backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 55 comment(s) - last by Anonymous Frea.. on May 21 at 11:04 PM

F-35C
The U.S. Navy anxiously awaits the first round of F-35C JSF craft

The U.S. Navy is expected to receive its first F-35C Joint Strike Fighter sometime this summer, as the Navy variant of the fighter jet begins to roll out of the factory.

After the Navy begins to receive the new F-35C, officials will begin to conduct test flights of the jet sometime prior to the end of 2009.  Both the Air Force and Marine Corps have versions of the jet in development, and the Navy will be last to have operational craft in the air.  

The F-35C is the modified carrier version of the JSF, and will be used to help reduce the possible strike "fighter gap" that military officials are currently worried about.  

During a press conference last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the F/A-18 Hornet would begin to be phased out, as the Navy shifts focus towards the next-generation F-35 Lighting II fighter jet.

The announcement surprised many government officials, with companies involved in the F/A-18 showing disappointment by Gates' announcement.  Gates also effectively called for an end to further F-22 Raptor orders, also alarming contractors.

The operational capacity for the F-35C is scheduled for 2015, and the date will not change despite Gates' announcement last month, military officials said.  It was originally believed the launch date of the fighter jet could be accelerated because of Gates' announcement regarding the F/A-18 and F-22.

It's unknown how many F-35C aircraft will be produced, though flight deck crews will be downsized as some maintenance issues will become digitized.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
It feels so strange....
By Jedi2155 on 5/6/2009 2:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
To have a aircraft announced and in military hands in the same decade. It's been a while.




RE: It feels so strange....
By ryanv12 on 5/6/2009 3:44:14 AM , Rating: 2
Much of the technology in the F-35 was pioneered by the F-22 program, so it's not too surprising.


RE: It feels so strange....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/6/2009 6:07:54 AM , Rating: 1
Ditto, if you want to get realistic, the F-35 is nothing more of a Fighter-Bomber step child of the F-22 and thus its development cycle is simply an extension of the F-22 project.


RE: It feels so strange....
By gamerk2 on 5/6/2009 8:23:34 AM , Rating: 2
Still, the only fighter aircraft better then the F-35 is the F-22, and with the cost diffrence, I'd take the F-35.


RE: It feels so strange....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/6/2009 8:44:35 AM , Rating: 4
Different planes for different jobs.

F-22 goes in first, knocks out enemy aircraft and anti-air emplacements. It establishes air superiority and total dominance of the airspace. F-22 stays in the airspace to act as a forward AWACS platform, and maintain airspace dominance.

F-35 goes in and bombs ground targets for ground troops. Maintains close air support and on station support for rapid response.

---

F-22 possesses superior stealth, maneuverability, EW and speed characteristics making it a better wild weasel platform than the F-35. Which is why I put knocking out SAM, and Radar intallations under the F-22's mission role.


RE: It feels so strange....
By bighairycamel on 5/6/2009 9:44:04 AM , Rating: 2
Yes but the maneuverability in the F-22 is only slightly better. For a "bomber" the F-35 has amazing agility. If mounted with appropriate AA artillary, the F-35 would still be better than anything else in the sky except maybe the Eurofighter Typhoon which would be damn close.

Even though it has a role, it could easily do both jobs with the right equipment.


RE: It feels so strange....
By ipay on 5/6/2009 3:10:52 PM , Rating: 3
There's a huge difference between doing two jobs, as opposed to doing one job well .


RE: It feels so strange....
By Samus on 5/6/2009 4:40:59 PM , Rating: 3
My Dad always told me "there's always the right tool for the job." But he wasn't a fan of adjustable wrenches, either.


RE: It feels so strange....
By bighairycamel on 5/6/2009 5:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
True, but the F-22 can also be used in Air to Ground combat.

For a fighter I would pick the F-22 any day, but given the right artillary, the F-35 looks to be the next best choice. The biggest drawback being the comparitively weaker steath system.


RE: It feels so strange....
By Kougar on 5/7/2009 1:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
It's interesting though, the F-22 was supposed to be the long-range interceptor and the F-35 the close-in combat fighter. The way it was spun to me the F-22 could stay airborn longer, but that's not true.

After looking at the stats the F-35 has a larger combat radius: 500/610/640nmi by varient compared to 410nmi for the Raptor. The Raptor has about a 1,600 mile range with external fuel tanks, the Lightning A/B varients have 1,200 and 1,400 mile ranges just on internal fuel alone.


RE: It feels so strange....
By Nfarce on 5/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: It feels so strange....
By Carl B on 5/7/2009 4:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
Who are these military commanders we're squaring off against? Is someone anticipating war with the EU or India or something? Russia can't afford its own fighter aircraft - not that it is even relevant to talk about them as a constant likely opponent - and the *actual* likely opponents are all... well, let's just say air superiority over Iraq didn't take long.

I just don't see a (near) future that involves air superiority actions against SU-37s and EuroFighters. And F-35 will be up to the tasks at hand, and for those moments (should they ever exist) where actual threat to air superiority will exist, hey it's not like we don't have enough F-22s to go toe-to-toe with any other single power.


RE: It feels so strange....
By jcbond on 5/11/2009 11:59:00 AM , Rating: 3
Russia has extensive natural gas and oil fields that they have begun exploiting in recent years. It's been key to their recovery from the post soviet extended depression. I'm certain that they have more money for the military than you think.
For another possible opponent, China has been doing some muscle flexing in certain areas of the world as they seek to secure resources and assert their right to Taiwan. While they are a major trading partner of ours, the Chinese are both nationalistic and haven't forgotten the little empires the Europeans built in their territory last century. Toss in a leadership that rules with an (for a communist country, it is a relatively easy - for the moment anyway) iron grip, and you have a nation that competes against us on many levels and may be willing to go hot if they believe they have a chance to do so. Note that they have been expanding militarily, have been doing so for a long time, and are not afraid to buy from Russia (aircraft that are more advance than what they currently can build). They have also recently developed a ship-killer missile to address the biggest threat the US can pose against them - aircraft carriers. Note also that the intelligence community believes that the Chinese military actively seeks to exploit internet for use against the US.
The F-22, F-35 and other combat systems in development now will be used in the battles of tomorrow. We don't know what those conflicts will be, so the responsible thing to do is to develop and maintain a leading edge of capability that no one else can match.
I want the best fighter available so that we can "own" whatever airspace we need. I also don't want it to be even close as what is the best.
To paraphrase Patton, let somebody else bleed and die.


RE: It feels so strange....
By iFX on 5/6/2009 5:28:47 AM , Rating: 2
The X-35 started development in 1993; Lockheed Martin was contracted to build the jet in 1996 and entered trials in 1999/2000 against the Boeing X-32.


RE: It feels so strange....
By yxalitis on 5/6/2009 6:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
A single fighter for testing purposes in not the same as production, I doubt the Navy will be receiving numbers of these for a few years yet!


RE: It feels so strange....
By Macrobot118 on 5/6/2009 8:02:04 AM , Rating: 1
The days of the manned fighter are almost over anyway. It is probably the last of its kind. They will stretch this program out for decades.


RE: It feels so strange....
By FITCamaro on 5/6/2009 8:45:59 AM , Rating: 5
They stretch all fighter programs out for decades.


RE: It feels so strange....
By amanojaku on 5/6/2009 9:57:44 AM , Rating: 3
Of course, automation is the future of warfare. In fact, we shouldn't waste our money on weapons that destroy the world. We should make computer simulations that "destroy" virtual countries and habitats, and then the occupants who "died" should report to the nearest disintegration chamber.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic and referencing an old TV show.


Wartime
By Spenny2112 on 5/6/2009 6:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
In a time of war, we will simply make more F-22's if we need them. In WW2 we cranked out tons of planes in no time flat. If we were ever in a similar war, I don't think we would have any problems making thousands of F-22's especially since government spending would all be shifted towards defense, and hey our economy might even get a nice boost too.




RE: Wartime
By foolsgambit11 on 5/6/2009 7:03:25 PM , Rating: 3
I wonder if we'll ever fight a war again that lasts long enough - specifically, that the air-superiority phase lasts long enough - to ramp up war procurement.


RE: Wartime
By camylarde on 5/8/2009 4:52:25 AM , Rating: 2
WW2 was waged in europe, africa, asia and pacific. America's industry base was in no threat of being destroyed. You didn't even have to guard your factories. Today, with globalized economy and localized resources, are you so sure that you still can get your oil from Arabs if there is world war against you? Precious metals? Coal? Steel? Have plenty of everything? You will be building f22's from wood again, if there was prolonged war. As everybody else would be forced to do as well. Yeah, unless you conquer half of africa and half of asia and set upon leeching those resources dry to secure victory...

How many rockets is the new anti-nuke defense shield supposed to have? 12? How many nukes Russia has at the moment? And do you seriously hope to shot down all 12 nukes is they were launched simultaneously?


RE: Wartime
By Headfoot on 5/11/2009 10:33:25 AM , Rating: 1
Number one exporter of oil to USA: Canada
Number two exporter of oil to USA: Mexico
Try again


RE: Wartime
By Anonymous Freak on 5/21/2009 11:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
Big difference, WW2 aircraft were either still-built designs, or brand new designs during a war that was big enough that 40% of the Gross National Product of 1943 was military production. (Nearly 100,000 fighters and 100,000 bombers were produced during the war years. There probably hasn't been 100,000 manned aircraft made total in the past twenty years combined.) There were more than three times as many P-40 Warhawks, P-47 Thunderbolts, and P-51 Mustangs (each!) produced than the U.S. Air Force has *TOTAL* aircraft now. (*Each* one of those three aircraft, plus the B-24 Liberator, and T-6 Texan trainer, had more than 15,000 aircraft produced. The Air Force currently has slightly over 5,000 manned aircraft.)

Unless we get into a hot non-nuclear war with China or Russia, that involves invasions, we're not going to see the impetus to re-open the F-22 production line once it is closed; or see that the war itself would spur new production.

You also have to take timing into consideration. The P-51 Mustang went from initial drawing to first flight in less than a year, and first flight to full operational production in another year. F-35C went more than a decade for the first, and looks to be about 6 years for the second. A complex aircraft takes a lot longer to get in to production nowadays.


Hornet or Super Hornet?
By nafhan on 5/6/2009 10:11:44 AM , Rating: 2
This article makes it sound like the Navy is phasing out all F/A 18's. However, there is an important disctinction that may be getting missed here. I think they are phasing out the F/A 18 C/D and NOT the E/F. The E/F is an almost completely different aircraft known as the Super Hornet. I think the original intent was to have a fleet of Super Hornets and JSF's, while phasing out the C/D model Hornets.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption that we are talking about phasing out the C/D model only.




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/6/2009 10:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
It's just the standard F-18 C/D Hornets. Super Hornets are here for a while longer.


RE: Hornet or Super Hornet?
By stromgald30 on 5/6/2009 2:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the Super Hornets aren't going to get replaced. They're the 'replacement' for the F-14s. The technology in the E/F is still old compared to the JSF. They should replace it with something better, but I doubt that will happen with the current money constraints.


By rubbahbandman on 5/6/2009 4:22:01 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me wrong the F-22 is the world's best fighter, but everyone should agree the bang for the buck leaves a lot to be desired. I don't see why we should make such a huge investment for something that will probably be obsolete in 15 years.

We're probably on track for warfare where we can unleash hundreds of low cost UAV's to overwhelm enemies without the limitations of a human body for maneuverability and airframe design.

For now the F-35 seems to be the appropriate stop-gap measure to deliver an air superiority fighter without such a massive investment.




By 91TTZ on 5/6/2009 5:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
The investment in F-35's is much higher than the investment in F-22's.

We bought 187 F-22's at $130 million a piece.
We're buying thousands of F-35's at $80+ million a piece.


By FITCamaro on 5/6/2009 6:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
Because eventually our F15s and F16s will wear out and the F22 was slated to replace over a 1000 of them with just over half the number of aircraft.

And so instead of having a fighter that will be obsolete in 15 years we should stick with fighters that were obsolete 15 years ago?

Fighters are a long term asset. They stick around for 30, 40, even 50 years. You're looking at the F22 as if its a personal computer.


Contractors
By foolsgambit11 on 5/6/2009 7:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
Michael, do you work for a military contractor? It's interesting that the article twice notes the reaction from contractors, implying that it should bear weight in military decision making. As if they are the most knowledgeable about how best to configure our military for the threats the nation faces.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a contractor myself. And maybe you meant to address the impacts of these decisions of the economy and American jobs. But the way the article was worded didn't emphasize that.




RE: Contractors
By HotFoot on 5/8/2009 12:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
Stragetically speaking, it is important what the contractors think. You don't just start up an aerospace company one day and churn out world-class fighter aircraft the next. Otherwise the Chinese-built craft would be every bit as good as the American and European counterparts. One problem with the massive sweeps of consolidations and downsizing of the combat aircraft fleets is erosion of your industrial base.

Take this warning from a Canadian. Politics destroyed our world-leading aerospace defense industry decades ago, and we've bought others' platforms ever since.


I don't like it...
By dgingeri on 5/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: I don't like it...
By bighairycamel on 5/6/2009 12:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
1. Talk about a stupid conspiracy theory. Even if that happened, you think the Navy is going to put a pilot in one of these and let them fly it without the standard performance/safety checks?

2. One word, F-22. Sure numbers are going to be lower than expected with budget cuts but the F-22 is still the dominant fighter. Not to mention American pilots are probably the best in the world because they've always had the latest and greatest technology to train with.

3. This just shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The F-18 SuperHornets may be close, but the 14s and 15s don't even hold a candle. The initial simulations against SU-27s was flawed, and were later determined to be superior even in small numbers.

4. Don't be so cocky. As with any new model, no matter where it's built, reliability will be questionable. Only time will tell but this aircraft has been based off of a proven platform (P&W and Rolls-royce engines for one). They won't start dropping from the sky just because a french guy mounted the engine, get your head out of your ass.


RE: I don't like it...
By inperfectdarkness on 5/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: I don't like it...
By tigen on 5/6/2009 1:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
Who do you expect to have one of these multi-year wars against requiring massive numbers of weapons? The only nations that could really pose a threat in terms of conventional warfare are Russia and China, and that seems pretty unlikely as long as their economic prospects remain good.

But if somehow it happened, and it was big enough to actually stress our resources, then it would probably end up in a nuclear exchange.


RE: I don't like it...
By dgingeri on 5/6/2009 2:09:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Who do you expect to have one of these multi-year wars against requiring massive numbers of weapons? The only nations that could really pose a threat in terms of conventional warfare are Russia and China, and that seems pretty unlikely as long as their economic prospects remain good. But if somehow it happened, and it was big enough to actually stress our resources, then it would probably end up in a nuclear exchange.


I would expect more of a "multi front" type situation, and quite likely sooner rather than later.

Let me throw out this situation: Iran builds a nuke and nukes Tel Aviv. (More likely, they'll build multiple nukes and nuke every square inch of Israel.) We respond by invading Iran to dismantle their nuclear capabilities, and that draws Syria, Egypt, Lybia, and Pakistan (soon to be ruled by the Taliban) and several other Islamic nations in the area into a multi nation war against us.

Currently, the only thing keeping this from happening is both our nuclear arsenal (being depleted at an astonishing rate) and our air power (also currently being dismantled).

We're supposed to stop this with half a dozen F-22's and a hundred F-35's? I really doubt it.

The only other way to get out of it is to let Iran go after nuking Israel (which is almost a certainty right now) and rely on the State department to keep them occupied until we rebuild our defenses. I don't see that happening. If we don't do something immediately if Iran builds a nuke, we'll likely get one, or possibly more, of our major cities nuked in the deal. (I think they'll save one for us, if we don't invade fast enough, and use the rest on Israel.)

We don't have one nation to safeguard against, we have nearly half the world's population. While some Islamic nations are fairly friendly toward us, most are not. It likely won't be too much longer before we will have to face off against most of them at once. They outnumber us 10 to 1. our only edge is technology.

This isn't fear mongering. This is a very real possibility. They are poor and enslaved by power hungry men. they are jealous of our riches (made possible by our freedom, not stealing it from others as they like to tout) and our freedom. It wouldn't take much for those power hungry men in control to push their people to fight against us.


RE: I don't like it...
By sinful on 5/6/2009 3:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let me throw out this situation: Iran builds a nuke and nukes Tel Aviv. (More likely, they'll build multiple nukes and nuke every square inch of Israel.) We respond by invading Iran to dismantle their nuclear capabilities, and that draws Syria, Egypt, Lybia, and Pakistan (soon to be ruled by the Taliban) and several other Islamic nations in the area into a multi nation war against us.

Currently, the only thing keeping this from happening is both our nuclear arsenal (being depleted at an astonishing rate) and our air power (also currently being dismantled).


Um, we have more nukes than pretty much all other countries combined, except maybe Russia.
The US has more than 10,000 nuclear weapons. And, let's not forget: one of our warheads is equal to dozens if not hundreds of smaller weapons (that Iran may one day possess).

In the 1960's, when it seemed like we might be "first striked" by the USSR, we had 30,000+ nuclear weapons. That amount was deemed to be enough to allow the US to be "nuked en-masse" and STILL have sufficient nuclear power to vaporize all our enemies.

According to Wikipedia, the US only has 269 cities with more than 100,000 people. In other words, you could effectively destroy the major population centers in the US with 269 warheads. Keep in mind now, we have 10,000 warheads.

The threat of us "running out of warheads" is pretty laughable.

Secondly,
It's a pretty safe bet if Iran were actually stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon on someone, they would summarily be wiped off the face of the planet by someone else nuking them.
Seriously, if a country is unstable enough to nuke another country as an offensive measure, they're not going to stop at one - the only real effective deterrent is nuking them off the face of the planet. Trying to invade them would just be inviting a retalitory nuclear strike (if they're willing to use them for offensive, they're DEFINITELY willing to use them for defense), so it's better off just to nuke them right off the bat.

quote:
It likely won't be too much longer before we will have to face off against most of them at once. They outnumber us 10 to 1. our only edge is technology.


And what you're suggesting is "Let's buy 10,000 Pentium 4's now, because someday our enemies might have something nearly equivalent to that!".
Of course, if we do that now, we've blown our entire budget and can't afford Core i7's when we need them.

You're basically saying "Someday our enemies might have space fighters! We need to spend ALL our money on F22's now, which will somehow mitigate the threat of space fighters in the future. Granted, an F22 will be dominated by said space fighters, and we won't be able to afford our own space fighters because we wasted all our money on piles of aircraft that sit around for 30 years before our enemies reach that point, but hey! We'll just ask for even more piles of money then!"

Go ask the USSR how that policy of stockpiling massive amounts of unused military hardware worked out for them.


RE: I don't like it...
By ipay on 5/6/2009 4:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
The USSR's problem was an unsustainable economic model that bankrupted the country (kinda what's going to happen to the USA if you guys keep handing out welfare grants to every illegal immigrant who asks). They had just as much in the way of resources and talent as the USA, and if they'd adopted similar economic principles they'd be sitting on vast piles of unused, but very new and deadly, military hardware.

Just like most people don't expect to lose all of their limbs in an accident, most countries do not envision going to war. Military technology is (literally) health insurance for a nation; you may get by without it, but if crunch time comes you're screwed if you don't have it.

Also, have you considered what will happen if the USA retaliates against an Iranian nuclear strike? You can be certain that China and Russia aren't going to sit by and watch like it's a tennis match; hitting an opponent who's down is the best way to stop him from getting back up.

Finally, the USA may have 10,000 nuclear weapons, but only a small fraction of those (ICBMs) are capable of striking targets anywhere in the world at anytime.


RE: I don't like it...
By dgingeri on 5/6/2009 4:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
no, what I'm saying is "Let's buy 3 dozen Core i7's now instead of wasting that money buying 4 dozen Atoms so that when we are attacked again, we'll have something that is capable of defending this country."

An F-22 is equal to 4 F-35's, yet we spend 3/4 of the money on a F-35? That doesn't make sense. Would you spend $750 on a 1.6Ghz Atom system (desktop, mind you, not a laptop) when you could build a 2.6Ghz Core i7 system for $1000?


RE: I don't like it...
By FITCamaro on 5/6/2009 6:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah its not like we have 10,000 missile silos waiting and ready to go at the push of a button.


RE: I don't like it...
By sinful on 5/6/2009 7:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
An F-22 is equal to 4 F-35's, yet we spend 3/4 of the money on a F-35?


Try that math again; the F35 is substantially cheaper than the F22.
$83 million for an F35 vs. $360+ Million for an F22.

We can buy 4.3x as many F35's than F22's for the same cost.
And by your math, our country would be safer.

Not to mention that purchasing lots of F35's is going to drive their price/unit down, while the F22 is destined to be high priced for quite a while with a much lower volume of units.

If money were no object, I'd say "F22's for everyone!!!" Have them guarding against Canadian invasions! Have them guarding againts Mexican invasions.

Realistically?

We don't need huge numbers of the most advanced fighter in the world just sitting around. It's just way overkill.

Most of our current military "issues" are not the problem that we're outgunned, it's that we don't have enough units in that area.

These boat pirates are a perfect example - yes, we have a devastating navy capable of destroying anything it encounters; the problem? Some moron on a speedboat with an AK47 just hijacked a tanker because our super-advanced navy can't be everywhere at once.

quote:
Let's buy 3 dozen Core i7's now instead of wasting that money buying 4 dozen Atoms


Not quite; you're itching for the $5000 Alienware Core i7, and we're saying, uh, the 2nd best Core i7 model is $1200, and all we need is a computer to do email, AND we already have a large number of those Alienware boxes anyway, so why don't we just buy 4x the second best model and call it a day?

Buying huge numbers of F22's makes as much sense as buying the receptionst an Alienware Core i7. The most use it will get is playing solitaire, so why waste the money? Likewise, all those F22's are going to sit & rot.

And, when the day comes 5 years down the road when her PC isn't fast enough, just buy another 2nd best model.

Just like PC's, it's cheaper to buy the 2nd best model and replace more often than trying to buy the uber-PC every year.

And just like with businesses, if you're wasting that money going overkill, don't be surprised when your competitors pass you by because they're actually putting that wasted money back into their business.

In other words, the US is better off putting that money into solving our domestic problems than pouring it into some military pork barrel project.


RE: I don't like it...
By seraphim1982 on 5/6/2009 4:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
That situation is highly unlikely.
I highly doubt Iran will ever nuke Israel, despite the negative public comments about Israel from Iran. Iran and Russia have an agreement to swap uranium and oil between the two, purely resourced based agreement. Russia, rather use OPEC's oil reserves rather than their own. Similar to how the US is milking Iraq now. I highly doubt the Russians will allow Israel to be nuked with uranium from them, especially since Judaism is high % religion in Russia. Iran, is simply building nuke to an effort to defend themselves. If you'd look at a map, the Americans are front on either side, from technically illegal wars. Nukes are an effective deterrent from having another country invade you.... Furthermore, with regards to conventional warfare, all the Islamic nations together, don't pose a very significant threat to the US/Allies in a direct war. Thus, their need to feel security, thus developing nuclear technology.

Iran is acting like hard ass, because it wants to be a major power within its sphere of influence. Right now, Egypt, Israel are the biggest spheres of influence in the Middle East. Iran wishes to take that sphere of influence away from them.

"We don't have one nation to safeguard against, we have nearly half the world's population. While some Islamic nations are fairly friendly toward us, most are not. It likely won't be too much longer before we will have to face off against most of them at once. They outnumber us 10 to 1. our only edge is technology.

This isn't fear mongering. This is a very real possibility. They are poor and enslaved by power hungry men. they are jealous of our riches (made possible by our freedom, not stealing it from others as they like to tout) and our freedom. It wouldn't take much for those power hungry men in control to push their people to fight against us. "

10 - 1??? So you assume every Islamic person is evil and the enemy, talk about prime example of Bush's Neo-con theory at its best. This isn't fear mongering??? Your weak reasoning proves this is Neo-con theory at its best.

By no means do I accept Iran's actions or their civil / social / governmental structure, but it seems highly illogical for them to engage any Western Power in a war.


RE: I don't like it...
By DEVGRU on 5/6/2009 5:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By no means do I accept Iran's actions or their civil / social / governmental structure, but it seems highly illogical for them to engage any Western Power in a war.


Thats your problem. Religion, and by definition - religious exremeists (no matter what flavor) are the the antithesis of anything 'logical'. For them to decide to nuke Israel or Iraq on a whim will surely comfort the masses of innocents dead at the hands of some crazy nut in Iran because of people like you. After the mushroom cloud, you can stare dumbfounded at everything laid waste and comfort the survivors with jems like "But it was illogical!". :P


RE: I don't like it...
By FITCamaro on 5/6/2009 6:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the Americans are front on either side, from technically illegal wars


Ah so wars voted on and approved by Congress are now illegal?

But nice try. And you're right that Iran the nation will likely never nuke Israel. But they'll give a bomb to someone else to do it for them.

And yes, the majority of people of the Muslim faith are reasonable people. However Islamic extremism is on the rise. And I don't just mean terrorists. I mean groups in countries around Europe spreading hate about the Western world and trying to impose Islamic law on non-Islamic countries. Look at Britain. They're going to hell and will have severe problems if they don't do something to curb the adoption of and catering to Islamic ideals.

And the US will have its own problems if we don't draw the line because its getting worse here too. Businesses throwing off American holidays to appease Islamic workers.

I mean the world has become fearful of doing anything to criticize Muslims. It's pathetic. Yet its ok to demonize Christians and Jews on national television.


RE: I don't like it...
By foolsgambit11 on 5/6/2009 6:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
NOT that I necessarily agree with what I'm about to say from a pragmatic standpoint, but there is a good argument for at least the Iraq War being "technically illegal". The arguments can equally be construed as a critique of America or the UN.

We decided to go in to Iraq without UN approval, despite the fact that we agreed to the United Nations charter, and membership in that body carries with it certain responsibilities, among them:

Chapter 1, Article 2:
quote:
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Chapter 7, Article 1:
quote:
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken....
All of that language is tempered by Chapter 7, Article 51, which includes the language,
quote:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
But, of course, that caveat did not apply in the Iraq War.

And in case you're confused as to whether this international treaty bears the force of law, from the US Constitution:
quote:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land....
Which is not to say that Congress couldn't have started the Iraq War. But they would first have to have withdrawn from the United Nations. To Quote then-Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, in 2004, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Of course, the UN isn't a powerful enough institution to actually enforce its own charter, so from a practical standpoint, Iraq being an illegal war is irrelevant.


RE: I don't like it...
By Nfarce on 5/6/2009 9:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course, the UN isn't a powerful enough institution to actually enforce its own charter, so from a practical standpoint, Iraq being an illegal war is irrelevant.


Well, I'm glad you admit that! It only took 12 years and 17 UN violations by Saddam's regime before a nation stood up and did something about it. And don't forget that those resolutions were drawn up after Saddam signed on the dotted lines in 1991 after Gulf War 1 with a tent full of US and Iraqi generals.

Of course, no better example of uselessness of the UN needs to be brought up than Somalia, Sudan, North Korea, ...

Oh, and on the subject of internationally "illegal wars" (that always needs clarification), the idea that the Geneva Convention is applicable to Islamic terrorists not representing any nation other than the nation of "Islam" and "Allah" needs to be driven home: it's not.


RE: I don't like it...
By jcbond on 5/12/2009 9:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh.
Everyone throws in caveats. The majority of muslims don't like the west. Period. They think we are decadent, soft, and immoral. While only a small percentage will take violent action, the most of the rest of the Islamic sympathizes with the small percentage.
There are, of course exceptions, the people who see the repression that seems to go with Islamic regimes - especially women. But they have to actively disassociate themselves to some degree from their religion. After all the mullahs calling for Jihad against the US and the west are among the most senior and respected members of their religion.
There's a book written by the guy who prosecuted the blind Shiek responsible for the first two (unsuccessful) attacks on the world trade center. I heard an interview with him. The most telling thing I remember from it was where he talking with a friendly Muslim authority. His (the prosecutor's) desire was to paint the blind Sheik as an extremist who perverted Islam. The friendly mullah agreed that the Sheik was an extremist, but when the prosecutor asked for some reference to use against the blind Sheik, the mullah couldn't really offer him anything. He had to defer to someone with real authority to interpret the Koran on this subject.... someone like the Blind Sheik.


RE: I don't like it...
By penumbra on 5/7/2009 1:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
I dont think Pakistan would be ruled by Taliban. It is the only islamic state to hold and deliver nuclear weapons, and hold a much lager foe (INDIA) at bay. Taliban can't rule 165 million people. I think thats what the US is trying to portray, so they can take our nukes out. But thats not going to happen. Not in next couple of years at least. Most of the people here are typical dumb Americans, who believe in what ever their media tells them. I once had a Conservative white American yell at me in the International Relations class, that us, The South Asians take their jobs. Hahahaha, if you are going to debate, you should rather shut up than admit that people like us are in better position to be hired by the same industry that you very well believe in.

Just my thinking.....


RE: I don't like it...
By energy1man on 5/7/2009 12:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
Given the estimates of Isreal's nuclear arsenal in the 80-150 warhead range, I don't think Isreal would wait to annihilate Iran, while the US decided what would be an appropriate response to the nuking of Tel Aviv.


RE: I don't like it...
By Carl B on 5/7/2009 4:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're supposed to stop this with half a dozen F-22's and a hundred F-35's? I really doubt it.
quote:


We're not supposed to "stop it" with aircraft at all, are we? In your invasion scenario, it will require - obviously - a ground invasion force. But as for achieving air superiority, no doubt that yes, whatever hardware the US has laying around at the time will get the job done over the skies of Iran.

As for Israel specifically, if Iran nukes them, then obviously they're going to be nuked in retaliation. It would be naive to think that Israel wouldn't have the finger on that trigger, and they have a supposed ballistic sub capacity for just such events.

So don't sweat it, your US vs the world scenario need not occur, or if it does, I don't see where aircraft alone have much to do with it.


RE: I don't like it...
By Steele on 5/6/2009 2:15:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
america has almost NEVER held a population advantage over her adversaries.


Except when the US fought Mexico. And the Confederacy. And the Indians. And Spain. And the Central Powers. And the Axis. And North Korea. And Vietnam. And Panama. And Grenada. And Iraq. And Afghanistan.

The only enemies I can think of when the US was outmanned were the British during the Revolution and War of 1812; and the Soviets during the Cold War.

Otherwise, good post.


RE: I don't like it...
By stromgald30 on 5/6/2009 2:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
1 and 2: We have the F-22 for air superiority. We're only sharing the JSF with allies. As far as sabotage goes, they would have to get on the aircraft carriers first. Knowing the capability of our aircraft is a lot different from bring them down.

The F-18 is crap to begin with. The F-16 is a much better fighter. An F-35 would easily beat the F-18. No contest.

3. Why do you think the F-16 has been so successful? Single engine planes make sense. Fewer engines = better reliability = better weight efficiency. It's the same reason that going from the 747 to 777, Boeing went from 4 to 2 engines.

The F-18 should've been a single engine fighter. For it's size, that's what it should've been. It was the Navy's stubbornness that kept it at two engines, and it made the aircraft much worse in the air.

4. So what if the parts are built elsewhere? Ever heard of acceptance testing? Jeez, you really don't know what you're talking about.


RE: I don't like it...
By ipay on 5/6/2009 3:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
Boeing went from 4 to 2 engines, not from 4 to 1. Single engines and redundancy are mutually exclusive.

If you're flying an A-10 and one of the engines fails or is taken out of commission, you lose a bit of speed and maneuverability.

If you're flying an F-16 and the engine goes down, you're SOL.

When you're flying a combat mission and things get hot, knowing that your aircraft doesn't have one point of failure is pretty damn reassuring.


RE: I don't like it...
By stromgald30 on 5/6/2009 7:30:15 PM , Rating: 2
Redundancy is one way to achieve reliability, which is the ultimate goal. With fewer engines, you have fewer parts that can fail.

Two engines, of course, make the a/c more survivable, but if you're maneuverable to not get hit or strike from beyond visual range, then that's not an issue.


RE: I don't like it...
By FITCamaro on 5/6/2009 5:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
You clearly don't know much about the actual jet itself.

But I do agree with you that I prefer to keep our jets to ourselves. Especially our latest and greatest. However, while the airframe goes to everyone, the electronics packages are not all the same. Each country will put its own package in (or buy one from someone else). Some things are the same but not everything.

The largest thing that concerns me with the F35 is that it requires a ton of cooling so I have to wonder how it will respond to the real world. Especially since future wars will likely involve the Middle East which isn't the coolest place on Earth.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki