Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

chaos0xomega wrote:I'm not going to get into the f-35 debate here, but I've been of the opinion that given the fiscal issues we are faced with at present, we should instead buy upgraded versions of existing systems en masse (since you can get 3 or so f-15s for the price of a single f-35) and make do with what we got til we have some spare cash in the future.

Considering how much money we've put into the F-35, you would need damn good evidence to back such an opinion.

dogma wrote:Considering how much money we've put into the F-35, you would need damn good evidence to back such an opinion.

Sunk cost fallacy?


Really, I think the lesson of the F-35 is to set a list of requirements for a new weapons platform and just stick to it. Much of the cost for the F-35 seems to have come from upgrading the system specs during the design phase.

sebster wrote:
Sunk cost fallacy?

I don't think the technology developed is irrelevant to current and future concerns.

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:Considering how much money we've put into the F-35, you would need damn good evidence to back such an opinion.

Sunk cost fallacy?


Really, I think the lesson of the F-35 is to set a list of requirements for a new weapons platform and just stick to it. Much of the cost for the F-35 seems to have come from upgrading the system specs during the design phase.

I wouldn't say that, much of the cost has come from failing to live up to the original requirements, thus needing the upgrades. The design is overly complex and costly, is Vertical take off really of that much use? Well it is now, seeing as the aircraft is completely incapable of landing on a carrier any other way now until they pour millions into figuring out to make it work.

The high tech weapons guidance system is a complete failure also.

I understand we want the best, but maybe we should test the technology BEFORE we go into full production. We can't just dump these off on our allies like we did with the airacobra.

This is currently a $304.15 million aircraft that is failing basic flight tests, and the costs are going to go up dramatically. It took it's first flight in 2006 for crying out loud.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Abcb29d8f-6a85-40c5-8f1d-c84d20afe997&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

It's a money pit that probably was overreaching in the first place and never should have been approved. We could have updated our current fleets for much cheaper, I don't really see any treats on the horizon that can deal with the fleets we have now.

Well, there is the Chinese J-20, and the Russian T-50 stealth fighters... The Chinese one strikes me more as a deep-penetration/strike fighter rather than air-superiority (I.E. move really really fast into contested airspace, deliver ordnance, turn, and burn), but the Russian one looks to be a formidable air-to-air combatant (word on the street is that it sacrifices some stealth for far superior maneuverability relative to the F-22), worse still is that both these aircraft promise to cost significantly less than the F-22/F-35, and the T-50 at least is being offered up for export.

chaos0xomega wrote:Well, there is the Chinese J-20, and the Russian T-50 stealth fighters... The Chinese one strikes me more as a deep-penetration/strike fighter rather than air-superiority (I.E. move really really fast into contested airspace, deliver ordnance, turn, and burn), but the Russian one looks to be a formidable air-to-air combatant (word on the street is that it sacrifices some stealth for far superior maneuverability relative to the F-22), worse still is that both these aircraft promise to cost significantly less than the F-22/F-35, and the T-50 at least is being offered up for export.

Yeah, I'm not really worried about either of those right now. I don't see them as a real threat to the Raptor, having a fighter is one thing, having the training and the support required to make it work properly is quite another. I am worried that because we focused so much on the f-35, we are going to loose out on future projects.

The Russians are always making their aircraft super maneuverable, which is real cool looking and all, but they have to go about 5 MPH to pull those cool tricks. Not really the best idea in air to air combat. The thing is soon enough you will not need piloted craft. Yes we still need a good capable aircraft, but I don't ever see the f-35 being that aircraft. It's too heavy, too complicated and too expensive. This is what happens when you try to make one airframe do everything, it ends up not doing anything particularly well. The f-35 is drawing away the resources we need to procure the best aircraft. We are talking trillions of dollars here, just wasted. And there are a bunch of people making millions off this failed contract.

chaosXomega, you didn’t answer my previous post on the overall scale of US military spending, which seems considerably more pertinent to the issue at large, instead of specific US weapon platforms.

dogma wrote:I don't think the technology developed is irrelevant to current and future concerns.

Which is fair enough, but then the answer is that the 3 trillion spent has developed tech that still represents future value, not merely that 3 trillion has been spent.

Andrew1975 wrote:I wouldn't say that, much of the cost has come from failing to live up to the original requirements, thus needing the upgrades. The design is overly complex and costly, is Vertical take off really of that much use? Well it is now, seeing as the aircraft is completely incapable of landing on a carrier any other way now until they pour millions into figuring out to make it work.

I’m certainly no expert, and am probably not even well read enough to be considered an armchair general, but I’ve heard a few interesting people argue that the issue has been the (already long) development process being hampered further by adding more specs onto the aircraft during development. That they could have had a much more limited aircraft out in the field in the mid 2000s, but instead they’ve kept upgrading as they’ve gone along.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:Well, there is the Chinese J-20, and the Russian T-50 stealth fighters... The Chinese one strikes me more as a deep-penetration/strike fighter rather than air-superiority (I.E. move really really fast into contested airspace, deliver ordnance, turn, and burn), but the Russian one looks to be a formidable air-to-air combatant (word on the street is that it sacrifices some stealth for far superior maneuverability relative to the F-22), worse still is that both these aircraft promise to cost significantly less than the F-22/F-35, and the T-50 at least is being offered up for export.

Has there ever been a Russian aircraft that delivered capabilities close to what the US defence experts claimed?

Manned aircraft are a waste of time now anyway.
The only thing holding up the evolution of modern combat aircraft is the pilot.
dump the pilot and you don't need the egress system, reduce the ECS (environmental control systems) burden (all you'll need cooled air for is avionics) flight instruments, controls, etc.
UAV can be smaller, faster, more manoeuvrable, etc...

sebster wrote:
Which is fair enough, but then the answer is that the 3 trillion spent has developed tech that still represents future value, not merely that 3 trillion has been spent.

Sort of. In the bare sense of economics you're definitely correct, but there is also a synergy consideration.

In essence, to what degree is that which has been developed dependent upon the architecture of development, and what else has been developed?

Melissia wrote:From the PTA/Teacher's Unions, or from real, actual people (Ie discluding those who are directly associated with the PTA/Teacher's Unions)?

[edit: no, that wasn't a gaffe. PTAs/Teacher's Unions need reform as much as anything in the education system, if not more than most things.]

Both the Teenager and Genghis Connie scored perfect on TAKS tests every year they took them.
School Districts were complaining because it helped put a spotlight on their sucky schools and sucky management.

marv335 wrote:Manned aircraft are a waste of time now anyway.
The only thing holding up the evolution of modern combat aircraft is the pilot.
dump the pilot and you don't need the egress system, reduce the ECS (environmental control systems) burden (all you'll need cooled air for is avionics) flight instruments, controls, etc.
UAV can be smaller, faster, more manoeuvrable, etc...

It's a great sentiment but the problem in UCAVs is the same as manned aircraft in another way. A person has to control it. The datalink has communication delays and depends on a system that is easily damaged. UAVs may, should, and will take over a number of aviation roles. The air superiority fighter is not one of them; any time soon.

Andrew1975 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Well, there is the Chinese J-20, and the Russian T-50 stealth fighters... The Chinese one strikes me more as a deep-penetration/strike fighter rather than air-superiority (I.E. move really really fast into contested airspace, deliver ordnance, turn, and burn), but the Russian one looks to be a formidable air-to-air combatant (word on the street is that it sacrifices some stealth for far superior maneuverability relative to the F-22), worse still is that both these aircraft promise to cost significantly less than the F-22/F-35, and the T-50 at least is being offered up for export.

Yeah, I'm not really worried about either of those right now. I don't see them as a real threat to the Raptor, having a fighter is one thing, having the training and the support required to make it work properly is quite another. I am worried that because we focused so much on the f-35, we are going to loose out on future projects.

Because our 180 or so raptors will be able to compete with several times their number of comparable aircraft...

The thing is soon enough you will not need piloted craft.

Ah yes, the UAVs will replaced piloted combat aircraft fallacy, the true mark of someone that needs a reality check. No offense intended, but I'm getting really sick of seeing it over and over again, the onl people that really truly believe this will happen are those officers that have their hands in the defense industry's pockets and the civilian population that buys into the media portrayal of them. UAV's are not a serious replacement for manned fighter and attack aircraft. Also, to those that argue that a UAV is cheaper: NO THEY AREN'T. Aside from the fact that no production UAV has yet been capable of doing anything remotely close to an actual combat aircrafts peformance capabilities, there are the hidden costs in, I.E. the communications infrastructure needed to support a fleet of UAVs plus the hardening and support for this infrastructure to keep it from failing or falling victim to cyber-attack, EMP, or those fancy anti-satellite missiles.

Has there ever been a Russian aircraft that delivered capabilities close to what the US defence experts claimed?

I think the Mig-29 and the latest Sukhoi's have done a pretty good job of that... Theres also the fact that MiGs gave our pilots a lot of headaches during Korea and Vietnam. The MiG-29 was a particularly effective aircraft in the hands of Luftwaffe pilots during training exercises against F-15s/16s/18s.

and @sebster regarding relative spending, I think its where it should be, if not a little low (seriously we hardly have the manpower to sustain a sane and rational deployment rotation and we had to contract out various logistical support aspects of our operations that were supposed to have been performed by the AF/Navy amongst others). Yes, we are spending a lot of money compared to everyone else, but we're also PAYING more for pretty much EVERYTHING.Russia expects to commission 100 new surface combatants (and there might be some submarines in there too), refurbish its fighter and helicopter fleets, purchase new bombers and tanks en masse, etc. Plus they are doing R&D to prepare themselves to support a fleet of 6 nuclear carrier battlegroups by 2030, and from what I have seen/heard their programs are all pretty much on budget and on schedule. All that with a very much smaller budget than what the US is working with. We're going to be buying a few dozen F-35s a year while we are supposed to be retiring several times that number of aircraft. We are retiring way more ships than we are building, etc. etc. We have the most expensive military and defense industry in the world. We pay more than everyone else to support a very much higher standard of living for our troops and to make the US an attractive place to work for scientists and engineers of world-class intelligence. Trying to gauge relative capability based on a dollar figure is a mistake in that sense. That being said, i think cutting the number of active duty personnel and bolstering out reservist pool by a ton would be a much more intelligent option. We don't necessarily need to maintain 1million+ personnel in a state of active-duty readiness during peacetime all things considered.

Except eh, it's a government, not a household (guarantee this has already been said).

The government has sources of income beyond just taxes. I'd like to see what they included into "United states tax revenue"

Thought you all would like to know, the 2011 Graduation rates for Oregon were reported today. 67% statewide. That's 33% of students not graduating in time, or in many cases not at all.

Some of our local schools had a graduation rate of 52%. Not inner city schools, just basic schools in a small city where the next closest school is 3 - 5 miles away, and the graduation rates were higher. Something is really askew with our local system.

The average statewide to educate is $10,000 a year per child. The teachers in Oregon are on average making $60.000 a year as of 2009 (the most recent report I could find) That is including benefits. Average income for the entire state $35,000 - $40,000 depending on the report. Teachers in this state have received compensation increases every year for I have no idea how long, 30 years, and threaten to strike on average, every 3 years it seems.

The average classroom size for Oregon is 30 children, meaning approx $300,000 per classroom per year. Minus teacher salaries, this leaves $240,000 per classroom. Some of this goes to books, utilities, replacing lightbulbs, janitors, etc. Most of it seems to get eaten up in administration, since the favourite phrase around here is "deferred mantainance" when it comes to upkeeping the school buildings which are on average about 40 - 50 years old, and they always want to build something new. I personally went to school in a 100+ year old building back east.

For a point of reference, the average cost to educate a child at a private school in Oregon is $6,000, which much better results, higher graduation rates, etc.

I am rambling now because it is late. This is a microcosm of what is wrong with the Governmental system in the USA. If I hear one more person in Oregon say teachers should be paid more, my head is going to explode.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Except eh, it's a government, not a household (guarantee this has already been said).

The government has sources of income beyond just taxes. I'd like to see what they included into "United states tax revenue"

Oh that's true, they also collect fees. Which are just taxes by another name.

The only way any Government gets any money, is through taxation of its citizenry who actually produce things that make money. Well and in the case of the USA, we also get money in the form of loans. Or did you think they are running some kind of profitable and legitimate business?

And in the case of some countries, they also get money through foreign aid, aka the tax money collected from citizens in other countries.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
For a point of reference, the average cost to educate a child at a private school in Oregon is $6,000, which much better results, higher graduation rates, etc.

Well sure, when your parents are well educated and reasonably wealthy you'e likely to do well academically.

Governments can simply print money.

That runs a risk of igniting inflation, of course.

With regards to military spending, I wonder how often this quote from Eisenhower (made in 1961) comes up?

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

You would have to make the argument that what Eisenhower feared has come to pass, and has so since at least the Reagan era.

dogma wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:I'm not going to get into the f-35 debate here, but I've been of the opinion that given the fiscal issues we are faced with at present, we should instead buy upgraded versions of existing systems en masse (since you can get 3 or so f-15s for the price of a single f-35) and make do with what we got til we have some spare cash in the future.

Considering how much money we've put into the F-35, you would need damn good evidence to back such an opinion.

Didn't stop the government from axing the A-12.

whitedragon wrote:Didn't stop the government from axing the A-12.

But that led to the development of the SR-71 IIRC?

Edit: I got that wrong, I think you may have been on about the McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II, in which case yeah it's looking like an option.

Pacific wrote:With regards to military spending, I wonder how often this quote from Eisenhower (made in 1961) comes up?

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

You would have to make the argument that what Eisenhower feared has come to pass, and has so since at least the Reagan era.

Often, just not by politicians or the "councils of government" I think several pages ago what I said about defense spending being last on the chopping block was misconstrued for it shouldn't ever be. There is rampant waste in the procurement system, and the vendors themselves are responsible for most of if, and not just the domestic ones. The AF will pay 17.5 million dollars for super Tucanos under the Light Support Aircraft contract, by comparison an A-10 in inflation adjusted dollars cost 17.1 million and 17.5 million in 1945 adjusted dollars is a shade over ONE million; the p-51 cost about 51,000 each. That's one airplane, under one contract, cleary way overpriced. Ships I think are the greatest offender, the navy gets and eighty deserves the largest share of the budget, but between the electric boat company and northdrop grumman and lockheed the navy can barely maintain it's current surface fleet, let alone the subsurface fleet that fiscally they can NOT maintain. A certain amount of cost in technology and inflation is expected, the sea wolf and Virginia submarines were so astronomically beyond tha reasonable threshold. There are similar examples.
Personnel are a legitimate complaint but the truth is that troops levels are pretty low considering past periods with similar optempos. It's not like troops live high on the hog either. There are cuts, legitimate ones that need to be made. There are procurement reforms that could be but won't be to show the MIC they aren't indispensable.

Kilkrazy wrote:Governments can simply print money.

That runs a risk of igniting inflation, of course.

This is still taxation, it simply taxes anyone who owns the government's currency (as opposed to its citizens).

Auston - Just wanted to point out that the Super Tucano to A-10 comparison isn't exactly valid. The cost of the A-10 you listed is its original manufacturing cost using 1970s era tech. Since then the A-10 fleet has been heavily upgraded with 1990s era tech () as well as going through some minor structural redesigns to prevent certain structural deficiencies that have come about as the result of years of over-use. Also worth noting that while the Super Tucano costs that much for the plane, it costs only a few hundred dollars/hour to operate vs the A-10s thousands/hour.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Governments can simply print money.

That runs a risk of igniting inflation, of course.

This is still taxation, it simply taxes anyone who owns the government's currency (as opposed to its citizens).

Mere semantics.

Inflation promoted by printing money may be regarded by you as a tax on people who hold dollars or debts; if so, it is equally a tax rebate to people who owe money.

Many economists feel a moderate degree of inflation is a good thing. That's why central banks often have an inflation target of about 2%. Conversely deflation is widely regarded as a bad thing.

biccat wrote:
This is still taxation, it simply taxes anyone who owns the government's currency (as opposed to its citizens).

Well, no, it isn't. Its printing money.

Semantic shifts are fallacious. Are you going to argue that when the government prints money it is also committing theft? Do you steal from me when you undercut the price of my product, and reduce the value of my inventory?

AustonT wrote:I think several pages ago what I said about defense spending being last on the chopping block was misconstrued for it shouldn't ever be.

If it is the last to be cut, then it wouldbe the only thing left in the budget when it's cut.


Frankly, defense should be the FIRST to be cut. We're wasting money there, lots of money, it's far less efficient per dollar than our education system is, and the education system is notoriously inefficient.

Melissia wrote:
Frankly, defense should be the FIRST to be cut. We're wasting money there, lots of money, it's far less efficient per dollar than our education system is, and the education system is notoriously inefficient.

Proportions for what is reality;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures




That was in 2010.

As a percentage of the US budget-

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

chaos0xomega wrote:Auston - Just wanted to point out that the Super Tucano to A-10 comparison isn't exactly valid. The cost of the A-10 you listed is its original manufacturing cost using 1970s era tech. Since then the A-10 fleet has been heavily upgraded with 1990s era tech () as well as going through some minor structural redesigns to prevent certain structural deficiencies that have come about as the result of years of over-use. Also worth noting that while the Super Tucano costs that much for the plane, it costs only a few hundred dollars/hour to operate vs the A-10s thousands/hour.

The super tucano is also far, FAR less durable, carries a lighter load, has fewer hardpoints, has a less effective main weapon, has less range, and is less maneuverable.

So all that expense is for a less effective aircraft, compared to the A-10, which is designed for and utterly excels at close air support. The Super Tucano is less effective than the A-10 in every way that counts. You can also look at the AC-130 for an alternative to the A-10, but even that is close to ten times as expensive as the A-10.

You don't just want cheaper aircraft. You want cheaper aircraft that are good at their jobs.

Melissia wrote:
So all that expense is for a less effective aircraft, compared to the A-10, which is designed for and utterly excels at close air support. The Super Tucano is less effective than the A-10 in every way that counts.

In the role the Super Tucano is designed for the A-10 is overkill. The Super Tucano is meant for shooting at insurgents riding in technicals, the A-10 is meant for shooting at regular Army riding in tanks.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:
So all that expense is for a less effective aircraft, compared to the A-10, which is designed for and utterly excels at close air support. The Super Tucano is less effective than the A-10 in every way that counts.

In the role the Super Tucano is designed for the A-10 is overkill. The Super Tucano is meant for shooting at insurgents riding in technicals, the A-10 is meant for shooting at regular Army riding in tanks.

The thing is you can accomplish the role of the Super Tucano with a drone. Even the A-10s job will soon be sourced to drones. Close air support can easily be done and much safer with drones. The A-10's biggest advantage is that the cannon is cheap to use compared to hellfire missiles. Current drones can't carry that gun, but they have the advantage of being much cheaper in almost every other aspect. Close air support can be a very dangerous mission for any pilot, this is why the a-10 has so many redundant systems and a titanium "Bathtub". Now just replace that with a drone which is basically disposable and you have much safer mission.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The thing is you can accomplish the role of the Super Tucano with a drone. Even the A-10s job will soon be sourced to drones. Close air support can easily be done and much safer with drones.

Sort of, AustonT knows more about this than I do, but planes and drones are not equivalent for a number of reasons; the major one being the limitations of a video display relative to a pilot in a cockpit.

The point being that there are distinct advantages to initiative driven CAS involving pilots in planes, many of them simply relating to battlefield awareness.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The A-10's biggest advantage is that the cannon is cheap to use compared to hellfire missiles.

But you don't need an Avenger firing DU ammo in order to destroy a Nissan with an M2 on the roof.