighter and that should be it's primary mission.
When it comes to bomb trucks, the USAF has the B52 and A10 and I can think of few planes better for an AF to have (none better than the A10).
I didn't know AESA could see stealth? I thought it was only Irbis E and modified longwave radars. Do you have a source on that I could see? (I'm not doubting you, I only ask because if I make a claim without a source then I look like a :georges: )
Last I heard a SU27 variant with Irbis E could see an F22 a mere 5 KM after the F22 see's it. If both aircraft are closing at supersonic/high subsonic speeds then the advantage for the F22 pilot is negligable.
Do you mind giving me a source for foreign F35 buyers having the same level of stealth? I thought we were all due to get stealth downgraded to around LO level.
If I'm not mistaken China already downloaded terrabytes of data on F35... from the Pentagon :rofl:
Incidently, have you seen their new stealth bomber that looks suspiciously like a B2?
Mayhem
Banned
When it comes to airpower, aircraft capabilities are literally half the equation. Pilot training and expertise is the other half. This is where the F22 and F35 fall on their asses. There is nothing the rest of the world has that can beat our existing fleet of F15s, F16s and F/A18s. Keep them, keep the pilots flying, keep upgrading the existing platforms and simulators and we're good. The billions spent wasting our time with the F22 and F35 is a fiasco, and it inhibits our readiness by taking away from proven airpower that works.
As for the Stryker, I believe it to be substantially more expensive than comparable vehicles.
The Iraqi military was a mess in Desert Storm; commanders weren't allowed to use their initiative.
I'm familiar with the failure of the French in regard to Hitler.
I'm also familiar with just how awful the tanks (not to mention munitions) supplied to Saddam were.
If memory serves Schwarzkopf himself said that Saddam was not a general but was a pushover.
The Gulf war would've lasted much longer if Saddam did his homework and let his troops work. He is notable for his similarities to Stalin and Hitler.
Air supremacy fighter it may be, but I don't see why it shouldn't have been combat tested.
I could be pedantic and point out that the F35 STOVL does have TV, but it wasn't intended for combat, so I won't (but I just did, like an annoying little pedant
As for taking the F16's role as bomb truck, the F16 was designed as a dogfighter and that should be it's primary mission.
When it comes to bomb trucks, the USAF has the B52 and A10 and I can think of few planes better for an AF to have (none better than the A10).
I didn't know AESA could see stealth? I thought it was only Irbis E and modified longwave radars. Do you have a source on that I could see? (I'm not doubting you, I only ask because if I make a claim without a source then I look like a :georges: )
Last I heard a SU27 variant with Irbis E could see an F22 a mere 5 KM after the F22 see's it. If both aircraft are closing at supersonic/high subsonic speeds then the advantage for the F22 pilot is negligable.
Do you mind giving me a source for foreign F35 buyers having the same level of stealth? I thought we were all due to get stealth downgraded to around LO level.
If I'm not mistaken China already downloaded terrabytes of data on F35... from the Pentagon :rofl:
Incidently, have you seen their new stealth bomber that looks suspiciously like a B2?
Dude, you just say stuff like the F117 has more combat losses then the F16. That's easily to lookup, and you want me to provide source!
Don't blame the French entirely for the Allied defeat in 1940. You're country had a major role as well along with Belgiums and the Dutch to a much lesser degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Expeditionary_Force_order_of_battle_(1940)
Saddam could've deployed most of his troops in the cities of Kuwait and fortify the cities. It would've took a long time for coalition to clear all of those cities. Yes, Saddam was a dictator that had no military experience, so Schwarzkopf was right. Yeah, Iraqis commanders had stand still during the war. But they still would've been beaten, much more quickly in desert then the city, even if they went of the offensive. PGM was only 8% of the total weapons dropped during the First Gulf War.
Yes, they're hiding the F22, but the plane's operating costs are massive. I don't want another war, but if the U. S. bombs Iran's nuclear facilities the F22 will play a major part in that mission.
Of course the F16 is designed as a air superiority fighter, but that was the F15 main role. The USAF, USAR, USAFNG, has more F16 then all the other aircraft you named combined, and those aircraft can't be every where, so the F16 is used as a bomb truck. There's a limited number of B2s, and the rest of its inventory is non stealthy, so the F35 has a role when the U.S. fights an enemy with a very good air defense network.
SU27 variant with Irbis E
If the information i already stated, about the F22 was wrong, then why is Russia spending atleast 10 billion dollars, developing a new air superiority fighter the PAK-FA? I put my foot in my mouth with thise earlier statement. "Yes, mostly new AESA radars and radars like Irbis-E can see stealth aircraft but at much shorter ranges then normal targets." AESAs (airborne) have a greater range then older airborne radars. But an older radar could see F22, if it was close enough to it. So any radar can see Stealth aircraft if its close enough. The ranges of AESAs are top secret no sources. You will not see a stealth fighter without a AESA, they're Low probability of intercept radars (LPIR). This characteristic of AESAs allows stealth aircraft to find and track an opponent without alerting them to the radar's presence. Non Stealth aircraft have AESA for their greater scanning ranges, but they are not undetectable like stealth aircraft are at long ranges. Stealth aircraft will be around for a long time. The person with the lowest RCS will forever have the advantage up to the time that, it's to the point where even the lowest RCS is still detectable at hundreds of miles. I suspect that will be a while. There have been reports of downgraded F35 to export customers. It's no secret that some of the software/hardware will be tamper proof. If you're implying that inevitable that hardware/software will not be exported at all please list them for me.
The B2 is a very good design, atleast one of the USAFs future bombers Next-Generation Bomber and 2037 bombers will probably be flying wing designs.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I'd say that the Russki's have equalled your F16,15,18 with Su27 and MiG29.
That being said, your teen series remains more than needed to ensure american military capability and your right about pilots (frankly I thought you were also right about infantry; better trained infantry>militia).
I agree about upgrading what you have rather than developing new stuff which doesn't work.
All that said, you still don't give a shit about my opinion
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
You know what's weird? I said you were right about the F117s combat record and then delted it while editing and forgot to re-add it.
So yes, you were right, for this reason I can provide no source stating that the F16 has a better combat record on losses than the F117.
I don't think it was I who mentioned the French in WW2 originally.
I think what we're doing here is agreeing that Saddam was useless...
Really? Because ALCMs or even SLCMs seem better suited to that mission to me.
F35 in that situation? I think the americans had sufficient assets before the F35 for that role.
It's kind of a prestige thing. Just because the americans spend stupidly on their military, doesn't mean the Russkis are much better.
I see it as me-tooism, keeping up with the Joneses. They have one; so we must have one, or people will think less of us.
Doesn't mean it's a good idea. People once thought the same way about battleships.
Or to put it another way about both nations (in fact all nations) having military spending blonde moments; the americans have their stealthy air supremacy fighter F22, the Russkis have so far developed no less than THREE prototypes to counter it (Su47 Berkut, Mig 1.44 Flatpack and Sukhoi's Pak Fa), NONE of which have entered production, but all of which have cost good roubles.
Doesn't seem like smart spending to me, how about you?
Don't sweat the radar foot in mouth. We all fuck up now and then.
Frankly I disagree on the B2; I love the idea of a flying wing design, but the B2 has cost a pretty penny and done nothing that a b52 with ALCMs doulcn't.
Well, I apologize for my WWII jab.
The newly upgraded Block 3.1, F22s would be flying escort missions for the B2s. The 3.1 upgrades would allow the F22 to attack Iran ground defenses. Remember that muchof the Iran nuclear facilities are underground, USAF has developed a new 30,000 ground penetrating bomb. The bomb, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator can only be carried by the B2.
No, its not smart spending considering all the overbudget and badly run defense programs. But countries need to spend on defense procurement. If a country falls far behind in procurement, it just may never catchup with its adversaries.
The U.S. military always wants the highest end of military equipment. They want equipment that handle enemies at both ends of the threat spectrum. I don't think will fighting China or Russia anytime soon, but our general and admirals like the best toys.
Mayhem
Banned
I'd say that the Russki's have equalled your F16,15,18 with Su27 and MiG29.
That being said, your teen series remains more than needed to ensure american military capability and your right about pilots (frankly I thought you were also right about infantry; better trained infantry>militia).
I agree about upgrading what you have rather than developing new stuff which doesn't work.
All that said, you still don't give a shit about my opinion
It's not that I don't give a shit about your opinion, I just think you grasp at too many dubious straws. You used to make posts/posits that never took into account logistical realities and/or evolutionary inevitabilities, and sometimes your definitions of success and failure are .........not feasible. You once said the Stryker vehicles were inferior to the M113 series tracked vehicles. I "owned" an M577 CPC for 2 1/2 years including D esert Storm. Mine was one in an Armored BN with no shortage of 113s and 577s (including our Scout and Mortar platoons). We hated them. All of us. All they did was break down time after time. Every After Action Review was a field day of jokes about what pieces of shit they were and how we'd all like anything else but them. Yet when I looked them up in Wikipedia, the article says that they enjoyed a favorable opinion of the troops. Hell, I read a book from Vietnam where the troops regarded them as a potentially troop-lethal waste of time. BTW, in Saudi, Iraq and Kuwait my 577 topped out at 25 mph (40 kph) across the sand with the gas pedal jammed to the floor, blowing oil through the exhaust the whole way. How would you feel if your top speed was 40 kph?
I'm just saying that you've made statements that don't jibe with the reality that I saw with my own two eyes. But we agree on the F22 and F35.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Don't sweat it.
As concerns Iran, are you shitting me? They're a 3rd world country. Take down their air defenses with conventional airpower, then take out their facilities with conventional airpower.
A fraction of the price for the same result.
Do it all by flying B52 miles off the way using air launched cruise missiles. Or sub-launch cruise missiles.
Never risk an allied life.
Frankly, I don't believe either F22 or B2 to have demonstrated enough reliability to be entrusted with such a mission.
"Sir, we got all but one of the Iranian missile silos."
"Well, call up the Navy and have them launch on it before it launches on us!"
"Too late."
A country that doesn't wish to do it's own R&D can simply pirchase weapons from a country that does.
Overspending on R&D without producing results reduces defense readiness and capabilities.
I'm certainly NOT convinced that F22 and B2 constitute the best toys.
We all make mistakes. I'm prepared to acnowledge I've been wrong on occasion.
And frankly, there's no reason for you to give a shit about my opinion as YOU are the one with the actual experience (in certain areas).
I keep hearing how bad the Stryker is, so given the universally owned nature of the M113 and it's incredible number of variants I assumed it to be rather better (after all, bad vehicles don't sell well and there's little if any reason to build variants based on them when you can simply base them off a better equivelant vehicle.
I am amazed to hear this about the M113. If I remember right you were in the reserve guard? Is it possible you had worn out vehicles?
As for Vietnam, I always attributed the M113 phobia of troops there to the fact that initial models were petrol powered and a lack of experience on the part of the conscripts. I also seem to remember that no anti-RPG armour was fitted to M113s in Vietnam, so if hit by an RPG any troops would likely be trying to get the door open while breathing burning aluminium fumes.
I've heard so many bad things about the Stryker and the M113 is used by so many countries in so many variants that I expected it to be reliable.
40KPH top speed isn't high, but I'd take the frontal .50 cal proofing of an M113 over the speed of a Humvee. Not to mention that M113 is amphibious.
If my statements don't agree with your experience then I'd like to think that there's an explanatory factor (eg you having been given older, worn out vehicles) but it may be that I'm just plain wrong.
At least however, we can agree on F22, 35 and A10.
Older systems stil can takeout aircraft. The main goal of this scenario is taking at Iran's nuclear facilities which underground. The B2 is the only aircraft that can carry the massive ordnance penetrator. ALCM and Tomahawks are great weapons, but they're ground pentrators. They will takeout older immobile SAMs, but will not get all the mobile SAM launchers. Block 3.1 F22s can APG-77 can mapout the ground and attack targets, plus it can also jam enemy radar for B2s. It cannot use laser guided bombers, it doesn't have a laser designator. The B2 combat record is spotless. Both aircraft are cold war projects, so they should not have problems defeating Iran's air defense network/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...ses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report/
Here's a paragraph form the article above:
"Two other German officers, Col. Andreas Pfeiffer and Maj. Marco Gumbrecht, noted in the same report that the F-22′s capabilities are “overwhelming” when it comes to modern, long-range combat as the stealth fighter is designed to engage multiple enemies well-beyond the pilot’s natural field of vision — mostly while the F-22 is still out of the other plane’s range. Grumbrecht said that even if his planes did everything right, they weren’t able to get within 20 miles of the next-generation jets before being targeted."
Its does't have a big edge against some aircraft dogfight, but only other stealth aircraft will a chance to go after, its one weakness. Member this was just training, so the F22s let the Eurofighters merge with them.
Countries can lose the know how by depeding on foreign R &D on weapons. Some countries place eport bans on military weapons, so that my be a problem if your supplier, doesn't agree with your country.
Similar threads
