USAF Gets F-35 Flight Simulator

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USAF Gets F-35 Flight Simulator

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday April 20, 2011 @07:20AM from the how-many-quarters-does-it-take? dept.

cylonlover writes "Eglin Air Force Base has just taken delivery of a piece of hardware that would surely be the ultimate toy for flight sim gaming fans. The F-35 Lightning II Full Mission Simulator (FMS) system includes a high-fidelity 360-degree visual display system and a reconfigurable cockpit that can simulate all three variants of the F-35 Lightning II for US and international partner services – the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A, the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B, and the F-35C carrier variant."

200 of 252 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yes, but... by sycodon · 2011-04-20 07:22 · Score: 3, Funny

Is it MMOG?

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Top Gun by Beelzebud · 2011-04-20 07:24 · Score: 5, Funny

This will really help us battle the Al Qaeda Air Force.
1. Re:Top Gun by Spy+Handler · 2011-04-20 07:29 · Score: 2
  
  no it won't... all we need to defeat al qaeda air force (AQAF) is a couple of Cessnas and some hand grenades.
  
  However, it WILL help us defeat the Chinese air force, if or when they invade Taiwan and start launching their new ballistic anti-ship missiles at our carriers.
2. Re:Top Gun by h4rr4r · 2011-04-20 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  There is no way we would go to war with China over Taiwan. They have nukes. That would be like China going to war with the USA if we decided to take Cuba. Not only are there nukes, but like my example geography highly favors the closer nation.
3. Re:Top Gun by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  If China invaded Taiwan, the US wouldn't do jack shit.
4. Re:Top Gun by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-20 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Geography didn't favor the Empire of Japan vs the United States or Germany vs the United States.
  China and the US won't go to war over Taiwan in the near-term simply because China lacks the ability to invade Taiwan. Even with high profile programs like the new Chinese stealth fighter and a Chinese aircraft carrier, the People's Republic of China lacks the ability to project power across the Straights of Taiwan conventionally, they can point missiles at Taiwan and threaten them with nuclear weapons, but that's it. They can't invade because they don't have troop transport capability.
  While China has nukes that can reach the United States, in a nuclear exchange between the PRC and US, the PRC can't destroy the US, the US certainly has the nuclear arsenal to destroy the PRC as a nation-state.
  Right now and for the near to mid-term, the only nation that has nuclear parity with the US is the Russian Federation.
5. Re:Top Gun by h4rr4r · 2011-04-20 07:45 · Score: 2
  
  Think again. Treaties get overlooked at times like that. We could not defend Taiwan from an all out Chinese attack. They could literally fight a war of attrition. In the end the last Chinese soldier would cross in a fishing boat to Taiwan, plant a PRC flag and die of radiation poisoning.
6. Re:Top Gun by nevermindme · 2011-04-20 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  No way china would start anything with Taiwan at this point. US and other nations are itching for any excuse not to repay debt china has bought with slave labor and a manuplated currency.
7. Re:Top Gun by h4rr4r · 2011-04-20 07:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Geography never favors Japan, they have to import everything. Germany did not lose to the USA, it lost to the USSR. No male on my maternal grandmothers side lived through the war, all six of them died on the eastern front. Without the USSR in the war Germany would have lost the USA after berlin was nuked. If England did not fall first.
8. Re:Top Gun by Dishevel · 2011-04-20 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  And Germany brought the USSR into the war by force.
  The USSR was happy to simply allow the Germans to do whatever they wanted as long as they left the USSR alone.
  The USSR were useless fucks.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
9. Re:Top Gun by DarkOx · 2011-04-20 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Kinda like we never went to war in Vietnam because Russia had nukes. If anything the smartest play for us would be to tell the Chinese if they attack Taiwan we will respond by invading Cuba (again).
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
10. Re:Top Gun by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-20 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  You know that Taiwan is separated from China by water right, 81 miles of it at the narrowest point?
  That's a terrain obstruction that keeps the People's Liberation Army from just "walking over there".
11. Re:Top Gun by h4rr4r · 2011-04-20 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed getting the USSR into the war was a bad move. The USSR were not useless at all, they clogged the gears of the German war machines by throwing bodies at it.
12. Re:Top Gun by h4rr4r · 2011-04-20 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Vietnam was not openly backed by Russia. Russian troops were not boots on the ground. If DPRK invaded Taiwan at the behest of China that would be a similar situation and we would fight the DPRK.
13. Re:Top Gun by Maximum+Prophet · 2011-04-20 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  We owe China more than the expected value of Taiwan ATW (After the War)
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
14. Re:Top Gun by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-20 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  Germany lost to the Allies.
  Without the United Kingdom and the United States bombing the ever living crap out of Germany day and night, the Germans would have had the fuel, aircraft, armor and super weapons to end the Soviet Union.
  The Eastern Front was a body dump for both sides while the Atlantic Wall, the North African campaign and air war in the west ground down Germany's extra man power and material, just like the western front did in WW1 for Germany.
  Example, the Atlantic Wall in France alone had a garrison of 380,000 men and 2200 armored vehicles in from March 1942 to June 1944 and defense against Overlord brought that number to 1,000,000 by August 1 1944.
  Had those men and vehicles been at Stalingrad, the initial strength could have gone from 270,000 to 470,000 men and 500 tanks to 2500 tanks.
15. Re:Top Gun by scubamage · 2011-04-20 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Hey you! With the logic! Stop that!
16. Re:Top Gun by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-20 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Thats what I get for knowing some damned geography.
  Next up "Why don't the Chinese just walk to Alaska and take the oil?"
17. Re:Top Gun by AndersOSU · 2011-04-20 08:28 · Score: 2
  
  You mean the one that stopped being good law during the Carter administration?
  The only thing sillier than the assertion that a dead treaty would draw us into combat with China is the idea that China has any interest whatsoever of stirring that particular pot of worms. The only thing China has been interested in for about two decades now are markets for its labor force. Sure China likes takes the opportunity to use Taiwan for some elaborate posturing, but there is no way it would risk its economy over that tiny island.
  If the Shanghai factories can't ship lawn chairs to Walmart, China falls from the inside without the US launching a single cruise missile.
18. Re:Top Gun by GooberToo · 2011-04-20 08:30 · Score: 2
  
  Think again. In the real world, the Chinese would fight a war of attrition and the US would kill them in mass from the air and sea. Unlike an assault, you don't need feet on the ground to defend a country because the indigenous population is fully capable of doing the shit work the US wouldn't want to do in the first place - as should be - its their nation. Which means, the US would have the luxury of shooting fish in a barrel finally being able to unleash its full military arsenal and potential.
  And contrary to popular hype, over all, the Chinese technology is many, many decades behind the US; save only for tiny groups of premiere forces. The bulk of their military is equipped with Korean era weapons; and that's the minority who are actually equipped. Literally, the US' military is specifically designed to stomp on these types of forces, over and over and over again. Which means China absolutely does not want to combat the US unless they plan on using nukes - and even then, its complete suicide for the Chinese. Which means, it would be completely insane for them to start a war they are guaranteed to lose.
  You need to understand, the US' power multipliers literally allow a single plane with a single bomb to completely destroy an entire armored brigade. That's no hyperbole and no exaguration. And no, I'm not talking about MOABs or nukes.
  Furthermore, you really need to understand, what the world has seen of US capabilities in recent times literally a fraction of the force they can bring to bare on its enemies. Even China would be beaten into the stone age without the use of nukes should they ever draw the ire of the US. That's not to say the US wouldn't feel some pain, but understand full well, the outcome is fully understood without the need to ever wage war.
19. Re:Top Gun by stealth_finger · 2011-04-20 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  but like my example geography highly favors the closer nation.
  And the one with a shitload more people!
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
20. Re:Top Gun by icebike · 2011-04-20 08:36 · Score: 2
  
  >
  Had those men and vehicles been at Stalingrad, the initial strength could have gone from 270,000 to 470,000 men and 500 tanks to 2500 tanks.
  The German supply lines would have been just that much more critical and inadequate.
  Russia did not defeat the Germans as much as they simply slowed them down enough to let the weather defeat them.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
21. Re:Top Gun by icebike · 2011-04-20 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Do you know how long it would take China to manufacture enough landing craft to transfer huge armies 81 miles.
  China has manufacturing capabilities that could do this in two months. It would take the world over a month to figure out they were even doing so.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
22. Re:Top Gun by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-20 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  With hundreds of thousands of forced and hired labor no longer employed on the Atlantic Wall, we really can't say if the logistical system would be more stressed than it was in fall '42.
  The Soviets had big victories at Stalingrad and Kursk in '42-'43, the weather didn't win or lose the war.
23. Re:Top Gun by tnk1 · 2011-04-20 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Next up "Why don't the Chinese just walk to Alaska and take the oil?"
  They did, 40,000 years ago.
  Unfortunately for the Chinese, the advance guard of the Chinese decided to go native before the other Chinese could go ahead and found China.
24. Re:Top Gun by tnk1 · 2011-04-20 09:00 · Score: 2
  
  China has manufacturing capabilities that could do this in two months. It would take the world over a month to figure out they were even doing so.
  Luckily, half the landing craft that were manufactured would sink as soon as they were launched, and the other half would kill the soldiers on them with lead and arsenic poisoning before they got 20 miles off the coast.
  This is assuming that most of their divisions didn't expire from black lung before they managed to get through the industrial area to the port.
25. Re:Top Gun by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Same could be said about the USA, dude. We weren't going to get involved with that clusterfuck until the Japanese forced us into it, either.
26. Re:Top Gun by icebike · 2011-04-20 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  the weather didn't win or lose the war.
  Really? Someone needs to revisit the History books.
  Both the Soviet counter-offensive in the Winter 1941 and the siege of Stalingrad in the Winter 1942 were brought to a screeching halt by winter.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
27. Re:Top Gun by Kelbear · 2011-04-20 09:06 · Score: 2
  
  The US would not respond to an invasion of Taiwan. The cold reality is that the US has nothing to gain by fighting for Taiwan's independence.
  However, China does not want to look like the bad guy taking Taiwan by force. So they let Taiwan be...for now.
  And really, there's no need to invade Taiwan. Economic warfare is far more effective. China won both the war in Iraq and Afganistan by buying up resources and snagging reconstruction contracts, and without spending any money or political capital on military force.
  Most likely, a large tsunami or earthquake will hit Taiwan one day. China will come in to offer humanitarian aid to what it calls it's province, and then stay, and no one will object since they will need the aid more than they need independence after a disaster. China will deny all other political entities from offering aid, claiming sovereignty.
28. Re:Top Gun by Cyberax · 2011-04-20 09:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Without the United Kingdom and the United States bombing the ever living crap out of Germany day and night, the Germans would have had the fuel, aircraft, armor and super weapons to end the Soviet Union."
  Not really. The impact of firebombing is somewhat overestimated.
  "The Eastern Front was a body dump for both sides while the Atlantic Wall, the North African campaign and air war in the west ground down Germany's extra man power and material, just like the western front did in WW1 for Germany."
  North Africa? LOL! It was minuscule by the scales of the battles on the Eastern Front. In the end the USSR was responsible for the 80% of German casualties in manpower and equipment.
  Read and weep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)
29. Re:Top Gun by jjohnson · 2011-04-20 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  And what does the U.S. do when China, about to be pulverized conventionally, launches its nukes?
  Besides glow, I mean.
  
  --
  Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
30. Re:Top Gun by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-20 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Either of those "lost the war" for Germany.
  The encirclement of Stalingrad happened because German troops were ill prepared for offensive operations during the winter and that most of them were redeployed elsewhere on the southern sector of the Eastern Front, the Soviet high command decided to conduct a number of offensive operations which took place between 19 November 1942 and 2 February 1943.
  They bogged down outside Moscow because of logistics and anything in the winter without proper planning and logistics is going to fail, they got encircled at Stalingrad because the force there was overextended, they weren't equipped for offensive operations in the winter and because other forces were too far away to support them.
  Not because of the snow or cold, but because their command made strategic errors both times and didn't have assets in place to support offensive operations. The Soviets could perform offensive operations in the winter, had the Germans given up Stalingrad and moved into a defensive stance, then they wouldn't have lost an army.
  If we go to winter '44, the Germans were more than capable of offensive operations then, but by then it was too damned late to turn the tide.
31. Re:Top Gun by tnk1 · 2011-04-20 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Now, how the heck do you acquire Russian built SAMs with Russian crews, without being "openly backed" by Russia?
  Well there is backing and there is backing. Everyone knew that the Soviets had North Vietnam in their sphere of influence, but unless you are planes in the sky or boots on the ground or the US blockaded the ports and the Russians tried to force their way in, the Soviets would be technically neutral.
  You can buy arms from neutral countries. Granted, I am sure the Soviets provided "loans" to the North Vietnamese, but "loans" of the air quotes variety are what we'd call secret backing, not open backing.
  Having said that, your point does have merit. The secret backing was a very open secret. The only reason it stayed technically secret is that no one in the US wanted to have to deal with the repercussions of calling the Soviets out.
  In retrospect, given the fact that domino effect did not come off, I'm rather glad that no one risked nuclear war for that mud hole of a country.
32. Re:Top Gun by Nick+Ives · 2011-04-20 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Out of interest, what single bomb can kill 3-5.000 people?
  
  --
  Nick
33. Re:Top Gun by tnk1 · 2011-04-20 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be too sure. Invading Taiwan would not only be invading a clear US ally, it would also devastate one of the manufacturing areas that the US imports from which happens to be outside of China proper. And it would be done under our very noses.
  There might be a day the US is powerless or lacks the will to oppose an invasion of Taiwan, but unless something drastically changes, we're just as bound to protect Taiwan as we are South Korea or even NATO countries. If we are seen to not be able to protect our allies, our allies will start making their own arrangements. At the very least, that will mean the end of the American ascendancy. It might also mean the development of a large bloc of countries that oppose the US which might even include former allies.
34. Re:Top Gun by Nick+Ives · 2011-04-20 09:26 · Score: 2
  
  I know you're being facetious, but it's fairly obvious China could build large numbers of landing craft. They manufacture sophisticated electronics and all sorts of other products that require high skilled or high tech manufacturing.
  In that way you could say China today is similar to the USA before WW2. It has a large yet technologically second class military and a massive industrial base. If they were to be provoked, it's clear they could turn that capacity over to military production and stand a real chance of "winning" - insofar as it would be possible to win such an inevitably brutal conflict - a sustained conflict with the USA.
  
  --
  Nick
35. Re:Top Gun by h4rr4r · 2011-04-20 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Go look up the term proxy war.
36. Re:Top Gun by tnk1 · 2011-04-20 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds more like something we have over the Chinese, not vice versa.
  We get into a war with China, and we will cancel the debt and flatten their economy even before our bombers even take off for Shanghai. China might "own" us, but only while they are playing our game.
37. Re:Top Gun by h4rr4r · 2011-04-20 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Where are you going to drop those weapons? Not on Taiwan or there is no point in protecting them as they will all be dead. Not on the PRC or they will go nuclear.
38. Re:Top Gun by Mindcontrolled · 2011-04-20 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Stack the 2-5k people close, like in a rally or something along these lines and drop cluster munition? Might do the job. Mighty useful in any practical context though, yes...
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
39. Re:Top Gun by jgtg32a · 2011-04-20 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  This statement is so sad and so true
40. Re:Top Gun by YrWrstNtmr · 2011-04-20 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  1 bomb, 1 building/outpost/tank. Behead the brigade, reduce its effectiveness.
  Especially in some militaries where lower level commanders are given no authority to improvise, and have zero experience in doing so.
41. Re:Top Gun by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  We fire up the printing presses sooner rather then later and China and all other holders of US bonds are at least as fucked as we are. This (and it's implications) is why only a fool would live in a non-sovereign nation. The modern definition of 'sovereign' includes having a national currency and nukes. Sovereign nations today: USA, Russia, England, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Japan, N. Korea, maybe Brazil.
  MAD also happens in economics.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
42. Re:Top Gun by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  10,000 years ago, the 40,000 year ago population was genetically different then modern 'native Americans'. Closest to those ethnically separate bearded northern Japanese folks IIRC.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
43. Re:Top Gun by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Except it's not 1940 anymore and wars happen much faster. Occupations are still slow but wars are quick.
  I don't think the Chinese could maintain air superiority over their own nation if shooting were to breakout.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
44. Re:Top Gun by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  The thing about pegging your currency (or fixing prices in general) is that it always bites you in the ass in the end.
  The Chinese think that by moving their peg to keep their economy 100% engaged they are maximizing their economic development. That is true in a sense for the pure industrial part of their economy. That is only one perspective. China hasn't invested enough domestically because they could get better ROI with US bonds. Even with the known games being played in the bond market it's still safer then investing in a Chinese enterprise. Corruption is endemic and their is no transparency in large Chinese business.
  They now have a large part of their banking systems reserves held in a currency other then their own. They _have_ to support the value of the dollar or their wealth goes down the inflation hole. This has been going on for decades. Why do you think we have been able print so much money without inflation? How many % of inflation of Chinese goods is waiting for us?
  The peg basically means China has limited control of it's own monetary policy.
  Watch what happens when they get into an inflationary cycle, starting as we type.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
45. Re:Top Gun by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  The Rusky's were 'planes in the sky' in both Korea and Vietnam. Their is no doubt in hindsight.
  Some dominoes fell. Sucked to be Cambodian.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
46. Re:Top Gun by AndersOSU · 2011-04-20 10:59 · Score: 2
  
  National currency is overrated, you just have to have a good bond rating. With a good bond rating it doesn't matter whether you fire up the printing presses because that Sword of Damocles means you wont. Without a good bond rating it doesn't matter whether you can print your own money or not, no one will lend to you in your own currency without collateral.
  For that matter, nukes are overrated too, you just need a friend that has one.
  Germany is doing pretty good without either, Pakistan, not so much with both.
47. Re:Top Gun by jackbird · 2011-04-20 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Since the entire supply line to Stalingrad was (disastrously) by air, I think we can say with confidence that the availability of lots of extra labor on the home front doesn't have much to do with anything.
48. Re:Top Gun by cavreader · 2011-04-20 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  I believe he said a single plane not a single bomb. In any case the targets would have be sitting on each others laps to get them all squeezed together.
49. Re:Top Gun by timeOday · 2011-04-20 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Economic warfare is far more effective. China won both the war in Iraq and Afganistan by buying up resources and snagging reconstruction contracts, and without spending any money or political capital on military force.
  Is your definition of "economic warfare" not just plain old capitalism?
50. Re:Top Gun by jjk3 · 2011-04-20 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  I have heard that china can not invade taiwan due to lack of troop transports, but couldn't china rectify that quikcly, ie within a year. Its not like troop transports are new tech or anything? I'm seriously asking. Thanks, Joe
51. Re:Top Gun by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  For every hour the F-15 flies, it requires 7+ hours of service.
  They required that when they were brand new. Back in the early 80s people were advocating getting F-20s instead since they only needed 3-5 hours of maintenance per flight hour. To be honest I think you got that number wrong. 7+ sounds like an F-16, 10+ sounds like an F-15. Again, I'm recalling these numbers from back in the 80s.
52. Re:Top Gun by Iamthecheese · 2011-04-20 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  Ask and ye shall receive
  
  --
  If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
53. Re:Top Gun by stealth_finger · 2011-04-20 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  Thats what I get for knowing some damned geography.
  Next up "Why don't the Chinese just walk to Alaska and take the oil?"
  ...well?
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
54. Re:Top Gun by rtb61 · 2011-04-20 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the appropriate term for nuclear parity was 'MAD', just as any discussion about winning or losing once you start tossing around nuclear weapons is also 'MAD'.
  Any invasion of Taiwan by China would have to be diplomatically acceptable rather than a contest or arms. Any extreme militaristic action by China would be viewed as a global threat and as such threatens all countries, as a result of escalation.
  Apart from bluff and bluster, with the odd occasional egoistic rants from the autocrats who run China, those self same autocrats are far more concerned about feeding their lusts and egos than getting involved in a war where they most certainly will be personally targeted.
  That is the whole idea about precision targeting of munitions, target the leadership who would use them, well at least that should be the idea in order to really promote peace.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
55. Re:Top Gun by cavreader · 2011-04-20 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  Ah the good ole USSR. Stalin sacrificed hundreds of thousands of peasants when Germany was working their way through the country because his military was totally unprepared to fight. He needed time to raid their gulags for all the military officers and scientists he had put there. In fact the T-72 was designed by one of those retrieved from the Gulag. In Stalingrad their strategy consisted of sending more and more soldiers up against the Germans in a war of attrition helped along by the weather which prevented the Germans from re-supplying. If any Russian conscripted soldier tried to desert or didn't run into the meat grinder fast enough the officers summarily executed 1 in 10 soldiers in the deserters unit. When they got to Berlin the soldiers were given direct orders to rape, pillage, and kill anyone they could after Germany had surrendered. If the west had marched into the USSR they would have eventually run into the gulags that rivaled the Nazi death camps. The only difference was Germany applied engineering skills to setup the most efficient way to kill people where as the Soviets used starvation and privation to do the job. They held Germany POWs until 1954 and there was only 10% of the total POWS left to release. Then there was the little matter of them annexing every country they entered. The Russians did their part in the war but they relied on supplies from the West to re-start their military and if the Western allies had not went on the offensive Germany had enough soldiers and equipment to defeat the Russians handily. And the quoted figures of them causing 80% of German casualties doesn't take into account how many of that 80% were killed after Germany surrendered.
56. Re:Top Gun by flyingkillerrobots · 2011-04-20 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  England would not have fallen, but other than that, your assessment was more or less accurate. Operation Sea Lion was cancelled nearly a year before Hitler attempted to invade Russia, and Hitler's plans to invade England were long since scrapped by the time Barbarossa began.
  
  --
  "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
57. Re:Top Gun by Will.Woodhull · 2011-04-20 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  More to the point, we are one of China's best markets. And we want China to become an even better market for our stuff. This directly serves world peace.
  You do not pick fights with your customers. That's one of the most important rules of acquisition.
  
  --
  Will
58. Re:Top Gun by Will.Woodhull · 2011-04-20 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  Russia has always deliberately used winter as one of its defenses. That, and forcing invaders into logistic nightmares. Ask Napolean, he will tell you.
  
  --
  Will
59. Re:Top Gun by GooberToo · 2011-04-20 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  I said:
  
  You need to understand, the US' power multipliers literally allow a single plane with a single bomb to completely destroy an entire armored brigade. That's no hyperbole and no exaguration.
  To which you replied:
  
  Out of interest, what single bomb can kill 3-5.000 people?
  I screwed that up. I didn't mean to mislead there; though clearly I did. I meant to say, "...destroy an entire armored battalion." Brain fart on my part. But, you're also taking it too literally. From a military perspective, they are dead if their primary fighting units have been destroyed. So saying, "completely destroy..." does mean down to every last trigger finger. It means they are no longer a unit capable of effective fighting. When someone says something like, "That armored division is destroyed", they don't mean every last man; down to the mechanics well behind friendly lines. Rather, they mean all the armored units are destroyed or non-combat worthy. What's left would be absorbed into other units or it would be entirely re-constituted if re-enforcements allowed.
  Now then, to answer your question, the bomb is called the CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Cluster Bomb. Its a 1000lbs cluster bomb. The bomb itself is a dumb bomb (though a tail kit is available for it) but the bomblets are smart. One bomb can cover ~380 acres, destroying up to 40 armored vehicles; including main battle tanks; plus lots of infantry from shrapnel. Each bomblet is basically a fragmenting shape charge.
  I know many have been dropped in Iraq. In fact, I read an account of one being used during the early days of the Iraq invasion. One bomb destroyed some 20+ armored vehicles, including four or so heavy tanks plus a couple dozen infantry. The rest immediately surrendered. Before that single bomb was dropped, it was shaping up to be one of the larger armored engagements of the war. That didn't happen for obvious reasons.
  The main catch with this weapon now is conventional cluster bombs have been internationally outlawed. But, given the specific nature of this weapon, I don't believe it has been outlawed. I did some quick checking and couldn't find anything definitively, but easily find laymen arguing both sides of the coin. So who knows.
  Before the creation of this type of weapon, you were generally looking at 1-500lbs bomb per tank, an air-to-ground missile per tank, or direct fire from something like an A-10. The force multiplier here is extremely profound - especially given that its delivered via a 1000-lbs bomb, which means it can be carried by a variety of aircraft - unlike the MOAB.
60. Re:Top Gun by GooberToo · 2011-04-20 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I said a single plane with a single bomb - but I screwed up. Go back up to my original post and find the follow up post I made in reply to another's comment. That post details my correction and provides links. Sorry for the misrepresentation.
61. Re:Top Gun by phantomcircuit · 2011-04-20 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  Dying does not win wars. Killing does.
62. Re:Top Gun by jjohnson · 2011-04-20 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's your opinion. Is it China's?
  For decades, Rand analysts spun rosy scenarios about "winnable" nuclear wars where their carefully plotted, game-theoretic scenarios outlined steps like a chess game's that resulted in the USSR capitulating without the U.S. being a smoking ruin. In hindsight, such scenarios seem laughably naive. Why do they seem more plausible when we're talking about China in the future?
  
  --
  Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
63. Re:Top Gun by GooberToo · 2011-04-20 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  Likely, they wouldn't use their nukes unless there was a land invasion. The US wouldn't want to invade China for an endless list of reasons; almost none of which have anything to do with nuclear weapons.
  Besides, you're trying to play out scenarios which predicate an insane Chinese leader with generals willing to destroy their entire country. Not likely to happen.
64. Re:Top Gun by GooberToo · 2011-04-20 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about?
65. Re:Top Gun by GooberToo · 2011-04-20 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  That's your opinion. Is it China's?
  No, its not their opinion either. China has clearly signaled they would only use nukes if they were land invaded and to simply use them as MAD deterrence. Politics would play a huge role in any engagement with China because of the world economy implications, their nuclear capabilities, and the simple fact, no one wants to try to deal with the power vacuum of a toppled Chinese government.
66. Re:Top Gun by mcvos · 2011-04-20 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody is claiming that Stalin was a nice guy, or that Russia put up a heroic fight in the best plucky, stalwart, British tradition. Russia knowingly sacrificed millions of Russian lives. The fighting between Russians and Germans was dirty and inhuman on both sides, and completely unlike the rather civilized war on the western front. But no matter how dirty, ugly, inhuman and brutal it was, that doesn't change the fact that that is where Germany was defeated.
  Operation Overlord and the race from Normandy to Berlin wasn't about defeating Germany. Officially, sure, but the war was already lost to Germany no matter what the western allies did. It was really about keeping western Europe out of Russian hands. If you ask me, Normandy is where the Cold War started.
67. Re:Top Gun by sysrammer · 2011-04-20 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  Citizen of CCCP afforded opportunity for volunteering to great Proletariat struggle.
  ---
  Actually, it's not too uncommon. US did it in WWII, sending squadrons to China & Britain. Spanish Civil war, too, w/ the Lincoln battalion. Sometimes trained military, sometimes civvie volunteers.
  sr
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
68. Re:Top Gun by dave420 · 2011-04-20 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's "Britain" or the "United Kingdom", not "England". This isn't the 18th century :)
69. Re:Top Gun by dave420 · 2011-04-20 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  The North African front, while small, did tie up a lot of Germany's very-well-trained troops and command.
70. Re:Top Gun by Maximum+Prophet · 2011-04-21 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  It's financial Mutual Assured Destruction. We can threaten to cancel the debt, they can threaten to stop lending us money. Both would be bad for the world economy.
  
  If you owe the bank $1,000 and you can't pay, you're in trouble.
  If you owe the bank $1,000,000,000 and you can't pay, the bank is in trouble.
  If your country owes their country $10,000,000,000,000 and it can't pay, the World is in trouble...
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
71. Re:Top Gun by Kelbear · 2011-04-21 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, there's some difference. Economic warfare rests in a framework which includes "profit" as just one goal out of many. From this perspective profit is a part of a cycle of goals that feed into one another. Profit and increased resources feed prosperity at home, increased stability, and improved bargaining ability in foreign policy. All of which in turn feed into each other. Obviously capitalistic ambition is a major aspect of economic warfare, just not the only one.
  Capitalism is just profit-maximization, and profits directed purely towards additional profit, without secondary goals.
72. Re:Top Gun by unixfan · 2011-04-21 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  That's a technicality as to USSR taking Berlin. US troops wanted to take Berlin and were there way before USSR. But were ordered to let the Russians take it. Germany really fell largely to the US forces. The allies did most of the work before USSR came marching. This was an entirely political motivated move.
73. Re:Top Gun by jgtg32a · 2011-04-21 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  The US never signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions
74. Re:Top Gun by Sparrow1492 · 2011-04-21 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Mainland China and Taiwan's reelationship is better than it has been in decades. Taiwan realizes they can make nice with China and stil maintain independence. China realizes that they look better on teh international scene by playing nice with their "misinformed children".
75. Re:Top Gun by GooberToo · 2011-04-21 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Okay. Thanks. That explains why I found they were still selling the weapons. That's why I thought they were not outlawed.
76. Re:Top Gun by A10Mechanic · 2011-04-21 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed... but no more than 10 to 20 million killed. Depending on the breaks
77. Re:Top Gun by bryanbuckley · 2011-04-21 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. The impact of firebombing is somewhat overestimated.
  No one said it was just the firebombing...
78. Re:Top Gun by Nick+Ives · 2011-04-21 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, that's pretty incredible.
  With that kind of firepower I can see how it's possible to disable an entire brigade with a few planes and bombs.
  
  --
  Nick
79. Re:Top Gun by Cyberax · 2011-04-24 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  "Russia knowingly sacrificed millions of Russian lives."
  BZZZT! Wrong. Losses of the Red Army were comparable to the German Wehrmacht losses. Most casualties in the USSR were _civilians_ killed by Nazis and there was little Stalin could do about it. A million civilians died in the besieged Leningrad alone, for example.
  Again, Russian army was far from 'inhuman'. There were atrocities committed by it, of course, but they were not even in the same order of magnitude compared to Nazis. Just one small fact: rape was a crime in the Red Army and quite a few soldiers were summarily executed for it, while in the German army it was all but encouraged. Situation with POWs also was radically different, etc.
  So equating the USSR and Nazi forces is hypocritical at best.
80. Re:Top Gun by mcvos · 2011-04-24 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  How is it hypocritical? It might be wrong, but that's not the same thing as hypocritical.
  No doubt the nazis killed many Russian civilians, but that doesn't mean that the Red Army didn't consider individual soldiers' lives expendable too. During the early years of the war, the Red Army didn't bother with sophisticated infantry tactics, but simply attacked in massive infantry waves, most of which would die. And due to a lack of weapons, later waves were often unarmed and expected to pick up the weapons of their fallen comrades in earlier waves. Of course there were good strategic reasons for this; Russia had many people, and lacked the intensive training for officers that Britain and especially Germany had. They had to work with what they had, and one of the things they had was a culture where the lives of individuals were of less importance than the needs of the czar or the state.
  Later in the war, things improved a lot. In Stalingrad's streetfighting, Russian tactics often turned out to be superior to the German ones.
  It might be useful to point out that in WW1, almost every single country (with the possible exception of Germany) used tactics that were incredibly wasteful of human lives.
  As for atrocities, they were common on both sides on the eastern front. Germany was probably to blame for the incredible viciousness, because they started the entire war to gain living space towards the east. Space for Germans to live in, and therefore preferably not occupied by other people. With the German genocidal attitude, Russians are hardly to blame for fighting an equally ruthless war. And it paid off for them, but at an incredible cost in lives.
81. Re:Top Gun by Cyberax · 2011-04-24 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  "No doubt the nazis killed many Russian civilians, but that doesn't mean that the Red Army didn't consider individual soldiers' lives expendable too."
  Duh. Soldiers' lives are by definition expendable.
  "During the early years of the war, the Red Army didn't bother with sophisticated infantry tactics, but simply attacked in massive infantry waves, most of which would die."
  And that is totally not true, "mass unarmed infantry waves" are pure fiction. While there might have been few such cases, such waves are not possible from military standpoint (I'm a trained military reserve officer, btw). http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?122932-Soviet-quot-human-waves-quot - has a nice overview.
  "As for atrocities, they were common on both sides on the eastern front. Germany was probably to blame for the incredible viciousness, because they started the entire war to gain living space towards the east. Space for Germans to live in, and therefore preferably not occupied by other people."
  Again, atrocities were not even in the same order of magnitude. They were not comparable at all. It was not uncommon for Hitler's forces to exterminate the whole villages, for example, by burning everybody alive. Or to execute 100 civilians for each dead soldier.
  And while Red Army did commit some crimes mass executions of civilians were never sanctioned by direct orders. And it's fairly obvious by looking at the casualties:
  Red Army - 10,600,000 (total)
  Civilians in the USSR - around 20,000,000.
  Wehrmacht - 4,300,000.
  Civilians in Germany - around 600000, including post-war mass relocations.
Ugh the F-35... by blahplusplus · 2011-04-20 07:25 · Score: 1

... is just garbage and Australia and the RAND corporation SAYS it's garbage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITbGBmaqQkk
1. Re:Ugh the F-35... by h4rr4r · 2011-04-20 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Last I heard it was going to be more expensive than the F-22. WTF is the point of this aircraft?
  Look the airforce, navy and marines want different things, it will never be cheaper to try to kludge one plane into all these roles.
2. Re:Ugh the F-35... by MBGMorden · 2011-04-20 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  The F-35 was never intended to be the top dog of the skies. That's what the F-22 was designed for. The F-35 is essentially a budget fighter/attack craft. They're designed to get a lot of them into the sky for minimum money (yes, that "minimum" cost still sounds high outside of context, but for a fighter it's pretty low).
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
3. Re:Ugh the F-35... by h4rr4r · 2011-04-20 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the F-35 Block 3 was going to cost as much or more than an F-22?
4. Re:Ugh the F-35... by MBGMorden · 2011-04-20 07:44 · Score: 2
  
  I haven't seen any reports that puts them anywhere near the cost of an F-22.
  You have to think of it this way: MOST of the time we're not fighting the Chinas or Russias of the world. We're fighting small countries with air forces that might have a few dozen surplused 50 year old fighters. We simply don't need state of the art for those battles, so why waste the money on it.
  Bulk up the fleet with a cheaper plane that can do 99% of what our air forces need to do, and then keep a smaller number of F-22's ready for if we really do end up going to war with another superpower.
  Think of them like an Atom processor - "good enough" for most tasks, and more efficient and cost effective. You only splurge for a more limited number if i7's for the things that really need it :D.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
5. Re:Ugh the F-35... by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-20 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the per unit cost of the F-35 is high.
  F-35A - 122 million
  F-35B - 150 million
  F-35C - 140 million
  F-22A - 150 million
  Typhoon Tranche 3A - 131 million
  Rafale M - 90 million
  F-18E - 55 million
  JAS-39 - 60 million
  F-16E Block 60 - 65 million
6. Re:Ugh the F-35... by Richard_at_work · 2011-04-20 07:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The F-35 was supposed to be the replacement aircraft for the F/A-18, AV-8B Harrier and the F-16 - basically the mid-range strike fighter aircraft for the next 35 years for the USAF, USMC and the USN. It was also supposed to be a comparable replacement cost wise, with a lower cost per unit than the F-22 Raptor and lower maintenance than any of the aircraft it was replacing.
  
  The problem is, today its over budget, late and is still suffering from drastic design and development problems - the VSTOL variant is almost dead in the water, with the word around the industry that Lockheed needs to do a radical redesign of both the airframe and the lift system for the F-35B, with the result that the USMC has switched part of its order to the carrier borne variant instead.
  
  The lower maintenance cost requirement is going to be missed horrifically as well, with current estimates putting the aircraft to be more than 35% more expensive to maintain during its life than any of the aircraft it will be replacing.
  
  With over 1,600 airframes intended to be sold during its life, it was supposed to be the cheap next generation aircraft that would become the mainstay of the US air capability for the next quarter of a century, but instead its turned into a seriously overpriced, under performing white elephant.
  
  The F-35 was supposed to be second in the air only next to the F-22, it was supposed to be able to fight its way into a first world air defence zone, strike a ground target, and deal with any air threat whilst doing so - it was supposed to best anything the Russians or the Chinese could put in the sky.
  
  Currently, its just a big waste of time and money.
7. Re:Ugh the F-35... by h4rr4r · 2011-04-20 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Look at recent f-35 prices they are damn close these days. The predictions I read said they would soon cost more than an F22 if they did not already.
8. Re:Ugh the F-35... by MachDelta · 2011-04-20 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  "But in a subsequent statement the organisation says RAND did not compare the fighting qualities of particular aircraft."
  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/25/2373632.htm
  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/29/2377266.htm
  So it only *might* be an overpriced piece of junk. We don't know yet.
9. Re:Ugh the F-35... by h4rr4r · 2011-04-20 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Far more likely that Canada bought them long ago under a contract that even then was selling them at a loss to get volume. The US government would support that to keep US defense contractors busy.
10. Re:Ugh the F-35... by Dishevel · 2011-04-20 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Fly away costs are at about $150 million for each.
  F-35 cost keeps going up though.
  Soooo.....
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
11. Re:Ugh the F-35... by Slutticus · 2011-04-20 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  No, I don't think he's saying that at all. It would be more expensive sure, but certainly of far more value to have different aircraft that are actually designed to perfection for what the customers want. As the previous reply said: "jack of all trades, master of none." That is of course, only if the F-23 really is as shitty as people are making it out to be. I myself wouldn't turn one down. Imagine a VTOL landing in my work parking lot. Sweet.
12. Re:Ugh the F-35... by halivar · 2011-04-20 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Do you even know what you are talking about?
13. Re:Ugh the F-35... by c6gunner · 2011-04-20 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Last I heard it was going to be more expensive than the F-22.
  A source would be nice. Even the most pessimistic estimates I've seen still put it at less than half the price of the F-22.
14. Re:Ugh the F-35... by no-body · 2011-04-20 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  ... keep US defense contractors busy.
  They should go fix bridges, roads and build high-speed rail instead of building cocky big-boy toys!
  
  Not even considering the $$ and who lines whose pockets issue here.
15. Re:Ugh the F-35... by AndersOSU · 2011-04-20 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  There is no way to get reliable numbers on these planes. All their budgets are padded with money for black projects, and there is no reason to think the cost is spread proportionately.
16. Re:Ugh the F-35... by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-20 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Google it yourself, the figures are readily available, hint, look up each type on Wikipedia, there are good sources for each cost per plane.
17. Re:Ugh the F-35... by icebike · 2011-04-20 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  We simply don't need state of the art for those battles, so why waste the money on it.
  Bulk up the fleet with a cheaper plane that can do 99% of what our air forces need to do, and then keep a smaller number of F-22's ready for if we really do end up going to war with another superpower.
  For the states we have been going up against, the Ancient F16 does just fine.
  Keep a smaller number of F22s ready to maintain Air Superiority. The F16 is probably the most cost effective attack aircraft ever made. And yes, its been obsolete for 30 years. The saving grace is that everything any potential enemy has in quantity has been obsolete for longer.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
18. Re:Ugh the F-35... by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-20 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  The price is up to a 100 million now.
  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/29/cv-f35-costs.html
19. Re:Ugh the F-35... by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-20 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  We can take the prices the DoD tells Congress, the FMS prices and how much defense contractors like LockMart, EADS and Dassault are selling the planes for.
20. Re:Ugh the F-35... by ducomputergeek · 2011-04-20 09:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  In the past few wars, by far the most effective air craft have been the B-52 and the A-10. Most of the combat sorties have been air to ground. Problem is there really isn't anything to replace the A-10 in terms of being able to fly low, slow, take a lot of hits, and dish it out. An A-10 can loiter around a kill box for a couple hours for on call close air support. I believe the loiter time for an F-16 is about 30 minutes before they have to go tank up again with fuel.
  Drones are starting to fufill this role, but they can't carry the sheer amount of bombs, rockets, missiles, and the 30mm anti-tank gun the A-10's could.
  Thing is about the A-10 is the generals never wanted it because it ain't a sleek sexy fighter jet.
  
  --
  "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
21. Re:Ugh the F-35... by mosb1000 · 2011-04-20 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  The obvious difference is the F35B is a carrier launch vehicle, while the F22 is not. Since the US likes to maintain a global military presence, the F22 alone won't cut it. As for the replacement cost, I haven't seen one for the F35 yet, but I wouldn't be surprised is it matches or exceeds the $70 million it costs to replace an F22 (especially the vertical landing version). The aircraft are similar in terms of materials and technologies used, so it should cost about the same to make them. The main reason you'd think an F22 might be more expensive is it is larger and has 2 engines instead of one. But if you really think about it, that doesn't have much to do with the overall cost of a fighter craft these days.
  As for your second point, the three variants really do constitute three different aircraft in terms of their capabilities. But using the same general design and the same parts where possible cuts down on the overall development cost. Since they need to upgrade the aircraft used for all three roles, it makes sense to kill three birds with one stone, so to speak.
22. Re:Ugh the F-35... by mosb1000 · 2011-04-20 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  I don't usually like to nit-pick, but the F16 is a fighter aircraft, not an attack aircraft (that's what the F stands for). "A" stands for attack (like the A10), that's why you see the newer hornets with the F/A18 label. The distinction is that fighters are intended for air to air combat, while attack aircraft are air to ground.
23. Re:Ugh the F-35... by mosb1000 · 2011-04-20 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  They are talking about replacing the A-10 with the F-35 down the road.
24. Re:Ugh the F-35... by Coward+Anonymous · 2011-04-20 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretty much what was said about about the F-15s, F-16s and F-18s when they were developed. That they wouldn't hold a candle to the Soviet MiGs of their day. They went on to dominate the skies for the same reason that the F-22 and F-35 or their replacements will - the American method of developing weapons is better than any authoritarian system.
25. Re:Ugh the F-35... by tnk1 · 2011-04-20 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  First, there is one thing you need to understand about the costs of fighters and things that have new R&D and advanced production behind them. The "cost" of the plane depends entirely on the number of planes slated for the production run that will pay back the research costs. In that article, they talk about a "curve" which is basically the unit price of an F-35 at some point in time.
  It's all about expected volume of the finished units.
  Initially, the company will sell the planes at a price that includes recouping the remaining research and development costs, as well as costs of starting up the production lines. That is always high and it is the "big boy" price or the "early adopter" premium.
  At a certain point, the R&D costs and production line start-up costs will be recouped and the planes will start costing what it actually takes to build them. That is the bottom of the curve and is the "mass production" part. There are sometimes innovations in production that can drive the price even lower, just like with any product that there is a lot of experience producing.
  Depending on needed fixes and upgrades, the planes may have incremental "block upgrade" R&D which will also need to be recouped as well.
  Therefore, it is important to understand that the unit price of a plane can actually go up as fewer units are ordered and down as more are ordered. The price will be the lowest when the R&D is paid off and enough planes are ordered to keep the existing production lines going regularly, but not so many that new lines need to be opened.
  Also, because production line start-ups are expensive, you will find that Congress is forced to do things like buy small batches of units at stated intervals at an inflated price in order to ensure that the production lines can be justified to stay open.
  Conversely, Congress and the producer also might have to guarantee a lower unit price for a certain window to make sure that partners stay on board even before R&D is up. The deficit will likely have to be made up by spreading it across later production units, further inflating the price for customers without the lock-in.
  Export markets help a lot at this stage not just because of the extra business, but also because it keeps production lines busy without the home government having to buy planes to prop the lines up. Incidentally, this is a big reason the F-35 is favored over the F-22: it has less super-secret tech, so it can be exported more readily. This means that the US will pay less in the long run to keep the capability to produce more F-35s available.
  Another thing to bear in mind is that the price is averaged over the 3 F-35 variants, the regular land based plane (F-35A), the Harrier-like VSTOL F-35B and the Naval version for regular carriers the F-35C. In terms of expense, the A is obviously the cheapest, the C is next due to extra strengthening, arrestor gear, folding wings and changes for working regularly over water. The B is the most expensive of all, mostly because the vertical lift system has been very expensive to get right and due to additional systems to do the thrust changes to make it work as a VSTOL craft.
  Compared to the F-22, the F-35A is much, much more economical and has much higher potential for export in the near term. However, if you average the F-22 against the average cost of all variants, you will start getting getting close in price. I think, though, that it is not fair to compare the costs on a 1:1 basis, since you are comparing a land-based superiority fighter with a more multi-role fighter with navalized and VSTOL variants. There is no navalized F-22 and certainly no VSTOL F-22. They didn't even have to think about it when they designed the F-22.
  At some point, of course, despite the mitigating factors I listed above, research, production and maintenance issue could cause the F-35 to be *truly* more expensive than the F-22 even in a relative sense, but that point is much farther away in an apples to apples sense than the unit pricing would indicate.
26. Re:Ugh the F-35... by icebike · 2011-04-20 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Shhhhhh, not so loud.
  The Airforce hasn't figured that out and has been using F-16s in ground attack roles for years and years.
  http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/f-16-upgrades.htm
  
  USAF Block 40/42s and 50/52s and NATO's F-16s will have common core avionics and software. With the recent software upgrade, these aircraft will have the capability to deploy support smart weapons with inertial, GPS and laser guidance systems, supporting advanced weapons such as the GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW), CBU-103/104/105 Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) and EGBU-27 enhanced laser-guided bombs.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
27. Re:Ugh the F-35... by mosb1000 · 2011-04-20 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  You use what you've got. The F-16 was not originally designed for that purpose, and a cost effective attack aircraft it is not.
28. Re:Ugh the F-35... by icebike · 2011-04-20 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Not cost effective? Says Who?
  Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Israel, India, and 22 other countries seem to disagree with you. Almost all the NATO airforces have chose to proceed with the Ground Attack updates to their fleet rather than invest in F/A-18 or Tornadoes.
  F-16C/D had a unit cost of US$18.8 million. Its replacement, the F35 is $150mil.
  I'd say that was pretty cost effective, especially for smaller countries.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
29. Re:Ugh the F-35... by quacking+duck · 2011-04-20 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Where does the $70 million replacement cost for an F-22 come from? Per Wikipedia, the per-aircraft costs are either $300+ M (total program cost including R&D), $150M (excluding R&D and support), or $138 (marginal cost).
  I ask because cost of F-35s are a big deal in Canada right now, it's indirectly one reason why we're in an election right now (though it's not a major issue with voters).
  In trying to replace our aging F-18 aircraft, the minority Conservative government claimed that the sole-sourced purchase price for F-35s would be about $70M per aircraft. Every expert and even US analysts said this was an unrealistically low price, and the very low-end would be closer to $130M per. The Conservatives then refused to provide parliamentary committee with details of how they came up with those numbers. Along with other incidents of obstructing (or outright lying to) Parliament, the opposition parties finally voted to find the Conservatives in contempt of parliament (read: lie to the public all you want, but disrespect the old boy's club and you're history), thus toppling the government and triggering the election.
  I'm all for replacing our obsolete F-18s, but the F-35 is not an ideal candidate. Aside from the unrealistically lowballed cost, we've always favoured 2-engine fighters, in case one fails while covering the largely empty expanse that is our country.
30. Re:Ugh the F-35... by mosb1000 · 2011-04-20 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  As an attack aircraft, it is much less effective than one of these even though it is significantly more expensive. Of course, the US is the sole operator of the A-10.
31. Re:Ugh the F-35... by mosb1000 · 2011-04-20 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, that was a typo. Their replacement cost is $140 million. I don't think the US would sell F-22s to Canada. But it is a more suitable aircraft for the job.
32. Re:Ugh the F-35... by icebike · 2011-04-20 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  The A10 is designed strictly as a tank killer. Its Slow.
  Its not going to do well when it has to dash in several hundred miles and take out a bridge, a runway, or large buildings. And if anything else shows up to defend said bridge or building, it can't drop its payload and fight air-to-air.
  Seriously, are you nuts? The A10 is a single purpose aircraft that even the Airforce wants to get rid of.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
33. Re:Ugh the F-35... by mosb1000 · 2011-04-20 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  The point I was originally trying to make is that attack aircraft are designed attack ground targets, while fighter aircraft are designed for air to air. Your post here more or less reinforces the point that an F-16 is not an attack aircraft. Speed does not work to your benefit when you're trying to hit targets on the ground. The A-10 is a straight wing aircraft (slow) which is heavily armored (for an aircraft) and can carry a lot of ordinance. This is ideally what you'd like to see in an aircraft designed to provide close air support for people on the ground. It is not designed strictly as a tank killer, but it is designed strictly to hit targets which are on the ground, which is where you find tanks. The F-16, is much faster (which is not beneficial to an attack aircraft), it doesn't carry as much ordinance, and it can't take as much abuse as an A-10.
  You say the Air Force want's to get rid of them, but the Air-Force isn't planning to replace them until at least 2028. That's because they work well in their current role, which is attacking ground targets.
  I'm sure there are a lot of countries that have a smaller military and would rather use their fighter aircraft in an attack role. That doesn't mean they're suited for it, it just means they're using what they've got.
34. Re:Ugh the F-35... by Nimey · 2011-04-20 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  I expect it'll want to show its private parts to its friends.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
35. Re:Ugh the F-35... by icebike · 2011-04-20 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly you know nothing about what you are talking about, and haven't been paying attention to Iraq or Afghanistan.
  There weren't any A-10s employed in taking out Iraq's infrastructure or attacking Taliban hideouts. They are all FA-18s and large numbers of F16s and Strike Eagles (F15s).
  The A-10 a single purpose aircraft. Its a tank killer and that is ALL it is ever used for. It has no other purpose.
  You are comparing an A-10 with 16,000 pounds of payload that can reach mach .56 with a range of 800 miles with
  an F16 that can carry 17,000 pounds at mach 2, for a range of 2600 miles and defend itself in the process.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
36. Re:Ugh the F-35... by ColdWetDog · 2011-04-20 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  Bulk up the fleet with a cheaper plane that can do 99% of what our air forces need to do, and then keep a smaller number of F-22's ready for if we really do end up going to war with another superpower.
  The cheaper and more sensible way to do this would be to just keep the F16 / F18 fighters on an upgrade and replace cycle. They're still better than pretty much anything else out there. Christ, we're still flying C-130's. Sometimes enough is enough.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
37. Re:Ugh the F-35... by MBGMorden · 2011-04-20 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  The A-10 has a far greater missions versatility than you think. Yes, it's a bit slow, but it's faster than any helicopter you might send, and it carries an air-to-ground payload capability that dwarfs the F-16. Also, though I certainly wouldn't want to depend on it, it also DOES carry a limited number of air-to-air missiles for defending itself. Realistically you can also simply design your mission around having a few fighters come in with the A-10's as an escort in case anything else shows up.
  The Air Force is in no hurry at all to get rid of the Warthog.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
38. Re:Ugh the F-35... by morkk · 2011-04-20 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  the American method of developing weapons is better than any authoritarian system
  Yep, in China the inevitable corruption enriches only the generals and the politicians, whereas in America the corruption enriches the generals, the politicians AND the CEO - a clearly superior method.
39. Re:Ugh the F-35... by icebike · 2011-04-20 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  and it carries an air-to-ground payload capability that dwarfs the F-16.
  No. It doesn't. 16,000 pounds, vs the F16's 17,000 pounds.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
40. Re:Ugh the F-35... by mosb1000 · 2011-04-20 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  There weren't any A-10s employed in taking out Iraq's infrastructure or attacking Taliban hideouts.
  The A-10 was, in fact, deployed in both those wars, and was used for a variety of missions serving as close air support. Not just taking out tanks, but any targets on the ground. If you know the location of you target in advance, and you want to drop a bomb on them, it doesn't make much sense to send an A-10 because they take longer to get there and are vulnerable in the process. But if you are supporting ground troops, it makes a lot of sense to send an A-10 because it can stick with them and engage targets as they come up.
41. Re:Ugh the F-35... by mcvos · 2011-04-20 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  You use what you've got. The F-16 was not originally designed for that purpose, and a cost effective attack aircraft it is not.
  The F-16 is not designed for any single purpose. It's a multi-role fighter. It can fill different roles, including that of fighter-bomber. Of course it's never going to be as effective as a specialized aircraft in any of those roles.
42. Re:Ugh the F-35... by mcvos · 2011-04-20 22:06 · Score: 1
  
  But as an air-superiority fighter, it's quite a bit more effective than an A-10. The A-10 is a specialist, the F-16 is a jack-of-all-trades.
43. Re:Ugh the F-35... by sysrammer · 2011-04-20 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  "The A10 is a single purpose aircraft that even the Airforce wants to get rid of."
  Generals didn't like them 'cause they're not sexy. Ground pounders love them.
  They were close to retirement in '91 when Iraq 1 proved their worth.
  sr
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
44. Re:Ugh the F-35... by Sparrow1492 · 2011-04-21 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  The C-130s being flown today might as well be a different aircraft than the A models that came into service in the '50s. The Air Force is moving to J-models today which is a completely new airframe. The key is that it doesn't really need to change what it does as a theater level regional airlifter so the model upgrade path can work. That's not the case for fighters. The F-15/F-16/F-18s being flown today, with the exception of the Super Hornet are all 4th gen fighters that are outclassed by newer airframes like the MiG-35. US tactics and training help them carry the edge today, but the truth is that these airframes bring many nations a lot closer to fighter parity than the US can afford to have. Incremental improvements like slapping an AESA radar on F-15s can help, but that's a stopgap at best.
45. Re:Ugh the F-35... by mosb1000 · 2011-04-21 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be looking at the amount the rails can hold. But if you compare the loaded weight of the aircraft to the maximum takeoff weight, you can see that the A-10 can take off with a bit more ordinance than an F-16, though I wouldn't say it dwarfs it. Look at the armament list on the wikipedia page, you'll see that the A-10 can carry 8 AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles while the F-16 can carry only 6.
46. Re:Ugh the F-35... by Sparrow1492 · 2011-04-21 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  No it's not. There's no denying that there are black programs pulling the defense budget, but with a high vis program with a lot of congressional oversight like the F-35, the programs numbers will give an accurate view of the cost per plane. The DOD has had a lot of attention on aquisition recently that has driven thsi. The final numbers are still in flux though as the program goes through inevitable developmental problems.
47. Re:Ugh the F-35... by Coward+Anonymous · 2011-04-22 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about the flow of money. It's about the flow of ideas. The U.S. system of production (as a whole, not just militarily) is superior because of the free flow of people, ideas and information. The proof is in the U.S. arsenal (as well as doctrine) which has been repeatedly proven to be vastly superior to anything around it over the long haul.
That's all well and good... by DaftDev · 2011-04-20 07:26 · Score: 1

...but can it run Crysis?
1. Re:That's all well and good... by Dishevel · 2011-04-20 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  No.
  That is yet one more thing it can not do.
  At least though they never said it would.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Great more money wasted by hairyfeet · 2011-04-20 07:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

On a project that is already behind and overbudget. Wonderful, especially while the reps are trying to cripple aid to the poor and handicapped.
And WTF do we need the F35 for exactly? Who the hell are we gonna fight that a well trained pilot in the F18 or even the F15-F16 won't be at the very least an even match? The Russians aren't building any new birds, the best they have is the Mg31 and those are rare, most of their is the MG 27 and SU27 which are 70s era tech. The Chinese? From the looks of their "stealth bird" it will be primitive as far as stealth and looks to be more for a national pride thing than a serious build up.
The rest of the world consists of threats of irregulars with ex Soviet hardware, most of it out of date and falling apart. hell the Brits are so desperate for targets in Libya just to give them an excuse to keep the Typhoon (their personal money hole) that they are blowing up abandoned tanks that the Libyans left rotting for lack of parts years ago just to have some footage to show the public.
This is stupid, its pointless, and it is nothing but more handouts to the top 1%ers in the MIC at a time when we can't afford it. We could have 10s of thousands of top o the line drones for less than this stupid ass plane, they would be cheaper, wouldn't risk multimillion dollar pilots, and are simple to replace. The age of fighter jocks is at an end, it is time for the government to face it and quit pissing money down a rathole.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
1. Re:Great more money wasted by h4rr4r · 2011-04-20 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  MiG 31 is an ancient plane, I think you mean Su30. The Su30 is an update to the Su27 platform.
2. Re:Great more money wasted by kevinNCSU · 2011-04-20 07:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Not that I think the F-35 is a good decision, but the ability of the United States to project power has been based on their military technology (especially air-force) having a FAR better then "even match" ratio.
3. Re:Great more money wasted by O('_')O_Bush · 2011-04-20 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_generation_jet_fighter
  
  Both the Chinese and Russians are in the process of developing 5th gen fighters. The Chinese are still a decade off, but the Russians are not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA You also can't make any assumptions about the Chinese 5th Gen. The Chinese aren't stupid, and neither are they poor. Their top 25% is greater than our entire population, and they're trying to push out 600,000 engineers/year. To dismiss their ability to focus and solve a problem is pretty egotistical.
  
  You're talking as if the world doesn't change. I'm pretty sure the rest of the military know better, and are planning ahead. Right now there is a big lull in nation scale war, but as peak oil becomes more apparent, global warming pressures cause droughts, and other factors start entering the world stage, it's stupid to assume the world is going to remain relatively peaceful and stable forever.
  
  Besides that, the F-35 is supposed to be the cheaper and more flexible version of the plane that is supposed to challenge the next generation of fighters (F-22). Complaining about how expensive and unnecessary the F-35 will be requires you ignore the practical alternatives... which all seem to be more costly.
  
  --
  while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
4. Re:Great more money wasted by LWATCDR · 2011-04-20 08:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Who the hell are we gonna fight that a well trained pilot in the F18 or even the F15-F16 won't be at the very least an even match? "
  Do you know what the prize is for second place in air combat? A tombstone.
  I love strong opinion with weak knowledge. You go on about how the Russians planes are all 70s tech. Well they are not and lets just go through the list of current US aircraft shall we?
  F-15 first flight 1972 entered service 1976. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle.
  F-16 first flight 1974 entered service 1978 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16
  F-18 first flight 1978 entered service 1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18
  F-18E first flight 1995 entered service 1999 I will give the Super Hornet second timeline since it really is a massive update to the Hornet and really isn't the same aircraft even if it derived from it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet
  So all of your examples are all based on 70s tech. Some of it early 70s tech. Yes they have been upgraded over the years but the basic airframes are all from the 1970s except for the F-18E/F which is sort of from the 90s.
  And the F-15 was considered way to expensive when new. The thing is that we will be flying the F-22 and probably the F-35 for the next 30 plus years. You do not build a new fighter for the threats of today but for the threats 20 years from now. And the Mig-31 isn't really a fighter it is an interceptor The real current threats from from the SU-3x line of fighters but I am guessing that you are not really into military aviation that much. Nice to see that you lack of knowledge didn't stop you from voice such a long and loud opinion.
  BTW the problem with drones is now and will be for a while is bandwidth. It takes a lot of bandwidth to uplink all the sensor data that a modern combat aircraft can gather and then you have the problem of time of signal for control. Until the drones are autonomous and pick pick their own targets "Wow how about that for a really bad idea?" and can handle air to air combat on their own they will be server limits to what they can do vs a manned aircraft.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
5. Re:Great more money wasted by vlm · 2011-04-20 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Amusingly one design goal of the F-22 was to reduce cost of ownership over the F-15 ... didn't turn out that way, feature creep will kill any aerospace project, look at the shuttle. But at least that's one reason why they started the project.
  Also the mig-27 was retired by the russians when I was a little kid, and they gave them to 3rd world countries. You're probably thinking of something like the new mig-35 which is arguably just a highly modernized -29.
  Of course we could have built a modernized F15 to compete with the -35 instead of striking out in new territory...
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
6. Re:Great more money wasted by Richard_at_work · 2011-04-20 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Your point about the Typhoons isn't valid in the context you give - half of all targets hit in Libya have been estimated to be already unusable. For example, in the first wave of strikes, some of the primary targets were airfields that hadn't been used in a decade, TU-22 Blinder bombers that have sat on jacks and been covered in moss for 20 years and hardened aircraft shelters that house airframes that have long been stripped to the bone to keep a handful of other aircraft in the air.
  
  Yes, the UK has a problem with the Typhoon, but its largely of the making of the British Government and not of the aircraft itself - the massive row recently about the RAF spending several hundred million British Pounds in adding an austere air-to-ground capability to its Tranche 1 Typhoons and then promptly putting them back on QRA rather than sending them to Afghanistan to use that new bombing capability...? What else is the RAF going to do when the government is against funding an actual supply chain thats worthy of the name? How can the RAF deploy an aircraft to a combat situation when its putting brand new aircraft straight into long term storage the moment they land from their delivery flight from BAE, just so they can be stripped down for spare parts to keep older aircraft in the air?!
  
  How can the RAF deploy aircraft on a long term mission when it doesn't have the pilots to carry out rotations? The RAF has 46 aircraft delivered, while having only 49 pilots trained to an operational level. Only 8 of those pilots are current on the air-to-ground capability, thats not enough to carry out an operational deployment in a combat zone.
  
  The British government is falling over itself to push the image that the Typhoon has a problem, even to the point of criticising the RAF for purchasing 60 aircraft that it will retire just 10 years after receiving them - if you don't know what I am talking about, the RAF is being pushed to retire the Tranche 1 Typhoons rather than upgrade them to the latest Tranche 2 or Tranche 3 standard, citing "incompatabilities in the airframe versions" - which is pure bullshit since the Austrian Eurofighters were delivered as Tranche 1 aircraft, with the Eurofighter consortium selling them on the basis that the upgrade to Tranche 2 would be done for no cost to the customer. It can't be that expensive if the consortium are offering to do it for free...
  
  No, what the government want is less aircraft in operation - we have already sold batches of our production run to Austria and Saudi Arabia without any promise that extra aircraft would be ordered to make up for the short fall in deliveries to the RAF. If rumours prove to be true, our Tranche 3 aircraft (due to be delivered by the end of this decade) will be further reduced by a similar sale to Oman - again with no guarantees that any replacement aircraft will be ordered. If it stands as it currently does, the RAF will be reduced to just 96 Typhoons delivered and in service by the end of this decade.
7. Re:Great more money wasted by supercrisp · 2011-04-20 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I worry that, like the B-2, the F-35 will be mission-incapable due to expense and maintenance requirements.
8. Re:Great more money wasted by Dishevel · 2011-04-20 08:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You 02c has been determined to be worthless.
  Second sentence.
  
  Wonderful, especially while the reps are trying to cripple aid to the poor and handicapped.
  Anyone who believes that the Republicans are Worse than the Democrats or the other way around has no opinion of merit.
  Neither gives a shit about you. They both only want more power for the government.
  They only differ in what they tell you is the reason for grabbing more power.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
9. Re:Great more money wasted by Captain+Splendid · 2011-04-20 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Too true. I remember being a little surprised that the F-14, whose cultural heyday was the mid-80s, had been in service since the early 70s.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
10. Re:Great more money wasted by C0vardeAn0nim0 · 2011-04-20 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  you're completelly out of touch with reality, aren't you ?
  since the break-up of the soviet union, the ruskies already fielded the mig-29M2, su-30, su-34, su-35 and they're already testing the PAK-FA, a stealth fighter they're developing in partnership with india.
  and even if the chinese stealth proves to be "primitive", if it comes out at a much lower price, they can field them in larger numbers, which will give them an advantage by sheer numbers. it's like stalin said: "quantity have a quality of it's own".
  
  --
  What ? Me, worry ?
11. Re:Great more money wasted by ducomputergeek · 2011-04-20 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  The major problem is the airframes the airforce are flying are between 25 - 40 years old. There are only so many hours you can long on one before it has to be retired. While most have be refitted and upgraded, the fighters them selves are 1960's/early 70's design.
  Still I don't see a massive number of F-35's being built. A few will be needed to replaced aging F-16 airframes, but the future are drones and everyone knows it. You may need a few piloted air craft for certain missions, but a lot of it can be done with drones these days.
  
  --
  "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
12. Re:Great more money wasted by thrich81 · 2011-04-20 09:51 · Score: 2
  
  The issue is somewhat more complicated than you make it out to be. In no particular order ... The F-35 and F-22 will outperform the older fighters but are they so superior as to make up for the fewer numbers we can buy? We had similar arguments in the '80s about whether it was better to have 4 F-15s or 40 MIG-21s in a combat situation -- luckily we never had to find out. And many of the improvements in the new aircraft are to radars and other avionics which can be integrated into new builds of the older airframes. Aerodynamically, the F-16 and F-18 are currently limited by the pilot's abilities to stay conscious during the maneuvers in some (not all) regimes anyway. Given a choice between a few F-22/F-35s and twice or three times as many F-18Es, considering that with the cheaper aircraft you can afford to fly more, train more, and afford to lose one every once in a while I don't know that it is a clear choice. The F-22/F-35 are probably the last generation of manned fighters, maybe we could have gotten away with F-18Es and upgraded F-15s as the last, as the drones come in and take on more of the actual combat. I will admit that stealth is the big attribute which the new fighters have which can't be built into the old airframes. It might make the new ones worth it.
13. Re:Great more money wasted by RobertinXinyang · 2011-04-20 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  "Do you know what the prize is for second place in air combat? A tombstone."
  You dial to mention that it is not just one tombstone, it is many. The entire US battle doctrine assumes air superiority. Even air parity would lead to significantly more US combat deaths in nearly all operations. I am not just talking about twice as many, I am speaking of several orders of magnitudes.
  Further, there are savings that can come from an environment of assumed air superiority. As an example, a recent article in the peer reviewed Air and Space Power Journal called for the increased purchase of the BT-67.
  For those who do not know, the BT-67 is an updated DC-3. That's right, a plane introduced in 1936 is still in service and production. Further, we are buying more. The fact that this aircraft is projected to see over 100 years of service life is made possible because it faces no significant air superiority threats. Having only air parity, and not superiority, has hidden costs that must be considered in the discussion of the cost of air superiority, not only now; but, into the future.
14. Re:Great more money wasted by RobertinXinyang · 2011-04-20 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  That was supposed to say, "you fail to mention," not, "you dial to mention."
15. Re:Great more money wasted by hairyfeet · 2011-04-20 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Again you and the others are making a massive mistake, in assuming it is an either or prop when it could just as easily be neither. Did i say NO aircraft? No I said that drones can do it faster, cheaper, and be a better value and I stand by that statement.
  As another pointed out do to all the safety and extra gear required for pilots you are looking at a 20 year from drawing board to battlefield, and with tech advancing as it is that is just ridiculous. So either we adopt the old Soviet attitude of "fuck the pilots they are replaceable" which considering how much we spend training them wouldn't be smart, or we come up with a way to get birds from drawing to battlefield MUCH quicker, and the obvious answer is drones.
  With the new advances in VR and sims you could have a SINGLE pilot drive an entire fleet of drones, have them fly themselves into the mission area and then have the pilot do the actual target acquisition and prosecution. When you add in the psychological factor of being able to shoot down dozens without hurting a single American pilot, being able to make quick designs due to the fact that if it crashes because of some later found flaw you're not making someone a widow, and the fact that with drones they can perform maneuvers that would frankly turn a human body into a bag of broken bones and mush?
  I'm sorry, but you and the others are making the assumption that continuing on the current path is the way to go, I say you couldn't be more wrong. Just as Pre WWII the battleship was the premier weapon yet was quickly found to be worthless in the face of air power, so too is the day of the fighter jock ending. The next gen superpower will keep their valuable pilots in trailers in the middle of nowhere, flying fleets of war machines that can cross the planet and do turns that Tom Cruise would pop like a zit if attempting.
  Finally we all know that going to war with a nuclear power is suicide, so the USA going to war with Russia and China is frankly off the table unless we just want to end the world. So most likely our enemies in the future will all be in the middle east or rogue states like NK. Even if they were supplied with Russian and Chinese tech a stealth drone fleet would slaughter them while costing peanuts compared to the F35. I stand by my statement: It is pointless, it is a waste, it is nothing but pork for congress and a blank check to the MIC, nothing more. Or are we forgetting what a money sink the F22 was?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
16. Re:Great more money wasted by DerekLyons · 2011-04-20 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Great more money wasted n a project that is already behind and overbudget.
  The simulator was almost certainly contracted for and ordered years ago. Canceling it would have saved almost nothing (and probably would have cost in contract termination fees and having to pay to have it scrapped) while crippling the training and possibly costing the lives of future pilots.
17. Re:Great more money wasted by robot256 · 2011-04-20 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  If you build in the new avionics to the old airframes, doesn't that go a long way toward negating the cost difference? Isn't stealth our main advantage against sophisticated targets? Half of our potential opponents only have significant weapon capability because we sold it to them, so going at them with the same tech would not be like taking candy from a baby, which is how we like our wars.
  And again, we are building to deal with the threats of the next 30 years--does that really include dogfights with swarms of Russian or Chinese fighters? Or just more wars of choice against "terrorists" and "evil dictators"? I find it hard to believe that all-out conventional warfare would go that far before nuclear missiles became the primary threat, at which point fighters would be useless.
  The whole decision is so complicated that it's tempting to fall back to the baseline political requirement: lining the pockets of contractors to no coherent end.
18. Re:Great more money wasted by Dishevel · 2011-04-20 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  It is.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
19. Re:Great more money wasted by LWATCDR · 2011-04-20 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes and no. The F-15 and F-16 also lack stealth "reduced radar cross section" and can not super cruise. Frankly I feel the F-35s lack of supercruise is one of it's big downsides as well as the cost of the VSTOL version.
  Also you as airframes get old they also get more expensive to keep flying. You mentioned upgrades and that brings me back to an idea I had a few decades ago. I thought wouldn't it be great if you upgraded the F-8 With a modern turbofan, new avionics, and maybe a composite wing. It would be the best F-8 ever. The problem is that it would be 90% the cost of an F-16 with 70% of the performance and with an old airframe that is just going to bet more and more expensive to keep in the air.
  An F-15 would not equal the F-22 and the F-16 will not match the F-35. Of course the F-15 is going to be inservice until at least 2025 or maybe longer. The F-4 didn't retire until 1996. Not bad since first flight was in 1958. Or almost 40 years. There is lots of room for debate but way too many people just repeat other's words with no real understanding and then have the ego to call those that disagree with them idiots.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
20. Re:Great more money wasted by ice_cream_man · 2011-04-20 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  Regarding Drones: We've had BVR (beyond visual range) Air-to-air( AA) missiles for years. But the Rules of engagement (ROE) still require positive visual ID by the pilot (a human),negating the advantage of the range of our missiles and AA radars. (Remember the Iranian Airbus and the Vincennes? I know no one on our ship feels good about it, if those were really innocent pilgrims on that plane.). How could we leverage the cheap, VERY capable drones under such concerns? We geeks are pushing our technologies beyond where we are comfortable to exploit the advantages. I'm not saying this is bad, but in general we require human in the loop, which requires a situational awareness beyond our AI abilities. Remember Skynet became aware yesterday...
21. Re:Great more money wasted by hairyfeet · 2011-04-20 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  The answer to that is right in front of you. What are you reading this on? A screen, and with the current HUDs there isn't ANY difference between the pilot looking at a screen while his body is being stressed by G-Forces ( I would argue this would in fact make pilots worse than drone pilots, as they are not having their brains slammed around and thus can concentrate on the data at hand) and a pilot looking at the same screen while sitting in a simulator.
  Look, lets just cut the bullshit, okay? We ALL KNOW that the future is drones. you know it, I know it, anyone with common sense knows it. We are ALREADY capable of making planes that will kill the pilots before reaching their G-Force limits, and we simply can't make tougher humans ATM. With a drone you can build a Mach 3+ craft that can withstand 11+ G turns, can drive itself halfway across the planet, never gets tired, and if it gets shot down, so what? The most expensive thing will be the pilot's training, and he's safe at the base.
  I'm sorry but in the end this is just more pork barrel bullshit, a waste of limited resources when we are already stretched too thin and our reps (by reps I mean representatives not republicans. I consider both groups to be two sides of the same shit stained coin) are looking to fuck the poor and disabled while not doing shit about spiraling costs. No we simply can't afford this waste, and if China wants to build an ePeen I say let them. We can field 1000 drones for every F35, and have them faster, more deadly, cheaper, and in every way BETTER than a human piloted craft. We just need to face it that like the battleship human piloted warbirds are simply past their time.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
What I don't get by ComputerGeek01 · 2011-04-20 07:35 · Score: 2

What I don't understand about this is how you build a simulator for a craft that only a handful of people have flown, is in limited production and for which there is no combat data in existence. I know that test pilots take their jobs pretty seriously but can they really have tried all of the stupid things that ALL of the multinational end-users are going to try?
1. Re:What I don't get by b0bby · 2011-04-20 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  FTA "utilization of a significant amount of real aircraft parts and source code will allow us to train a wide variety of mission tasks previously not accomplished in simulators". As long as they get the physics right, it should be pretty realistic.
2. Re:What I don't get by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-04-20 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  "The key to perfection lies not in never making mistakes; but in making sure nobody can see them."
  
  If the flight data are that limited, a sim based on a good model of the aircraft's shape and systems(which presumably was created during the design phase) is going to be substantially more accurate than the experiences of all but a few people on earth.
3. Re:What I don't get by Tom9729 · 2011-04-20 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  This may be naive but I think the point of a simulator is to model the plane's physical properties (things the engineer's already know, e.g. how much it weighs, how fast it can go) as closely as possible SO THAT you can use the computer to figure out the same things a test pilot would figure out without the risk an expense. It's probably also easier when the design changes to update the simulator than it is to update the prototypes.
4. Re:What I don't get by kevinNCSU · 2011-04-20 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Probably the same way they built simulators for Space missions before they went to space? I'd also guess that the software can probably be given updates as new things are discovered and changes to the planes are made.
5. Re:What I don't get by Noughmad · 2011-04-20 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  http://xkcd.com/793/
  
  --
  PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
6. Re:What I don't get by Richard_at_work · 2011-04-20 08:13 · Score: 2
  
  In general, mission simulators are just that - simulators for the mission. Its to train the pilots on the systems in the cockpit, get them to know where things are and what to press to make stuff happen - these simulators are not meant to train pilots in the finer points of the actual aircraft handling, they will get that when they go to an Operational Conversion Unit (or the equivilent of). Basically its so when they get into the cockpit for the first time (since there won't be any two seater F-35s), they know how to handle emergencies and situations, they know what light means what and which button to press - they will have some familiarity with the aircraft before they fly it for the first time, and that familiarity will help them if they have an emergency on that first few flights.
7. Re:What I don't get by darkstar949 · 2011-04-20 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Odds are in the long run the simulator will be cheaper for training then missions in the actual aircraft itself. Money spent on an accurate simulator is made back by not having to pay for fuel or repairs that would be incurred while doing real world training. Plus, if you screw up in a simulator and crash you just need to reset the system, if you screw up in the world both the pilot and the aircraft may be lost.
8. Re:What I don't get by DerekLyons · 2011-04-20 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  What I don't understand about this is how you build a simulator for a craft that only a handful of people have flown, is in limited production and for which there is no combat data in existence.
  It's an iterative process - the simulator is initially based on calculations and studies, but continuously updated with data from test flights. By the time they start seriously training for combat maneuvers, the real thing will have been in [simulated] combat already. It's a tried and true process by now, and it works.
  
  I know that test pilots take their jobs pretty seriously but can they really have tried all of the stupid things that ALL of the multinational end-users are going to try?
  Pilots, generally, are not inclined to try significantly stupid things. These aren't teenagers with their first hot rod, but trained professionals. All the same, as I said above - as they expand the envelope in flight testing, the data will be fed back into the simulator. If the pilots do try something extreme, and it's actually within the capability of the aircraft, it'll be in the simulator.
  
  Both the military and the aerospace industry have been playing with simulators for three quarters of a century now, they do have some idea of how to go about it.
9. Re:What I don't get by Sparrow1492 · 2011-04-21 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Significantly cheaper actually and gives more stick time to pilots when there are limited airframes available. It costs a lot of money each time you go up, but the sim is basically a sunk cost.
Oh yea? Well... by file_reaper · 2011-04-20 07:41 · Score: 1

I've had Eidos' Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Flight Sim on my Win 98 box since 1997. It has both the Boeing X-32 AND the Lockeed Martin X-35.
Take that USAF!
1. Re:Oh yea? Well... by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  And it works with my old VFX-1 so it sort of gives me a 360 field of view. (or it did the last time I booted it.)
  So the real question is does the Army include a flight model for Mothra and Gamorah?
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
DLC? by HRbnjR · 2011-04-20 07:42 · Score: 1

What kind of DLC is available for this game? Can I get an Insurgent Pack? How about Dudes with RPG's in Pickup Trucks? Rebel Strongholds Hidden Amongst Innocent Civilians?
Too realistic? by _0xd0ad · 2011-04-20 07:44 · Score: 1

It sounds like only an actual fighter pilot would likely be very good at it. Unless it has an extremely simplified mode for beginners and non-pilots, it's probably far too complex for your average flight sim gaming fan.
tl;dr: It's a training tool, not a game.
1. Re:Too realistic? by snspdaarf · 2011-04-20 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  It sounds like only an actual fighter pilot would likely be very good at it. Unless it has an extremely simplified mode for beginners and non-pilots, it's probably far too complex for your average flight sim gaming fan.
  tl;dr: It's a training tool, not a game.
  Well, the B1 sim had a "crash override" setting that let you fly subterranean...
  
  --
  Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
2. Re:Too realistic? by Maximum+Prophet · 2011-04-20 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  Private Pilot flies the SR-71 simulator: http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srsim~1.htm
  
  Private Pilots fly the Mig-29 (with a Russian Pilot in the 2nd seat) http://plan9.bell-labs.com/who/ken/mig.html
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
3. Re:Too realistic? by jgtg32a · 2011-04-20 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Some people like games like that
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV35B-vfT4U
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Combat_Simulator#A-10C_Warthog
4. Re:Too realistic? by _0xd0ad · 2011-04-20 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Very cool - thanks. Although those do rather reinforce my point.
5. Re:Too realistic? by _0xd0ad · 2011-04-20 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  No doubt, but you can at least turn down the realism in that:
  
  As with Black Shark a number of gameplay options provide the player with the possibility to customize the difficulty to their needs with the possibilities ranging from arcade settings to high realism simulator.
6. Re:Too realistic? by Dishevel · 2011-04-20 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Your "average" flight sim gaming fan is not you average gamer.
  They like it "REALISTIC".
  On average.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
7. Re:Too realistic? by CompMD · 2011-04-20 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Its designed for fighter pilots. I'm an aerospace engineer and pilot, and have flown the USAF T-6 simulator. Its an actual T-6 cockpit with full, real instrumentation and 120 degree wraparound screen. The T-6 is the most similar to the aircraft I normally fly. But you know what? This was HARD. The T-6 is a very unstable aircraft and I had to be more cautious with my maneuvers. The engine develops tons of shaft horsepower so on my takeoff roll I needed a lot more right rudder than I anticipated (and I needed a bit of rudder trim once airborne), and the instrumentation is not as friendly as civilian avionics. After about 10 minutes in the air I got most everything figured out and was able to fly it and land it, but I had a bad landing and "damaged" the gear.
8. Re:Too realistic? by _0xd0ad · 2011-04-20 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm aware. I didn't say "average gamer". And there's still such a thing as too realistic.
9. Re:Too realistic? by Dishevel · 2011-04-20 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  But you did say average flight sim gaming fan.
  You average flight sim gaming fan is not your average gamer and dose indeed love the realism.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
10. Re:Too realistic? by _0xd0ad · 2011-04-21 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly my point. The simulator is a trainer, but TFS was treating it like a toy.
Who cares, I'm enlisting NOW! by spun · 2011-04-20 08:09 · Score: 3, Funny

This reprint of a reprinted Lockheed Martin press release is simply awesome and it has convinced me to enlist in the Air Force. I have also decided to call all my elected representatives and ask for more funding for Lockhe... the military. You should all do the same! And by the way, I totally do not work for Lockheed Martin and have no interest in promoting their excellent products... because they are so awesome, I don't need to! Now lets go blow up some brown people.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
1. Re:Who cares, I'm enlisting NOW! by c6gunner · 2011-04-20 08:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I totally do not work for Lockheed Martin and have no interest in promoting their excellent products...
  Obviously. Now put away that squeegee - I already told you my windshield is fine.
2. Re:Who cares, I'm enlisting NOW! by Mindcontrolled · 2011-04-20 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  While I generally tend to agree with your sentiment... As a bona fide flightsim geek, I am still drooling right now. Can't help myself, sorry. Must... keep... control...
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
3. Re:Who cares, I'm enlisting NOW! by spun · 2011-04-20 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Well, excuse my misinterpretation, you were trying to insult me by implying that I wash car windshields for a living, which is even more witty. I did apologize for insulting the military, and I really didn't mean to bring back those traumatizing memories from when you saw such horrific combat in the (snicker) Canadian military.
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
4. Re:Who cares, I'm enlisting NOW! by c6gunner · 2011-04-20 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  I forgive you.
  Here, have a quarter.
5. Re:Who cares, I'm enlisting NOW! by Jerom · 2011-04-21 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Hey quit it!
  sincerely,
  the Belgians
The B-2 is mission incapable? by Sycraft-fu · 2011-04-20 08:28 · Score: 2

How so? The thing has flown many missions including both Iraq wars, Kosovo, and most recently Libya. It does what it is advertised to do: Flys in a lot of bombs without being detected.
It is an exceedingly expensive bomber, but it does its job well.
PM wants his by ubergeek65536 · 2011-04-20 08:28 · Score: 1

When does Stephen Harper get his? It's the only reason I can see why he would waste our tax money on F35s
Too many tokens to play by MBraynard · 2011-04-20 08:58 · Score: 1

It's like 4 tokens. WTF. I'd rather play four games of Tekken.
1. Re:Too many tokens to play by kelemvor4 · 2011-04-20 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  The good sit down games are always 4 tokens.
Learn history, dude! by Cyberax · 2011-04-20 09:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Your knowledge of history is abysmal.
First, USSR proposed creation of anti-Hitler coalition in 1938 and actually was ready to move against Germany.
And yes, you read it correctly - in 1938. England basically said: "Fuck you, USSR! Hitler is a pig and a nationalist, but he's a CAPITALISTIC pig and a nationalist. So go rot in hell." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement ).
The USSR parsed this reply correctly as: "You're on your own" and decided to make the best of the situation by securing access to Leningrad (Winter War), annexing some former provinces of the Russian Empire and stalling for time (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). And after the WWII began it became inevitable that USSR would have to intervene at some point.
Hitler then badly underestimated the Soviet army (which he called the "Colossus with feet of clay") partly because of the disastrous (for the USSR) Winter War. And that was what has caused the downfall of Nazi Germany. The USSR army was the main reason behind the Hitler's defeat.
1. Re:Learn history, dude! by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  First: Russia would have never held Moscow without massive western aid. The tipping point almost went over even with the aid.
  Second: Nazi Germany was, in name and actions, a socialist state.
  Third: Russia's army had been decapitated by Stalin's paranoid purges prior to WWII. They started the war dis-functional.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re:Learn history, dude! by Cyberax · 2011-04-20 10:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "First: Russia would have never held Moscow without massive western aid."
  WTF?!?!?! Lend-lease help has just started coming in significant quantities by the time the Battle of Moscow was winding down (the First Protocol has been signed on the day of the German's offensive operation). Also, the total amount of lend-lease shipments was completely dwarfed by the native USSR production.
  "Second: Nazi Germany was, in name and actions, a socialist state."
  Dude, read about fascism. That's definitely NOT a socialistic state, it's an uber-capitalistic one. That's why Hitler loathed USSR.
  "Third: Russia's army had been decapitated by Stalin's paranoid purges prior to WWII. They started the war dis-functional."
  That is also not true. While Stalin did purge a lot of capable officers, the Red Army was far from being "decapitated".
3. Re:Learn history, dude! by Cyberax · 2011-04-20 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, not even close.
  However, depicting Stalin as a complete monster is also stupid.
4. Re:Learn history, dude! by mcvos · 2011-04-20 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Knowing historical facts does not make one a Stalin apologist. Stalin was an inhuman bastard, but you have to be an idiot to not recognize that Russia did by far the most work in defeating nazi Germany.
  It is true that the Red Army was not in prime shape in 1941 due to the purges, and that's one of the reasons why Hitler chose to attack at that time. That's also why Russia started the war with their scorched earth strategy: give lots of ground to the Germans, but give them nothing of value, and make them bleed for it. Russian strategy was incredibly wasteful. Many more Russians died in the war than Germans or any other nation. But Russia could afford it. They had plenty of bodies to throw at the problem, and Stalin, inhuman monster that he was, was perfectly willing to do just that. And that's what defeated nazi Germany, like it or not.
  Sure, many other nations fought impressively. The UK when they stood alone, the exiled Polish and Free French, the massive Operation Overlord which was largely an American thing, and lend-lease did certainly play an important role in getting the Red Army moving forward (they had soldiers and tanks, but lacked trucks, machine guns, and lots of other stuff). Not to mention the fact that the US practically single-handedly broke Japan. There's plenty of glory to go around, but don't deny history by claiming Russia was useless or didn't do most of the fighting.
Re: kill everything on the battlefield. by nedlohs · 2011-04-20 09:09 · Score: 1

A single SSBN can do a pretty good job of killing everything on a battlefield... And you have no more battlefield afterwards for anything that arrives afterwards too.
Ever fly Falcon 3 or 4? by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 11:01 · Score: 1

I know that was simplified but it was still fucking complicated.
I never could successfully carrier trap the F-18 in the 3.0 extension. Couldn't find a clean enough controller to even realistically attempt it.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
1. Re:Ever fly Falcon 3 or 4? by _0xd0ad · 2011-04-21 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I played 4.0. Never had the extension, but I do remember that its "high fidelity" mode was pretty sensitive. Just a touch on the joystick sent you into barrel rolls.
  I did wish the documentation had listed all of the hotkey combinations needed to send commands to your wingmen on missions, though.
Re:What's a good flight sim these days? by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 11:06 · Score: 1

Falcon 4 got involuntarily open sourced at end of life. You can buy it as 'Falcon 4.0 allied force'.
It flies very much like 3.0.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:What's a good flight sim these days? by Nimey · 2011-04-20 12:29 · Score: 1

X-Plane for civilian stuff.
IL-2: 1946 for World War II, but mainly the Eastern Front; an oldie but a true classic. The same company's coming out with a Battle of Britain sim very soon, called Il-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Go the A-10. by Sasayaki · 2011-04-20 14:57 · Score: 1

Exactly this.
I'm Australian and I was chatting to some friends of mine regarding the A-10. It's the perfect plane for us. All we do is bomb things anyway, they are perfect for our rough climate, and they are CHEAP. JSF is $150 million each or so, A-10 is $10 million. As a ground attack aircraft (RAAF's primary mission since Vietnam) the A-10 is vastly superior.
And it has air-to-air capability too! No, it won't beat a JSF, but for the same price you can get fifteen of them. The JSF can't carry that many missiles.
Australia should be flying A-10's for the next 75 years.

--
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8