F-22 Funding Cut

[FordGT90Concept]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/senate.f22/index.html

The most advanced air superiority fighter in the world will end production soon.


Hey, Russia, now's your chance! :(

I wonder how long those 187 some Raptors will last against the Sukhoi Su-47.

[El Fiendo]

Well the SU-47 is experimental and has been since 1983. That's when the project was launched. Since then its been slated to be a technology demonstrator. As far as I can tell there's only been one ever produced, but unless they've been constantly throwing out plans since 1983 the thing isn't going to be as advanced as an F22. That is if it ever gets released. The F22 still maintains air superiority and has only experienced losses due to equipment and pilot errors (correct me if I'm wrong).

It's the only 5th generation plane in service, everything else is '4th generation++'. I think you guys have the situation under control. So far there's only been one reported 'downing' of an F22 by an F18 Super Hornet (http://www.alert5.com/2006/04/fa-18f-guns-down-f-22a.html).

And I'm sorry, but 250 Million a plane? Russia's most advanced air superiority fighter in service (the MiG 29) costs ~11 million USD. I know the reported unit cost of the F22 is ~140 million, but why were they allocating 250 million a plane then? I don't think they'd be including operational costs / additional weapons cost (missles) in there. Should only be the the flyaway cost (140 million).

The next closest 5th generation fighter is probably the Russian PAK FA based on maiden flights. Most of the in development ones haven't even seen a maiden flight. The PAK FA itself hasn't seen one yet. The only other 5th generation fighter in development that's currently seen a maiden flight is the F-35 and that's American and not an air superiority fighter. At any rate, the unit cost of a PAK FA, probably the next air superiority fighter to enter service (that's 5th generation) is estimated to be 100-120 million USD. Which is a far cry less than 250 million. Why the cost?

[FordGT90Concept]

The way I see it, the more F-22s you have the more able you are to counter those aircraft (PAK FA and similar capabilities). If you're going to spend $60 billion developing an aircraft, you better be putting it to work and not abandoning it. This decision may very well come back to haunt us within the decade.

[El Fiendo]

Are you really that worried about a war? The thing dominates the skies. Absolutely dominates it.

The PAK FA is slated to enter service anywhere between 2012 and 2015. But even then they have to manufacture it. If the budget called for 7 F22s made in year of 2010, I'd assume a similar rate of production for other countries. Unless they really ramped up production it would still take several years for them to match the American air power. There are still thousands of F16 and F18s as well and they're still viable in battle. Also, no one really has the economic strength right now to undertake the required production levels it would take to come close to posing a threat.

Even then you guys are armed to the teeth when it comes to AA technology. I'd think the only place you're matched is ground technology when it comes to infantry and tanks. The only place you're beat is if China does a mass conscription and then they outnumber you.

The only reason there isn't more of the F22 is it costs 3x as much as the most costly variant of the F18 and almost 5 times as much as the cheapest F18. And that's using the projected cost of 140 million.

They wanted 250 million. 250, 000, 000. Per Plane. That's 8.62 times more expensive than the cheapest F18. That's 881 times more expensive per unit then my house. 1.75 billion total. 1 750, 000, 000.

Oh, and the 60 billion in research put into the plane isn't wasted. They learned a lot with it, but they don't need to be spending 250 million per plane. That's just a sinkhole for money that adds onto the 60 billion in research.

[FordGT90Concept]

Arguably, one F-22 can functionally replace eight F-18s. I'd rather have few, hyper advanced aircraft than more 20th century aircraft. It is cheaper to maintain, store, and operate, one aircraft than eight as well.


That is, instead of buying new aircraft of old designs (e.g. F-18), buy only F-22s to replace them. The same goes for F-15 and F-16 in regard to the F-35.

[WhiteLotus]

I'm siding with El Fiendo here. If I were an American soldier, i'd be gutted to hear they are spending a ridiculous amount of money on a plane instead of that extra body amour or land vehicle etc. The thing is just too expensive, and besides. 187 of them is still a large amount, when will there ever be a reason to use all 187 of them in a dog fight in the skies all at the same time. These days if a plane can fly high, and fire a large bomb from a safe distance then its fine. The plane may be futuristic, but why fix what isn't really broken for such a large cost???

[FordGT90Concept]

Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security account for $1.2 trillion of the federal budget. Defense is only $400 billion.

You need a lot to train with which fall under the national guard, you have to send a lot of them to North Korea and Germany where one is in an active war and the other is a forward base. Every aircraft carrier should have a large enough fleet of F-22s to keep at least two airborne 24/7. The list goes on and on. If you got something important to defend, there should be enough available to make sure so much as a civilian airplane doesn't get close.

You also need enough to launch with an attack. All told, USA should have no less than 500 with numbers closer to 1000 (entirely replacing the F-18).

[El Fiendo]

Not knowing the maintenance costs, I can't be certain. But I don't think it'd be more expensive to maintain 8 F-18s as opposed to purchase (250 million) and maintenance of the F22 (whatever it costs). Keep in mind, more advanced means more complex and more on average to maintain than a single F18. How much more remains to be seen.


To put things in perspective. America has 11 aircraft carriers, each one is at least twice the size of the next biggest (Admiral Flota Sovetskovo Soyuza Kuznetsov of Russia. Yes that's the boats name) and there is only one that is that big. The American carriers are as much as 5 times the size of the smallest. The rest of the world fields 10 aircraft carriers collectively to America's 11.

The next generation of aircraft carriers in development by other countries are still about 60% the size of the current Nimitz class aircraft carriers. What's more is the US already has 3 planned ships of the Gerald R. Ford Class which will be bigger yet than the Nimitz class. The first of this class will replace the aging USS Enterprise of the Enterprise class, which is still a formidable at 92000 tons displaced when fully loaded. The Nimitz class is around 102000 tons displaced.

Why am I talking about boats? Because you guys are the ONLY country that can effectively take the war to the air across the world. It doesn't really matter what the 'Soviets' have for aircraft because they have 1 aircraft carrier. 1 which is about 60% the size of American carriers.

Yes, they have potential to cross over Canada because they're so close. But doing this would stir the fucking bees nest that you guys have for air superiority right up. Hell, I'm sure Canada would even scramble their 70 or 80 fighters that are operational. You know, the F18s we bought off you guys. And that's not even counting the AA defenses. USA has to be the most militarized per capita country out there. I'm not even touching on destroyers and cruisers and subs and tanks and infantry and so on.

Are you guys building up to take on the world? I'm pretty certain that barring Nuclear weapons, you guys could still wipe the earth clean with what you got.


Edited: Put in France's aircraft carrier cause I'm an idiot, should be the Russian Carrier.

[FordGT90Concept]

Are you guys building up to take on the world?
No, just enough to make sure no one wants to try.


Look at a theoretical situation: which country poses the most threat to USA interests now or in the near future? I'd say China. The operational question is: how many F-22s would it take to cover the entire airspace of China long enough to get bombers in to destroy all the aircraft on the ground? You need that many ready to deploy within a month in addition to other air-superiority commitments. Once you have the skies controlled, non-stealth and less advanced aircraft can come in to mop up.

[WhiteLotus]

The only country that that poses a threat to USA and/or the world is USA.

[El Fiendo]

You're forgetting the F-16s and F-18s. Each Nimitz class carrier has 85 planes and both the F16 and F18 are multi purpose that can be quickly refitted to air superiority. The Enterprise normally carries 70 planes. The US can deploy 920 jet fighters over Chinese skies.

On top of this each carrier has 16-24 Sea Sparrow Missles (which would be better used for ship defense) but can reach 19 kilometers away. So that's 176 missles minimum that would cover a vast amount of the shore and a fair distance inland.

Now lets bring in the cruisers. There are 27 Ticonderoga class cruisers, 5 of which are in the mothball fleet but can be brought back into play. The can each carry 122 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM missles with an operational range of up to 167 kilometers. In total, that's 3294 SAM missles that can go even further in land than the carriers can reach.

Destroyers? The US has around 50 and they all have SAM missles.

Hell while we're at it lets bring in the Iowa from the mothball fleet and have them shell the crap out of stuff on the ground with their 16 inch cannons. They can attack any ground target with 38 kilometers of the coast.

Anyways, all this shows the coast is pretty much locked up. Especially with the submarines in there too providing additional anti naval. Oh, and all the ships I've mentioned have additional Anti Air capabilities (all close range) like the CIWS system.

That leaves the 920 planes to deal with stuff inland. Lets say they do 75% air superiority and 25% bombers. That's 690 fighters that can be deployed (a fair number being F22s as they are only air superiority) the rest being F16 and F18 which is all the Chinese have a match for. That's their current level of technology so these planes are very much effective.

Combine that with the designated bombers that I'm sure would be launching from Iraq or whatever air bases.

Combine that again with the sheer amount of cruise missles that each of these ships (save the carrier and battleship) can carry.

Plus I'm sure the US has non nuclear ICBM they can launch from homebase, though I may be wrong.

I don't think the loss of an additional 7 F22s per year (and I'm sure there are new air superiority fighters in planning stages anyways) is going to effect the outcome that much. You guys can put so much hurt on one area that its not even funny.

[FordGT90Concept]

If those F-16/F-18 go against a 5th generation air superiority fighter, they don't stand a chance. That's why you need something like the F-22 to go in and mop up all their fighters. Once their air force is effectively disabled, then you send F-16/F-18 in to hold the air and attack ground targets.

At most, there would only be 4-5 aircraft carriers available to deploy (two in port, one patrolling the east coast, one patrolling the west coast, and one commited to another deployment like Korea or the Indian Ocean). Less than 500 4th generation aircraft really don't stand much of a chance against thousands of Chinese aircraft--you'll run out of ammo, pilots, aircraft, and fuel.

Also remember that it often takes more than one missile to down an aircraft because of counter-measures and defective units.

China has/is working on a 5th generation aircraft. Little about it escapes the country.


There may be surveillance aircraft in the works/operational but, as far as I know, there are no other 5th generation aircraft in the works besides the F-22 and F-35. If there is, it would be 6th generation but that odds of that are so long, they aren't possible. If Uncle Sam doesn't want to dish out a few billion for 7 aircraft, there's no way they'd spend another $60+ billion on a completely new aircraft that performs the same role they don't want.

[El Fiendo]

They are working on one, but so far nothing is in production, just development. Even if it was in production it was still reported to be in testing phases as late as 2006. Again, going back to the 7 a year model (or ramped right up say 3 times speed) they still have years to go to match what you guys already have. Like I said, 7 won't matter.

Besides there is nothing in the article saying its going to be dropped altogether. Just in the year 2010 they won't build any. In 2011 they might ask for 10. Who knows? More than likely this is just put on the shelf while you guys dig yourselves out of your crippling debt.

Considering their price to fly away is 140 million and they were allocating 250 million to purchasing them, as an American tax payer you should be asking what the hell happened to your other 110 million. I get pissed when I lose a loonie (1 dollar). They are too expensive as it is, in my mind comparitively, to other fighters and the only ones of their kind. Why the rush to have 500 if no one has any yet.

Now the interesting part is, that all deals with the USA pulling a Chinese invasion. No other country has the power or resource to invade the US. Hell, I don't even think China has any aircraft carriers. At least none reported. They're a bit tougher to hide than a plane though so I'd think even Google Earth could blow the cover on them. So why are you advocating the need for invasion forces saying its to protect US freedom? Ever hear of defending what you got? I think its safe to say you've got the naval fleets and air force and manpower for that.

[FordGT90Concept]

7 today, 27 tomorrow, mothballed in a year. That's how US government works. At this rate, we'll be as prepared for WWIII as we were for WWII (not prepared at all).

Once you cease production of anything, people end up fired, tools get misplaced/recycled, etc. It is cheaper to build a lot now than stop and start later (which is why it gets scraped).

The F-22 is investing the future and securing jobs today. As the article stated, some 11,000 jobs will be lost (most of which are high tech) spread across 44 of the 50 states. Yes, they need to cut spending but unlike their theoretical "stimulus bill" this one actually creates/keeps jobs (good ones at that).

[El Fiendo]

Yep, these are jobs. And war is one of the best ways out of recession or depression.

But you guys can afford to ease up on military production. Shit, spend the money elsewhere. Instead of militarizing the crap out of the western hemisphere, reform your health system. No, I'm not advocating a universal healthcare system as I can tell you its not all shits and giggles here in Canada like some would have you believe. Could always invest some of that money right back into the economy with researching fusion. Or why pinky fingers fit so well into belly buttons.

The thing that makes the US such a big target? Is the very notion that you need to have a huge ass stick to deter people from making you a target.

I'm going to tell you a secret. I don't fear the Taliban. I don't fear China. I fear the USA deciding that Canada produces too much of their products and we don't use enough of our land for ourselves so you guys feel the need to liberate the shit out of us. Its partially the reason I plan on getting firearms and licenses.

[FordGT90Concept]

You can grab someone off the sidewalk and show them how to make a road. You can't grab someone and show them how to make $100 million+ aircraft. Those are jobs that need to be kept for national security sake.

Healthcare reform could be fixed for free (repel Title XVI of the Public Health Service Act aka Hill-Burton Act).

We spend less on our military than we did 20 years ago despite being involved in two active wars and one stalemate (the actual dollar amount is more or less the same but the value of the dollar has declined in that same period).

At this rate, USA will implode long before Canada looks like a good refuge (too cold :p). We'll annex Mexico first. ;)

I mean, it is pretty hard to fear a 25lb rhesus monkey when there's an 800lb gorilla beating its head in. XD

China, historically, is a nation that defends itself--not necessarily offensive. The Great Wall of China (response to Hun invasions), their reaction to the Japanese Empires, and how they stop uprisings/revolts are good examples of this. The only real exception is when they sent troops into Korea to stop the USA advance during the Korean War (preemptive attack).


The only reason why it would be a good idea to discontinue the F-22 is if it was considered obsolete. That is, some technological revolution occurred that is deemed so important, nothing else matters. The only technology I know of that could cause that interest is a cloaking device/technique that makes the aircraft invisible on most/all wavelengths (light, microwaves, and radio waves for sure). Once you got that, you can make the aircraft as big and cheap as you want. You wouldn't have to spend millions of dollars maintaining the skin of the jet or purchase ultra advanced, ultra quiet jet engines. It would be a 6th generation before the 5th even really took off.

Again, the odds of this being the case are near nonexistent.

[El Fiendo]

Sure, you say that now. Except we supply the US with almost 50% of its oil a year. Suddenly Canada looks ripe. (Cheap gas yaaaaaayyyy!!!)

Sorry, I personally wish Canada would stop being such bitches and develop ourselves a military / navy / air force. But I am astounded at the money that gets tossed about by America when they're already the only remaining superpower. Sure China COULD get big. They COULD pose a threat. But the funny thing is, is that China's whole economy is fueled by the USA. If you guys really were concerned about them, wouldn't it make more sense to stop buying their products instead of funding them to make an army to defeat you?

[FordGT90Concept]

Approximately 2 million barrels per day come from Canada:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

USA consumes just under 20 million barrels per day:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

Canada only produces 10% of USA's oil. About half of the oil consumed by USA comes from the USA; the other half is imported. Moreover, the oil Canada has a lot of isn't easy to extract (requires massive mining equipment and chemical baths) so it isn't cheap.


Once the price of oil climbs again, it will be too expensive to buy anything from China (cost too much to ship it 6000 miles over sea).

I wouldn't say China's whole economy is fueled by the USA. The question is, once USA stops trading with them, what's left?

[From_Nowhere]

I am disappointed.

[El Fiendo]

Hmm, and of course I can't find the Google search I did that gave me the 47%. Whichever, it was most likely covering just the percentage of imports and was still wrong as the number does seem high even for that. At any rate it's beside the point even though we are your largest supplier. It was merely an aside as why I fear Americans. And we're allies, we're supposed to have common goals. I know quite a few Canadians however that keep a wary eye on stuff happening in the South however. Your argument of our oil is too expensive is perfect for what I'm saying though, why not make it cheaper by owning the means of production?

Look, I can tell you're heavy into the militarize mindset. I can respect that as I think Canada needs to get their shit together and stop relying on other people to protect our sovereignty. I think, however, that the USA has lost sight of things. Everyone who is about militarizing in the US forgets that right now, no one is within 10 years of being able to stand toe to toe with you. Even if they get the technology in the next few years, they still have to build it which takes time. With the amount of intelligence you guys have flying around I'm certain you wouldn't get sucker punched WW2. The only time things happen it seems is when they're allowed to happen. Hell there was even intel saying the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor. Nothing was done.

The only way they might have a chance is through numbers which is what you're supposed to have allies for. You guys are really burning bridges when it comes to international relations though.

Oh, and I forgot the F15s. They've been America's main air superiority fighter and is basically the daddy of the F22 while the F16 and F18 are its siblings that just aren't as good. They cost just under 30 million to produce. Who knows how many of them you've got (I didn't readily find any numbers). Oh, and the F35 will perform some Air Superiority roles too but mainly for the navy (aircraft carriers).

Oh, and 6th generation is expected to be unmanned stealth. You should have a look at the X series of planes. They go up to around 53 I think and a fair number of them are unmanned stealth designs that are considered 'combat vehicles'. Makes sense seeming the F22 has safety controls and hinderances in place to keep the pilot from killing himself with the things manueverability. F22 would be around X-30ish though I don't think it was ever an X-plane. At any rate, many of these have potential to be modified or used outright and brought into service.

[FordGT90Concept]

It is expensive to extract. If there are cheaper reserves to tap, those will be used up long before your oil strip mines look appealing. By then, oil being the primary provider of energy will hopefully be gone.

Look at it from our perspective. Why would we attack a country with only 33 million people, mostly wild terrain, with resources that are exhausting as fast as everyone else's? The only way we could justify attacking Canada is if you were sitting on a giant pot of gold (be it diamonds, oil, what have you) and refused to make it available to us. There are few major discoveries of anything new and, because Canada profits off of trade, there's no reason why they wouldn't share it. Bottomline: if USA were to take over Canada, it would be peaceful and mutually beneficial (annex). Then again, USA is becoming rather isolationist again so the chances of that happen are next to none.


Everyone who is about militarizing in the US forgets that right now, no one is within 10 years of being able to stand toe to toe with you.
I'm glad to see the misinformation and chest pounding works. Truth be told, I suspect we wouldn't survive a very large attack on the mainland. USA's military is designed to take the fight to the enemy, not defend ourselves. If you were quick about it, you could easily gouge out USA's eyes (satellites) and ability to project power (aircraft carriers) and, well, that's pretty much the end of USA. Sure, we'd put up a fight but I don't doubt the nukes would start flying sooner rather than later.

I must also note that a sign of the weaknesses have shown in Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot of the troops deployed in either place are on their third or fourth tour. A lot of troops aren't getting the mandatory six months off after being deployed. Iraq is no larger than Texas and it is almost enough to break the military's back. If that isn't a sign of the sad state of the military, I don't know what is.


Intel is just information. It in no way guarantees a response. The people in charge have to decide whether or not the intelligence is "actionable." In hindsight, we can point out all the mistakes made, not in foresight. You can investigate every single little RADAR blip you get or everything that might be an ICBM silo.


Allies, ha. No one will watch out for your own men except you. That's always been the case--it is human nature. Allies can be helpful but it is never a good strategic decision to rely on them. There's always a contingency plan should the allies not perform the task they were charged.


F-15 -> F-22 (twin-engine, air-superiority fighter)
F-16 -> F-35 (single-engine, multirole fighter)

F-18 and A-10 will also be replaced by the F-35.


The F-35 wouldn't fare well in a dog fight especially against a 5th generation aircraft. I'm sure it could hold its own against 4th generation aircraft.

The F-22 started out as the YF-22. It wasn't an X-plane because it was intended to go into production. The same goes for the YF-23. X-planes are experimental aircraft designed to test certain concepts. There is no intention to put them into production. A lot of X-planes are created in collaboration with NASA.

The human body can stand no more than +9 to +10 G's which is why it is artificially limited. Future aircraft will be remotely guided, no doubt.

[Iarwain]

Let's look at what's important. And that is that the senate refused the funding because the Pentagon doesn't want the plane.

Honestly, I'm ashamed of my senator. We're supposed to profess our willingness to do what is necessary, and all he can do is try to argue that we need a plane we don't need simply to keep government jobs in Georgia, all while trying to push out the idea that government is too big. Kind of disgusted in him.

I also didn't like this:

Gates said Monday he'd heard no "substantive" argument for keeping the jet for national security reasons, pointing out that China has no planes that can compete with the more than 1,000 advanced fighter jets the U.S. will have by 2020.

Why are we pointing out what China has or doesn't have? Are we so paranoid as to call them out like that? How is that not extremely alienating to China?

[FordGT90Concept]

Those aren't government jobs. All those people work for Lockheed and its partners. It just so happens that the contract we're talking about was issued by the government. That is, these people don't get their paycheck from a state or federal treasurer, they get it from a Fortune 100 corporation (ranked 54 in the USA, 170 global).


China is our greatest current threat economically. Economics lead to militaristic, the opposite is rarely true.


We have better things to spend that money on right now but if you kill the production, it may not be available when you need it. That's why Gates said "put me down as undecided."

[Wile E]

It is expensive to extract. If there are cheaper reserves to tap, those will be used up long before your oil strip mines look appealing. By then, oil being the primary provider of energy will hopefully be gone.

Look at it from our perspective. Why would we attack a country with only 33 million people, mostly wild terrain, with resources that are exhausting as fast as everyone else's? The only way we could justify attacking Canada is if you were sitting on a giant pot of gold (be it diamonds, oil, what have you) and refused to make it available to us. There are few major discoveries of anything new and, because Canada profits off of trade, there's no reason why they wouldn't share it. Bottomline: if USA were to take over Canada, it would be peaceful and mutually beneficial (annex). Then again, USA is becoming rather isolationist again so the chances of that happen are next to none.



I'm glad to see the misinformation and chest pounding works. Truth be told, I suspect we wouldn't survive a very large attack on the mainland. USA's military is designed to take the fight to the enemy, not defend ourselves. If you were quick about it, you could easily gouge out USA's eyes (satellites) and ability to project power (aircraft carriers) and, well, that's pretty much the end of USA. Sure, we'd put up a fight but I don't doubt the nukes would start flying sooner rather than later.

I must also note that a sign of the weaknesses have shown in Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot of the troops deployed in either place are on their third or fourth tour. A lot of troops aren't getting the mandatory six months off after being deployed. Iraq is no larger than Texas and it is almost enough to break the military's back. If that isn't a sign of the sad state of the military, I don't know what is.


Intel is just information. It in no way guarantees a response. The people in charge have to decide whether or not the intelligence is "actionable." In hindsight, we can point out all the mistakes made, not in foresight. You can investigate every single little RADAR blip you get or everything that might be an ICBM silo.


Allies, ha. No one will watch out for your own men except you. That's always been the case--it is human nature. Allies can be helpful but it is never a good strategic decision to rely on them. There's always a contingency plan should the allies not perform the task they were charged.


F-15 -> F-22 (twin-engine, air-superiority fighter)
F-16 -> F-35 (single-engine, multirole fighter)

F-18 and A-10 will also be replaced by the F-35.


The F-35 wouldn't fare well in a dog fight especially against a 5th generation aircraft. I'm sure it could hold its own against 4th generation aircraft.

The F-22 started out as the YF-22. It wasn't an X-plane because it was intended to go into production. The same goes for the YF-23. X-planes are experimental aircraft designed to test certain concepts. There is no intention to put them into production. A lot of X-planes are created in collaboration with NASA.

The human body can stand no more than +9 to +10 G's which is why it is artificially limited. Future aircraft will be remotely guided, no doubt.

Why get rid of the A-10? It's capable of taking a hell of a lot more damage than the F-35.

[El Fiendo]

The F-22 started out as the YF-22. It wasn't an X-plane because it was intended to go into production. The same goes for the YF-23. X-planes are experimental aircraft designed to test certain concepts. There is no intention to put them into production. A lot of X-planes are created in collaboration with NASA.


The X-32 and X-35 were both in direct competition to be the next JSF, the X-35 won and is being put into production as the F35. Planes do come from these, however more often than not technology demonstrated gets adapted to new designs to be put into use. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of those put major designs forward into the next generation of aircraft.

I'm not replying to the rest because I've said as much as I can on the subject. You don't think America could withstand an attack at home but I'm saying no one has the power to effectively take the fight to you. Sure, if they dumped their entire force on your doorstep you'd have a bitch of a time. They won't just appear on your shores though, you guys already have the might to prevent that.

[FordGT90Concept]

Why get rid of the A-10? It's capable of taking a hell of a lot more damage than the F-35.
Most likely, they won't. Everytime someone says X is going to replace the A-10, they find out having a 9' long gatlin canon on a subsonic jet is still a better deal. A-10 rounds are cheap, the A-10 itself is cheap, an A-10 can destroy a lot more tanks for a lot cheaper than any other aircraft firing missiles, and the pscyhological effective of getting steel rained on you is priceless.

In theory it will replace it; in practice, it remains to be seen.


The X-32 and X-35 were both in direct competition to be the next JSF, the X-35 won and is being put into production as the F35. Planes do come from these, however more often than not technology demonstrated gets adapted to new designs to be put into use. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of those put major designs forward into the next generation of aircraft.
They were designed X-planes because they both sought to answer the question of "can VTOL be done better, safer, and cheaper than the Harrier?" The answer is, yes, so they moved on from there. When the projects started, it wasn't a guarenteed mass production contract like was seen with the YF-22/YF-23.


I'm not replying to the rest because I've said as much as I can on the subject. You don't think America could withstand an attack at home but I'm saying no one has the power to effectively take the fight to you. Sure, if they dumped their entire force on your doorstep you'd have a bitch of a time. They won't just appear on your shores though, you guys already have the might to prevent that.
Unsecure airways, unsecure ports, and unsecure internet (got DoS'd recently, in fact). You wouldn't have to be very creative to smuggle in a significant attack force; what's more, you could attack from the inside out. I will say no more on that because I don't want to give anyone ideas...

[El Fiendo]

I agree on the A10 at any rate. That thing is a marvel. The amount of damage that thing can sustain and fly back home on is ridiculous.

I think the main problem is that development has gone stagnant and research costs have ballooned. Most of the theory in use today was pioneered in the 60s. Stealth technology and really fast effin planes. Look at the SR71. Ridiculous for its time (not a fighter though there was one planned that was scrapped). Thrust vectoring even has roots that far back.

[FordGT90Concept]

I think power plants are the problem, personally. We need new propulsion methods.

Stealth technologies will advance at their own pace (rapidly, at the moment) but, officially, the SR-71 is still the world's fastest operational jet (not a rocket, not for experimentation only) and that was two-three decades ago. Where's the super sonic airliners we were promised (only managed one and it got scraped)?

[Wile E]

I think power plants are the problem, personally. We need new propulsion methods.

Stealth technologies will advance at their own pace (rapidly, at the moment) but, officially, the SR-71 is still the world's fastest operational jet (not a rocket, not for experimentation only) and that was two-three decades ago. Where's the super sonic airliners we were promised (only managed one and it got scraped)?

I agree. I believe it's fuel consumption that prevents it.

[El Fiendo]

Too true. The Scramjet looks pretty promising propelling things at Mach 9+ but its really hard to make a great big glowing plug of metal stealthy. Honestly I think we're hitting the ceiling of what conventional combustion can provide us. The only way to go faster is to reduce drag on whatever is being propelled which reduces control and all that and more than likely kills the pilot.

Unless we come up with some completely revolutionary thing requiring combustion things can only get more refined instead of invented. Though what's the next step past combustion? How do we make ourselves able to stand it? I'm not too keen on unmanned in all situations and places, but that's what it looks like things are heading towards.

[FordGT90Concept]

Artificial gravity, probably. That is, a device that can create its own, strong gravity field that not only counters Earth's gravity but, by moving the gravity field relative to the craft, can pull it in any direction.

Maybe replace artificial gravity with something that uses the ionosphere for propulsion or something that alters magnetic fields.

...or some other wacky sci-fi idea. :D


Unmanned is only practical for combat (at this point, remote controlled) and mundane tasks (like haul freight from A to B endlessly, automated).

[WhiteLotus]

And even when you have solved the means of propelling it, it still has to be aerodynamically sound to fly. Unless it's the Eurofighter, which is designed to be able to perform complex manoeuvres due to it being aerodynamically unsound.

[El Fiendo]

Well, if an artificial gravity system could be made, that wasn't due to rotation because the Coriolis Effect messes things up, it would help enable things like Space Stations and longer space trips. As it is muscle and bone mass decreases pretty rapidly. Some MiR astronauts had as much as 20% loss.

[FordGT90Concept]

And even when you have solved the means of propelling it, it still has to be aerodynamically sound to fly. Unless it's the Eurofighter, which is designed to be able to perform complex manoeuvres due to it being aerodynamically unsound.
If you have a technology that alters the physics of mass, aerodynamics become rather irrelevant. This is good because you need your options open in order to make it invisible. Ehm, no longer does it have to "look fast" to "be fast." XD


Well, if an artificial gravity system could be made, that wasn't due to rotation because the Coriolis Effect messes things up, it would help enable things like Space Stations and longer space trips. As it is muscle and bone mass decreases pretty rapidly. Some MiR astronauts had as much as 20% loss.
Nope, not rotaional. Gravity, as you know, is the attraction of one mass to another mass. This is hard to explain and one of Newton's laws says it is impossible. In any case...

If you were to take an object equal to the weight of the aircraft and shift it forward suddenly, it would impart energy into the vehicle, acclerating it. You then slowly draw the object back and repeat. Newtons law says for ever action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. In terms of Newtons, you shouldn't gain anything. But, take for instance, in water. If you thrust your arms forward fast and retract slow, you will move backwards. It's hard to say if this would work or not without getting it in space and trying it. As long as you got a power source to keep it moving you should be able to accelerate at a constant rate until you have to stop. You'd also accelerate faster than an ion drive could manage.


The more traditional route is to be able to turn gravity on and off (mass, no mass). I think no one has found out how to do this yet (if it is even possible). The most likely solution is to create magnetic fields around a ship (magnetize the minute particles in space) that can be manipulated to pull the ship forward. Maybe even find a way to entirely eliminate a vehicles mass allowing them to move unimpeded through the space/time continuum. Hell, maybe you can make light pull you through space much like a wing creates lift.

[Iarwain]

Some kind of containment field that contains a very very very very very small "peice" of a neutron star, or similar. I believe this, in the center of your vehicle, would at least create a moon-like gravity.

Of course not practical now, but I think it's a method that could work.