Uhh, For the Record. Obama INCREASED Defense Spending overall by 4% (So Far without the sure to follow "war Supplementals").

The Obama administration has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs, for its fiscal 2010 defense budget, an official with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget said Monday.

If enacted, that would be an increase from the $513billion allocated for fiscal 2009, and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010.

 

That is a false statement.

 

democrat <> Strong Defense

democrat<> good for the military.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin


Won't get this story from the American media.

 

That's why the Aussies are buying 100 of them.

Don't believe everything you read. There are dirtbags in the media there that try to influence the people just like here.

 

I understand that you build the planes, but there is no way a JSF could ever win in a dogfight with an F-22.

We need both planes. And so do out allies.

 

Plus that was a dogfight scenario, which the F35 more times than not wouldn't be involved in due to the stealth capabilities. The f35 would shoot down a 4th gen fighter before it even saw it anyhow. Hard to beat what you can't see.

I agree, we need the f22. It is moronic to think of letting the current contract run out at 187.

 

While I do not work on military aircraft (I turned a F-35 job down). I do design civil aircraft for a company that also makes military aircraft. The primary thing that I do is avionics layout and installation. It is the avionics that makes an aircraft obsolete, not the airframe. The one thing that is not being considered by those that say we need to keep the existing aircraft is the upgrades available to the avionics. The current generation of aircraft simply do not have the space available to support the various electronics that are required by a modern military aircraft. This is exactly the same reason that the F-4 Phantom was retired. Each new generation of aircraft requires considerable more avionics than the aircraft it replaces.

 

It isnt just that. The majority of F-15C are grounded due to airframe fatigue.

 

Wookie, don't avionics packages get smaller and smaller as technology improves?

 

Not really, your replacing many small intrument displays with one or two, they are much larger due to their physical size and how much mor they can do. ie, the old fashin "six pack" vs. the Garmin 1000.

 

While the Russkie counterpart's aircraft might be more capable than the JSF, their pilots are about a tenth as talented as ours. We get to fly way more and train way more often. Its about 10% aircraft and 90% pilot when you are considering "dog fighting."

 

Some of the components might shrink but there is always functionality being added. Added functions require more equipment. The end result is always the same, the aircraft has more avionics and wires. Compare an old aircraft with a new one. The old one will have larger components for each function but not have near as many.

 

True but a new airframe can be made. Then you will have a brand new aircraft with 25+ year old technology. Why not just build a brand new aircraft with today's technology?

 

Astronomical cost.