F-35

@athousandyoung said
https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_force/us-jets-intercept-russian-bombers-off-alaskan-coast-for-14th-time-this-year-1.649318

These are not attacks. This was a scheduled 12-hour training flight. They happen routinely without incident and we are perfectly capable of handling it without an F-35.

But we are being attacked by foreign entities on other fronts, successfully, hundreds of times per year.

@wildgrass said
These are not attacks. This was a scheduled 12-hour training flight. They happen routinely without incident and we are perfectly capable of handling it without an F-35.

But we are being attacked by foreign entities on other fronts, successfully, hundreds of times per year.

Hundreds of attacks per year...they are insignificant!

Do you realize what one nuclear missile would do to this country?

@athousandyoung said
Hundreds of attacks per year...they are insignificant!

Do you realize what one nuclear missile would do to this country?

Of course I realize. An asteroid would be bad too. Lots of things would be bad.

We don't need the F-35 to thwart a Russian bomber from entering US airspace with a nuke. We are perfectly capable of handling that threat. But cyberwarfare is the new cold war, and we've proven completely powerless to stop it. It's not insignificant. In one attack, gas supplies to more than a dozen states was turned off for a week. These attacks are getting bigger and more coordinated. Hospitals, critical infrastructure, the Pentagon, etc.

We're clearly, obviously spending money in the wrong place. The issue is a matter of scale. Sure, it'd be great to have a super shiny jet that we don't really need. But this one single program costs 20 times more than the entire NASA budget. It's massive overkill anyway you slice it except "it's really a corporate welfare jobs program."

You can't defend this program from a national security standpoint.

@wildgrass said
Of course I realize. An asteroid would be bad too. Lots of things would be bad.

We don't need the F-35 to thwart a Russian bomber from entering US airspace with a nuke. We are perfectly capable of handling that threat. But cyberwarfare is the new cold war, and we've proven completely powerless to stop it. It's not insignificant. In one attack, gas supplies to more than a ...[text shortened]... rporate welfare jobs program."

You can't defend this program from a national security standpoint.

Whoever thumb downed my last comment needs to out and explain themselves. Defend the money spent on the F-35, at the expense of developing counter-cyber strategies, from a national defense standpoint. Give Lockheed a talking point.

@wildgrass said
Whoever thumb downed my last comment needs to out and explain themselves. Defend the money spent on the F-35, at the expense of developing counter-cyber strategies, from a national defense standpoint. Give Lockheed a talking point.

I don't get into thumbs personally, but I will say in the whole cyberwar war, who knows what anyone truly ever had access to. Basically in a Spy vs Spy scenario, who knows what access cyber warriors actually gained when they roamed around for 12 months as you've stated, in the Pentagon?

How could you verify that the information gleaned was of value? How could you know that you weren't being led down a garden path? How would you know for sure that the pathway in, that you painstakingly hacked, wasn't a carefully laid trap to draw you in to find a treasure trove of garbage?

The truth is you would never know. And who would tell you? Sting operations happen all the time is all I'm saying.

@kmax87 said
I don't get into thumbs personally, but I will say in the whole cyberwar war, who knows what anyone truly ever had access to. Basically in a Spy vs Spy scenario, who knows what access cyber warriors actually gained when they roamed around for 12 months as you've stated, in the Pentagon?

How could you verify that the information gleaned was of value? How could you know that ...[text shortened]... ou would never know. And who would tell you? Sting operations happen all the time is all I'm saying.

kmax - I agree with you regarding the Pentagon hack. I don't know. Maybe no one knows what they had access to. I have read from cybersecurity experts that it would be possible for a foreign government to engineer a way back into the system at a later time.

But the reference to cyberwarfare in the above post was regarding critical infrastructure. Hospitals, Gas pipelines, Food supply, Water supply, Grocery stores. Each of these were successfully hacked into many times over in the past year, resulting in expensive and serious damage. All of them got away scot-free.

Why would you start a war with guns and F-35's when you can keep attacking guerilla style? I don't think we'll ever see a jet-based war. The power grid might be next.

Our investment in protection against active threats is compromised because of the F-35 program. This is an issue of strategic prioritization of the wrong kind of threat.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/cybersecurity/meet-the-ransomware-gang-behind-235-attacks-on-us-hospitals-7-things-to-know.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/07/13/revil-disappears-kaseya-hack/
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/03/largest-meat-packer-getting-back-online-after-hack/
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/03/10/florida-hack-exposes-danger-to-water-systems
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/03/10/florida-hack-exposes-danger-to-water-systems
- https://www.reuters.com/technology/cyber-attack-against-us-it-provider-forces-swedish-chain-close-800-stores-2021-07-03/

@wildgrass said
Whoever thumb downed my last comment needs to out and explain themselves. Defend the money spent on the F-35, at the expense of developing counter-cyber strategies, from a national defense standpoint. Give Lockheed a talking point.

wildgrass, I saw that and want you to know that I up-thumbed. what crap is that. Your post was cogent and I agree with it

@earl-of-trumps said
wildgrass, I saw that and want you to know that I up-thumbed. what crap is that. Your post was cogent and I agree with it

I couldn't care less about the thumb, I just wanted an explanation. Here we are 548 posts into this thread and we haven't heard a comprehensible defense of the F-35 program other than "it could be used to protect aircraft carriers." $1.7 Trillion for that?

We have drones for advanced reconnaissance. We have drones to drop bombs. We don't do dogfights anymore, and even if we did the F-35 isn't very good at it. Other planes are perfectly capable of handling all existing national security threats other than cyber (for which we have no adequate defense capacity). I don't get it. What is it other than a tiny flying luxury yacht? Is this just a vanity project for Lockheed, a means to employ Americans without making it seem like welfare? What's going on here?

@wildgrass said
I couldn't care less about the thumb, I just wanted an explanation. Here we are 548 posts into this thread and we haven't heard a comprehensible defense of the F-35 program other than "it could be used to protect aircraft carriers." $1.7 Trillion for that?

We have drones for advanced reconnaissance. We have drones to drop bombs. We don't do dogfights anymore, and even if ...[text shortened]... for Lockheed, a means to employ Americans without making it seem like welfare? What's going on here?

Constant misinformation from you because you (as you pointed out yourself) don’t know what you’re talking about. Have you no shame?

We don't do dogfights anymore, and even if we did the F-35 isn't very good at it.

Where did you pull that from?! The F35 has a 20-1 kill ratio in exercises. What are you talking about?

@athousandyoung said
Constant misinformation from you because you (as you pointed out yourself) don’t know what you’re talking about. Have you no shame?

We don't do dogfights anymore, and even if we did the F-35 isn't very good at it.

Where did you pull that from?! The F35 has a 20-1 kill ratio in exercises. What are you talking about?

Be specific about the misinformation. No one understands the generalities.

Of course I'm not an expert. None of us are. All I'm asking for is a coherent defense of the F-35. I don't get it.

You're saying we DO DO dogfights? Certainly we still do war. Wikipedia lists 9 wars we've been involved in the last 20 years. How many US fighter jets have been involved in dogfights in the last 20 years? Is that really why we're building the F-35?

@wildgrass said
Be specific about the misinformation. No one understands the generalities.

Of course I'm not an expert. None of us are. All I'm asking for is a coherent defense of the F-35. I don't get it.

You're saying we DO DO dogfights? Certainly we still do war. Wikipedia lists 9 wars we've been involved in the last 20 years. How many US fighter jets have been involved in dogfights in the last 20 years? Is that really why we're building the F-35?

How many nuclear wars have we been in in the last 20 years? Guess we don't need those ICBMs either. Or submarines. Or amphibious assault vehicles. Or fortified bunkers in the USA. Or troops in Germany or Japan or Diego Garcia. Or weapons for shooting down planes and blowing up ships. Or...etc

Stop pretending this is about the F35. You are a radical isolationist.

Someone with a little more understanding than you might point out that when the F4 was first designed there was no cannon installed. Because, you see, back then in 1960, everyone knew that cannons were obsolete in aircraft. Dogfighting would never happen again - it was all about missiles.

70 years ago.

Then came Vietnam and suddenly the Phantom was dogfighting...

@athousandyoung said
How many nuclear wars have we been in in the last 20 years? Guess we don't need those ICBMs either. Or submarines. Or amphibious assault vehicles. Or fortified bunkers in the USA. Or troops in Germany or Japan or Diego Garcia. Or weapons for shooting down planes and blowing up ships. Or...etc

Stop pretending this is about the F35. You are a radical isolationi ...[text shortened]... about missiles.

70 years ago.

Then came Vietnam and suddenly the Phantom was dogfighting...

You're being really vague again.

So you're saying yes? We're building the F-35 aircraft for dogfights? Or is the comparison to our ICBM arsenal implying that the F-35 is also to be used primarily as a deterrent to war? I don't understand the fortified bunkers comment.

I also still don't understand what misinformation you were referring to. Most of the time when I've referred to strategic misdirection, I have posted references. The US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin agrees with me. He envisions scenarios in which maritime security incidents could be handled with a cyberattack vs. a manned jet.

Members of the Armed Services Committee and the Government Accountability Office also know what they're talking about. They call the F-35 program a "rathole". They say it "fails to deliver on promised capabilities" and is over budget.

That's not me. That's experts who study military capabilities for a living. What am I missing? What's the rationale for continuing to pay enormous sums of money for these useless, frivolous toys?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/next-major-war-will-be-very-different-us-defense-secretary-2021-04-30/

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/air-force-admits-f-35-fighter-jet-costs-too-much-ncna1259781

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2021/04/30/gao-finds-f-35-too-expensive-and-calls-for-annual-affordability-reports/

@wildgrass said
You're being really vague again.

So you're saying yes? We're building the F-35 aircraft for dogfights? Or is the comparison to our ICBM arsenal implying that the F-35 is also to be used primarily as a deterrent to war? I don't understand the fortified bunkers comment.

I also still don't understand what misinformation you were referring to. Most of the time when I've r ...[text shortened]... learancejobs.com/2021/04/30/gao-finds-f-35-too-expensive-and-calls-for-annual-affordability-reports/

No I was quite specific. The F35 is fantastic at dogfights. You said it was not. Spamming the same post over and over again is irrelevant; it just makes you long winded. That's why I don't respond to every post you make.

@athousandyoung said
No I was quite specific. The F35 is fantastic at dogfights. You said it was not. Spamming the same post over and over again is irrelevant; it just makes you long winded. That's why I don't respond to every post you make.

But then you're not answering the question I keep asking. No one is, apparently.

What is the strategic necessity of spending $1.7 trillion on the F-35 program?

What was the misinformation you were referring to? I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong.

Members of the Armed Services Committee and the Government Accountability Office also know what they're talking about. They call the F-35 program a "rathole". They say it "fails to deliver on promised capabilities" and is over budget.

That's not me. That's experts who study military capabilities for a living. What am I missing? What's the rationale for continuing to pay enormous sums of money for these useless, frivolous toys?

Why do you believe the people you refer to are better authorities than Former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne?