President Trump Joins the Line of Critics for F-35

[Novus America]

It is better for our ecnomy they buy ours instead of making their own.

And Umm you just completely contradicted yourself. Yes our amphibious carriers cannot operate the same aircraft as the CVNs, hence why they NEED a DIFFERENT aircraft.

They already have helicopters and ground attack Harriers.

They don't need a strike fighter, because CVNs.

Harries are obsolete. They need to be replaced.

We have a limited number of CVNs. They are not available all the time for all missions. Have more carriers is better than having fewer. It means you can perform more missions.

Also the CVNs cannot operate everywhere the LHAs can. CVNs have nearly twice the draft.

[The Corparation]

It is better for our ecnomy they buy ours instead of making their own.

And Umm you just completely contradicted yourself. Yes our amphibious carriers cannot operate the same aircraft as the CVNs, hence why they NEED a DIFFERENT aircraft.

They already have helicopters and ground attack Harriers.

They don't need a strike fighter, because CVNs.

I'm not quite sure I get your logic here. You seem fine with the USMC having harriers (Using their existence to argue against the F35B) and yet you then claim the USMC does not need an aircraft that can conduct strike missions which is literally the job that the Harrier performs.


The Harrier II fleet is a bit younger than the other fleets the F-35 is replacing but it's still a 30 year old design and it is going to need to be replaced.

[Novus America]

It is not being developed only by the US for the US. Other countries have paid money into it to. And exports are good for the US economy.

And the US does need it, or we lose half of our carriers.

There is an article which says aircraft carriers will become obsolete. While there is another article which says laser technology will make aircraft carriers quite powerful.

Is there not more money in exporting electric fans worldwide. I do know that in 2013, the Chinese bought 138 million electric fans. And yes, there is still one US electric fan company left in PA.

There product - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPQLeS4pN_k

Well I think you make a much bigger profit on aircraft. And the two are not mutually exclusive. You can export both. The more exports, the better.

[The Two Jerseys]

They already have helicopters and ground attack Harriers.

They don't need a strike fighter, because CVNs.

Harries are obsolete. They need to be replaced.

We have a limited number of CVNs. They are not available all the time for all missions. Have more carriers is better than having fewer. It means you can perform more missions.

Also the CVNs cannot operate everywhere the LHAs can. CVNs have nearly twice the draft.

They need to be replaced.

But not with an F-35.

[Novus America]

They already have helicopters and ground attack Harriers.

They don't need a strike fighter, because CVNs.

I'm not quite sure I get your logic here. You seem fine with the USMC having harriers (Using their existence to argue against the F35B) and yet you then claim the USMC does not need an aircraft that can conduct strike missions which is literally the job that the Harrier performs.


The Harrier II fleet is a bit younger than the other fleets the F-35 is replacing but it's still a 30 year old design and it is going to need to be replaced.

And the Harrier is a much less robust aircraft. They have a shorter life span, and are extremely vulnerable to modern air defenses and other aircraft.

[The Two Jerseys]

They already have helicopters and ground attack Harriers.

They don't need a strike fighter, because CVNs.

I'm not quite sure I get your logic here. You seem fine with the USMC having harriers (Using their existence to argue against the F35B) and yet you then claim the USMC does not need an aircraft that can conduct strike missions which is literally the job that the Harrier performs.


The Harrier II fleet is a bit younger than the other fleets the F-35 is replacing but it's still a 30 year old design and it is going to need to be replaced.

I'm not saying that they don't need a VTOL attack aircraft.

I'm saying that they don't need a VTOL strike fighter.

[The Corparation]

Harries are obsolete. They need to be replaced.

We have a limited number of CVNs. They are not available all the time for all missions. Have more carriers is better than having fewer. It means you can perform more missions.

Also the CVNs cannot operate everywhere the LHAs can. CVNs have nearly twice the draft.

They need to be replaced.

But not with an F-35.

So what do you want to replace the Harrier with if not the Aircraft which was literally conceived as its replacement and is currently being built?

[Novus America]

Harries are obsolete. They need to be replaced.

We have a limited number of CVNs. They are not available all the time for all missions. Have more carriers is better than having fewer. It means you can perform more missions.

Also the CVNs cannot operate everywhere the LHAs can. CVNs have nearly twice the draft.

They need to be replaced.

But not with an F-35.

We have been over this already. Yes, in hindsight the F-35B maybe should have been a separate program. But unless you have a time machine it means nothing. F-35B is the ONLY VTOL strike aircraft available. We have no other choices as it is literally the only choice on the market.

And developing a whole new VTOL strike fighter would cost more time and money.

[Rufford]

They already have helicopters and ground attack Harriers.

They don't need a strike fighter, because CVNs.

Harries are obsolete. They need to be replaced.

We have a limited number of CVNs. They are not available all the time for all missions. Have more carriers is better than having fewer. It means you can perform more missions.

Also the CVNs cannot operate everywhere the LHAs can. CVNs have nearly twice the draft.

The fact that there is always at least one available is exactly the USN's argument for having so many, especially when you look at the carrier fleets of non-NATO or NATO allied nations. This dominance is shown in the fact that the USN can afford to base carriers, one of their most vital assets, in other nations. No other nation is able to dream of that.

[Novus America]

I'm not quite sure I get your logic here. You seem fine with the USMC having harriers (Using their existence to argue against the F35B) and yet you then claim the USMC does not need an aircraft that can conduct strike missions which is literally the job that the Harrier performs.


The Harrier II fleet is a bit younger than the other fleets the F-35 is replacing but it's still a 30 year old design and it is going to need to be replaced.

I'm not saying that they don't need a VTOL attack aircraft.

I'm saying that they don't need a VTOL strike fighter.

Well they disagree. They want it to have an to air option for when CVNs are not available. So LHAs it can defend themselves and provide additional carrier strength to supplement the CVNs, and go places CVNs cannot.

Again greatly reducing our carrier strength at a time carriers already have more missions than the can fulfill is a bad idea.

And the USMC is not the only customer.

[Novus America]

Harries are obsolete. They need to be replaced.

We have a limited number of CVNs. They are not available all the time for all missions. Have more carriers is better than having fewer. It means you can perform more missions.

Also the CVNs cannot operate everywhere the LHAs can. CVNs have nearly twice the draft.

The fact that there is always at least one available is exactly the USN's argument for having so many, especially when you look at the carrier fleets of non-NATO or NATO allied nations. This dominance is shown in the fact that the USN can afford to base carriers, one of their most vital assets, in other nations. No other nation is able to dream of that.

The CVNs still have more missions than they can fulfill. The are the most overworked ships in the fleet. Yes we need many because they are in so high demand. Something being in high demand does mean you need more.

[The Corparation]

I'm not quite sure I get your logic here. You seem fine with the USMC having harriers (Using their existence to argue against the F35B) and yet you then claim the USMC does not need an aircraft that can conduct strike missions which is literally the job that the Harrier performs.


The Harrier II fleet is a bit younger than the other fleets the F-35 is replacing but it's still a 30 year old design and it is going to need to be replaced.

I'm not saying that they don't need a VTOL attack aircraft.

I'm saying that they don't need a VTOL strike fighter.

Strike Fighter is just a buzzword for a ground attack aircraft that can also do a bit of Air to Air combat. The AV-8B+ Harrier II is a ground attack aircraft that can also do a bit of air to air combat. You could easily class it as a strike fighter. Especially given that the replacement aircraft, designed for the exact same job has had the buzzword attached to it.

[The Two Jerseys]

I'm not saying that they don't need a VTOL attack aircraft.

I'm saying that they don't need a VTOL strike fighter.

Strike Fighter is just a buzzword for a ground attack aircraft that can also do a bit of Air to Air combat. The AV-8B+ Harrier II is a ground attack aircraft that can also do a bit of air to air combat. You could easily class it as a strike fighter. Especially given that the replacement aircraft, designed for the exact same job has had the buzzword attached to it.

Remind me again why we even have an aircraft designation system when the DOD doesn't even bother to use it correctly?

[Uxupox]

Strike Fighter is just a buzzword for a ground attack aircraft that can also do a bit of Air to Air combat. The AV-8B+ Harrier II is a ground attack aircraft that can also do a bit of air to air combat. You could easily class it as a strike fighter. Especially given that the replacement aircraft, designed for the exact same job has had the buzzword attached to it.

Remind me again why we even have an aircraft designation system when the DOD doesn't even bother to use it correctly?

DoD isn't known for their genius.

[Gig em Aggies]

It is not being developed only by the US for the US. Other countries have paid money into it to. And exports are good for the US economy.

And the US does need it, or we lose half of our carriers.

There is an article which says aircraft carriers will become obsolete. While there is another article which says laser technology will make aircraft carriers quite powerful.

Is there not more money in exporting electric fans worldwide. I do know that in 2013, the Chinese bought 138 million electric fans. And yes, there is still one US electric fan company left in PA.

There product - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPQLeS4pN_k

Rio did you hit your head on something hard? Cause I forgot where we began talking about electric fans.

[The Northernmost Americas]

BVR is already proving to be crap on a cracker, so that's irrelevant. Iraq AIM-120 Pk was down to near Vietnam levels (0.12 compared to 0.08), and that was against one of the least competent air forces on the planet, pilots with almost no training and even less experience.

0.55-0.59 actually. Provided that the kills were made against incompetent rivals. As for vietnam, the navy improved their kill/loss ratios with better missile training and handling, not an added gun. BVR missiles have been increasing their share of kills over time. There a multitude of developments that could see this trend continue. Ramjet Propulsion, IR guidance and even AESA seekers. And if BVR doesn't pan out, the plane will do fine WVR anyway.

[Kubra]

I've argued with him before, and I must say, he brought his C-Game at best, and his arguing with you was probably beneath his need. His arguments actually demonstrate understanding of contemporary air doctrine, while yours seemed more an appeal to...The wallet, maybe?

You know, this particularly irked me, especially given the percentage of GDP the US military takes up compared to its contemporaries
like here's a guy who celebrates the F-35 driving up everyone elses costs and forgetting that we have also have to pay for things when we buy em

[Gallia-]

I've argued with him before, and I must say, he brought his C-Game at best, and his arguing with you was probably beneath his need. His arguments actually demonstrate understanding of contemporary air doctrine, while yours seemed more an appeal to...The wallet, maybe?

You know, this particularly irked me, especially given the percentage of GDP the US military takes up compared to its contemporaries
like here's a guy who celebrates the F-35 driving up everyone elses costs and forgetting that we have also have to pay for things when we buy em

It's F-14 all over again!

Even the costs are the same.

[Organized States]

Remind me again why we even have an aircraft designation system when the DOD doesn't even bother to use it correctly?

DoD isn't known for their genius.

"It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to work!" -DoD Procurement

[Uxupox]

DoD isn't known for their genius.

"It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to work!" -DoD Procurement

Righto.

[The Northernmost Americas]

The real boondoggle.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

All of the Western World's defence industries should've been prevented from merging together into this current affair of multiple massive oligarchs basically ruling all of the market with no other options to the governments.

[Novus America]

All of the Western World's defence industries should've been prevented from merging together into this current affair of multiple massive oligarchs basically ruling all of the market with no other options to the governments.

The massive defense cuts of the 90s onward makes that inevitable. With the companies fighting over a ever shrinking share of defense spending, many went out of business and got boughtout by the remainder, or had to resort to mergers to survive, a problem that continues today.

[The Northernmost Americas]

The massive defense cuts of the 90s onward makes that inevitable. With the companies fighting over a ever shrinking share of defense spending, many went out of business and got boughtout by the remainder, or had to resort to mergers to survive, a problem that continues today.

Worse, the consolidation was actively encouraged by the government. Got rid of several military research labs too. Left officers asking defense salesmen if their wildest dreams could come true affordably.

[Liriena]

Well, color me shocked. He's finally right about something.

The amounts of money spent on the F-35 are downright absurd.

Here, Donald. Have a Fudgie the Whale.