JSF

I want one....

I wonder what the monthly payments would be on something like that?

Let's see at 6% interest...$5000.00 dollars down, $259.99 a month for...
.
.
.
Carry the two...
.
.
.
872 years...

OK, that works, where do I sign?

That one is better

they remind me of my transformer dolls when i was a kid

Yeah I'd like to see them try to reposess that thing when you didn't make the payment. You could just be like if you come any closer and you're Elvis... (ya know cause Elvis is dead) or is he??? Anyways I could see that scenario playing out very comical.

Flying... like a bird...
"Across the clouds I see my shadow fly
Out of the corner of my watering eye
A dream unthreatened by the morning light
Could blow this soul right through the roof of the night"
Ahhh... I get dreamed.

What a waste of frickin money...why in hell do we even need NEW planes to begin with...who are we trying to out fly, out manuever, out gun...no one in the world has planes that can even come close to us...yet we are building new and better ones...some one figure that out...

those transform, those things are cool looking! i never heard of them, does the airforce still use um?

Hey Fluffs,I want one too...you wanna go halves?

Reason it out? The reason we can outfly, out maneuver, outgun is because we keep building better planes. You think we would have controlled the skies over Iraq as quickly as we did using technology from a decade ago?

Besides, the thing about the JSF isn't that it is technological leap forward. It's that it is a universal plane, meaning all the branches can use it, therefore less money needs to be spent on spare parts, and less parts have to be kept in stock (and as a former aviation maintanence officer, I can vouch that keeping track of less parts will do wonders for squadron morale.

It's not about a bigger stick, it's about a cheaper one.

Besides the old British Harrier had a design flaw that the F_22 Raptor and theF-38s have corrected for safty on verticale landings and take offs. That will save a lot on the size of Aircraft Carriers, maybe making them obsolete altogether.
ROG- EX>-U.S.A.F.

is anybody going to explain these planes, or am i left hepless over here looking at the cool planes

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is the new single engine strike fighter that will soon be replacing the other aeriel combat planes that we have. It comes in three flavors, Army (VTOL), Navy (carrier based), and Air Force (land based). The great majority of the parts between the three are interchangeable, meaning that less time, money, and paperwork is needed for maintanence, as well as less training for the personel.

WASTE OF MONEY

waste of money ?--tell that to some jet-jock flying a 30 year old jet in the combat zone !--

lets see fluffy-- the ctol version (Air Force) $28M-- the most fun is the USMC/RoalNavy version for a mear $36M-- impress your neighbors by landing in your own back yard--!! (better give them some ear plugs first!)

just make sure the back yard can stand a 17ton sink rate--LOL

for sale at your local Locheed martin dealership !

0% for qualified buyers ! no payments till 2006 ! we pay off your old ride no matter what you owe !

( your fuel economy may vary from the highest estimates due to flying style)

this ad sponsered by (EXXON/chevron oil company)

How is it a waste of money? Its whole purpose is to save us money, by not having to support the antiquated and ineffecient aircraft we have now.

If it ain't broke...dont' fix it...

There is no Country to date, that is our enemy, that can even come close to matching the technological Aerial Firepower that the U.S. currently has. That money could have gone to better arming our Troops ON THE GROUND in combat that we currently have deployed over the world. There is NO air war. There is however, a growing Guerilla Urban War, where are troops are being forced to basically fight hand to hand combat. Like I said before...why in the f*ck is the government waisting funds on this sh!t, when it could be spent a hundred different better ways...cough...cough...Homeland Security...maybe...

Excuse me, but Russia isnt that far behind the US with the SU-37.

There is no air war because we control the sky. We control the sky because our aircraft and technology gave us that advantage early in the fight, and kept our ground troops from being bombed as they moved in (why do you think they waited until we had established air dominance before beginning the push to Baghdad?).

Every branch fights for the funding they get and uses it the best way they can. If you think that one branch not using x amount of money means another branch can get that money and use it for themselves, you need some understanding of the real-life version of economics.

Incidentally, if we ever went to war with China (which is nowhere near impossible), we would be fools to expect air dominance as easily as we did with Iraq. Their aircraft are older than ours, but they are well-maintained, their pilots are well-trained, and most importantly, they heavily outnumber ours. We would eventually gain it, of that there is no doubt, but it would come at a heavy cost in pilot lives. It would, in all probability, mean the end of manned strike fighters, and the conversion to UAV for dangerous missions.

About the JSF though... its only a cheap knock off of the F-22! (or actually, the F-23)

You people are talking about the future events that have not happened...I am talking about present events...sure China...Russia...are threats...they have trained pilots....they are skilled...but our current technology is advanced enough to handle them...like I said...we (The U.S.) love to bomb the sh!t out of everything...because we can...we love to lob missiles from hundreds of miles away...and besides...the planes we used in this war...are totally different from the fighter planes you would send to take on other fighters...

You can't honestly believe that a civilization can survive by preparing for the last war. That's a recipe for downfall by barbarian attack. As a former member of the military, I have no intention of waiting for the next battle before thinking about what we will need to survive it.



No, we love to lob missiles from hundreds of miles away because it beats the hell out of sending live pilots into harm's way to do it. I like my pilots alive and kicking, thank you.



How so? A strike fighter plane is a strike fighter plane. An electronic attack bird is an electronic attack bird. Whether we are fighting Iraquis on the ground or Chinese jets in the air, the only difference would be what the ordies stick to the bottom of the plane.



Our pilots had a major problem with the jet being a one-engine. Nobody trusts them. If the engine goes out, you are screwed.

You guys are missing my point entirley...sure...if you keep preparing for war by making bigger, better weapons..the bad guys are just gonna do the same...then where does that lead us.

And as for those Missiles, sure they save lives...our troops lives...but most of the time hit innocent civilian areas...where their lives are taken. But what does that matter...at least it's not us right...

And I'm not quite sure...but I don't believe that Wild Weasels or whatever we use to hit tanks and armored vehicles are the same ones we send to attack other fighters, which is what we are basically using our air power for.

All I'm saying, is how is having this new state of the art plane, preventing suicide bombers from killing our troops, road side bombs, and terrorists out of our airports and ports. It's man power we need, and better technology to detect these pyschos. Can anybody understand what I'm saying...

No, the bad guys are going to make bigger and better weapons whether we do or not. It is the most basic of war philosophy; never sit on your laurels. The trick is to make bigger and better weapon while you still have the capacity, because if you get overwhelmed, like the Iraquis did, you won't have the resources to make better weapon, or, for that matter, even to fix what you have.



Are you making this up as you go along? Missiles have less than a 2% error record. And of that two percent, only 7 missiles actually detonated (missiles are programmed to go inert when they lose lock on their target). Considering the several hundreds of missiles we used, saying "most of the time hit innocent civilians" is not just an exagerration, it's outright libel.



Actually, our air power spends the majority of its time on ground support. Strike fighter jets use either JDAMS, which are exclusively for ground attacks, or a variety of missiles which have both ground and air capacity. There are also missiles that are air only, but they very rarely get loaded unless you specifically going after an airborne target.



The main problem is that you have spent the past several posts complaining how useless and a waste this plane is. If you want to claim that other people need money, go right ahead, heck I'll even agree the military needs more manpower on the ground, but don't do it by posting very weaky supported argument against something that doesn't have anything to do with this. Less military spending is not going to translate into more intelligence spending.

One...I love making stuff up as I go along...and two...I'm only regurgitating (sp?) stuff I see on the news from around the World...not the U.S. news...two very different sides if you've ever watched...

hot, Hot and HOT. Fuel makes fire, hell yeah. Fully wicked, " I want a go, me,me,me!!!!!!!!!!!!