I think you have indirectly made the point that corporations should have no input ( speech or money ) into politics.
I have a Samsung Stratosphere because I like the keyboard. I cant run certain apps fully ( Lync and Evernote ) as it is a limited phone and the darn thing is slow ( and gets slower ).
And lately, it just turns itself off. No warning, just off. And I am the second level support person where I work.
I had no idea about these.
My understanding is that they are supposed to know enough about what they are looking for to say what it is.
Is it how evidence works in every case?
and the persons or things to be seized.
from what I have read, they do not specify the person or things to be seized except "everything".
In my mind, "No Check".
Replying to remove moderation error.
I think you are exactly right.
You have a good point, no aircraft can excel at every mission.
And I agree with the premise that they really need to make 2 or three aircraft out of this one.
( funny, the FB-11 is a great example of aircraft in trouble, but it did give up the air combat role and became an OK attack aircraft ( with the F-14 rising from that process to become the fighter ) ).
I think they need to use the F-22 as fighter and let the F-35 be strike/attack. And keep the A-10. Or develop a similar aircraft. ( maybe a V-22 variant ).
What they really should have considered was creating a naval air superiority aircraft that the Navy and Air force could share ( Navalizing Air force aircraft does not see to work well, but the F-4 seemed to work out OK, coming the other way ) Made the F-35 a strike aircraft, either with VTOL, or if not, developing a VTOL aircraft for the marines ( V-22 isnt fast enough ).
Fox "Doesn't matter if it's true" "news"?
No. I have just seen all the turmoil on other planes as they are developed. The V-22 is a example.
I am also, as a software developer, really used to hearing "nothing works!", "it's terrible" as an app is developed.
It may well be that the F-35 isn't a suitable plane. I just think we are gong to need something like it in the not too distant future.
I hear what you are saying, but I dont think that Libya is a good example.
Libya looks a lot like Vietnam, and I think things will/have progressed from there in a fight with a "real" adversary ( China, Russia, et al ).
( and now I know why I pulled in Wild Weasels, they would go in before the strike to kill the fixed air defense ( ground to air stuff ) ).
The F-35 is an attack aircraft. It will be dropping bombs. So, going in with all the aircraft you need to fulfill that mission, plus jammers means that you have given the enemy a heads up that you are coming.
Yo u might knock back the ground to air stuff, but if they have fighters, those will be launched. You want to avoid that if possible.
And Iraq was not a great example of what a fight with a real contender will be like. They had all kinds of ground to air, but no effective air to air ( numbers, training, moral ). We wont be in that fight against a real adversary ( praying we wont, but... )
You don't plan around what happened in the past. You learn lessons from it ( hopefully ).
In designing any new aircraft, you have to look at what it's adversaries might be.
And plan around that, the numbers likely to be deployed, logistical factors.
Factor in what has happened in the Ukraine, and how that could have gone.
If the Russians had decided to occupy, what would they have used, and what would the Ukrainians have wanted to oppose that ?
( modern aircraft, in part, strike for the Russians, air defense/air superiority for the Ukrainians )
There is conflict in Syria. My recollection is that Assad has been using aircraft on his people, and that is part of what keep him from being overthrown.
What did the Iraqis want from us when ISIS/ISIL/ started taking territory.
Aircraft. For us to use our aircraft to assist them in driving them out.
China is being increasingly belligerent ( I'm sure they see it as taking their place in the sun, but where have we heard that before ), especially in the South China Seas with Japan, the Philippians, and Vietnam ( at least )
( recent news includes the articles about the oil rigs China has placed near Vietnam, and the Naval issue that have proceeded.
They are attempting to jump start their military ( and commercial ) aircraft industry.
Conflict appears to be getting smaller. Yes. But the threat of conflict is still there. And the capability on the part of other nations is still there.
Imagine America destroys all it's aircraft, naval vessels and disbands the army after destroying all it's weapons.
What happens next?
I would predict that our borders with Canada and Mexico would change, at minimum.
I'm not sure if Russian or China have the logistical capability to move in such a scenario, but then, America's moves in Afghanistan surprised the snot out of me. ( not the absolute power, but the ability to project it so far away.
We cant disarm, as appealing as that sounds. We cant even stop looking at what comes next, as that becomes disarming, in effect, after a period of time.
Disclosure, I am fairly liberal, Christian, opposed to war, use too many parenthesis and commas.
I have not heard from the marketing department much.
I do follow news about the aircraft and have formed my own opinion.
Forgive me, I am very tired, I should not have mentioned Wild Weasel, you are correct on that.
I believe my point that additional aircraft will not render your strike aircraft less visible stands though.
I understand both of those principals.
I am not convinced they apply here.
How many F-18/E/F/G/H...'s will you need to build to accomplish the mission?
If it doesn't survive well and doesn't knock down the enemy well enough, you might still blow your budget.
And have more maintenance issues. And have to staff for that number of aircraft.
Yes, if the package fits, you can retrofit, but there are limits.
The aircraft's ease of maintenance is an issue, but it take a backseat to it's mission requirements.
If you start again, which is an option, you don't always develop existing platforms, you develop new.
Or we would not have the highly regarded aircraft we have.
Especially in stealth, where the airplane shape is so important.
F-22, air superiority is it's main task. It is not a swiss army knife.
The F-14 and F-15 were not tasked with other roles until later in their evolution.
Stealth is never handled by having other aircraft along. You move from visible to even more visible.
Wild weasel aircraft will accompany some strike packages to confuse/jam enemy radar, but that is not absolutely not stealth.
If the F-35 is that bad that it will require that kind of support, then the whole point as been missed.
And probably, it is the frontal hemisphere that they care about. It is an attack aircraft, and will be headed towards the enemy ( until they have accomplished ( hopefully ) their mission and are egressing ( but at that point, the enemy knows they are there... ) )
No aircraft came off the designer's in great shape. Not in any era.
WWII aircraft manufacturer came up with a block system within models to track all the changes they were making.