BF2S Forums Norway is buying the JSF

Kmarion wrote:

Why?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Why?

Because Iran is threatening to invade Europe!

The best offense is a good defense.

Kmarion wrote:

FEOS wrote:

dayarath wrote:

There you have it. the JSF is an excellent fighter bomber, stealth capabilities, quick, can carry a load and probably pack quite the punch. It's a way better choice than both the eurofighter and gripen for that role alone.

Also; NATO obligations, and if there really is going to be a war they should worry about more than just missiles. The airforce has actually always been ground support, never changed it's role during the course of the century.

The modern role of ANY air force is multi-fold:

1. Air superiority/supremacy
2. Strategic attack/interdiction
3. Close air support

Any of those three can be top priority for a given day/phase/operation. It is totally dependent upon the operational situation and the commander's objectives.

My Dad currently working with General Dynamics (Actually I'm the one looking for land). They are looking to expand operations down here. I thought you might be interested.

Kmarion wrote:

FEOS wrote:

GD is a very diverse company. No telling what kind of operations they are doing.

Not trying to be a smartass, but what was the relevance of that to my post?

It wasn't intended to be a reply to what you actually posted . That was just my way of addressing you, sharing some info. I was trying to get more information from them.. it amounts to "we are opening another division". My neighbor was curious as well. Her husband works at centcom. His contract is almost up.

FEOS wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Of course they do. But the modern role of the air force is to provide air support to ground forces.

There you have it. the JSF is an excellent fighter bomber, stealth capabilities, quick, can carry a load and probably pack quite the punch. It's a way better choice than both the eurofighter and gripen for that role alone.

Also; NATO obligations, and if there really is going to be a war they should worry about more than just missiles. The airforce has actually always been ground support, never changed it's role during the course of the century.

The modern role of ANY air force is multi-fold:

1. Air superiority/supremacy
2. Strategic attack/interdiction
3. Close air support

Any of those three can be top priority for a given day/phase/operation. It is totally dependent upon the operational situation and the commander's objectives.

Kmarion wrote:

I know there is more to war than gazillion missiles. Maybe you just failed to understand the very first sentence I wrote. My point is that whenever you cross the threshold of fighting a real enemy, one that could actually pose a threat to your current aircrafts, jsf's won't save you. You are going to be fighting someone who already has something in place that is far more strategic than ANY fighter aircraft.

The Russians won't be worrying about the safety of their pilots. They won't need any pilots to happily launch their Bulava missiles in your direction. You've got a big gaping hole in your defenses.. JSF's are pretty though.

dayarath wrote:

Yeah, and what comes after the missiles? a land force. you need to actually occupy the region, there's where air support comes in, and things to counter this air support. That's what the airforce has always been doing; support the ground troops, everything in the military is there to support the people on the ground. Missiles do NOT get the job done, they soften the enemy up.

JSF's will save us if you talk about detectability, that's the point which most people focus their eyes on- it's probably also a big deal in the NATO membership- you focus on this kinda stuff in our missions, we'll handle the other stuff. If there ever is a war declared on them they'll be able to counter the other air forces with other european / american aircraft specialized for that role. You just bomb the shit and make sure it happens without too much risk involved.

It makes the aircraft alot more useful for going far beyond enemy territory.

Kmarion wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Yeah, and what comes after the missiles? a land force. you need to actually occupy the region, there's where air support comes in, and things to counter this air support. That's what the airforce has always been doing; support the ground troops, everything in the military is there to support the people on the ground. Missiles do NOT get the job done, they soften the enemy up.

JSF's will save us if you talk about detectability, that's the point which most people focus their eyes on- it's probably also a big deal in the NATO membership- you focus on this kinda stuff in our missions, we'll handle the other stuff. If there ever is a war declared on them they'll be able to counter the other air forces with other european / american aircraft specialized for that role. You just bomb the shit and make sure it happens without too much risk involved.

It makes the aircraft alot more useful for going far beyond enemy territory.

In a real East/West war not much comes after the missiles. Do you honestly think after leveling your bases that JSF's are going to be dog fighting over your skies?

Again, if you wanted to strike targets with minimal risk to your pilots you would be investing in unmanned alternatives. That is where the futures is.

If detectability was a worry for you than maybe consider something that makes a little more sense.

Kmarion wrote:

jord wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Hey no problem. I don't mind selling some of your own work back to you for personal profit. I took this ten minutes from my house.

http://i34.tinypic.com/2duj9k8.jpg

See the wheel doors at the bottom? You can thank me for them being there... On like... A few of them... Of which that probably wasn't one of...

Since no one got it.. That's an F-22. Something the US government will not export. As of right now at least.

dayarath wrote:

FEOS wrote:

dayarath wrote:

There you have it. the JSF is an excellent fighter bomber, stealth capabilities, quick, can carry a load and probably pack quite the punch. It's a way better choice than both the eurofighter and gripen for that role alone.

Also; NATO obligations, and if there really is going to be a war they should worry about more than just missiles. The airforce has actually always been ground support, never changed it's role during the course of the century.

The modern role of ANY air force is multi-fold:

1. Air superiority/supremacy
2. Strategic attack/interdiction
3. Close air support

Any of those three can be top priority for a given day/phase/operation. It is totally dependent upon the operational situation and the commander's objectives.

you know how small the airforces over here of seperate countries are compared to yours? how are you going to specialize an airforce in all three roles which exists out of 50-100 fighter aircraft at most.

Haul in ALOT of extra (training) equipment, different simulators, probably different weapon types too, and which also would require a far larger maintenance team (which many countries here are struggling with, engineers are really in short supply in the military)

so you choose an overall OK aircraft, for bombing missions it's good, and that's the main focus now especially with all the counter insurgency stuff going on. The main choice for many people here to take the aircraft is just this ; STEALTH detection.

dayarath wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Yeah, and what comes after the missiles? a land force. you need to actually occupy the region, there's where air support comes in, and things to counter this air support. That's what the airforce has always been doing; support the ground troops, everything in the military is there to support the people on the ground. Missiles do NOT get the job done, they soften the enemy up.

JSF's will save us if you talk about detectability, that's the point which most people focus their eyes on- it's probably also a big deal in the NATO membership- you focus on this kinda stuff in our missions, we'll handle the other stuff. If there ever is a war declared on them they'll be able to counter the other air forces with other european / american aircraft specialized for that role. You just bomb the shit and make sure it happens without too much risk involved.

It makes the aircraft alot more useful for going far beyond enemy territory.

In a real East/West war not much comes after the missiles. Do you honestly think after leveling your bases that JSF's are going to be dog fighting over your skies?

Again, if you wanted to strike targets with minimal risk to your pilots you would be investing in unmanned alternatives. That is where the futures is.

If detectability was a worry for you than maybe consider something that makes a little more sense.

You act as if there's nothing in the world that can stop a missile, truly I don't think a east-west war will be limited to only missiles, heck we got all kinds of anti missile missiles too, noone has enough to swamp these, there's actual manpower involved too.


I can't disagree on the fact that unmanned aircraft are a good future but the JSF is by no means a bad choice, hell if you say only missiles why have an army, why have a navy and why have an airforce at all.

Varegg wrote:

So by your reasoning Kmarion we would do equally well with the Tiger Moth ... why on earth did we spend money on the F16 some 30+ years ago ... and if the B52 is such a good airplane why did you guys use money to develop the B2?

But of course you are correct Kmarion, you always are ...

In the Year of Our Lord 2020, the young pilots of America's armed forces will fly aircraft designed in a previous century for that earlier century's wars. The Army's ground troops will be weighed down by leviathan systems unsuited to the knife-fight conflicts of the coming decades. And the Navy will be splendidly prepared for the Second World War. Along the way, the United States may pay a trillion dollars for weapons that constrain rather than enable, that bankrupt the services, and that preserve cherished traditions at the expense of practical capabilities. ...

Consider a few purchases in progress: At a time when no power can match our control of the skies and none intends to confront us with dueling aircraft, we are buying three new fighters at a cost of $340 billion dollars, according to the Congressional Budget Office's accounting. The CBO's figure is that of an apologist, and does not include the metastasizing costs of fitting these systems to the force and keeping them there. Further, the General Accounting Office - our government's unpopular honest broker - states that "cost increases of 20 to 40 percent have been common for major weapon programs" and that "numerous programs experienced increases much greater than that." The trend-line for cost overruns rises sharply.

Of those three "indispensable" aircraft, the most promising is the Navy's F/A 18E/F, based upon a proven airframe and fulfilling at least some legitimate needs. The Navy insists the program is within budget, but maintains its numbers only by deferring problems. The F-22 Raptor, a supremely-unnecessary air-superiority fighter, is over budget $667 million years before the first plane has been produced for combat. The contractor, in a wonderful blackmail effort, has warned that costs will shoot higher if the Air Force does not continue to buy an unwanted aircraft, the C-130J, to keep assembly lines open. The final aircraft, the Joint Strike Fighter, is lagging in development, but being rushed forward. Its purchase will force an annual doubling of the aircraft procurement budget, even if costs do not increase one dollar beyond current projections. Yet, in an air campaign such as those in Yugoslavia or Iraq, it offers little more than planes we have.

Ultimately, we can fund these three evolutionary systems that slightly improve current capabilities (if, unlike the B-1 and B-2 bombers, they work as advertised). But, consequently, we will not be able to afford the truly revolutionary technologies that will become available early in the next century. We will be imprisoned by these lavish purchases of past designs. Worse still, the trend in military technologies is toward cheap kills of expensive systems. We may spend well over half a trillion dollars to buy aircraft that will be defeated easily by innovative technologies available at a discount. While the generals, admirals and the defense contractors who hire them upon their retirement will argue that threat-testing shows that these new aircraft are virtually invulnerable, the word in the Pentagon corridors is that tests that might expose weaknesses in the survivability of the aircraft are being watered down or simply avoided. Increasingly, our national defense is a business, and its business is not defense.