Government

The 10 Reasons the F-35 Lightning Fighter Will Dominate 21st Century Skies

The F-35 is set to become the dominant fighter plane of the U.S. and its allies in the 21st century.

A conglomerate of aerospace industry leaders (Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Pratt & Whitney) have combined manufacturing, engineering and technological capabilities to develop the F-35 Lightning.

While the Joint Strike Fighter program has been incredibly expensive, here is a look at the final product– and 10 reasons why it is a true fifth generation multi-role air superiority fighter.

1) Mission Flexibility

The Basic F-35 design is multi-role, but in addition, there are three variants that add mission specific capabilities. The three models are CTOL: conventional takeoff and landing, STOVL: short takeoff vertical landing, CATOBAR: catapult Assisted Take Off Barrier Arrested Recover (aircraft carrier launched).

As Lockheed Martin writes, “attack any target, any time, with the freedom to operate anywhere on Day One of a conflict. By integrating different capabilities, the fighter brings a “quantum leap in lethality and survivability.”
Heres Why the F 35 Fighter Jet Will Dominate 21st Century Skies

2) Travel In Packs

The Air Force will buy 1,763 conventional models and the Navy will take 680 short takeoff and carrier models, according to Business Insider. So the U.S. can put a lot of these hyper-advanced planes in the sky at one time.

Heres Why the F 35 Fighter Jet Will Dominate 21st Century Skies

3) Silent But Deadly 

With embedded antennas, aligned edges, internal weapons and fuel, and special coatings and materials, the F-35 uses stealth to pick and choose engagements without getting pinged by enemy defense systems.

Heres Why the F 35 Fighter Jet Will Dominate 21st Century Skies

4) All Our Friends Want Them

Britain, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, and Austria will contribute $4.8 billion apiece to development and intend to purchase 700 aircraft. Other interested countries include Singapore, South Korea, Finland, Spain, Greece, and Belgium, and Israel.

Heres Why the F 35 Fighter Jet Will Dominate 21st Century Skies

5) Packs a Punch

The F-35 can handle up to 18,000 lbs of ordnance, which means plenty of missiles, bombs, and other kinetic tools to use agains the enemy.

Heres Why the F 35 Fighter Jet Will Dominate 21st Century Skies

6) Can See The Bad Guys Coming

The F-35 features the most powerful and comprehensive integrated sensor package of any fighter aircraft in history.

Heres Why the F 35 Fighter Jet Will Dominate 21st Century Skies

7) They Call it “Lightning II” For a Reason

The F-35 can go a blazing mach 1.6 and has a range of 1200 nautical miles. It’s named after the World War II twin-prop Lockheed P-38 Lightning.

Heres Why the F 35 Fighter Jet Will Dominate 21st Century Skies

8) Relatively Cheap to Maintain

To keep the F-35 up in the sky and flying will cost about half the amount of older fighter planes, according to  Lockheed officials.

Heres Why the F 35 Fighter Jet Will Dominate 21st Century Skies

9) But No Expense Spared in Development

With Research and development costs included, the total cost of each F-35 will be about $300 million.

Heres Why the F 35 Fighter Jet Will Dominate 21st Century Skies

10) Uncle Sam Wants To Get His Money’s Worth

The Pentagon says over the next 50-years the F-35 program will cost about a $trillion dollars. Yikes.

Heres Why the F 35 Fighter Jet Will Dominate 21st Century Skies

They are going to continue to hammer out kinks and try minor tweaks of the design until at least 2018.

Sorry Blaze readers, no civilian versions yet available.

(h/t Business Insider)

 

Comments (346)

1 2 3 ... 8
  • CS Lewis FAN
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:41pm

    why do we spend so much more than anyone else?
    it’s amazing how the Russian and now Chinese approach is quantity over quality. Worked in WWII and in Korea. So we put up 1,500 of these $300M planes (where’s the money coming from again?). We already have as many fighter jets as Russia & China combined. What’s the point? They will just copy our technology (most Russian fighters look like ours) eventually.

    Report Post » CS Lewis FAN  
    • nysteve
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:48pm

      Because WE ARE THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

      Report Post »  
    • machochris
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:49pm

      OK, you get 100 Model T’s and I will get a Vette and we will see who wins a race…

      Report Post »  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:50pm

      because they STEAL their technology, and we CREATE it ! ? ! ?

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • Dustoff
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:57pm

      Hmmm, how did that work out from Saddam and all his Russian fighters when they tried to take on our combat jets.

      Need I say anymore.

      Report Post » Dustoff  
    • spfoam1
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:57pm

      The bull with the biggest horns on display is usually left alone, and is only tested by the foolish.

      Report Post »  
    • delorisdo
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:58pm

      A LOT of people just do not understand what it takes to keep our country safe & to discourage other countries from attacking the USA !!! Some would like to go back to Bi-plane I think !!
      They have NO IDEA what other countries have & even our country guess at times !! I would rather be ready for things to happen NOT JUST SIT ON OUR BUTTS !!!!

       
    • elosogrande
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:59pm

      You may not remember, but in the first Gulf War and the second, Iraq was flying fighters built in Russia. I don’t believe any of those fighters got off a shot, but if they did, they didn’t hit anything. None of those Iraqi fighters are flying today. Same thing goes for the 3000 tanks Iraq bought from Russia. They were all put in the scrap heap by U.S. fighter and helicopter pilots.

      The new hardware might be $300 million a copy, but the bad guys will go down in flames before they even know they were in the fight.

      Report Post »  
    • Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:11pm

      I flew one of these planes in Battlefield 3. It turns like a boat. I am an expert.

      Report Post » Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American  
    • The Dark Side
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:14pm

      @ CS. Yes often quality does mean more than quantity. First, the upkeep costs on quantity often exceeds the upkeep costs of quality. Second, often quality wins over quantity. See Isreali Six-Day War (June 1967).

      Answer from the Dark Side!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Mateytwo Barreett
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:24pm

      @Machochris
      Let me pick the course, you REVERSE the ratio , and I can still tell who will win- and have $7,999,400 in the bank. Or more definitvely speaking WHOM will owe the Chicoms $4,000,000 less!

      Report Post » Mateytwo Barreett  
    • K Chad Roberts
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:26pm

      The forward march of technology is how we stay more advanced than our enemies. Yes, they eventually steal, reverse engineer, and reconstruct our designs, but it takes them so long; they’re always a generation or two behind. FYI, the Russians did make many of their own designs.

      About the fighter though, it seems pretty cool, but the comment about it’s “blazing” Mach 1.6 speed, is a bit uneducated. Many of our previous fighters are far faster. While speed isn’t necessarily as important nowadays (as this is a multi-purpose fighter, not really an interceptor), it’s important to note that the F-14 Tomcat (a 40 year old jet) flew reliably at mach 2.2, and had a capacity of around 16,000 lb.

      Report Post »  
    • Black3Actual
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:26pm

      This jet will NOT be in the air after the first week of REAL combat opps. And, for the record, anyone with a solid understanding of military history knows that, unless you are under divine protection, numbers generally beat quality – especially when that “quality” has fatal flaws (see story of Me 262 in WW II to understand).

      Report Post » Black3Actual  
    • MR_ANDERSON
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:53pm

      Reason it will dominate…

      …because it will be backed by the F-22.

      Report Post »  
    • BOMUSTGO
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:57pm

      In the first Gulf War, a Mig-25 shot down an F-18 hornet.

      Report Post » BOMUSTGO  
    • dont_drive_slow_in_the_left_lane_obliviot
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:58pm

      What a collection of ignorant statements. We spend the $ because we don’t treat our people as expendable slaughter animals. Check out how many Russians, Chinese and NK’s died in the various wars vs ours.

      Report Post » dont_drive_slow_in_the_left_lane_obliviot  
    • CLEttinger
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:06pm

      These are worthless in the next world war. we cant mass produce them. We won ww2 because we out produced the germans, there tanks planes you name it were better, we just made more of our garbage and beat the heck out of them. WW3 will be won by mass production.

      Report Post » CLEttinger  
    • Black3Actual
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:26pm

      @Thedarkside,

      First, the Israelis are under divine protection so, no comparison.

      Second, technology costs a LOT more to keep up than simple machines. The F-22 and F-35 are prime examples. They require fixed service facilities (read that VULNERABLE and EXPENSIVE). Also, they will require CIVILIAN technicians (again, EXPENSIVE). Their weapons are expensive, parts, pilot training. heck, EVERYTHING about them is expensive yet they are being shot down in training exercises by T-38′s (F-5′s). Do you know enough to understand what I just told you?

      Now, are you aware that they still have problems flying in the rain?

      Report Post » Black3Actual  
    • Black3Actual
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:30pm

      Clettinger is correct: we ONLY beat the Germans because we were able to out-produce them. Yes, we had some excellent fighters, but the Germans actually produced the best piston engined aircraft of WW II, most people just don’t know about it because fewer than a dozen or so ever got into combat (look up the Ta 152H). It was a match for ANYTHING the allies were flying. Also, the top 50 highest scoring aces of WW II were GERMAN! So their pilot quality was also high, there were just too few of them.

      Look, this is a marvel of technology, but it simply does NOT do what Lockheed and the military claim it does because it is NEVER 100% mission capable for more than a few hours. These things are hanger queens and “gripe’ generators. PLEASE, BLAZE, LISTEN TO ME!!! Look in to the F-22 and F-35. The USAF would be better served building a new fleet of silent eagles. And we can have 4 TIMES as many jets that work for the same or less money than this F-35.

      Report Post » Black3Actual  
    • K Chad Roberts
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:31pm

      “anyone with a solid understanding of military history knows that, unless you are under divine protection, numbers generally beat quality”

      Completely and entirely incorrect.

      From ancient times to modern times, quality and strategy has ALWAYS trumped sheer numbers.

      The Greeks learned in in ancient times during BOTH major wars with Persia.
      The Byzantium empire learned this in their hundreds of years of wars against the Mongols.
      All sides learned this during the initial trench warfare during WWI
      The red baron is a prime example of this
      Japanese losses during their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was a prime example of skill and quality standing up against numbers and tactics.
      The Russians use of numbers over quality in equipment and training during WWII resulted in enormous loss of life, and crushing defeats. (in some battles, USSR forces outnumbered the Germans 6 to 1, and they still lost decisively)

      This applies to aircraft as well. The winner in modern day air fights, is whoever can hit the other first. American planes are easily the most capable of doing this. Yes, Migs can kill American Fighters. Migs are a respectable, cheap alternative to any of the F series., but one on one, and even 4 on one, the Migs aren’t as useful, or valuable in combat.

      One of the biggest reasons Israel exists today is because they had our equipment. They completely wiped out their enemies during their war with 5 OTHER COUNTRIES cuz their strategy focused on making each pers

      Report Post »  
    • Black3Actual
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:40pm

      @ K Chad

      Tactics and choice of battle field often help a great deal, and CAN provide an edge over numbers, but this is applies to a battle, NOT a war. Check the results of your history against this yard stick again. Your statements will not hold up so well.
      ALL of your examples fall under this analysis. WAR, my friend, not single battles or duels.

      Report Post » Black3Actual  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:46pm

      I think a massive amount of much older hardware should be scraped. Take it back to the Strike Eagle and junk the rest because that’s really all they amount to today. We have use for Starlifters and other cargo planes, but not for older fighters.

      Buck I don’t think you worded this article right. The F-35 won’t dominate the skies for anything beyond the first 2 1/2 decades for the United States. What’s online right now is frightening. Keep your eyes peeled toward the end of next year for some sneak peeks of what will not dominate, but own the skies.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The Dark Side
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:57pm

      @ Black. Your condescension is uncivil. You really should check that at the door.

      Yes I understand. That said, the F15 airframes are now getting old. They develop flaws that are often difficult to detect. These flaws will cause them to fall out of the air. They either need to be replaced by new F15′s or with a new design.

      This project, like EVERY defense project, has its flaws. That said, we got a bunch of folks willing to throw some money in the pot for R&D. That, to me, is fiscally sound and just “plane” makes sense. (sorry couldn’t help that).

      I do get your game. Every example where I demonstrate quality or quantity, you will counter with divine intervention. Thus, if I mention the Battle of Franklin where two Henry-armed Union regiments won over several large Confederate attacks or where a small U.S. Army detachment defeated overwhelming Sioux forces at the Wagon Box Fight and Hayfield Fight and during Red Cloud’s War you will respond that God hated the South and the Indians. So you win.

      More thoughts than most care to read from the Dark Side!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Once A Marine Always An American
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 5:06pm

      Right, and Aslan went up against Jadis with lesser quality weapons. No he had to the absolute best weapons needed for the job. As matter of fact he the only weapons which would defeat her, the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve. And the price of the war for Narnia was emence.
      You could learn alot from that which you claim to be fan of, I suggest that you re-read his works.

      Report Post »  
    • The Dark Side
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 5:30pm

      @ Black. To preempt your war vs. conflict/battle argument, please review your history on the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895). You may recall that Japan defeated the technologically inferior and much larger Chinese forces, and gained control of Korea. Certainly you are not going to argue that God backed Japan over China?

      To be clear, however, I am not discounting the importance of numbers. Often, it is the deciding factor but it is only one factor among many.

      Looking forward, I believe (and you likely disagree) that most hostilities will be fought in small regional conflicts were precision will be valued over destruction. Of course, we could always go to war with China or the emerging Russia. I concede that numbers will be much more important in those wars, if any. That said, I also strongly believe that precision and quality will trump numbers in the small (much more likely) regional conflicts.

      Just my opinion from the Dark Side!!!

      Report Post »  
    • RockinChuck
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 5:34pm

      well looks mean zero because without the high-tech software etc. all you have is just that, a look alike . Also we need to stay ahead in the air, land and sea. I would rather spend trillions on the F-35 than trillions on food stamps, wind mills, electric blah blah etc. :)

      Report Post » RockinChuck  
    • dorightfearnothing
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 5:58pm

      Because the ability to insert the biggest, baddest, and most boots in any and all asses necessary is the American way. There is a song about it by Toby Keith, try not to over think it…..

      Report Post »  
    • wbalzley
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:06pm

      Neither quantity or quality do you any good if you don’t know how to use them…

      Also, one of the reasons the Germans lost World War II was because we were able to cut off the German supply of OIL…all those tanks and planes sitting idle with no fuel to run them…

      Report Post »  
    • CowboyExpat
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:37pm

      @Black….You have no evidence to support your claims against the F-35….otherwise post the links so we can all be enlightened. The F-35 has never flown against any aircraft in a manner wich would support your claim that it had been defeated by an T-38….give us the link so that we may all be enlightened. Silent Eagle? Now one thing you didn’t mention is that this aircraft is a concept only….never flown.

      Report Post » CowboyExpat  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:10pm

      LOL. Right at this moment the F-35 is the baddest dawg around. That’s not even debatable. The good news is that what’s on the assembly line is pretty much other worldly. By this point Americans should be aware that if we’re willing to sell these weapons to other Countries, we ALREADY have counter measure weapons already in place. There’s a reason why America is the sole super power. Our Warriors have some of the sweetest toys you can imagine.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • last frontier
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:30pm

      Because we value the lives of our armed service men and women, and those people in the middle the half man half women we value them to.

      Report Post » last frontier  
    • Nomoney
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:21pm

      Which would you rather have the real deal or a cheap Chinese knockoff?

      Report Post »  
    • 1947
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:27pm

      Your Right We Are A Great Country but, OUR LEADERSHIP Is In the DUMP

      Report Post »  
    • GBTVFan_Non_American_Overseas
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:46pm

      The10thAmendment
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:46pm
      I think a massive amount of much older hardware should be scraped. Take it back to the Strike Eagle and junk the rest because that’s really all they amount to today. We have use for Starlifters and other cargo planes, but not for older fighters.
      _________________________________

      Take a look to the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Google Maps or Google Earth…an interesting airplane graveyard.

      Report Post » GBTVFan_Non_American_Overseas  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:53pm

      “The 10 Reasons the F-35 Lightning Fighter Will Dominate 21st Century Skies”

      Are these the same 10 reasons the F-22 was to dominate the 21st Century Skies?
      Oh, that’s right; the F-22 has never been allowed to fly a single mission yet. Why is that and why will the F-35 be allowed to fly when the F-22 was not? I don’t see the WH or Congress letting this aircraft leave its Base of Operations…. ever. Just like the F-22, the F-35 is for show and sale only.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • jlfonz
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:56pm

      The difference is that the other countries versions will be little more than burnt spots on the ground within minutes of meeting one of these in the air.

      Report Post »  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:06pm

      CLETTINGER
      “These are worthless in the next world war. we cant mass produce them. We won ww2 because we out produced the germans, there tanks planes you name it were better, we just made more of our garbage and beat the heck out of them. WW3 will be won by mass production”
      Your logic is very flawed and out-dated……if there is a WW3 there will be no mass production. You will have what you have……. and it better be good. There will never be a WWII type war again

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • miren
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:58pm

      Why don’t the Russians or Chinese just come over and kick our asses and take over the country. Answer: CAUSE THEY CAN”T!!! The money invested in our military is the deterrent of Invasion and attack. Plain and simple.

      Report Post » miren  
    • TROONORTH
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 11:14pm

      Same isolationist thinking that kept the U.S. out of WW1 until the very end and kept the U.S. out of WW2 for two years. “Weakness breeds aggression.”

      Report Post » TROONORTH  
    • Uranium Wedge
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 1:03am

      Beautiful.

      Report Post » Uranium Wedge  
    • JediKnight
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 1:13am

      The Russian fighters might look like ours, but they’re nowhere near comparable in performance.

      Report Post »  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 1:15am

      Gee that’s great all our friends who are also bankrupt want some. And they can be used against countries we want to buy our debt until they stop buying our debt.

      Report Post »  
    • ronin_6
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 3:11am

      Didn’t work in Korea or during WWII. Germans owned the skys over mother Russia, while we owned them over Europe. In both cases better planes and better pilots dominated. As for Korea, they had better planes at the beginning. Seemed to take us the whole war to fianlly reach parity, plus they could dart over the Yalu where we couldn’t chase them. No, in the air quality will always beat quantity, pilot to pilot. I wonder though, now that we have drones aplenty if this isn’t just a flying white elephant?

      Report Post » ronin_6  
    • Tagudinian
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 8:43am

      This airplane is a symbol of American exceptionalism. Other countries can only dream. America does!

      Report Post » Tagudinian  
    • NEAF
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 9:25am

      No wonder we kicked the communist butts (Russia and China). Go ahead and travel using a Chinese airplane. Moron. But you don’t worry, soon we are going to use Chinese Navy and travel to space in Russia space “stove” shuttle.

      Report Post » NEAF  
    • LookTowardsTheLight
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 10:01am

      “it’s amazing how the Russian and now Chinese approach is quantity over quality”

      Remember the Persian Gulf War? Just one of our expensive high tech weapons was taking out multiple Soviet built targets. The Russian Generals were embarrassed that their toys were no match to ours.

      God Bless America!

      Report Post » LookTowardsTheLight  
    • Clive
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 10:04am

      who else loves costly war and human death woooooo hoooooo!!!!! here’s a crazy idea, save our tax money, or invest in something real, because we are BROKE.

      Report Post »  
    • DavidZion
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 11:47am

      Better analogy would be I get a Navy Seal with combat load.
      You get 100 3rd graders with sling shots.
      That has been our over all strategy since Reagan. Thats why we destroyed a superior armor force in about 100 hours. 7 Abrams (US) engaged and destroyed an entire Iraq (Soviet Tanks) Brigade

      Report Post » DavidZion  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 12:17pm

      Yea, we should have stuck with the biplanes from WWI, that‘s all we’ll ever need…that and a good team of horses.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • SgtB
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 12:25pm

      I would much rather see this money go toward further development of the laser AC-130 gunship. After having failed to prove that the 747 based laser defense system could focus past a few hundred miles, they put a smaller laser on a C-130 and it can focus out to 50 miles or more. That means that with advanced radar and tracking, a single c-130 can cover 50 miles in all directions and target enemies for engagement well beyond that. I hear that the f-22 can get a radar ping on a plane out to 300 miles. Surely if that is the case, a C-130 could do at least that. A small fleet of only 100 of these planes could protect our cities and coasts from enemy aircraft.

      If we could defeat all enemy fighters with a big lumbering and battle tested reliable C-130, then why wouldn’t we? Don’t forget that we already have these planes being built and the development cost would only be in the weapon system which is at least 80% already there.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • ZZero
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 12:33pm

      For Lewis Fan

      Missles are pretty cheap and, since Libya and Egypt fell, plentiful. Older aircraft are much more susceptible to missiles. Air domination allows us to rule the battlefield and keeps the enemy off our backs and running for cover. Pretty simple to understand when you think about it.

      Report Post » ZZero  
    • 912network
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 12:37pm

      $300 Million? Yeah, right. And the Tea Party are a bunch of racists.

      That figure was arrived at by dividing the TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS, including maintenance and operating costs (which includes fuel) by the total number of planes they intend to purchase.

      When individuals compare that cost with the cost of a NON-STEALTHY, ANCIENT fighter jet, they’re comparing rotting apples to fresh, super-sweet oranges. Compare total program costs of the older jet, and add the total opportunity costs of not having stealth, and the cost isn’t very much at all, for what we’ll be getting.

      And if we allow Congress to steal $TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to give to people who refuse to work, certainly we can give our military the tools and capability they need to keep us safe from any threat!

      Report Post »  
    • Blastjet
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 2:28pm

      THe major factor is airframe age and technology. The F-16s & 15s were designed & built in the 1960s & 1970s, They’re running out of flying time. The F-18 is a 60s/70s airframe design modififies to make it minimally capable in a high-threat environment, but NFL going forward. There;s a rational argument for building a simple, rugged air-2-mud acft for use around the FEBA, but the best candidate is the A-10, & the USAF has a bias against building anything old even if it;’s the best thing that can be built not tomention the cheapest. The negative for the A-10 is that it can’t live as a penatrator and has almost zero air-2-air capability. Since we’re done building the F-22, it’s going to be the F/A-35 that going to have to rule the skies for the next 50 years or we’re going to turn into a 2nd-class nation on the international stage.

      Report Post » Blastjet  
    • barstooltestpilot
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 4:26pm

      You don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.

      Report Post » barstooltestpilot  
    • certified ethical hacker
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 6:41pm

      yea you can thank your demo turd clin ton for selling our technology to the chinese, and they still own our arses!!! I have been in F/A 18 squadrons and it is all about keeping ahead. Other wise they are ahead of us.

      Report Post »  
    • Ron2
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 8:09pm

      I would bet Russa or China would welcome you there with open arms,try it you will probably love it!

      Report Post »  
    • ron_65
      Posted on December 24, 2011 at 5:17am

      The budget of our military is in direct proportion to what they are meant to defend. The simple answer is we spend the most because we have the most to lose.

      Report Post »  
    • Purveyor
      Posted on December 24, 2011 at 9:58am

      You’d better thank your stars for our military, were it not for our soldiers and weapons, China and/or would already be here!

      We have managed to screw up just about everything else, yet, the military is providing us with a window to repair the damage we’ve done to our economy and culture. Unfortunately, the Liberals seem hell bent on committing national suicide!

      Purveyor

      Report Post »  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on December 24, 2011 at 11:38am

      “All our ”friends” want them.”

      Spare me. One of them WILL sell one, crash one or give one to our enemies. Like our so called ‘high tech drone’ when every one has one (and they will because it’s really all about money, not defense) we will be sitting here wondering how we got scrod… again.

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • jaswalt
      Posted on December 24, 2011 at 5:00pm

      We spend so much more than everyone else because it’s a war machine. And in war, the last thing you want is a fair fight. It’s your objective to the give the enemy the maximum opportunity to meet their god. The extra money spent translates to strength, both technological and physical, and increases the chance of you being successful in that endeavor.

      Report Post » jaswalt  
    • jaswalt
      Posted on December 24, 2011 at 5:10pm

      @ K Chad Roberts–While you’re right that there are other, older planes that fly much faster, what you missed is that they can only fly above mach 1 for short periods of time as it rapidly decreases their fuel supply and greatly limits the amount of time they can spend on scene. The F-35 has what’s called super cruise. That means it can do its entire mission at supersonic speeds. Mach 1.6 is its normal, everyday cruising speed and that 1600 mile range takes that into account,

      Report Post » jaswalt  
    • Garwye
      Posted on December 24, 2011 at 10:39pm

      Hey Lewis,

      It costs us more to develop the technology. The chinsleez and ruskies just steal the technology off the internet.

      Report Post »  
    • MemphisViking
      Posted on December 25, 2011 at 12:13pm

      “Also, the top 50 highest scoring aces of WW II were GERMAN!” That‘s because the Germans flew their pilots constantly while we didn’t. German pilots spent a lot more time in the air than ours did.

      Report Post »  
    • TDOM
      Posted on December 26, 2011 at 6:30am

      Their is nothing more expensive than a second best Airforce

      Report Post »  
    • jacques.daspy
      Posted on December 26, 2011 at 10:22am

      The Russians presently have neither quality nor quantity, the Chinese are faking it. You could ask the Syrians, Egyptians, and Iraqis what happened to the air forces they usta have. In “conflict” and even “operations” there is no substitute for effectiveness. Leave it to the US enemies to provide the “cannon fodder” and martyrs, the world won’t run out of stupid for years to come.

      Report Post »  
    • infidel907
      Posted on December 30, 2011 at 12:17am

      @ BLACK3 —

      Some of your Raptor statements are false, however I can see you have a biased opinion of either prior F-15 operator or maintainer. Fixed facilities are not required to keep FMC Raptor btw, maybe the F-22 units of yester year, but not now. Civilian technicians do not exist in Active Duty maintenance units, there are factory reps at disposable, but they arent leaned on or required for daily functions.

      Not sure if you have access to FMC rates of aged F-15C fleets vs Raptor fleets, you would probably be suprised.

      Report Post » infidel907  
  • co2dog
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:40pm

    Whatever we can think of and develop, the Chinese and Russians can copy. The great attribute of both the F-22 and F-35 are that these planes are extremely expensive even if the development costs are not counted. The carbon fiber shells are essentially hand made. Can’t just stamp them out using automobile assembly techniques. So if China and Russia follow and copy, they will have to pay a lot for these machines. No other manned fighter will challenge these planes.
    However, very cheap UAV’s will dominate the skies. Hope we don’t spend too much for these F-22, F-35 machines which will soon be obsolete. Oh, and these combat UAV’s better not rely on GPS as the primary navigation system. We see how easy it is to spoof GPS.
    The US has dominated every battle field since WW II because it ruled the sky. UAV’s are for the next war while the F-22/F-35 are for fighting past battles.

    Report Post »  
    • Black3Actual
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:28pm

      I disagree. UAV’s can be defeated through sophisticated electronic counter measures and, when face-to-face with a real pilot in close combat, the UAV is at a disadvantage in that the remote pilot will seldom have the level of situational awareness as the man on the scene. That will generally give the edge to the manned fighter.

      Report Post » Black3Actual  
    • Lord_Frostwind
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:07pm

      With all the problems with hackers breaking into the DOD, I would recommend moving away from drones until the control technology can be improved and secured. The last thing we need is to start depending on a system that can be downed with the click of a mouse.

      Report Post » Lord_Frostwind  
    • 30mmgunpilot
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:33pm

      I also disagree. Using the sensor on a UAV is like looking through a soda straw…very narrow field of view. Nothing matches the swivel mounted computer (head/brain) for instantaneous SA in the close in fight. If you say that we won’t be fighting close in…you need to catch up on your aviation history.

      Part 2 of the disagreement: Ever seen the “new” Battlestar Galactica series? Seen the pristine stealth UAV in Iranian posession? It’s a lot harder to hack into human wetware. We might have to fight degraded for a while, but rest assured, we can still fight when the network goes down.

      Report Post »  
    • wbalzley
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:08pm

      We rule the skies? I guess that is why our national symbol is the EAGLE…

      Report Post »  
    • co2dog
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:35pm

      The UAV‘s of today are toys and mere slaves to the ’pilot’ in a truck. The real UAV’s are pilotless and self guided. We have the technology but the manned plane lobby is holding us back. We will have cars that drive themselves very soon. Google has one tooling around Palo Alto.
      The link back to the ‘pilot’ in a truck is an incredible weakness.
      The F-22/F-35 are platforms to learn how to network planes into attack units. All of the electronics can be upgraded as new stuff is developed. Very soon, the pilot will be just ‘along for the ride’. However, the physical limitations on the pilot will be a liability. The plane can turn and climb faster than a human body can endure.
      In less than 10 years, production UAV’s will outfight any human. Just think of the combat computer games where the computer is not handicapped and you have to fight those planes. You won’t last the first pass. And, the UAV’s can be built for 1/10 or less the cost of a manned plane.

      Report Post »  
    • okredstate
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:25pm

      While you and CO2Dog have some valid points, you both have some invalid points. First of all, this generation of stealth does not have the same rain issues that the B-2 and F-117 had. Panel seams and joints were covered with tape and sealant on the B-2. The 22 & 35 do not. Therefore operation in the rain is no longer an issue as before. As for UAV’s (really UCAVs) unmanned combat air vehicles are good for high altitude surveillance, and air to ground attacks using GPS or laser guided hellfire missiles. They cannot, nor will they ever be used for air to air or dog fighting. If that is what you mean by the future of air combat, then you are wrong big time.
      AV’s)

      Report Post »  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:19pm

      @co2dog
      “Whatever we can think of and develop, the Chinese and Russians can copy.”

      Don’t you mean… “Whatever we can think of and develop, the Chinese and Russians will steal”?
      Or, “Whatever we can think of and develop, we will give to them for campaign contributions”?

      Report Post » The-Monk  
  • countryfirst
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:36pm

    I don’t see any solar panels on it.

    Report Post » countryfirst  
    • TheePolitinator
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:48pm

      Yeah and its going to be tough to stop mid air and “plug it in”.

      Report Post » TheePolitinator  
    • Scratchingmyhead
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:55pm

      Or those windmill things that keep it in the air!

      Report Post »  
    • wbalzley
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:13pm

      SNARK: I don’t see an oil or gas refinery on it either…must be kindof hard to find a gas station up there!

      Report Post »  
  • spfoam1
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:33pm

    A couple thousand of these should be enough to make anyone worry.

    Report Post »  
    • wbalzley
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:15pm

      The real benefits are the low cost of maintenance and the flexible use. This means you don’t need specialized planes for certain kinds of missions that sit idle for long periods, and it costs less to keep them in the air. The savings in the long term could be substantial…

      Report Post »  
  • ChiefGeorge
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:32pm

    F15′s may be outdated and the F22 can run rings around it, but most of our real adversarys could not stand the withering attack from cruise missiles, round the clock bombings by stealth F117′s, B2‘s then the F15’s. Your not going to send your topguns until they are really needed. Chinese and Russians would be kaput in one day. Our Fighters have no rivals, our training and experience has no rivals, our logistics and war planning has no rivals.

    Report Post » ChiefGeorge  
    • sawhite
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:04pm

      And let’s keep it that way!

      Report Post »  
    • devan95
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:43pm

      Except Obama, Code Pink and the rest of the Democrats. THEY are the biggest threat now.

      Report Post » devan95  
    • wbalzley
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:18pm

      Combat Rule Number 1: Never overestimate your strength or underestimate your opponent. We have one MAJOR weakness–all of our weapons platforms depend on OIL. What is it we are fighting over again?

       
    • okredstate
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:42pm

      I admire your enthusiasm, but the F-117′S were sent to the bone yard about 5 years ago. The B-2′s can only carry so much, depending on where the fight is. The F-15 is still a fine jet, but no war is won in a day. The one thing you have not considered is this. Those Russian and Chinese aircraft will be flown by Chinese and Russian pilots, not Iraqies or Iranians. Chief, you need to lay off the firewater.

      Report Post »  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 11:13pm

      Although officially retired, the F-117 fleet remains intact, and aircraft have been carefully mothballed.

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • ccarry
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 1:47pm

      The Chinese have hacked our manufacturers and have all the info they need to copy it…and already have. Superior pilot training and ample funding of supportive resources will spell the difference. Oh, I forgot, we‘re broke and can’t seem to fix that.

      Nothin’ going on here folks….move along…that’s it, move along, now…..

      Report Post »  
  • paulusmaximus
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:30pm

    For many years we have need a universal service aircraft it means way more then which is best in limited rolls. Without independence there is no energy independence and with almost everything we have here being produced oversea we may need to be able to have interchangeable parts to survive!

    Report Post » paulusmaximus  
  • GNothac
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:29pm

    Other interested countries include Singapore, South Korea, Finland, Spain, Greece, and Belgium, and Israel.

    I thought Spain and Greece are bankrupt.

    Report Post »  
    • Mateytwo Barreett
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:46pm

      Sokay! Jon Corzine, Tim Geithner and Paulson all said they had concluded nogitations, and have overcome all bonding issues!

      Report Post » Mateytwo Barreett  
    • CowboyExpat
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:40pm

      Missed Japan…who just signed on to buy 40.

      Report Post » CowboyExpat  
  • Micmac
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:19pm

    Shouldn’t include Spain and Greece because who knows where they are going soon. I heard that NoBama is giving Chavez one for a birthday gift, after he bows in front of him on public TV.

    NoBama 2012
    Reboot Washington

    Report Post »  
    • Melvin Spittle
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:26pm

      Should not include Turkey either. Turkey‘s new president is and Islamic extremist that persecutes the Christians in his country and aids other country’s islamic extremists.

      Report Post » Melvin Spittle  
    • audiemurphy
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:35pm

      turkey ??????
      better rethink that one !

      Report Post » audiemurphy  
    • babylonvi
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:40pm

      Correct, NO NEW communications, computers, aircraft or missiles to Turkey until they renew loyalty to NATO and a secular government.

      Report Post » babylonvi  
    • Micmac
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:46pm

      I agree with Melvin, just overlooked Turkey. Any country that doesn’t have total stability ahould be excluded. My question is ,”What are the safeguards against other countries getting to see the innards?” Like broken parts that are replaced. Think Fast & Fury.

      NoBama 2012
      Reboot Washington

      Report Post »  
  • jakartaman
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:19pm

    Does it come in red?

    Report Post »  
    • Viper1
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:47pm

      The Chinese make one with a red star on the wing, Does that count?

      Report Post »  
    • Viper1
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:05pm

      Does the Chinese version with a big red star count as a red one? They already made one of those.

      Report Post »  
  • Al J Zira
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:19pm

    As Lockheed Martin writes, “attack any target, any time, with the freedom to operate anywhere on Day One of a conflict. By integrating different capabilities, the fighter brings a “quantum leap in lethality and survivability.”

    But does it work after Iran drops an EMP in the middle of the country?

    Report Post » Al J Zira  
    • texasfireguy
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:24pm

      Military electronics are hardened against EMP I believe.

      Report Post » texasfireguy  
    • Melvin Spittle
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:28pm

      All of our weapons systems are required to be nuclear hardened against EMP weapons. Sensitive electronics are shielded.

      Report Post » Melvin Spittle  
  • HopinForBetter
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:17pm

    The F-22 was a superior and cheaper aircraft.

    Report Post »  
    • Dustoff
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:59pm

      F-22 has a different role.

      Report Post » Dustoff  
    • william.wadsworth
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:01pm

      The cost per F-35 is actually cheaper than the F-22.

      Report Post »  
    • Bill in Texas
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:07pm

      I agree, who stops a perfectly good twin engine aircraft program for a single engine lawn dart program? It‘s SOL when it’s engine goes out. I bet like the F-16 it has a glide ratio of a rock.

      Report Post »  
    • CowboyExpat
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:51pm

      @Bill….your comments on single versus twin are misguided. Most of the time, when a twin has experienced single engine failure, it takes the second engine with it. The examples where a twin experienced a failure and the one good engine saved the day are far and few between. More of a marketing ploy than real world. And yes, the F-16 glide ratio resembles a rock. And there have been more than 4400 of these types ‘lawn darts’ built and sold around the world. They have a fine kill ratio.

      Report Post » CowboyExpat  
  • Apple Bite
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:15pm

    ….Still not better than the Raptor.

    If Liberals would get out of the way, the F-22 could have cost much less than it was at the time. But since they have the grand design of destroying this country from within, the rising cost of technology has killed key developments in Military Ordinance…

    Report Post » Apple Bite  
    • Mateytwo Barreett
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:24pm

      Suggested listening- – An UNEDITED version of Eisenhower’s farewell address. Military, Industrial, CONGRESSIONAL complex. Kinda strange how it always makes a big old loop and ends up in the same stinkin’ place.

      Report Post » Mateytwo Barreett  
  • junior1971
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:11pm

    A plane that fights lightning!? Cool! Maybe I should actually read the story, something sounds fishy here!

    Report Post » junior1971  
  • CharlesJB
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:10pm

    Selling to Turkey is a bad idea. They are morphing into an enemy of Israel, they are changing into a radical islamist regime. If they get our plane, they may fly one to Iran and get the Russians and Chinese over to reverse engineer it. Then again they might not. But Turkey’s too unreliable now to chance it IMO.
    The first planes should go to Irael and South Korea, because those are our allies who face the greatest threats of war against them.

    Report Post »  
    • The Dark Side
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:21pm

      Likely true. Remember, however, planes like this require regular maintenance. The contract generally provides the purchasers of the aircraft a nominal stock of repair parts. After that, the contracts generally restrict replacement parts to a one for one swap. Thus, if Turkey becomes our enemy, the usefulness of the aircraft sold is greatly reduced because replacement parts become so rare.

      Think Sadam in the 1980′s.

      Another reply from the Dark Side!!!

      Report Post »  
    • texasfireguy
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:27pm

      We sold F-14′s to the Iranians shortly before the Shah was kicked out. It wasn’t an issue for very long because of the maintenance and spare parts issue. I bet the Russians got their hands on one though, I agree that selling these to Turkey might be a bad idea.

      Report Post » texasfireguy  
    • mred33
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 8:44pm

      Iran had our latest F-15 when we were thrown out and you know how many were running after 4 weeks?? Almost none of them. They may have bought the plane, but the people in the Iran military could not fix it if their life depended on it. Sure they flew a few of them, but most if not all had no radar and other very useful systems broken to the point that maybe 25% of the plane was really ready to fight. After 1 year they were all sitting on the ground and making fine targets for anything you needed a target for. If you can’t keep them operational, then the best fighter in the world will not do you one bit of good.

      As for other countries getting any military goods from us, I would keep that list VERY short, especially in airplanes and missiles. Also, don’t discount the Russian pilots. In Korea where we really were going against them in air combat, we had a kill ratio of 1 to 1. That is not very good for long lasting effect for our side. We cannot afford to trade 1 for 1 in any field and especially air combat.

      From what I have seen of us selling to other countries, we are great at selling to our enemies that we thought were our friends. Just look at Iraq and Iran. Both were our friends until they were our enemies. I would tread very lightly in selling anything to anyone. There are VERY few countries that I would trust with anything.

      Ed

      Report Post » mred33  
  • Viper1
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:07pm

    This is the plane that was the demise of the F22 an even more advanced aircraft that was stopped because it was too expensive to manufacture. It was less than 300,000,000.00 per plane. I spelled out the three hundred million per plane because people need to see an actual cost before they get it. We just took a step backwards from the most technologically advanced aircraft ever built to accept the second best aircraft. Of course the government is touting the wonders of this craft because they have to sell it to the American public. What happens when they decide that these are too expensive or some other reason comes up? Are they going to come up with something else that they thought was truly better or was it just cheaper?

    Report Post »  
    • The Dark Side
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:14pm

      @ Viper. Your question presumes that costs is not or should not be a factor in deciding what is the best aircraft. I reject the premise and hope others also reject it. Of course, cost should not be the only factor but … dang it … I am paying for these things thus I want the government to be a good steward of my money (and frankly I think it sucks at that task).

      Response from the Dark Side!!!

      Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:23pm

      If… I am flying… in a War… I want the Advantage and to Win… hell with the costs!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • Viper1
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:33pm

      Dark side, the cost wasn’t the only reason I wrote this article. The plane has many other pluses that the F35 doesn’t have, but you only have so much room. The plane was ten generations ahead of anything on the drawing boards until the Chinese reverse engineered one of their own. They weren’t alone the Russians developed the engines they are selling to the Chinese. The President also said that they were too advanced so it was dangerous to sell them to our allies. Really? The British developed a new engine made by Rolls-Royce that was twice as energy efficient as the ones being built here in the states. NOBAMA rejected the Engine out right, with no further explanation. His hatred of the British, but we can not talk about that. If you want to settle for second best then go ahead, but I’m not going to sit on my hands and shut up!

      Report Post »  
    • GeneTracy
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:35pm

      Agreed.Comparing the F-35 to the F-22 is like comparing the F-16 to the F-15.The F-16 and F-35 might be cheaper (and in fairness) more versatile than the Eagle or Raptor,however,costs and politics really gives us an inferior craft.Just my opinion.

      Report Post » GeneTracy  
    • The Dark Side
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:56pm

      @ Viper. I never suggested that you “shut up.” I also do not dispute much of your argument. I only dispute that cost IS and SHOULD be a factor (not the only factor) when deciding what is built now and in the future.

      I am an old Soldier. I get the emotional desire to throw big money at the military. That said, doing so has gotten us a bunch of expensive junk in the past. Funny, many here would deride those wanting to throw money at eductation (et. al.) to make it better. Yet, they feel that is the right thing to do when it comes to military spending.

      I only ask you and others not to make emotional decisions when it comes to my money. Try to think. If the F22 is superior and that superiority is worth the extra cost then by all means build it. If, however, we are building and equiping our troops with the a Rolls Royce when a Cadillac will do just fine … well you get my point.

      Additional input from the Dark Side!!!

      Report Post »  
    • GBTVFan_Non_American_Overseas
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 9:36pm

      The F22 has a selling restriction from the Congress that says it can’t be sold to any other country. That’s why Israel can’t have them and just put a purchase order to buy F35 to be delivered in 2016. I read this some time ago, and it’s all I can remember. I think the selling argument was one of the main reasons to develop a different fighter.

      Report Post » GBTVFan_Non_American_Overseas  
    • ron_65
      Posted on December 24, 2011 at 5:39am

      The F-22 is meant to dominate airspace. Not a pound for air to ground. In that role it is by far a superior aircraft. What the F-35 offers is versitility. A single aircraft that can engage air AND ground targets is much cheaper than several different air craft models each designed for a specific mission. The F-22 will remain in inventory simply becase it gives us a distinct advantage in controling the air space of the battlefield. The F-35 is for everything else we current have approximately 7 different aircraft for.
      I see that as a cost benefit.

      Report Post »  
  • John Coctostan
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:06pm

    It looks awesome. Would love to see a video of the STOVL.

    Report Post » John Coctostan  
    • tzion
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:12pm

      Look up the Nova episode “Battle of the X-planes”. It goes through the development and testing of the plane.

      Report Post »  
  • randy
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:06pm

    Britain, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, and Austria will contribute $4.8 billion apiece to development and intend to purchase 700 aircraft. Other interested countries include Singapore, South Korea, Finland, Spain, Greece, and Belgium, and Israel.

    Gee Obama, I don’t see, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, China, or Russia on the list. Are they behind the scenes purchases you traitor?

    Report Post » randy  
  • Gary Fishaholic
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:04pm

    It‘s things like this that keep our country on top I only hope that our POTUS doesn’t try to stop production.

    Report Post » Gary Fishaholic  
  • Sumrknght
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:04pm

    Um. Was it the F35 or F22 just the other day that was listed in a story as having problems with oxygen systems and was involved in fatal crashes (possibly because of these system problems?) Kinda hard to “dominate” when your pilot isn’t getting oxygen.

    Report Post »  
    • Doug
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 3:10pm

      Oh, good grief! What a girlie-man post.

      We also had 3 astronauts burned to death in the 60′s. Disn’t stop us from going to the moon if I recall.

      You sit at home and let the real men do the work, ok?

      Report Post »  
    • Mateytwo Barreett
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:36pm

      Yeah! We got to the moon and. . . . .Alright! that was 50 years ago. The shuttles are going into mothballs and NASA’s big program is to show muslims how good they are. Wassurpoint?

      Report Post » Mateytwo Barreett  
    • ron_65
      Posted on December 24, 2011 at 5:50am

      Not sure what you’re talking about. Do you have a link? If true, don‘t you think they’ll fix the problem, or are you assuming after something like that the military would say, “Screw it! Fly ,em anyway?” I don’t understand what your point is.

      Report Post »  
  • lukerw
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:01pm

    The F-22… Raptor… Rules the Skys!

    Report Post » lukerw  
    • Max jones
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 11:05am

      f-35 is the F-22 after 30 weeks of mma training. A superior version with better parameters.

      Report Post » Max jones  
  • Tigger House
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:01pm

    I would rather my $$$ go towards this than the Volt!!!

    Report Post »  
  • ProgressiveDeist267
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:00pm

    These planes are beauties.

    Report Post »  
  • johnpaulkuchtajr
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:00pm

    Gee! Can we concentrate on becoming energy independent and then we won’t have to develop great air power to defend Middle East oilfields?

    Report Post »  
  • Theleftisda
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 1:58pm

    Still can’t touch the F-22

    Report Post » Theleftisda  
    • ThePostman
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 10:12pm

      Dang right. The cancellation of the F22 was a horrible mistake, not taking anything away from the F35. But they cannot replace one another.

      Report Post »  
    • 1moreOutnumbered
      Posted on December 23, 2011 at 12:44am

      They’re built for 2 different purposes. The F-35 is a strike bird, it’s not going to be used for dogfighting as much as the F-22 would be.

      Report Post » 1moreOutnumbered  
  • BDan6248
    Posted on December 22, 2011 at 1:56pm

    Because the F-15 isn’t dominating enough?

    Report Post »  
    • shackero
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:08pm

      I still love the F14 Tomcat——-It was the coolest aircraft to watch take-off from a carrier……

      Report Post » shackero  
    • The Dark Side
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:09pm

      The F15 and frankly every other aircraft has a projected life expectancy. This can be extented through retro fits. That said, they only stay in the air so long before the airframes and everything attached to them becomes less than air worthy.

      We certainly could build new F15′s. That said, the R&D costs of this next generation jet is nickles and dimes of the overall cost. Remember we got a bunch of folks throwing money into the pot which will significantly reduce our R&D costs. Thus, let’s support our men and women and get them some really great tools.

      My two pounds of thrust from the Dark Side!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Viper1
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:11pm

      Are you a Ron Paul supporter? How big is that island that you live on anyway? I’ll bet that I can find you a slingshot to defend it with somewhere in the bottom of my closet. Wake up!

      Report Post »  
    • rot_soldier
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:12pm

      Where have you been….. no, the F-15 is obsolete. The Russians and Chinese have built aircraft that have surpassed the F-15 and are well on their way to surpassing the F-22.

      Report Post »  
    • MellonCrib
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:48pm

      Our technology is at a level well beyond the F-22 Raptor. If Engineers could talk you would probably find out that we are 12 to 20 years out ahead in R&D.

      Report Post »  
    • Lord_Frostwind
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 4:10pm

      Problem with the F-15 fleet is that they are getting old, maintennance costs are increasing due to small problems that develop within the aircraft as time goes on. Eventually, running the F-15s will be more expensive than replacing them, and since you already have to replace them why not upgrade your equipment?

      Report Post » Lord_Frostwind  
    • Theleftisda
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 6:12pm

      @rot_soldier
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 2:12pm
      Where have you been….. no, the F-15 is obsolete. The Russians and Chinese have built aircraft that have surpassed the F-15 and are well on their way to surpassing the F-22.
      —————————————————————————————————————————————
      You are so full of crap F- 15 dominates all of the russian aircraft hands down not even close not a single Rissian aircraft could get within 59 miles of an F-15 and it will be destroyed an we have had stealth for more than fifty years Russia & China 0 years not one stealth fighter is in operation today wait until you see the F-19 & F-21 both stealth/hypersonic and cloaked (yes like startrek)

      Report Post » Theleftisda  
1 2 3 ... 8

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love