If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
"Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for
the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the JSF continues to slip." See: http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/js...o-135-million/ How expensive is the JSF going to get? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message news:Hegpn.71557$PH1.6315@edtnps82... wrote: "Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the JSF continues to slip." See: http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/js...o-135-million/ How expensive is the JSF going to get? It doesn't matter - the price tag is already well past anything that's acceptable. What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place. AHS Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for the thing. As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough first, to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.) We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 :-) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
Sunny wrote:
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message news:Hegpn.71557$PH1.6315@edtnps82... wrote: "Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the JSF continues to slip." See: http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/js...o-135-million/ How expensive is the JSF going to get? It doesn't matter - the price tag is already well past anything that's acceptable. What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place. AHS Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for the thing. As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough first, to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.) We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 :-) One of the points being, not so long ago (20 years at most) there were plenty of targets that the infantry needed air for, because the artillery didn't quite pack enough punch. The only artillery PGM we had was Copperhead, and you'd never use one of those unless you were fighting Soviet tanks in Germany, and probably not even then. And if you happened to be in a military that had heavier artillery, like 8 inch, there were never that many of those either. So for a long period of time, for a considerable variety of target types, aircraft-delivered ordnance, mainly bombs, has been the weaponry of choice. Now, leaving out those situations where artillery is simply not in range anyway, this reality led to lots and lots of scenarios where you wanted aircraft-delivered bombs, but the target area was nevertheless covered by tube artillery...hence SEAD. Might as well suppress AAA and SAMs if you can, and hopefully that plane might get through. The intent back then was not so much to protect the plane because it cost the entire GDP of a small country, but simply because its firepower influenced the mission so much. Now we are in a situation where if tube artillery hasn't become so much more accurate it damned well ought to be - we've been ****ing around delaying or stopping PGM programs for artillery and naval guns for decades, and yet the necessary money would be easily found if we just didn't build such insanely expensive CAS aircraft. The intent of SEAD now most certainly will be to protect the bloody plane for the sake of protecting the plane, and I wouldn't be surprised if missions get turned down because the risks of losing a plane in order to blow up a bunker are just too great. Take some of the money and address deficiencies in tube and rocket artillery that still make it necessary to request CAS in the first place. Much better use of money. AHS |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
On Mar 21, 8:00*am, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
* Sunny wrote: "Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message news:Hegpn.71557$PH1.6315@edtnps82... wrote: "Pressure is building from lawmakers on the Hill for the Navy and Marines to buy more Hornets as the current fleet gets older and the arrival date for the JSF continues to slip." See: http://defensetech.org/2010/03/20/js...o-135-million/ How expensive is the JSF going to get? It doesn't matter - the price tag is already well past anything that's acceptable. What's really ludicrous is the thought of using any planes this costly as bomb trucks for ground support. Can you see putting a gold-plated aircraft like this at risk of getting shot down by cheapo AAA? Just to deliver some bombs in support of grunts? If it ever did happen, the ground units would be using every artillery tube they had shooting SEAD to protect these precious planes...begging the question of why the artillery wouldn't just pound the main target in the first place. AHS Here in Australia our stupid Govt. has not yet cancelled orders for the thing. As for artillery, you have to get the tubes and ammo close enough first, to support the Infantry. (Ex Grunt with 36 years service.) We should have bought F15s to replace our F111 *:-) One of the points being, not so long ago (20 years at most) there were plenty of targets that the infantry needed air for, because the artillery didn't quite pack enough punch. The only artillery PGM we had was Copperhead, and you'd never use one of those unless you were fighting Soviet tanks in Germany, and probably not even then. And if you happened to be in a military that had heavier artillery, like 8 inch, there were never that many of those either. So for a long period of time, for a considerable variety of target types, aircraft-delivered ordnance, mainly bombs, has been the weaponry of choice. Now, leaving out those situations where artillery is simply not in range anyway, this reality led to lots and lots of scenarios where you wanted aircraft-delivered bombs, but the target area was nevertheless covered by tube artillery...hence SEAD. Might as well suppress AAA and SAMs if you can, and hopefully that plane might get through. The intent back then was not so much to protect the plane because it cost the entire GDP of a small country, but simply because its firepower influenced the mission so much. Now we are in a situation where if tube artillery hasn't become so much more accurate it damned well ought to be - we've been ****ing around delaying or stopping PGM programs for artillery and naval guns for decades, and yet the necessary money would be easily found if we just didn't build such insanely expensive CAS aircraft. The intent of SEAD now most certainly will be to protect the bloody plane for the sake of protecting the plane, and I wouldn't be surprised if missions get turned down because the risks of losing a plane in order to blow up a bunker are just too great. Take some of the money and address deficiencies in tube and rocket artillery that still make it necessary to request CAS in the first place. Much better use of money. AHS The excuse is "there are civilians at the target". |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
On Mar 21, 8:00*am, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
*... How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple smoke, or is that still relevant? jsw |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
On Mar 21, 9:02*am, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:00*am, Arved Sandstrom wrote: *... How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple smoke, or is that still relevant? jsw GPS and lasers |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:00 am, Arved Sandstrom wrote: ... How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple smoke, or is that still relevant? jsw Well, I guess if you don't know where you are there's always that problem. Of course, if you don't know where you are then you've got bigger problems. AHS |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ... On Mar 21, 8:00 am, Arved Sandstrom wrote: ... How do you tell the artillery to hit 150 meters NNW of the purple smoke, or is that still relevant? jsw ** By radio, only if the arty has direct line of sight to the target. For indirect fire, why throw smoke? (Unless you are relying on airborne spotter to relay radio fire missions.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VNAF Huey pilot jumps into the sea near USS Midway | Dave Kearton[_3_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | June 5th 09 02:17 AM |
Got $22 million? | Bob | Piloting | 16 | September 18th 05 02:30 AM |
Value vs asking price vs selling price | Casey Wilson | Piloting | 4 | July 16th 05 04:56 AM |
If only I had $2.5 million... | Journeyman | Piloting | 11 | May 17th 04 07:13 PM |
B-17 Jumps at Pepperell Sept 22-23 | Peter | Military Aviation | 0 | August 14th 03 10:02 PM |