Also China could breed atomic ape-men who have telekinesis and can make your brain explode in your skull from half way around the globe.
Try me, I dare you, I bet I can come up with worser worst-case-scenarios than you.
Does anyone actually seriously believe that a Chinese carrier could put to sea, and not be followed by a SSN about the time it got close to anything we care about?
I suspect that in case of hostilities, 2-3 Mk-48 torpedoes, or even sub-launched Harpoon missiles would make quick work of that carrier.
This is verbose bluster, not an argument, and I am getting tired of seeing you fall back on insults like these. This is a formal warning. Your posting privileges will be in jeopardy if you continue to make posts like this.
Bold and underline mine. This is no longer correct. One US UAV can mount an Air-to-Air Stinger missile. True, it’s not a capable fighter drone not was it designed to be. The capability was added to deal with a fighter investigating the UAV as a last ditch defensive measure. (Say the fighter closed in to identify and try a gun shot rather than wasting a missile on a recon drone).
I can mount an AIM-9X on my Volkswagen Jetta. That doesn’t mean that my whip is not completely incapable of dealing with an enemy fighter.
By the way, guess what happened to the Predator that fired a Stinger at an Iraqi MiG?
Nevermind these hypothetical wars. I’m not sure why so many people think China is going to start WW3 the moment they have the technology to do so. They seem to be adopting an approach of spreading economic influence in the global markets as opposed to spreading military influence in the air and sea. Smart.
Regarding non-hypothetical wars, AFAIK the US hasn’t used the F-22 in Iraq or Afghanistan, so why spend all the money we don’t have on the F-35?
The argument, as I understand it, is that while we have the tech edge over our foreseeable opponents now, we may not always have it.
If we need a more advanced weapon system in the future, since it takes so long to R&D stuff that, if we don’t have one [nearly] ready to go, we’re fubar’d at that point.
The F35 is a sexy beast, and is a much more visually dramatic “icon” of military tech.
But I’m more worried about our cyber vulnerability, and software is tougher to get the tax paying public to “oooh and ahh” about, so it lags a little.
Disclaimer: I am not in any way involved with, or knowledgable about, CYBERCOM. They may have things wired tight, but I still worry. 
Should we, in your opinion, focus not just on cyber defense, but also on cyber offense?
You got that right…it is an awe-haw-haw-some machine.
I have to imagine there are people working on this right now. But while cyber defense is something people will talk about, nobody who’s involved in cyber offense will ever say a word.
I imagine knowing your own cyber vulnerabilities in a lot of ways translates to knowledge about the potential enemy’s vulnerabilities. Not 100%, but still.
Thanks for putting my point in a much better way than I could’ve.
Fighter jets are sub 20th century thinking, we can either keep up global power projection like Rome 2.0 and fall, or we can move into the next step of humanity where we use diplomacy and economic tools to solve problems. We can’t afford to police the entire world, not should we even WANT to.
[QUOTE=rogerbox]
We can’t afford to police the entire world, not should we even WANT to.
[/QUOTE]
The elect better leaders, because they all seem to want to.
Total international participation in the JSF program is 4 and a half billion dollars, out of a total development cost of $40 billion (probably closer to $50 billion when all is said and done). Australia’s contribution comes to about $200 million, plus $5 billion to buy a couple of dozen fighters, parts and so on.
Asking if Australia pulling out is going to damage the F-35 program is like asking if Aunt Carla’s decision to buy BMWs from now on is going to damage Lexus. Just no.
I don’t know what you’re talking about vis-a-vis the F-22. The USAF bought 187 of them, which is quite literally enough to shoot down every single operational fighter aircraft in the world if they were all airborne at the same time and in range.
We didn’t buy as many as we originally planned, but that’s partly because the cheaper and more capable* F-35 came along. It’s also partly because there’s nothing we really need the F-22 for. The F-15 is no longer the best fighter aircraft in the world, but nobody we might go to war with anytime soon has anything as good.
China doesn’t have stealth aircraft. China has a prototype airframe that looks like it might be stealthy. The Russians don’t even have a stealth aircraft yet, or at least won’t until sometime after 2020. The Chinese don’t even have a true 4th-generation domestic fighter. It will be decades before they have a 5th generation fighter.
The F-35 will cost less (in future money) than modernizing and maintaining the current fleet. So, unless we’re going to give up naval aviation and limit the USAF to the 180-odd Raptors and its aging stable of ground attack aircraft, we can afford the F-35.
That was the rationale for the F-22. It was built to defeat fighters the Soviets might have built (or might build in the future, from the point of view of 80s defense brass).
The F-35 is much better suited to the modern mission of US air power - mostly, shooting down old Soviet-legacy aircraft and dropping things on people.
Additionally, isn’t it the case that Australia has been skeptical about the program from the get-go, since the F-35 has comically shorter legs than the F-111s and Tornados they were to be replacing?
As for Varyag, yeah, it’s no threat whatsoever. It’s a small ski-jump-type carrier. It’s speculated to be able to host 26 Su-33 equivalents. Big whoop.
As for the Chinese power-projection threat, their entire bluewater navy is 23 destroyers and 54 frigates at present, most of which are ancient. Their submarine force numbers around 65, most of which are Romeo-class equivalents.
Hell, we have more major surface combatants (carriers and cruisers) than the Chinese have serious destroyers.
Bottom line is this: The entire Chinese Navy doesn’t have the wherewithal to protect Varyag from even a half-assed submarine attack by the United States, let alone a cruiser task force attack. Let alone an actual carrier battlegroup.
Well, not really. The F-35 has less range than previous-generation fighters and bombers (the Aussies have F-18s, rather than Tornadoes, incidentally) because previous-generation aircraft carried external fuel tanks. The F-22 could carry external fuel stores; it would just kind of ruin the whole stealth thing. I imagine low-RCS external tanks are also on the drawing board.
Seems a little late for them not to be ready-to-go in my opinion. That also starts cutting into the combat payload of the aircraft.
Consider a base F-35 has combat radius of about 680mi and a total weapons payload of 18,000lb.
The Super Hornet (ugh) weighs in at an abysmal 450mi and 18,000lb payload.
The F-111, on the other hand, has a radius of 1160mi and payload of 31,500lb.
Considering that Australia’s biggest “threat” is Indonesia and China, both of which are quite a bit further than 680 miles away…
Yeah, but the F-111 is only a bomber. All it has to do is skim along and drop stuff; it has no air-to-air capability at all. The F-35 and Super Hornet can kill things in the air and on the ground.
Besides, the F-111 is half again the size of the F-35.
I’m not disagreeing that the RAAF needs fighters as well, I’m just saying the F-35 (like the F-18 and F-18F before it) don’t nearly cover all the roles that the RAAF was previously covering with their F-111 fleet up until their retirement last year.
Yeah, but that’s the reality of modern air power, especially with low budgets; countries can no longer afford to support dedicated fighter and bomber fleets, so they buy planes that can do a little of each.