« Morning Smoke: As SEC Embraces Whistleblowers, Questions About Its Enforcement Record Remain | Main | Morning Smoke: With All-Star Athletes, Novartis Lured Doctors to Dinners Where Pharmaceuticals Were Marketed »

Nov 10, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c68bf53ef013488e082a7970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Deficit Commission: Cancel Marine Corps Version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Several Other Weapons:

Comments

American Patriot

The marine corps should receive the f- 35b. For they are the only ones that would utilize the VTOL features. The whole plane was basically what it is today is because of the VTOL. As said boeing would have gotten the job and the whole plane was cheaper than the f-22 raptor. The raptor is more than twice the cost of an f-35B and requires more maintenance.the f-22 also has a problem getting oxygen to it's pilot. So why are we continuing to make a plane that is continually having problems and was grounded for four months last year. The marines need this plane because you can virtually land it anywhere which is what the marine corps specialize in. And yes china has weapons to sink a carrier however don't we have anti ballistic missiles? I mean really the united states was born in a war for we are the best at it. We will always outsmart anyone in weapons tech. We have sniper rounds to penetrate a wall and then explode. Why are we now canceling are military budget when it is one of the leading producer of jobs are country so desperately needs?

Ryan Evans

Cancel the F-35 NOW!!! That freaking thing is useless and it eats money. It was supposed to do more for less. Now it costs just as much as the F-22 and it is nowhere near as capable. There are rumors of the JSF being inferior to the F-15. The JSF is riddled with technical problems it is a huge waste. The military should supplement the gaps with the F/A-18E/F. JSF is an example of the Military Industrial Complex trying to rip off the Government. If the American people were aware of this situation they would outraged.

Dfens

We are such a nation of geniuses. We pay contractors profit on development - the same amount of profit on development as they make on producing weapons - then we wonder why they'd rather design weapons than build them. Yes, we're real geniuses. To design an airplane all you need is a cube farm full of rented computers. If anyone asks how it's going, you say, "great." To build an actual airplane you need a bunch of manufacturing equipment and for the airplane to actually fly. Not quite so easy as the development phase, is it?

We're so smart, we pay the same amount of profit on both parts of the program, and then we wonder why the contractors are more than happy to see the program canceled as soon as it gets to be time to build airplanes. Seriously, you people are too stupid to keep your money. You deserve to be swindled by these defense contractors because you fall for the same stupid tricks time after time after time. If you weren't such a bunch of morons, I'd feel bad for you. As it is, I laugh at your stupidity.

mark tercsak

Iam sick and tired of the Washington elites always cutting the corps and giving our best troops handi-me downs or systems that are not compatible with their mission and they are forced to transform these systems to conform to their mission. in the last forty years the army has received the
M1 Abrams and various model battle tanks and yes the marines got them to however it is not ideally suited to
marine corps missions and they had to make modifications.
the army received its m2 bradly fighting vechile which every one knows in the beginning the army was not impressed with and the black-hawk helios and the apache attack helios
the air force got its upgraded F15's and F16's B2 bombers
b1 bombers and f22 raptors and the navy and marine corps
received up graded f-18's and upgraded helicopters and up graded AAV-7's and then finnaly the corps received osprey
last year into service, are these marine corps programs expensive the answer is yes they are because they are trying to save and preserve lives of our marines and sailors
and soldier.

Dfens

Not only are our carriers vulnerable to Chinese subs, they're also vulnerable to Chinese missiles.

China's improved inventory of short- and medium-range missiles provides a "dramatic increase" in its ability to "inhibit" U.S. military operations in the western Pacific, according to excerpts from the draft of the 2010 annual report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission scheduled for release on Nov. 17.

China’s current force "may be sufficient" to destroy runways, parked aircraft, fuel and maintenance facilities at Osan and Kunsan air bases in South Korea, and Kadena, Misawa and Yokota bases in Japan, the report says. The facilities are within 1,100 kilometers (684 miles) of China.

An upgraded missile arsenal, including a 30 percent increase in cruise missiles since last year, "poses a significant challenge to U.S. forces operating in the region," the report says. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in June called China’s improved missile arsenal "a real concern" that also threatens U.S. aircraft carriers. -- Bloomberg

Oh yeah, this is the perfect time to cancel the VTOL version of the F-35.

Dfens

On the other hand, maybe we should reconsider naval carriers as our primary means of projecting force around the globe:

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon. -- Daily Mail

We canceled the SR-71 because it flew to fast to be shot down, and Lockheed Martin wasn't making any money off it, in favor of the U-2 which is slow and clunky and needs constant upgrading of its defensive systems to keep from being blown out of the sky. Now we're going to cancel our only version of the F-35 that can be forward deployed because our carriers are so very secure? Maybe we need to rethink that one.

In fact, I have long held that what we really need is a large, shape stealth only, Mach 3+ capable bomber. The USAF keeps giving us this crap about wanting a second coming of the B-2 bomber they built 20 of after billions were spent on its development. The stupidity of that is the fact that slow airplanes rely heavily on stealthy coatings for their survival. These coatings are very unreliable. The F-22, for instance, only has a 68% availability rating primarily because of the difficulties in maintaining the stealth coatings. The F-35 claims it's going to fix all of that, but that's just one more promise from a program that said their airplane was only going to cost $35 million a copy too.

The real "low cost" solution for a force protection bomber is high speed plus shape stealth only. The shape stealth is extremely reliable and testable. For a Mach 3+ airplane, it does not take a lot of stealth to keep another country from being able to shoot one down, as the SR-71 repeatedly demonstrated. Even today a country would have to dedicate all of their military resources to even have a chance of getting a firing solution on an SR-71, thus a bomber that flew at similar speeds and had as much or more range plus better shape stealth (based on what we know now of such things) would be virtually invinciable.

As for low cost, a bomber made to use shape stealth only could be made of conventional metallic materials, which would be much cheaper than the expensive composites that make up the B-2, F-22, and F-35 aircraft. This kind of bomber could even be made from steel as the XB-70 was.

The defense industry wants you to forget about high speed aircraft. They claim to be saving you money buy building one slow airplane after another. They'd even like you to believe that the future of aircraft is in huge, extremely slow and high flying blimps. Don't believe them. They are only looking out for their own intersts as they typically do. The interests of the US taxpayer and of the US soldier is best served by fast airplane. Speed is still life, not cost as the lying defense contractors would have you believe. Opt for speed, not lies.

Dfens

Ironically, without the VTOL version of the JSF it is entirely possible that Boeing could have won the fly-off competition. Had that happened, Lockheed Martin would have probably built a stealthy version of the F-16 to demonstrate its feasibility. The F-16 being one of the best candidates for those modification. It can be made far more stealthy than the F-15 or F-18. On the down side, though, it has no internal storage for weapons other than its gun.

The comments to this entry are closed.