The United States warned Turkey against moving ahead with plans to buy a sophisticated Russian missile defence system that the Pentagon believes would threaten its advanced F-35 fighter aircraft.
The State Department made the remarks on a day when the head of US European Command spoke to politicians on Capitol Hill and said Turkey should reconsider its plan to buy the S-400 from Russia this year.
"We've clearly warned Turkey that its potential acquisition of the S-400 will result in a reassessment of Turkey's participation in the F-35 programme, and risk other potential future arms transfers to Turkey," said deputy spokesman Robert Palladino on Tuesday.
The US agreed to sell 100 of its latest fifth-generation F-35 fighters to Turkey and has so far delivered two of the aircraft. But Congress last year ordered a delay in future deliveries.
[...] The S-400 can track a large number of potential targets, including stealth targets such as the US F-35 fighter jet. Other advantages included its high mobility, meaning it can be set up, fired and moved within minutes.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 06 2019, @05:51PM (9 children)
Isn't this the same "advanced" F-35 that hasn't flown a single combat mission and works less well than other planes like the F-22 while costing something like 4 times as much as those other planes? I'm not fan of Erdogan, but I understand him not being excited about shelling out huge gobs of money for a plane that doesn't work.
And I'm really not a fan of Lockheed's game of "This time it doesn't suck, we promise" either.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday March 06 2019, @05:55PM (4 children)
Hopefully now that McCain is dead we can drop this F35 foolishness. He is the primary reason we went with the 35 instead of the 22 even after we knew the 22 would be cheaper and better in production and combat.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 06 2019, @06:17PM (1 child)
Yeah, but some critical part of the F-35 is manufactured in a key congresscritter's district! That's way more important than whether the planes are any good.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday March 06 2019, @07:07PM
When we're the only military superpower in the world? Pretty much yes. Most of our military spending for a long time has had far more to do with enriching corporations and politicians than providing any significant increase in security. We're way past the point of diminishing returns, spending as much on our military as the next 20 (I think) largest militaries combined - the overwhelming majority of which are our allies.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Wednesday March 06 2019, @10:32PM (1 child)
> the primary reason we went with the 35 instead of the 22
Doesn't compute.
The 22 is significantly more expensive per hour, because of older stealth tech and twin powerplants.
The 22 range is limited, and it can't take off on a dirty runway.
The 22 is the best air superiority fighter. The 35 has to survive while doing bombing and now even CAS jobs.
Not the same missions - two separate massive wastes.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07 2019, @11:11AM
We'd be better off just spinning up a new run of A-10s. For the price of other close air support planes they are without equal. And given that they only go in when air superiority is achieved, the only real threat would be hidden ground based targets like the S-400, which wouldn't take long to be dealt with by either ground forces, or the swarms of A-10s we could afford in place of a single F-35.
Furthermore last I checked their cost to operating is much lower than almost any other currently fielded plane, and given their survival odds in the field, other than avionics upgrades, and maybe adding another layer of flight surface control redundancy thanks to modern electronics and manufacturing (in addition to hydraulics, and cable if they have them) they could have a return rate even under critical damage that no other plane has or had.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06 2019, @06:03PM
Yes, it was a stupid idea when they came up with it and it is even stupider now that they've actually built them.
The US isn't in a position where air superiority is an issue or even likely to become an issue. Having several different kinds of planes covering the needed tasks would have been more cost effective and likely more reliable as well.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 06 2019, @07:50PM
"Advanced" like: My boss advanced me some of my paycheck even though I haven't done the work yet.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday March 06 2019, @08:45PM
The cost of those F35s just increased fourfold:
https://about.bgov.com/news/stagnant-f-35-reliability-means-fewer-available-jets-pentagon/ [bgov.com]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06 2019, @11:19PM
Yeah, and Turkey already has two, so the Russians can strip-mine them for anything they actually find of interest if Turkey cuts a deal.
Geography is the sole reason Turkey's still in NATO anyway.