The stupidity of Lockheed Martin and the Defense Department

Hmmm nah, that would be the modern equivalent to the f-16 cj.


Ohh. And it's not the "strike eagle"
It's called the Mud Hen.

 

Those two are not even comparable and no, we call it the Strike Eagle.

 

They are both multi role 4th generation fighter aircraft. Of which the viper is the best.

Whatever a fighter pilot calls it while drinking Jeremiah Weed in the O club. Is it's real name.

 

This OP is confusing. The left is complaining about us not sticking up for Ukraine in the Crimea issue (which is NOT even a NATO member or true ally) but the left also wants us to punish a nation that Obama specifically called an Ally (A NATO "ally").

What a weird thread for them to make

 

The Wild Weasel is SEAD. Comparing it with the Strike Eagle is like comparing apples and hand grenades. The Viper itself is limited. My favorite thing down range is being next to those turds in the EOR with 10x the payload, knowing they’ll only be out for an hour.

O Club? Nah. We have the squadron bar.

 

Yeah well you realize that when the call comes in for emergency close air supports.
And a cj responds, it's become a multi role fighter.

Thank you for your service, im sorry you got stuck in an f-15.

Cause it's single seat multi role, we can fly right up our own *******, yeah all you ****ers wish you flew the viper.

Tell me what happens if a new colonel comes into your bar in a combat area wearing his flight suit wearing patches?

 

The problem is that we have killed much of the middle level of our own industry, and are dependent upon imports.

Hence, why I keep bringing up televisions over and over again. There have not been US made TVs made now in about a quarter of a century. Oh, we have a few companies that tried to claim that, the most famous was Olevia a few years ago. Sold in discount stores a few years ago, claimed to be "Made in the USA".

However, that entire company collapsed when it was finally revealed that almost nothing in them was actually made in the US. They were just another cheap Chinese import, which arrived in the US complete, and all the local company did was slap them in a locally produced case.

That would be like calling a Toyota made in Japan an American Car because you slapped on tires made in Dayton. The truth was discovered, NSDAC delisted them and they went bankrupt in a spectacular implosion.

But huge parts of that our military uses are simply no longer made in the US. Monitors being the most obvious of them. But huge other segments are also gone, either the US companies driven out of business, or the local manufacturing closed down and moved overseas in an attempt to remain competitive.

This is not something the "US" can do, it has to be the US Consumer that does it first. Hence, why I ask over and over where people bought their last major purchases. Locally, retail chain, or online. Did you even look if it was import or domestic? Because ultimately this is why our military now depends on imports.

 

This puzzles me also. After all, the Ukraine was invaded by Russia in 2014.

And who was President then, hmmm? Who was the President that basically rolled over and let them do it? Big hint, it was not a Republican.

Yet half a decade later they want to talk about being kind to the Ukraine, and hard on Russia. Where in the hell was that advice in 2014? That thing started in February 2014, where were the Democrats from there until the last year or so? They had almost 3 years to have done something about it, when they actually held the White House.

But what did the last administration do? Write the Ukraine a check for $1 billion and ignored it. Yet they suddenly scream that I should care now? Truthfully, I cared 6 years ago, and was furious that the government essentially did nothing. But now it is to late, and I bet Russia is simply waiting for another change in administration, because they have learned that they can push the Democrats around and they will take it.

Then years later blame the other party for it.

 

Democrats were very active in Ukraine.
They were there raking in thr cash.

 

The CJ has one job. It’s a cool job, but you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Stuck with the F-15? It was my first choice. I started in the C model and moved to the Strike Eagle. Both gave me the best times of my life. Now I’m stuck in something that most people think is “cooler” but not nearly as necessary. Sacrificed utility for flashy career progression.

And hell yeah, I love Dos Gringos. They are good dudes. For Viper guys.

 

I was trying to tease you a little, suggesting that the f-16 should be preferred over the F-15.


You're right, I'm sure you know a lot more than me. I was only recounting historical events Dan Hampton recounted in his book " Viper Pilot"

 

I wasn’t trying to demean you, but there are a lot to these missions that don’t reflect with the public. The Viper is cool but it doesn’t have the loiter time nor the payload to be a huge asset right now. The Wild Weasel and Growler have real awesome missions but it’s not a broad mission. The same goes for the F-15C. A blast to fly but I needed things to do. The Strike Eagle kept me busier than I ever expect to be, and was the best damn time of my life. At times it felt like it was torture but looking back I can’t trade that experience for anything.

I’ve had the fortunate ability to fly a few different airframes but the F-15E was the best to me. If you have any questions about any of it, don’t ever hesitate to ask. I have 0 experience in an F-16 so I can’t tell you how fun they are to fly, but let me know if you want a little insight in the Eagles.

 

I just with i would have made them tell me know, i probably would have washed out but i should have at least tried.
I hold fighter pilots in very high regard as being the very best of Americans.

If i could experience anything in our history
I would want to have been at least ground crew at Ubon Thailand from late 66-67.

 

I freaking love the F15. Such a wicked jet. Loved the F111 as well, still a bit perplexed why it was retired. And the A10, the Air Force keeps wanting to put it down, why!? Lucky dude you are to have flown F15s no doubt about it.

 

The F-111 was retired because

1) Operating costs, mainly maintenance.
2) Much of the fleets airframe life was depleted during Operation: Desert Storm.
3) The A-10 has been a target of the USAF mainly due to being very accident prone in low level training (hitting the ground).

 

Interesting assertions you have made here. I don't much care for the way the Air Force operates. The F35 program appears to me to be a massive failure, for example.

You assert the F111 was retired #1 due to operating costs? Why then is the B52 still in service? Surely it is an expensive weapon to operate and maintain.

Your #3 point is of course unrelated to the retirement of the F111. Since the A10's primary mission is in support of close combat ground troops, aka its nickname the tank killer, I guess the Air Force therefore wants to retire the mighty warthog because they can't train their pilots to operate it properly? I'm calling bs on that "very accident prone in low level training"..., link!?

 

The book "Modern Combat Aircraft" mentions the high rate of crashes of the A-10 during training. Not to mention an early A-10 crashed at the Paris Air Show which is an important way to get on the USAF hit list.

The B-52 is expensive to operate and maintain but it is considerably cheaper than the other two long range bomber options the B-1B and B-2A.

Also the F-111 has little air to air capability which means the USAF greatly prefers the F-15E for example.

 

It was even higher on the F-111, as it was with all variable sweep wing designs. Once the Cold War ended, there really was not much of a use for this aircraft anymore.

I readily admit I love the concept, but it is also a very expensive design to operate and maintain. At the end of the Cold War, we were still operating 3 different VSW designs. The F-14, the F-111, and the B-1. And all of those were retired except the B-1. And as far as I have heard, the only attempt to bring them back is the Russians, who are doing a limited production run of the Tu-160. But that is only to replace the ageing fleet so they can replace those that are no longer in service or about to be retired. But even they are not planning on increasing the numbers.

 

Which is why it is still the main "bomb truck" we use today. It is not as fast or fancy as the B-1 or B-2, but in a low threat environment it is the cheapest way to get a lot of ordinance on target. And this frees up other bombers like the Lancer and Spirit for other roles, like being part of our nuclear deterence.

A role that the BUFF can still handle, but really has not done for decades now.

 

Actually the B-1B Lancers are no longer equipped to carry nuclear weapons while the remaining B-52s still are.

 

True, only because of New START. But they only removed the electronics used, the aircraft are still capable of operating as such (just not arming and activating nuclear bombs). And do not forget, that was only a 10 year treaty, and expires next year.

And I am one that has serious questions if it will be renewed. Myself, I think it was a good idea, but making it only be effective for 10 years was rather retarded. I thought it was stupid then, I think it is stupid now. I always saw it as only a PR stunt so the President could claim they had a "Nuclear Arms Treaty" as part of their legacy, even if in reality it was of no real importance.

So yes, technically in 2020 it can not carry nuclear weapons. In 2021 it will be rather easy to put those electronics right back in and it can resume that mission.

 

Why wasn't copper an option?

 

Oh wow, there are many.

Speed, weight, distance, reliability, and inability to easily "tap" into the signal come immediately to mind.

Trust me, I have had to haul these things almost 100 meters through the desert. It is a major pain in the ass, and I do not even want to think about hauling a similar cable made of copper from the launcher to the control van.

Then there is "future-proofing", as fiber can carry a lot more data than copper can. This is why we use it in networking, it can just carry a lot more data than copper can. When they switched over to fiber, it could already hit gigabit speeds, at a time when copper was only pushing 10 Mbps. It took decades for copper to hit those speeds, and even that is no longer "real" when talking over that kind of distance with signal degradation. Fiber does not have that limitation.

And you can see this in the system the PATRIOT replaced, the Hawk missile. As originally designed it used copper (it got a late life TFOCA upgrade, it worked for decades on copper). And with copper cables, the missiles could be be no more than 500 feet from the control van. That was not acceptable for PATRIOT, it had to be much further away for safety reasons (backblast and gasses). Therefore from day 1 it came with TFOCA.

With copper, 500 feet was the limit unless you then ran powered repeaters to boost the signal again. With TFOCA, the limit is 1,200 meters. That is why when originally designed the system came with 3 400 meter spools (or 4 300 meter spools). Today we use 2 500 meter spools, giving us 1,000 meters of separation.

This is one advantage of being both a PATRIOT specialist, as well as a computer network specialist for over 30 years. I am easily able to tie both parts of this equation together.

 

The Patriot system is far more complicated than I imagined - thanks for your posts here leading me to look into it. Would you not agree though that it is somewhat amazing that they designed the comm cables to be fiber back in 75? We're talking pre-Ethernet protocols as well. Hell, this system was developed before RS-485 became a standard in 83. Really mind boggling stuff. I kinda wish we would outlaw work on AI, having already seen the movie it will not end well for humans, hahaha.....

To kinda tie this back into the thread's OP though, and to also address maybe at least one other aspect of your posts in this thread - I see that the wiki page on the Patriot platform mentions that it relies on the Oshkosh HEMTT. So maybe just as another talking point regarding military hardware used by the US, I can share my experience that the US Oshkosh HEMTT M983 was considered substantially inferior to the West German MAN M1001 as the Prime Mover of the Pershing II Erector Launcher. I never drove an EL though, so I can't personally say one way or another, but maybe it would not be so surprising if one compared a Mercedes Benz or BMW to pick your choice of Ford or Chevy in the sedan category.

Your knowledge of television is interesting - how did you come to acquire it?

I disagree with your assertions that US manufacturing loses are completely caused by US consumer demand fueled by a lack of desire for quality at the benefit of reduced cost. I also fail to see that you have addressed any aspect of the scenario presented by GiftedOne regarding the accounting scenario he presented as being part of the problem in the lose of US mfg.

Also, as another contributing factor to the lose of US manufacturing, I would offer that C level decisions are disconnected from accountability with maintaining a profitable and sustainable business. Lots of C level officers are in their positions due to political and other corporate social skills or achievements but lack any true competence to run their office.

Furthermore, Wall Street crap like the M&A destruction that billionaire Mike Milken rained down on the US business continues to this day. So no, it is not exclusively due to consumer demand, not even close. If your assertion about the consumer demand for the cheapest item regardless of quality were true then we'd all be driving Yugos....

Then there is the question of what is the government's role and responsibility in the lose of US manufacturing - isn't that really the fundamental question raised by the OP?

 

Ugh, loss, not lose, spelling can be such a challenge.....