F-35 continues to be an expensive debacle

[vadimivich]

if that's true then dropping the bomb to send russia a necessary messsage as JH and TR asserted would be false.

Well, we didn't know they knew. The US and UK had not been sharing any information with the USSR on the development of nuclear weapons and when Truman mentioned it "in passing" to Stalin at Potsdam he reacted with so little interest that Churchill and Truman figured he just didn't understand the importance of what they told him (in reality, he was deadpanning and hiding the fact they had completely penetrated the Manhattan Project).

From Marshall Zhukov's memoirs:

“Churchill and many other Anglo-American authors subsequently assumed that Stalin had really failed to fathom the significance of what he had heard. In actual fact, on returning to his quarters after this meeting, Stalin, in my presence, told Molotov about his conversation with Truman. The latter reacted almost immediately, ‘Let them. We'll have to talk it over with Kurchatov and get him to speed things up.’"

Kurchatov was the head of the Soviet nuclear program, their version of Oppenheimer basically. He was receiving pretty much daily updates on the progress of the Manhattan project as early as 1941 - so detailed that the first USSR weapon RDS-1 was nearly an exact copy of "Fat Man", which was the bomb we dropped on Nagasaki.

That being said, with the USA/UK unaware that the USSR was that well informed of our nuclear programs, there might have existed some sentiment to demonstrate the power of the weapons to discourage any expansionist activity in Europe or Asia in the post war period, but there's little evidence of that from the time. The Soviets certainly were not making post-war decisions any different because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki since they were already fully aware of the weapons and their capabilities.

FWIW - the benefit of being married to someone like vadtoy who has such a deep insight into a specific field is I get to do things like sit at Kurchatov's desk in eastern Kazakhstan and flip through his hand written journals (including basically exact copies of the plans of the US weapons) and visit ground zero of the Soviet's first bomb. When I say vadtoy is an expert in the weapons and nuclear policy of the former Soviet Union, I mean literally one of a very handful of people in the world who know it in as much depth as she does.

 

[WFU71]

/\ Cool

 

[dmcheatw]

that's really awesome man. form now on i refer all my nuclear questions to you

 

[Wakefan77]

Wow great post vad. We probably could talk all day about that period. Thanks for mentioning the firebombing of Japan as well. Although nukes are terrible, the firebombing of Japan gets overlooked in my opinion and caused a hell of a lot of damage because of the Japanese infrastructure. And now onto the original topic of the F-35. I think you have to ask questions and raise hell about what's gone on with the F-35 program. I think the F-35 will be a good platform in time but I've never been fond of single engine aircraft for the Navy although they have operated them before. I've also read that the F-35B VTOL has been compared to a pig in the sky because of the added weight of that engine. I'm afraid if one of those B models ever gets to "the merge" in air combat they are dead as hell although Marine aircraft are typically used for close air support and supporting Marines on the ground their roles can vary. Someone mentioned the F-22 earlier and yes it had some problems in the past but one of my big gripes with that aircraft is that they didn't build enough of them along with the lack of the helmet mounted sight that other aircraft enjoy. It is very common for new aircraft to have teething problems and have issues that have to be worked out although it seems the F-35 and it's problems just keep on going and going and the money spent just keeps rising. I am still a very harsh critic of this aircraft and more of the way it's been handled although I think it has some great technology with it. We have enjoyed air superiority for A LONG TIME folks and that hasn't come cheap or without hard lessons learned as we all know.

The one period that I will criticize American airpower is the period after Korea and before Vietnam. Folks were so convinced that our next generation of fighters and air to air fights were gonna be done with nothing but missiles shooting at big Soviet bombers at long range that we started developing these fast non-maneuvering interceptors without an internal gun relying on un-proven missile technology. We paid dearly for this in Vietnam as our missiles, training, and aircraft were inadequate when it came to dogfighting. We can spend all the money in the world on the F-35 or F22 for that matter but if we cut funds on our training (see Constant Peg and our Aggressor training) we'll experience another Vietnam when the air to air fighting starts. Also want to point our that there has been an effort by Boeing to offer advanced versions of the F18 and F-15E with some stealth features added to exsisting airframes to cut the cost and bridge the gap but not sure where that's headed. Someone with more knowledge can offer more insight on the F-35 program than me I'm not an expert by any means just an aviation junkie who loves reading about military aircraft and just enjoy discussing things like this.

 

[jhmd2000]

Wow great post vad. We probably could talk all day about that period. Thanks for mentioning the firebombing of Japan as well. Although nukes are terrible, the firebombing of Japan gets overlooked in my opinion and caused a hell of a lot of damage because of the Japanese infrastructure. And now onto the original topic of the F-35. I think you have to ask questions and raise hell about what's gone on with the F-35 program. I think the F-35 will be a good platform in time but I've never been fond of single engine aircraft for the Navy although they have operated them before. I've also read that the F-35B VTOL has been compared to a pig in the sky because of the added weight of that engine. I'm afraid if one of those B models ever gets to "the merge" in air combat they are dead as hell although Marine aircraft are typically used for close air support and supporting Marines on the ground their roles can vary. Someone mentioned the F-22 earlier and yes it had some problems in the past but one of my big gripes with that aircraft is that they didn't build enough of them along with the lack of the helmet mounted sight that other aircraft enjoy. It is very common for new aircraft to have teething problems and have issues that have to be worked out although it seems the F-35 and it's problems just keep on going and going and the money spent just keeps rising. I am still a very harsh critic of this aircraft and more of the way it's been handled although I think it has some great technology with it. We have enjoyed air superiority for A LONG TIME folks and that hasn't come cheap or without hard lessons learned as we all know.

The one period that I will criticize American airpower is the period after Korea and before Vietnam. Folks were so convinced that our next generation of fighters and air to air fights were gonna be done with nothing but missiles shooting at big Soviet bombers at long range that we started developing these fast non-maneuvering interceptors without an internal gun relying on un-proven missile technology. We paid dearly for this in Vietnam as our missiles, training, and aircraft were inadequate when it came to dogfighting. We can spend all the money in the world on the F-35 or F22 for that matter but if we cut funds on our training (see Constant Peg and our Aggressor training) we'll experience another Vietnam when the air to air fighting starts. Also want to point our that there has been an effort by Boeing to offer advanced versions of the F18 and F-15E with some stealth features added to exsisting airframes to cut the cost and bridge the gap but not sure where that's headed. Someone with more knowledge can offer more insight on the F-35 program than me I'm not an expert by any means just an aviation junkie who loves reading about military aircraft and just enjoy discussing things like this.

Great post.

 

[RJKarl]

OOps wrong place

 

[ImTheCaptain]

The Christian Bible was used as the justification for slavery.

The Christian Bible was used as the justification for segregation.

The Christian Bible was used as the justification for denying interracial marriages.

Now the Christian Bible is being used as the justification to deny gays the right to marry.

It seems like a rather bigoted document if we are to believe all those millions of people who have used to justify their bigotry.

i mean, a lot of the rules quoted supporting those positions are from the Old Testament, so let's not get crazy here

 

[Milhouse]

rj's posts are proof that jews aren't hypocrites I guess.......

 

[Lectro]

Well, we didn't know they knew. The US and UK had not been sharing any information with the USSR on the development of nuclear weapons and when Truman mentioned it "in passing" to Stalin at Potsdam he reacted with so little interest that Churchill and Truman figured he just didn't understand the importance of what they told him (in reality, he was deadpanning and hiding the fact they had completely penetrated the Manhattan Project).

From Marshall Zhukov's memoirs:



Kurchatov was the head of the Soviet nuclear program, their version of Oppenheimer basically. He was receiving pretty much daily updates on the progress of the Manhattan project as early as 1941 - so detailed that the first USSR weapon RDS-1 was nearly an exact copy of "Fat Man", which was the bomb we dropped on Nagasaki.

That being said, with the USA/UK unaware that the USSR was that well informed of our nuclear programs, there might have existed some sentiment to demonstrate the power of the weapons to discourage any expansionist activity in Europe or Asia in the post war period, but there's little evidence of that from the time. The Soviets certainly were not making post-war decisions any different because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki since they were already fully aware of the weapons and their capabilities.

FWIW - the benefit of being married to someone like vadtoy who has such a deep insight into a specific field is I get to do things like sit at Kurchatov's desk in eastern Kazakhstan and flip through his hand written journals (including basically exact copies of the plans of the US weapons) and visit ground zero of the Soviet's first bomb. When I say vadtoy is an expert in the weapons and nuclear policy of the former Soviet Union, I mean literally one of a very handful of people in the world who know it in as much depth as she does.

Fascinating read, vad.

 

[Wakefan77]

What's worse nuclear fallout, the F-35 cost overruns, or RJ's contamination of this thread? Geez dude.

 

[Wakefan77]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh2Gnxa_fTw

Not sure how old this video is but it sums up some of the issues of this program. About 10 min long if your interested. Around the 8:35 mark is what I've been complaining about. I'm not sold on a one plane fix all solution but who knows.

 

[Wrangor]

What's worse nuclear fallout, the F-35 cost overruns, or RJ's contamination of this thread? Geez dude.

Oh I think the answer is pretty clear.

 

[RJKarl]

What's worse nuclear fallout, the F-35 cost overruns, or RJ's contamination of this thread? Geez dude.

I made a mistake, realized it and erased it.

I guess you've never made a mistake in your life.

Jesus dude get a fucking grip.

Of course. Mr. Holier Than Thou Wrangor can't even see the mistake had been fixed TWENTY-TWO hours before his childish posting.

 

[BigEastDeac]

Wow great post vad. We probably could talk all day about that period. Thanks for mentioning the firebombing of Japan as well. Although nukes are terrible, the firebombing of Japan gets overlooked in my opinion and caused a hell of a lot of damage because of the Japanese infrastructure. And now onto the original topic of the F-35. I think you have to ask questions and raise hell about what's gone on with the F-35 program. I think the F-35 will be a good platform in time but I've never been fond of single engine aircraft for the Navy although they have operated them before. I've also read that the F-35B VTOL has been compared to a pig in the sky because of the added weight of that engine. I'm afraid if one of those B models ever gets to "the merge" in air combat they are dead as hell although Marine aircraft are typically used for close air support and supporting Marines on the ground their roles can vary.

Similar things were said about the Harrier until the Falklands war.

 

[Wakefan77]

Similar things were said about the Harrier until the Falklands war.

True. Also I want to clarify I'm not totally against this plane but I just don't like the way the program has been handled. I will also be very curious to see what the Air Force will do once it retires its A-10's. Although not popular the CAS mission is vital to the troops on the ground and the A-10 although old, is suited very well for this mission not the F-35.

 

[jhmd2000]

True. Also I want to clarify I'm not totally against this plane but I just don't like the way the program has been handled. I will also be very curious to see what the Air Force will do once it retires its A-10's. Although not popular the CAS mission is vital to the troops on the ground and the A-10 although old, is suited very well for this mission not the F-35.

Eh? I know plenty of people in the 23rd FG who would beg to differ.

The reason to fly CAS is not popular with me, but that's a policy issue.