What “$1 billion missile”? Tridents cost $30m apiece. Tomahawks cost $1.45m in their most advanced version. An entire Ohio-class submarine only costs $2 billion. Seriously, where do you get this nonsense.
you’ve clearly demonstrated how little you know about anything. You though the F-117 was a fighter aircraft and then went on to say it required escort in combat which is the exact opposite of the truth. It was the front line aircraft that required support. It took specialized aircraft to jam radar and it took specialized aircraft to destroy anti-aircraft missiles. That’s why there are many different versions of production planes. They each have a specific mission to accomplish.
That you don’t understand this is mind boggling considering how easy it is to read up on the subject via the internet.
Since nobody else is doing it, I have to disabuse you of this notion. You failed to persuade a single person, they just grew tired of responding to you.
F-117 was an excellent aircraft designed for a very specific single mission (attacking hardened and defended high-priority targets). And it could do it very well. It certainly wasn’t 100% successful, but it was a lot better than any other aircraft at the time.
I think tankers are useless because they serve no function unless there are other aircraft around them. Why can’t they complete their missions without other aircraft being involved, huh?
Sadly, you were unable to read and comprehend it yourself. The only thing you clearly demonstrated was that you don’t have a clue on this subject (we won’t get into your marvelous contributions in other threads on other subjects) and your ability to delude yourself with erroneous feelings of adequacy. On the good side, though, ralph124c seems to be with you, so that’s something.
The Conventional Trident Modification program was never funded by Congress.
Is he thinking of the Ohio classes that got converted to SSGNs last decade?
Those missiles are cheaper.
You never demonstrated anything. You claimed stealth doesn’t work, but have never given any evidence for your bizarre conspiracy theory, except to repeat it ad infinitum.
Who knows. He doesn’t have a very strong record of being precise and accurate with posts like that, so far all I know he’s talking about some weapon that Werner von Braun put on the H.L. Hunley.
I’m only bumping this because I just read a really interesting interview with a Marine pilot who has flown the F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35, as well as being a TOPGUN instructor and even a Forward Air Controller. That, my friends, is a hell of a resume.
Link. The short of it is that he does not portray 5th generation aircraft (neither F-35s or F-22s) as silver bullets that are just going to obliterate the enemy all by themselves. He talks about how those capabilities are so much greater than what our current aircraft offer, that 4th and 5th generation aircraft should be blended together operationally. I think his views are really interesting.
What you mention about how 4th and 5th are not really that apart is the opinion of many other, i.e., that 5th gen is not a clear not type of plane.
Just bring back the A-6 and SR-71 and I’ll be happy.
Sure, there’s people who are marketing 4.5 gen airplanes who want to say that they are 5th gen aircraft. Just like how producers of Kraft Singles pretend that their product is cheese.
The way I read it he never mentions the flight characteristics of the plane or the stealth characteristics of the plane or the weapons on the plane but instead focuses on the information systems on the plane …
““The F-35 adds layers of depth on top of what the F-22 has because there are so many different sensors looking at any field — anything in the spectrum deep, not just the radar.”
and
"In the fifth-generation world, you do not have wingmen and you do not have data. You have information. The data is behind the glass and the screen provides the information. In effect you are shifting from being a tactical asset doing tactical aircraft missions to a more strategic engagement.”
Well, I don’t know what that means. I think a few examples of what this means in specific scenarios would be helpful, even necessary, for the layman to understand what he’s talking about.
U.S. Navy to Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Stealth Fighter: “We’re Just Not That Into You”
The McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom II worked great as a common aircraft between the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The more advanced General Dynamics F-111 fighter/bomber… not so much. I think the F-35 is a huge waste of money.
I wonder if it is a matter of the direction development takes. If you take an excellent Navy plane, you can reduce the weight by swapping out the strengthened landing gear for something not intended to bounce on carrier decks and by removing the tailhook. If you start from a position of “joint” development, the designers are going to play hob trying to fit conflicting requests into a single airframe. Like the Phantom II, the Navy’s FJ Fury turned into the superb F-86 Sabre when the Air Force picked up a copy and stripped off the extra weight. Heck, even the P-12 was basically a Navy F4B in Air Corps markings.
The A and C variants have much more internal fuel than the B variant. Am I correct in assuming that that additional fuel occupies the volume that in the B variant holds the lift fan?
I disagree, but I find it ironic that the Chinese are so seemingly dismissive of the F-35 (I’m also highly skeptical that they have in fact broken it’s stealth because, frankly, if they had they would be idiots to say so) since the J-31 is basically an attempt to copy the F-35. 
With what? That the F-4 was very successful between forces? That the F-111 wasn’t? Or that the F-35 is a huge waste of money?