Democrats and ballistic missile defense

[Wallenburg]

And that argument is correct. We have never had a war between two nuclear powers.

That argument didn't stop World War I.

Because we didn't have nukes back then. I'm surprised you don't know that.

And that argument is correct. We have never had a war between two nuclear powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

MAD is the least bad alternative to winning by overwhelming force, not a method of eternal peace. Both sides used MAD to buy time to develop their capabilities to win WW3 outright, which included ABMs. For the USA this meant to simply continue existing and allow unsustainable socialism to implode, for the USSR this meant infiltrating the West with KGB and information warfare to Finlandize it so Russia would never face another Barbarossa again.

I concede. We have had one short skirmish between two nuclear powers. MAD still works, and continues to do so despite efforts of hawkish leaders to break it.

[Grenartia]

The party of death opposes something that could prevent the death of hundreds of millions of people.....not surprising.

Swingandamiss.

[Risottia]

With North Korea's maniac dictator now in possession of nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles needed to deploy them, people are now waking up to the reality of the need for ballistic missile defense.

ABMs are a weapon of last resort, and mostly they're just internal propaganda and corporate welfare.

The main anti-nuclear defense of the US is its own nuclear arsenal (second only to Russia's and more than enough to kill 50% of the world's population), its huge conventional arsenal (second to none), and its power projection capabilities (again second to none).

By the way, ABMs aren't as useful as many would think. They cannot intercept short-range SLBMs and supersonic cruise missiles - which are the favourite first-strike weapons of any nuclear power. They cannot intercept a nuclear warhead that's been smuggled into your territory by ship or land.

As for the airborne laser, you would need to keep at least four airborne laser aircrafts in flight 100% of the time to have a significant (not complete) coverage of the US territory. Do you have any idea of how many spies you could have for the same costs?

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

The OP should change the title to "Democrats economical in missile defense, Republicans promise to increase missile defense spending by billions"

Once again I reiterate that trump did not and possibly does not understand modern defense

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XwImyOu6YBk

US defense spending is absurdly high and is a tax burden which can only defend it's numbers by incredibly incompetent and wasteful spending.

The right wing controls everything. If in a few years the economy grows it will be thanks to them. If it falls apart it will be their fault. If we build a star wars shield it will be theirs. If it proves to be ineffective it will be their fault. No shifting blame or credit to democrats.

[Lady Scylla]

NK has had nukes for awhile, they've had ballistic missiles for awhile. Whether they can put one on such a vehicle is still debatable. The US has defences from the AEGIS program, to ABMs (such as the currently deployed MIM-104 Patriots), the GBMD, Sprint, and soon-to-be THAAD if it gets out of its testing phase. I'm not all that concerned.

[Taihei Tengoku]

They cannot intercept short-range SLBMs and supersonic cruise missiles - which are the favourite first-strike weapons of any nuclear power.

Standard Missiles 3 and 6 have done both.

US defense spending is absurdly high and is a tax burden which can only defend it's numbers by incredibly incompetent and wasteful spending.

It's high, true, because 1) continuing resolution hell 2) it actually does cost that much to do what US foreign policy wants. F-35 for all its expense delivered a cheaper, better plane to the Air Force than the less ambitious Rafale or Eurofighter have for the Europeans.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

They cannot intercept short-range SLBMs and supersonic cruise missiles - which are the favourite first-strike weapons of any nuclear power.

Standard Missiles 3 and 6 have done both.

US defense spending is absurdly high and is a tax burden which can only defend it's numbers by incredibly incompetent and wasteful spending.

It's high, true, because 1) continuing resolution hell 2) it actually does cost that much to do what US foreign policy wants. F-35 for all its expense delivered a cheaper, better plane to the Air Force than the less ambitious Rafale or Eurofighter have for the Europeans.

Airlander 10 was wasteful.

The Navies new high high fleet is overkill beyond reason and will shrinks it's available forces while simultaneously raising the costs.

The F35 will cost more and perform worse then our current dedicated roll planes.

[Risottia]

They cannot intercept short-range SLBMs and supersonic cruise missiles - which are the favourite first-strike weapons of any nuclear power.

Standard Missiles 3 and 6 have done both.

Have they? Interesting! Linky plz.

Anyway, they're not going to intercept a lorry or a cargo ship.

As for the F-35, ahahah no lol. Can't turn, can't run, can't fight, while costing a lot.

[Dooom35796821595]

Standard Missiles 3 and 6 have done both.

Have they? Interesting! Linky plz.

Anyway, they're not going to intercept a lorry or a cargo ship.

As for the F-35, ahahah no lol. Can't turn, can't run, can't fight, while costing a lot.

Yeah, that F-35, just as useless and expensive as the F-22, the B-2, Supercarriers and Ballistic missile subs. Better to just divert all that funding to building that Mexico wall.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Standard Missiles 3 and 6 have done both.

Have they? Interesting! Linky plz.

Anyway, they're not going to intercept a lorry or a cargo ship.

https://www.mda.mil/news/15news0007.html <- this is SM-6 two years ago.

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/06/standa ... first-time <- SM-3 can do midcourse defense in space. It can also fail, but that's like saying "tanks will never work" after seeing the first rhomboids in 1916.

[Taihei Tengoku]

As for the F-35, ahahah no lol. Can't turn, can't run, can't fight, while costing a lot.

Actual flying brick F-4 whipped MiGs 15:1 in Vietnam

Actual flying brick F-35 whipped F-16s 15:1 in Red Flag 17 and they were so good people wanted them to stay on station even after they ran out of missiles

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

The F-35 costs 120 million per plane on average. It is a stealth multi role fighter intended to replace planes currently covering the rolls of Close Air support, Air superiority, and Tactical bombing. So let us compare it to what the other options are.

As for the F-35, ahahah no lol. Can't turn, can't run, can't fight, while costing a lot.

Actual flying brick F-4 whipped MiGs 15:1 in Vietnam

Actual flying brick F-35 whipped F-16s 15:1 in Red Flag 17 and they were so good people wanted them to stay on station even after they ran out of missiles

Alright so let's start with addressing this. In other tests the F16 beat the F35 in dogfighting so what gives? Why are we dealing with conflicting reports that seem to confuse the average person on the internet? The answer is simple and was proclaimed by the pentagon repeatedly. During testing an F16 pilot was able to defeat F35's within visual range as its stealth simply did not help it. The F-35 (and all modern jets) are designed to engage from far off distances. Thus perhaps we should examine the stealth factor. Stealth technology is expensive and (currently) effective at protecting planes from both air to air and ground to air threats. The F-35 has a stealth edge to keep it competitive going into the future. It's stealth is lost if it mounts any weapons externally. So a 40 year old F16 that costs less then 20 million should lose against it at range as was done at Red Flag 17. This is no surprise nor should it be considered the counter argument to the F-35 being a poor air superiority fighter (which it is designed for). So what about fighting an opponent with stealth? How about an F22 which costs 150 million per unit? Both planes are stealthy, running with only internally mounted missiles they have comparable armament. However that is where the similarities end. The F22 is faster and responds far quicker. It was designed from the ground up as an air superiority stealth fighter from the ground up thus the F35 cannot compete against it. Though I cannot cite figures I would be surprised if it took less then 4 F35's to take out a single F22. That is a generous assessment. At any rate as long as it takes more then 3 F-35's to kill 2 F-22's the money is better spent on a dedicated stealth superiority fighter.

Alright so what about close air support? The F-35 has 220 rounds of 25mm cannon, and using its external mounts (which it would be able to use in this role) it carries 18,000 lbs of missiles and bombs to strike the enemy with. That is a fair payload however we start to have an issue when you consider what it is replacing. The A10 Warthog is a $20 million dollar plane designed, once again, from the ground up to fulfill the CAS mission. It carries fewer missiles and bombs at 16,000 lbs but 1200 rounds in its 30mm canon. Alright so now I must take a moment to differentiate something. CAS and a tactical strike are two halves of a similar coin. A close air support mission would involve hitting an area that contains targets. A tactical strike is for hitting something specific. If you need an enemy on the top of a mountain taken out you would call for a tactical strike to drop a bomb on the top of the mountain. If you need an enemy on the mountain suppressed you would call for close air support to hit everything until it stopped shooting back. Those 1200 30mm rounds make a big difference. On top of that the A10 has a much higher standby time (how long the plane can just sort of hang out above the fight waiting for a mission), range (it can travel farther from its base), slower speed (this is advantageous because it can keep hitting a target without passing it by) and survivability. The A10 has redundant everything and a much vaunted "titanium tub" that protects the pilot from most anything.

Next up is tactical bombing. I mentioned previously that this is used to strike particular targets. Truth be told the F16 or even a drone can mount the same weapons as an F35 at a fraction of the cost. It can retain stealth however it forgoes carrying external missiles that might be needed for the mission. Not really much else to say here other then reiterate that many people (both civilian and military) seem to think tactical bombing can replace CAS in its entirety. The problem with that is so long as you can't see through trees, fog, or other "soft cover" there will always be a need for CAS.

Alright so what do I think the F35 does well?

One thing I will concede is that having stealth on a CAS or tactical mission certainly is a good thing. The plan to outfit the navy, marines, and airforce as well as many allied nations with the same base plane will facilitate a reduction in the cost of long term maintenance. Before you get excited I have to point out that it will not offset the huge price tag difference. The warthog, drones, and F16's only cost about 1/6th of an F35 and the F-35's operational costs are 40% higher. If you consider the cost of training and restarting F22 production you could field more effective dedicated role planes in larger numbers.

I know several people will disagree with my assessment. I am not a pilot nor am I so interested in the topic that I know all the terms. You can probably pick apart bits and pieces if you want and quote me 3 words at a time but I wouldn't bother. The F35 program is already in place and it cannot feasibly be cancelled (that time frame passed 15 years ago). It is an example of how inefficient the Pentagon is and how quickly a $900 billion dollar program can become a $1.5 trillion dollar white elephant.

[Greed and Death]

We have the technology

But i dont want to spend a lot of money.

It is not so much the money as upsetting the current world order regarding MAD

[Greed and Death]

Standard Missiles 3 and 6 have done both.

Have they? Interesting! Linky plz.

Anyway, they're not going to intercept a lorry or a cargo ship.

As for the F-35, ahahah no lol. Can't turn, can't run, can't fight, while costing a lot.

The 1940s called they want their dog fights back.

The F-35 out performs other fighters because they tend to be undetected until they fire their munitions.

[Grenartia]

Have they? Interesting! Linky plz.

Anyway, they're not going to intercept a lorry or a cargo ship.

As for the F-35, ahahah no lol. Can't turn, can't run, can't fight, while costing a lot.

The 1940s called they want their dog fights back.

The F-35 out performs other fighters because they tend to be undetected until they fire their munitions.

The 1960s and 70s called, something about needing guns in dogfights back then, and about learning from the mistakes of history.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The 1940s called they want their dog fights back.

The F-35 out performs other fighters because they tend to be undetected until they fire their munitions.

The 1960s and 70s called, something about needing guns in dogfights back then, and about learning from the mistakes of history.

The real lesson of Vietnam was that guns are, in fact, obsolete. Navy and Marine Corps F-4s never received a cannon before, during, or after the war and had no problem with the VPAF because they knew how to fight. The Air Force didn't and the gun didn't change anything--the Air Force F-4's worst period came right after the installation of Vulcan.

[The Corparation]

The F-35 costs 120 million per plane on average. It is a stealth multi role fighter intended to replace planes currently covering the rolls of Close Air support, Air superiority, and Tactical bombing. So let us compare it to what the other options are.

Actual flying brick F-4 whipped MiGs 15:1 in Vietnam

Actual flying brick F-35 whipped F-16s 15:1 in Red Flag 17 and they were so good people wanted them to stay on station even after they ran out of missiles

Alright so let's start with addressing this. In other tests the F16 beat the F35 in dogfighting so what gives? Why are we dealing with conflicting reports that seem to confuse the average person on the internet? The answer is simple and was proclaimed by the pentagon repeatedly. During testing an F16 pilot was able to defeat F35's within visual range as its stealth simply did not help it. The F-35 (and all modern jets) are designed to engage from far off distances. Thus perhaps we should examine the stealth factor. Stealth technology is expensive and (currently) effective at protecting planes from both air to air and ground to air threats. The F-35 has a stealth edge to keep it competitive going into the future. It's stealth is lost if it mounts any weapons externally. So a 40 year old F16 that costs less then 20 million should lose against it at range as was done at Red Flag 17. This is no surprise nor should it be considered the counter argument to the F-35 being a poor air superiority fighter (which it is designed for). So what about fighting an opponent with stealth? How about an F22 which costs 150 million per unit? Both planes are stealthy, running with only internally mounted missiles they have comparable armament. However that is where the similarities end. The F22 is faster and responds far quicker. It was designed from the ground up as an air superiority stealth fighter from the ground up thus the F35 cannot compete against it. Though I cannot cite figures I would be surprised if it took less then 4 F35's to take out a single F22. That is a generous assessment. At any rate as long as it takes more then 3 F-35's to kill 2 F-22's the money is better spent on a dedicated stealth superiority fighter.

The F-22 is obviously a better air superiority fighter than the F-35. It was built to replace the F-15, the previous Queen of the Skies as the new air superiority fighter. The F-35 is a light multi-role. It was never meant to compete on the same level as an F-22 and comparing it is like bitching that a Toyota pickup can't beat a Ferrari in a race. They're different planes for different jobs. The F-22 is the current Queen of the Skies, but its rubbish for anything else you'd use a fighter jet for. The F-35 exists for that anything else but with the benefit of being able to help out the F-22 in a pinch.

Alright so what about close air support? The F-35 has 220 rounds of 25mm cannon, and using its external mounts (which it would be able to use in this role) it carries 18,000 lbs of missiles and bombs to strike the enemy with. That is a fair payload however we start to have an issue when you consider what it is replacing. The A10 Warthog is a $20 million dollar plane designed, once again, from the ground up to fulfill the CAS mission. It carries fewer missiles and bombs at 16,000 lbs but 1200 rounds in its 30mm canon. Alright so now I must take a moment to differentiate something. CAS and a tactical strike are two halves of a similar coin. A close air support mission would involve hitting an area that contains targets. A tactical strike is for hitting something specific. If you need an enemy on the top of a mountain taken out you would call for a tactical strike to drop a bomb on the top of the mountain. If you need an enemy on the mountain suppressed you would call for close air support to hit everything until it stopped shooting back. Those 1200 30mm rounds make a big difference. On top of that the A10 has a much higher standby time (how long the plane can just sort of hang out above the fight waiting for a mission), range (it can travel farther from its base), slower speed (this is advantageous because it can keep hitting a target without passing it by) and survivability. The A10 has redundant everything and a much vaunted "titanium tub" that protects the pilot from most anything.

Next up is tactical bombing. I mentioned previously that this is used to strike particular targets. Truth be told the F16 or even a drone can mount the same weapons as an F35 at a fraction of the cost. It can retain stealth however it forgoes carrying external missiles that might be needed for the mission. Not really much else to say here other then reiterate that many people (both civilian and military) seem to think tactical bombing can replace CAS in its entirety. The problem with that is so long as you can't see through trees, fog, or other "soft cover" there will always be a need for CAS.

Most CAS is "tactical bombing" as you would call it. For the majority of targets an A-10 engages the weapon of choice will be a bomb or missile. Said bomb and missiles can be fitted to pretty much any other combat aircraft in the US inventory. The F-16 can carry about as much as an A-10 weight wise (Although A-10 does have more hardpoints) while the F-15E carries more weapons on more hardpoints. It also flies higher and faster (Which is preferable because that's less time you're being shot at), is more survivable (It can take more damage and as mentioned is less likely to get shot), and it has a longer range. And as I mentioned previously in this thread, this is ignoring the true kings of CAS which are strategic bombers like the B-1B whose time on station and payload put the A-10 to shame (A squadron of B-1Bs can provide on call CAS for an entire country 24/7 for months at a time). Literally the ONLY thing the A-10 has going for it is BRRRTTTT. But the BRRRRT the A-10 carries is over rated. Any soft target the A-10 will realizticly be gunning down (like brown people) will just as easily be shredded by a 20mm or 25mm cannon carried by a different plane. For Hard Targets the A-10 would use a bomb which as I mentioned can be carried by anything. The only actual advantage of the 30mm gun is the psychological boost of doing a gun run with one.

Now about flying low and slow and cheap. To put it simply the A-10 sucks at this. Its a giant jet and jets are fast. They also guzzle gas which costs money. The fleet is also 35 years old which brings with it all sorts of lovely complications ranging from metal fatigue to the fact that half the companies who made the parts for it no longer exist and this will only get worse as time goes on. Jets in general aren't cheap and old jets are even less cheap. If you want low slow and cheap, the actual plane of choice is a modern turboprop like Super Tucano rather than an aging dinosaur like the A-10.

And of course I feel the need to point out that "A-10" replacement is not the job of the F-35. The main job of the F-35 is to be an F-16 replacement and the fact is that the F-16 is capable of doing most of what the A-10 does (At one point an F-16 variant was actually considered as an A-10 replacement) so anything that replaces the F-16 will naturally be able to do most of what the A-10 does.

Alright so what do I think the F35 does well?

One thing I will concede is that having stealth on a CAS or tactical mission certainly is a good thing. The plan to outfit the navy, marines, and airforce as well as many allied nations with the same base plane will facilitate a reduction in the cost of long term maintenance. Before you get excited I have to point out that it will not offset the huge price tag difference. The warthog, drones, and F16's only cost about 1/6th of an F35 and the F-35's operational costs are 40% higher. If you consider the cost of training and restarting F22 production you could field more effective dedicated role planes in larger numbers.

The F-35 will be serving for the next 40-50 years. The current F-16 fleet will not last that long and new builds will not remain competitive that long. You can only do so much with a 40 year old design, most of which has already been done. The A-10 fleet is close to falling out of the sky from old age and building new ones makes zero sense. New build F-22s will not offer the same ground attack ability provided by F-35s and making new ones with that capability would probably result in a more expensive plane than the F-35.

I know several people will disagree with my assessment. I am not a pilot nor am I so interested in the topic that I know all the terms. You can probably pick apart bits and pieces if you want and quote me 3 words at a time but I wouldn't bother. The F35 program is already in place and it cannot feasibly be cancelled (that time frame passed 15 years ago). It is an example of how inefficient the Pentagon is and how quickly a $900 billion dollar program can become a $1.5 trillion dollar white elephant.

1.5 Trillion is lifetime cost out which isn't bad considering they're going to be in service for most of this century.