Times have changed. The AF is downsizing. The ANG’s role has changed with the times. The ANGs capabilities are factored into any air campaign from day one as they were during GW1. The USAF could not, for example, have maintained its level of operations without them. The same situation applies in the current WOT. They would be expected to provide similar performance and capabilities as regular AF units. In fact, the AF would be crippled w/o the KC-135s, C-17s, C-5s, C-130s and other assets the ANG brings to the fight.

Hey, I’m not dissing the ANG, and you are correct that the times have changed. The ANG and the USAFR play right along side the active duty force, mainly due to force structure (read: funding) reasons. But the overriding point is that the ANG does not need to be equipped with F-35’s to perform it’s domestic airspace security role – new build F-18’s are highly capable 4.5Gen aircraft that cost far less than the F-35 to buy and maintain. If an ANG unit is activated for active duty service, the F-18 will serve them well.

Never have been? Among the aircrtaft flown by the ANG : A10, B-2, F-22, F-15C, F-16 .. and yes, the F-35 too will be assigned to ANG squadrons. The Guard Units may be based domestically but in time of conflict they can be mobilized and are expected to do the same sort of missions as the regular AF squadrons.

Never is too strong of a word. But historically the ANG used prior models of of active duty aircraft. There are hundreds of examples. The ANG units who fly the B-2’s and F-22’s do more so for force structure reasons rather than security policy.

err… did you miss the cheap Chinese knock off part? what about Iran, Taiwan, NK, Venezuela, what about if Argentina ever gets there hands on a cheap s-300 copy? What tech are you talking about leveraging? are we going back to 30 year designs? what 6th generation tech will be so much cheaper than the F-35? do tell. Step one Buy cheap S-300 Chinese copies. Step 2 buy point defenses. Step 3 behave like a Moronic dictator and mock the U.S. because its 2025 and since the F-35 was canceled all the U.S. has are a less than 200 F-22s and 400 ancient F-15s and F-16s. BTW The Air guard has a requirement for a air craft to replace aging legacy platforms. The requirement says they need Aesa for cruise missile defense. Do you think The USAF will buy super hornet? what about the 100Mill F-15?

Didn’t miss the cheap knock off part. The US isn’t going to be involved in any more large scale ground wars where we invade hostile territory – it takes way too much time and money to resolve.
Iran: Hopefully a tightly defined strike would cripple nuclear ambitions, and it would be taken on by the Israelis anyway. I don’t think anybody is seriously considering an invasion.

Argentina: Last time I checked, Argentina was not an enemy of the US.
Plus the US would not invade another OAS country without invitation.

Venezuela: Chavez is just another tinhorn dictator. Ignore him like we ignore Castro – he will eventually go away.

Taiwan: A nightmare scenario that I hope the US will never face – it will end badly for everyone.

The Norks: SK has the economic strength to defend itself from Dear Leader. The US should limit itself to logistical support, redeploy currently stationed troops to Japan and the Hawaii.

As far as the leveraging tech goes, we know what works and doesn’t work from the F-16, F-15, F-18, F-22, and F-35 programs. We know what materials to include or avoid, we already have some great powerplants, radars, passive sensors, and offensive electronics (defensive electronics need some work.) The Navy shouldn’t make the mistake that the USAF made on the F-22: betting the farm on the ultimate aircraft when a very good aircraft can developed and produced for significantly less money.

The Air Guard doesn’t need stealth to police domestic airspace. New AESA equipped F-16/18’s would work just fine. Didn’t the USAF purchase F-4’s?

And what happens when the Ngad isn’t cheaper than either the F-35 or the super hornet? will you bail on that too? In fact with only 1 or 2 users its almost a guarantee that the NGAD will be expensive.
As far as marines on the beach are concerned all you need to do is buy cheap Chinese S-300 Knock offs or Russian S-300s and you can keep Marines off your beach forever. With a F-35 at least you have a chance. with a hornet your sending fighter jockeys to there deaths.

The Navy – unlike the USAF – has a pretty good track record developing jets. And 20+ year development cycles are no longer sustainable – one of the major reasons why the JSF’s price has skyrocketed. Leverage the technology that we have now and get the jet into the fleet. It can be done.

Directly attacking the bogeyman armed with S-300 with TacAir is not the only way to suppress them. And the Marines aren’t going to be storming any beach off the Baltic or South China Sea.

The F/A-18E/F is regarded as the most stealthy 4.5G aircraft in service and production. It combines both planar and curved surfaces. Figure it out.

The Canadians and the F-35: Boeing and Dassault testified before a parliamentary committee yesterday. “To our knowledge, Canadian officials have not received the full complement of Super Hornet performance data from the U.S. Navy, including those about the new Super Hornet’s stealth characteristics,” Boeing vice-president Kory Mathews told the committee. Boeing makes the Super Hornet.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/05/-new-fighter-purchase-complaints.html#ixzz14QdKoRU0

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute says that F-35 cost increases can be pinned on Pentagon factions – the testers vs. the budgeteers. The “testers” are insisting on redundant flight tests he opines – delaying the program and driving up the cost estimates.

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/pentagon-factional-disputes-are-a-key-driver-of-f-35-cost-increases?a=1&c=1171

(One should be aware that the Lexington Institute is a think tank funded by the defense industry.)

(Also, Dr. Thompson is a former employee of LM)

Shame these journos can’t spell. They write things they do not mean:

“reeling from last months’ bail-out by the UK”
= “shocked by the UK having to provide distress funding last month”
= load of nonsense

I think that what the non-speller meant to say was:

“reeling from last month’s bale-out by the UK”

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai2.htm