@Falcon: You mixed up Raptor (F-22) and Lightning II (F-35). I have not heard that the F-35
aircraft is unflyable. The last few generations of aircraft are inherently "unstable" and
require computers to manage flight control. Cancellation may occur due to significant cost
overruns.

@whuykid: I did a cursory search and found no reports of massive repaving of every
military runway. The assault carriers and fleet carriers will have to develop a system to
manage the heat from the engine. I can see specific areas of Marine Air bases also getting
such a treatment but not the whole base. I would need to see a reference to validate your
claim.

Also, the B-52 is not the US' only Strategic asset. The START treaty limits nuclear
platforms. The USAF has designated all B-2 and about 40 B-52 as fulfiliing the nuclear attack
role and hence "Strategic". The B-1 will serve only in a Tactical role dropping GPS guided
JDAM. The "Strategic" B-52 will merely be capable of a stand-off role of launching nuclear
armed cruise missles. The remaining B-52 force, even though they are from the 1950's
merely serve as "bomb trucks". Since they fulfill the role very well, who cares how old they
are? They are safe, effective and cheap to fly. A rare case of the USAF not trying to re-
invent the wheel.

@thecoon. My cursory understanding is that the Singapore Defense Force is very well
regarded and they have armed themselves with some very good systems. It seems they do
so because they do not entirely trust their neighbors like Malaysia and Indonesia.

the F117 not B117 is now not in operational use. from memory they retired in 2008 or 2009.

the B2 is still in use, along with B1 but the standing joke is when the last of both these
planes gets flown to the scrap yard the crews will be picked up by a B52!

if you ever get the chance to see a B52 land in a cross wind its a sight to behold and a
unique sight too.

The B52 was made for when stuff needs to go kaboom. I don't see how it's failing us. Maybe
that's because it's not stealthy enough and doesn't turn into a transformer.

I guess there are the B117 and B2 for stealth missions. I just don't see a need to advance
to orbital ion cannons yet.


Actually, it seems that US fighters are getting worse every year. More stealth, more
advance missile launchers, less maneuverability. I can already sense that China is going
to invest time into missile jamming. This is just like the Vietnam war incident where they
gave the pilots missiles and stopped teaching dog fighting.

If im not wrng, its gonna be use as late as 2040

The B-52 was designed during the early 50's for the sole reason of wiping the USSR off
the face of the planet..

It's still used today as the Air Force's only Strategic Bomber

@whukid.... We still use aircraft from the korean war??!! wat are they?

===================================
"Norman augustine an author, pointed out that Every decade since the Wright brothers
the cost of warplanes have quadrupled. He noted that if the trend continues by the
year 2050 the purchase of one ftr wold consume the entire american defense budget."

=From stephan Coonts war in the air

All this crap and we're still using aircraft that were designed during the Korean War..

It'd be nice if the Air Force could get its priorities straight :P

About the whole runway thing, you can't just pave it overnight and expect it to be
okay. You need to undo all the old tarmac, pave the new one, repave it as a 2nd
coat, wait for it to dry, repaint the damn thing, and finally get planes flying on it. This
causes huge delays and could potentially be a security risk since no one could take
off or land while construction is being done.

Secondly, ALL the AFB's, Marine Air Stations, Naval Air Stations, and Aircraft Carriers
would need to be re-done because of the whole "Force-readiness" concept. The
Airforce would need to be able to support Navy and USMC planes along with its own
aircraft. The same applies to NAS's and Marine Airbases. This way, if the US were
ever invaded, attacked, or the base was crippled in some way, the aircraft would still
have a place to take off and land without too many problems

Sadly if you talk to anyone who studies the aircraft industry they can tell you the raptor
turned out to be a complete failure during the real life testing phases. Stability was a
major issue, it looked good in games but it will never be mass produced and cost was also
that's partially why they canceled the F22 program or suspended it whatever there calling
it now.


@whu
I do know how they are hurting, my bud that was at Eglin got his pay cut two weeks before
he retired...and a couple of my buds at FT. hood and sill have had there pay cut back also.

Beyond testing and a few Marine Air bases, why would any runway need to be re-
paved for the F-35B? On ships, then yes.

This version would only need to use its STOVL capability if there was no to very little
runway. On a standard runway, it can take off like any regular fighter.

As to cost/benefit ratio of expensive 5th Gen fighters. Reportedly, the F-22 has
been able to defeat 4x their numbers in Air Combat simulations versus 4th Gen
fighters with no losses.

If you haven't noticed, the feds aren't exactly bursting with cash... It will cost billions to
repave runways and re-do flight decks. It will also take years and years to complete,
besides the fact that it completely denies any FOB to the plane.