F-16.net

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 28, 2007 Posts: 26 Status: Offline

What I dont understand is why would a governmnet spend untold billions on brand spanky new fighter jets when a 40 year old plane with good awac support and new missiles will be able to pluck the newer,way more expensive planes out of the sky,shouldn't all the money be spent on missile research instead?

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3098 Status: Offline

One problem with your idea - the F-35 is a stealth jet like the F-22. Good luck with those BVR shots Wink

.

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 28, 2007 Posts: 26 Status: Offline

obviously there will have to be some work done to the missiles!and how do the f-35 and raptor hide there heat signatures?or do they even bother?and how many of americas estimed f-117's are left?i recall one being shot down over iraq,using really old missiles and the same goes for yugoslavia using even older missiles!

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 1152

Quote:

why would a governmnet spend untold billions on brand spanky new fighter jets

Umm, because they can? Two Cents

Because despite what you may read we got lots of money and there are lots of bad guys to kill.

Countless reasons. A more suitable airframe for modern avionics that the missiles you talk of depend on. Increased range, payload, flexibility and better multi-role capability - which are all factors for reducing operations costs as well as increasing projection capabilities and military effectiveness of the forces. Not to mention better manufacturing techniques and materials reducing replacement costs, lifespan etc.

You can go on and on, eventually any man made design needs to be replaced otherwise we would never advance. The F-35 can do the jobs that before required 2 or 3 different aircraft would do.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Because despite what you may read we got lots of money and there are lots of bad guys to kill.

So I take it you have read the articles/publications written by economists and people who's job is finance? There maybe a lot of money but don't think that it all belongs to the US. The lousy exchange rate is a good indication.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

To put it simply, RF stealth is crucial because volume search with IRSTs is a joke.

You can at best track a target to about 70~100km in perfect weather with IRST. That is presuming you know exactly where it is to begin with. The optical magnification it takes to track a target at the range precludes volume search at that range unless you want to wait 1 hour for a full sweep of the forward sector. IRST can do volume searches at short ranges of 10~20km, but that doesn't really help you against VLO opponents. And, 100km is a lot worse than the typical range at which AWACs and AESA fighter radars will pick up your 40year old designs. And, even when it does work it provides no range data beyond the reach of an active laser ranger (20~30km max). This is why AWACs do not carry IR search telescopes instead of radars.

You can put the best avionics on legacy aircraft or even aircrafts like the Typhoon or Rafale, and lose the majority of you planes without them even having an opportunity to shoot back at an F-22 or F-35.

As far as the Serbia F117 loss, that has been covered over and over. Basically, it was horrible mission planning - flying the same route night after night between two targets -- which allows the enemy to basically use a stop watch to time when the F117 should be overhead as it traverses between the two targets. In doing so they are able to ambush the F117 by turning on a radar at single digit kilometer range and use ancient command guided missiles to down it. This won't help you defend your airspace from being totally overrun by VLO attackers. You your defences and infrastructure will be picked apart like they have zero defences. And if you do manage to shoot down one aircraft per thousand sortie, well, thats fine. You have already lost your pants.

Quote:

So I take it you have read the articles/publications written by economists and people who's job is finance? There maybe a lot of money but don't think that it all belongs to the US. The lousy exchange rate is a good indication.

So I take it:

A - you don't read so well. I never said all the money. English lesson for you - Lots and All are two different words with two different meanings.

B - Humor escapes you. It was an obviously stupid answer to an obviously stupid flame bait question.

C - Actually since you want to act like a fool I will remind you that about 1/3 of the economic wealth of this planet is produced by us arrogant fools in the good ol' USofA. What about the UK? About that of California? Don't worry speak the truth out of a 13trillion dollar economy we can afford to buy just about as many 40million dollar ac as we wan't.

Further, we can set the exchange rate to what we want. While it may be bad for us vacationing in Europe, it does wonders for exports. How is Airbus doing?

Enthusiast Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 86 Status: Offline

Moreover, projecting new fighters do take a lot of time. If the US quits the JSF program, it may be too late when they discover China/Iran/etc. have planes good enough to beat the current ones. Moreover, the older planes will require some $$ to keep on flying, and the cost/benefit balance goes to the F-35.

And, as mentioned before, a couple stealth fighters do the job of several non-stealth fighters PLUS the required ECM/CAP,air refueling/etc. required to support them.

The image says about all: it seems you are spending money, but in fact you are saving it in the long run. Image from:

http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br

The image comes from a Northrop study when the GAM was being developed, and shows how effective stealth warplanes can be.

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 01, 2004 Posts: 53

Quote:

and how many of americas estimed f-117's are left?i recall one being shot down over iraq,using really old missiles

fretmarks wrote:

Quote:

and how many of americas estimed f-117's are left?i recall one being shot down over iraq,using really old missiles

Jesus, dude, they actually had to retire the Nighthawk so the AF can buy more F-22's. That should give you an idea of how many F-117's are "left", and how much it costs to maintain them. No F-117 was hit by any fire over Iraq, let alone shot down, and the F-117 that was shot down over Bosnia was not a direct hit, but rather MANY missles exploding close to the craft.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

Tinito_16 wrote:

fretmarks wrote:

Quote:

and how many of americas estimed f-117's are left?i recall one being shot down over iraq,using really old missiles

Jesus, dude, they actually had to retire the Nighthawk so the AF can buy more F-22's. That should give you an idea of how many F-117's are "left", and how much it costs to maintain them. No F-117 was hit by any fire over Iraq, let alone shot down, and the F-117 that was shot down over Bosnia was not a direct hit, but rather MANY missles exploding close to the craft.

No, SAMs -- especially older command guided ones -- are generally not accurate enough to actually "hit" a target aircraft. That is why they use a proximity fuse detonated fragmentation warhead. Nonetheless, the Serb campaigh loss of an F117 is a reminder that Stealth is not a replacement for mission planning. If you bomb the same two targets a few nights in a row flying the direct route, it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to find you. The dude simply has to take the time between when bombs explode at location A and B the previous nights, measure the distance between the two to figure our your speed. He can then start the stop watch the next time bombs explode at target A and have a good guess where you are. If he parks a SAM radar in your path and turn it on when he thinks you are directly overhead, no stealth will save you from a SAM radar at 2km. He'll find you and he can shoot at you and kill you.

Why 40 milion for aircraft? SOme Countries will buy it, others wont. The truth is that any given country has only a voice internationaly if that country can take care of his own turf and capability to say something in strategic other interests. IF you dont have the power of afirmation someone else will, rest assure of that.

Unfortunatly the threat level has raised since early 90's, and it raised not only on the front of conventional warfare but on the assimetrical warfare as well. Like it or not there are countries in the world with ideas of expantion with potentialy catastrophic consequences to others, be it economicaly, socialy or even ideologicaly. USA and Europe have slowly but steadily loosing the grip on the rest of the world they once had (in the case of europe this has been going on for centuries without end).

The new global players have been aquiring means to intimidate their neighbors, most notably in south america, asia and in some parts of the middle east. If a counterweight is not established, their say will outweight ours.

So why spending 40 million$ on a fighter craft? Its not just on fightercraft, but like new ships, new carriers new tanks, and all components of defense and projection. with the increase of carrier fleets over the world and Su-30 airforces, the confidence they provide to their owners is immense. In my view all the 30 year old airframes that we have now are barely sufficient anymore to keep a balance. Even if an F-16 could technicaly send an AMRAAM in the way of a Su-30 untill this happens, right or wrong, the owner of the flanker will have the thought that his plane is bigger meaner and better and keep others dancing his music.

With stealth, not only you have a technical edge but it also plays a psicological game in peace time that stealth owners could enjoy some sort of inpunity before the much larger and vaunted Fighters.

Thumper3181 wrote:

So I take it:

A - you don't read so well. I never said all the money. English lesson for you - Lots and All are two different words with two different meanings.

B - Humor escapes you. It was an obviously stupid answer to an obviously stupid flame bait question.

C - Actually since you want to act like a fool I will remind you that about 1/3 of the economic wealth of this planet is produced by us arrogant fools in the good ol' USofA. What about the UK? About that of California? Don't worry speak the truth out of a 13trillion dollar economy we can afford to buy just about as many 40million dollar ac as we wan't.

Further, we can set the exchange rate to what we want. While it may be bad for us vacationing in Europe, it does wonders for exports. How is Airbus doing?

I'm not biting Thumper, I'm not going to be dragged into an off-topic argument with you where your going to be your usual rude self. Why have you brought the UK into this? Has nothing to do with my last point, just because I'm from the UK you have attacked it. Check your figures, California is big but not as big as the UK.

If you want to compare the whole US economy to something compare it to the EU. And if you check your current affairs, the UK isn't a big player in Airbus anymore, BAE sold its share.

Another thing, I didn't say the US couldn't buy $40 mil aircraft, I was replying to your comment that the US has lots of money. Don't confuse money with purchasing power. Why must you always include insults in your posts?

Quote:

I'm not biting Thumper, I'm not going to be dragged into an off-topic argument

Excuse me! Quoting you.

Quote:

So I take it you have read the articles/publications written by economists and people who's job is finance? There maybe a lot of money but don't think that it all belongs to the US. The lousy exchange rate is a good indication.

You "bit" in that post when you stuck your nose into it and misread what I wrote. I wrote "lots" and you read "all belongs". Are you a native speaker of English or did you immigrate from somewhere else?

Sorry about the GDP remark. You are right about California. Per capita 2004 GDP was $39,156 in constant dollars. UK's was $35,421 for the same year.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_g ... per-capita

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regiona ... sp0607.htm

Comparing a sovereign nation with a single currency, national government, domestic policy, foreign policy and economic policy to a union of loosely associated states bound by treaty with multiple currencies is folly.

Perhaps the nations of the EU should give up their individual seats and votes on all International governing bodies and associations and replace it with one vote, the Union of European Socialist Republic perhaps?

I have a better idea. The US gets 50 votes in any International body, and we compare the GDP of North America as well as the various central and south American nations that have trade treaty's with us to the EU.

Sorry, you opened this can of worms, not me Speak the Truth.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Why spend 40million on a plane?