Quick addendum/correction, LB--the F-35 is supposed to replace the early F/A-18A/B variants (and later the C/Ds).  The Super Bug will be around for awhile.  Which is good news, I guess...I suppose the USAF can always buy those.

 

All I gotta say is, people were warned.  The Democrats see the military as two things: 1) social experiment and 2) piggy bank.

Yes I realize the F-35 does not replace the E/F but the E/F is not going to be in production for the USN for very much longer and then the only fighter line in the USA will be the F-35- god help us.  The F/A-18G and foreign orders might keep the line open a few years longer but then that's it.  Also before some comments that the F-15 or F-16 line might also be open it's not exactly something in production for the USAF.  The USAF has not bought an F-15 in more than a decade and I believe has not purchased an F-16 in a longer time.

 

That they should have bought more of both given the length of time and cost required to replace them is of course rather obvious.  Then again the best air superiority aircraft in the world, without peer, is seen as too expensive at $140 million so new build F-15s at around $100 million probably don't look like any alternative either.  In any case not only is the USAF going to rue the day it didn't get more F-22s but their cost will be seen as a bargain in just a few years time.

 

Obama voters were warned, DA.  By conservatives and people like myself.  The Democrats haven't changed their stripes in 30 years, since Carter tried to kill the B-1 and put military families like my own on food stamps.  The Dems did everything they could to derail Reagan's rearmament program, up to and including predicting imminent nuclear war if we did something like *gasp* come up with ICBMs and SLBMs that weren't 30 years old.  Clinton sliced the military to ribbons, which we paid for in blood in Iraq.  Reid and his cronies showed their confidence in the military by proclaiming a war lost halfway through it.  And that includes your hero Obama, DA--he was one of those being rather loud about the surge not working before it even began.

 

But I suppose you'll come up with some sort of excuse for this.  I wonder if you'll have an excuse when your job gets cut as nonessential by the Obama administration.  Before you say "that'll never happen," explain that to the F-15 pilots in my state's air guard, who now face the choice of retraining as UAV controllers or taking early retirement, because Dianne Feinstein wants F-15s in California to defend against...hmm.  Not exactly sure what California needs F-15s to defend against.  Angry Prop 8 voters, I suppose.

 

Your role as playing apologist for every time Obama farts is wearing thin, DA.  If Obama proposed tomorrow disbanding the entire military in favor of the Black Panthers, why do I get the feeling you'd find a way to support it?

And the collapse continues:

 

The F136 engine is making its ... 

At the same time, the Navy's legacy Hornet fleet....

 

Neither of these "developments" should come as any surprise.  The ability of legacy aircraft to operate with high airframe hours are always overestimated, and the numbers for new aircraft programs are always wildly optimistic.

 

See where this is going?

What a silly question! I have lost count of the number of people on these panels who have postulated that the F35 was about to be cut, cut big, and cut fast. We have seen our international "partners" reducing orders or delaying promised financial participation. Others who might want into the program are basing their interest upon the promised price of under a hundred million each (about the cost of the next F22 off of the assembly line). The F35 A/B/C can't provide the promised performance because, gee who knew, the biggest turbo fan engine ever produced is very expensive to engineer and quite persnickety to keep running inside that little cocoon of a fuselage. It has a problem dissipating thermal energy off out of the small airframe without cooking everything in the process. Hint: consistently high heat will wear the airframe out faster than other modern airframe types, so, this plane won't last as long as the legacy aircraft that it is supposed to replace because they are falling apart during 1g flight profiles.

 

Phaid you apparently wrote this piece and may I say it is good (thank you for your sources).

 

Obama and Gates have cut the F22 because of politics. They want the money to (illegally IMV) nationalize the auto, banking, financial, health care, and insurance industries. You simply can't buy F35s and fund all of the Obama Political-Commissars (called Czars for short and we now have 16 of them in the USG) at the same time.

 

To Darth. You have yet to successfully carry your position here based upon fact or history. IMV you have to ignore both to keep a straight face, which I doubt you really do. But a straight face isn't required when communicating upon this medium. Herald is right about this one. So is Phaid, so is Sentinel, so am I. The F35 won't be built in numbers big enough to meet our needs and we will not be able to react to potential threats with overwhelming force required to scare our enemies off of challenging US.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

Obama and Gates will shut down every tactical aircraft assembly line before their first four years. The F22, F35 will be dead in 4 years and we will be shutting down the Super Hornet will be next (they have to kill the F35 before they go after the SH). They will justify their position by saying we are building planes for the last war and we need to rethink our priorities. They will say that we need to spend our defense budget on monetary diplomacy towards our enemies (bribe them). The F16-F15 S/E will remain in production to satisfy international customers but not for US.

 

Congress will baulk but Obama can veto bills that are aimed at updating out Tactical Air assets.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

Disagree. And if you read the threads, there are more than a few who agree with me. But that doesn't make me right or wrong. The same applies to Phaid, Sentinel, Herald and You. These are opinions. Mine happens to be shared by the people calling the shots now. For me or you to be right, TIME has to pass so that events can demonstrate the truth of the matter. You see, there were people who said the A-10 and B-52 were not relevant to modern wars. There were people who said not procuring more B-2A's would leave us in peril. Those could have been considered reasonable assumptions back then. Now things have turned out differently. The same is true here.

What's going on is that most of you are of the opinion that these cuts are bad. So you are seeking out OSINT news to support your positions. I do the same thing. In the end we are just going to have to wait and see which analysis is correct. Because as you have seen, I can post just as much in support of my side including the actual decisions. 

-DA 

Not so much Darth. You have posted many items that I for one don't find relevant to the discussion (the whole DA/UAV issue isn't relevant in the slightest for the USAF air to the air role). I have made specific predictions that are not taking years to unfold as you suggest. For instance, I predicted once the F22 program was cut the F35 would be set up for dismissal in short order. We see that happening in days, not years or even months.

 

Predictions on the air superiority aircraft debate, based upon history and factual analysis. Me one you zero. At least I will hang it out and tell you what the future brings. No spin or double-speak from the Rock.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky