F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
interestingly Heritage Foundation Defense Budget Proposal Calls for Cuts to Air Force’s F-35 Acquisitions
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Conservative group recommends $632 billion NDAA
The conservative Heritage Foundation is proposing an $86 billion increase in defense spending, recommending that lawmakers partially offset the cost through a sharp cut to the Air Force's planned purchase of more than 1,700 F-35A fighter jets.

In a policy proposal released Wednesday, the D.C.-based think tank called on Congress to "substantially" increase military spending in fiscal year 2018 to $632 billion, a five percent expansion to President Donald Trump's budget request submitted earlier this month.

This increase would be counteracted in part by a 30 percent reduction in the Air Force's F-35 purchase plan—from 1,763 F-35 fighter jets to 1,260 jets—under the National Defense Authorization Act, according to Heritage.

John Venable, a senior research fellow for defense policy at the Heritage Foundation who helped craft the proposal, told reporters during a private breakfast Tuesday morning that the decrease in the Air Force's purchase plan for F-35As would free up money for different acquisition programs within the service.

Heritage is pressing Congress to fund the expedited acquisition of F-35As over the next four years, but the report noted that even with accelerated production, the Air Force would still not complete its purchase of the 1,040 combat-ready F-35As recommended by the think tank for the active duty force until the early 2030s. That projection does not include the additional 60 combat-ready fighter jets Heritage recommended the service maintain in its National Guard and Reserve fleets with another 100 to be used in active duty training and operational test and evaluation requirements.

Venable, a former Air Force pilot, said the slow acquisition rate of F-35s will force the service to continue to use a mix of fourth and fifth generation aircraft for the "foreseeable future," meaning the branch will need a sharp increase in federal funding to continue operating its dual-capable F-16s and F-15s.

"Even if we ramp [production] up to 100 aircraft a year, it's going to take 12 years to bring all of those fighters onboard that we've got planned for the F-35A, so throughout that time, if we were able to do that, we would need to have F16s, F-15Es, and F-15Cs," he said.

Air Force officials
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
lawmakers last week they were considering plans to retire the F-15Cs as early as the mid-2020s to cut costs, proposing to replace the aircraft with modernized F-16s. Venable advised against the retirement of any of the service's platforms for at least the next seven years given existing deficits in the service's capacity.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein testified last month that less than 50 percent of the service
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
readiness requirements for full-spectrum combat operations. Goldfein
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that if Congress again fails to pass a budget that fully funds the military, the Air Force would be unable to hire the number of maintainers, air traffic controllers, and pilots needed to engage successfully in current missions and rebuild readiness.

The Heritage Foundation said that while Trump's budget proposal challenges caps on defense spending implemented by the Budget Control Act under former President Barack Obama, it is ultimately "insufficient" to begin to rebuilding the military.

Beyond budget increases to sustain the Air Force's F-35A acquisition program along with its F-16 and F-15 platforms, Heritage has recommended a 4 percent increase to the service's operation and maintenance funding in 2018, with a total increase of 20 percent over the next five years. Defense experts said this is necessary for the service to recover from its 4,000-aircraft maintainer deficit and a training shortfall that has left pilots with fewer flight hours due to depressed federal funding.

Heritage is also calling on the Air Force to increase its manpower by 33,000 airmen, cultivating the force to 326,000 airmen in 2018 with incremental increases that will ultimately grow the branch to 350,000 airmen by 2025.

Lawmakers have until April 28 to pass a new budget before the current spending package expires, with the NDAA likely to hit the floor for a vote in late summer or early fall.
Click to expand...
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
ooh la la
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If the Navy would buy one squadron
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(known as the XT, Block 3 or Advanced Super Hornet) instead of the carrier version of the F-35 it “actually improves overall mission capability, while substantially reducing cost.”

But the Navy could go even one better and buy two squadrons of the new F-18, which would give the Navy “the best capability affordably.” Buying 120 Super Hornets and 200 of the Advanced Super Hornets (which is what their plan would work out to) would save $8 billion in procurement costs each year plus $1.4 billion in operations and maintenance costs each year, the report claims.

That’s the essence of the story that Boeing is telling the Pentagon and the White House, according to a Boeing document I obtained that was presented to White House officials. The document marks a shift in Boeing’s efforts. In years past the pitch was, essentially, buy more Super Hornets. Now the company wants to convince the Pentagon to shift the balance between the F-18 and the F-35 in favor of their plane. That push has gained much momentum since President Trump’s famous tweets about the F-35’s high costs, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis ordering a review of the costs and capabilities of the F-35C and F-18 and the news that the Navy fighter fleet is in what analysts are calling a death spiral.

As the headline for Sydney’s story about Navy Department readiness notes,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the number for the Marines is up to 74 percent.

Boeing has been offering some version of the argument that the F-18 is cheaper, ready to fly and almost as good as the F-35C for years. They’ve been eager to keep their production line open and saw the chance to cut into Lockheed Martin’s fighter business. For its part, Lockheed Martin has known for years its F-35C sales were the most in peril because of Navy concerns about the F-35’s ever-rising costs and its uncertain life cycle costs.

This new document goes much further. It includes a chart — “Analysis of Future A2/AD PACOM Scenario” (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) — claiming that shifting the balance of F-18s and F-35Cs would “reduce campaign duration” substantially. Keeping the planned Navy buy of three F/A-18 Super Hornet squadrons and two F-35C squadrons would result in a longer fight, it says.

Another chart at the bottom ticks off the characteristics of the two planes. It grants they both have “advanced radar” and “survivability.” But it claims the advanced F-18 would outpace the F-35C in maneuverability, acceleration, combat radius and weapons load.

On costs, the paper says the advanced Hornet would cost $79 million all up — including government gear — while Boeing pegs the F-35C’s total weapon cost at $120 million.

A source familiar with the F-35 program says F-35C costs should be around $100 million by 2021. The source concedes that cost per flying hour is a bit higher for the C but it is, of course, a truly stealthy aircraft while the F-18 is not.

Boeing also argues that the Advanced Super Hornet would be “complementary”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
“Both platforms are survivable in the future because of stealth, Growler and self-protect EW,” one Boeing source says. This would give the military “flexibility in deciding how much of each platform they need, keeping in mind they need both.”

A key issue in terms of the Mattis-ordered review is whether the Advanced Super Hornet is being factored into the cost and capabilities comparison of the F-18 and the F-35C that the Deputy Defense Secretary will receive. It’s not clear, at this point.
Click to expand...
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
related to the post right above is
Boeing Launches Info War on the Navy’s F-35
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The aerospace firm is quietly urging policymakers to cut planned purchases of carrier-based Joint Strike Fighters and buy Advanced Super Hornets instead.

The behind-the-scenes lobbying dogfight between American aerospace titans Boeing and Lockheed Martin reached new heights in recent weeks as both defense firms angled for tens of billions of dollars in fighter jet deals from the Trump administration. Now Chicago-based Boeing, which in recent years had backed off its efforts to keep Joint Strike Fighters off the decks of Navy aircraft carriers, is circulating a one-page white paper making a case for fewer F-35s and more F/A-18s.

“The U.S. Navy currently plans to have a Carrier Air Wing mix of 3 squadrons of F/A-18 Super Hornets and 1 squadron of F-35Cs in 2028 transitioning to 2 squadrons of F/A-18 Super Hornets and 2 squadrons of F-35C in 2033,” the white paper reads. “This leaves significant capability gaps against emerging threats and under the current aircraft procurement plan leaves the Navy with a significant inventory shortfall.”

The paper — which is unbranded and does not mention Boeing — argues that “Adding additional F-35Cs will not solve this capability gap and will be prohibitively expensive. Adding Advanced Super Hornet F/A-18XT squadrons gives the Carrier Air Wing a significant edge against future adversaries and is an affordable solution to the inventory challenge.”

Boeing argues its carrier air wing would save the Pentagon $8 billion in aircraft purchases alone, then an annual $1.4 billion in operations and maintenance costs. “Over 20 years, the savings would total about $30 billion,” the white paper argues.

The campaign began in December, soon after then-President-elect Trump
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of the F-35 and then asked Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg to “price-out a comparable” F/A-18. In January, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that would look at how the Navy’s F-35C stacked up to a new, more advanced version of the F/A-18.

Boeing has used several names to describe its improved F/A-18, including Advanced Super Hornet, Block 3 Super Hornet, and F/A-18XT. (Here’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of the single-engine F-35 and the twin-engine F/A-18 Super Hornet, or watch the video below.)
Click to expand...
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Air Force Brat said:
Yep it prolly makes you happy its another hit piece on the F-35 written by a liberal loon,,,,sad hes not writing for China Times writing one on the J-20, you prolly wouldn't like that one, and Dan would prolly get taken to the tea party by your friends???
Click to expand...

Don't take it personally. After all the hit pieces on the J-20 from outsiders who can only guess, it's only appropriate. Besides I wanted to post this in a discussion in another thread that I couldn't find where someone argued things about F-35 capabilities against China that are countered in this report.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
AssassinsMace said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


What a read...
Click to expand...
"Electronics Used to Justify Cost Not Delivering Capabilities"
Click to expand...
Based on Which Block? the older Blocks or the latest? It's a major difference as the software is critical as is which version of the helmet.
Of course the latest performance at Red flag should also red flag this report.
"Ineffective as a Fighter"
Click to expand...
This claim as been so debunked, the claim it is based on was not a dogfight it was a set of manouvers to test the flyby wire settings and those settings were adjusted to compensate.
"F-35’s flight software rather than by redesigning the actual flight surfaces that are the cause of the problems."
Click to expand...
Who the hell wrote this #@!$?! again I point to the fact that the actual report was released.
". F-35 apologists try to dismiss such issues by claiming that the F-35 was never intended for close-in aerial dogfighting"
Click to expand...
You can fertilize a large Farm with what that is.
As an air-to-air fighter, the F-35’s combat capability is extremely limited because at the moment the software version only enables it to employ two missiles,
Click to expand...
Again under development
and they have to be the radar-guided advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAMs);
Click to expand...
accurate.
in the future it will carry no more than four if it wants to retain its stealth characteristic.
Click to expand...
Actually there are plans to expand to 6 for A and C full rate production models.
Its gun would be available in close-in fighting as well, but it’s not currently working because the software needed to effectively use it in combat hasn’t been completed.
Click to expand...
2000 words worth.F35Berrrrrtttt.jpeg aerial-gun-fire-news__main.jpg
and making his case worse right after saying the above quote he then says.
The cannon in the F-35A sits behind a small door on the side of the aircraft that opens quickly an instant before the cannon is fired—a characteristic intended to keep the aircraft stealthy. Test flights have shown that this door catches the air flowing across the surface of the aircraft, pulling the F-35’s nose off the aimpoint resulting in errors “that exceed accuracy specifications.” Engineers are working on yet more changes to the F-35’s control laws to correct for the door-induced error. Making these changes and performing the subsequent “regression” re-testing to confirm the effectiveness of the changes have delayed the actual gun accuracy tests. Until these tests occur, no one can know whether the F-35A’s cannon can actually hit a target.
Click to expand...
So you go from denying the gun firing to complaining about accuracy. Have your cake and eat it too.
And again developmental issues.
The F-35B and F-35C will both use an externally mounted gun pod rather than an internal version like the Air Force model. Because of differences in the shape of the fuselage of the two models, the Marine Corps and Navy will use different model gun pods.
Click to expand...
that is news to me.
GDLS makes the GAU 22 for the F35 and they only say 1 pod.
Ineffective as an Interdiction Bomber
Click to expand...
lets see where this goes.
For instance, defense companies in Europe, Russia, China, and even Iran have been hard at work for years developing and producing systems to defeat stealth aircraft.
Click to expand...
good for them
And they have had some success.
Click to expand...
this should be good.
We saw this clearly in 1999, when a Serbian missile unit shot down an F-117 stealth fighter with an obsolete Soviet-era SA-3 surface-to-air missile (SAM), a system first fielded in 1961. Serbian air defense crews discovered they could detect the stealth aircraft by using their missile battery’s longwave search radar. Then, using spotters and the missiles’ own guidance radars, the Serbian forces were able to track, target, and kill one stealthy F-117. To show that was no fluke, the Serbian SAMs hit and damaged another F-117 so badly it never flew in the Kosovo Air War again.
Click to expand...
I think that farmer over yonder needs more manure.
BULL! The F117 actually flew throughout the conflict! the Shoot down happened on 27 March 1999
And it took the Serbs far more to actually do the shoot down then just setting up the Sam site.
1st, The Serbs were listening in on NATO transmissions
2nd they set up spotters at the Nato bases hosting the F117 to get a heads up on take offs.
3rd The F117s flew the same mission routes over and over again which is a major tactical mistake.
4th They had 2 types of Radar one spotting one for attack. they fired 2 missiles one missed one hit, the missiles were fired when the F117 was 8 miles away form the launcher.
and as for returning home... BULL in fact 12 more F117s joined operation Allied force on April 1 1999, and a second F117 was claimed damaged in Yugoslavia on 30 April 1999 a full month later, The 49th left in July 1999 after 1000 sorties.
Unaffected by the special shapes and coatings of modern stealth aircraft, these search radars easily detect today’s stealth airplanes,
Click to expand...
been watching RT I think. Fact is the Serbs could only really detect open doors and extended gear at long range or the aircraft at about a dozen miles. anf after the shoot down they started flying jammers not to blind the Radars but generate white noise because the reduced cross section looks like background radar scatter.
An even simpler system that is even harder to counter than a long wavelength search radar is a passive detection system (PDS) that detects and tracks the radio frequency (RF) signals emitted by an aircraft—radar signals, UHF and VHF radio signals, identification-friend-or-foe (IFF) signals, data link signals like Link-16, and navigation transponder signals like TACAN.
Click to expand...
@Jura here we go #4581Jura, Mar 23, 2017
This is where channel switching comes in The Radar and MADL of the F35, B2 and F22 uses frequency hopping to avoid this. they do not stay on any one frequency long enough to give a good track.

Most of the rest boils down to the current software block level.
Then he gets into complaining that they can't properly test as...
The 2016 DOT&E report describes some official foot-dragging that has delayed putting the F-35’s penetrating ability to the test. For instance, the program is only now starting to receive the critical ground radar simulator equipment, which mimic enemy radar systems, that are needed to conduct robust testing of the F-35’s effectiveness in highly contested, near-peer, scenarios. It’s only receiving that equipment because it was sought and procured by DOT&E when it became clear that the Services and the JSF Program Office were not going to pursue a test infrastructure adequate for replicating the near-peer threats the F-35 is expected to be able to counter. Deliveries of this equipment have begun but will not complete until early 2018. The JPO has not planned or budgeted for developmental flight-testing against it.

The military does developmental and operational testing of stealth aircraft at the Western Test Range at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The tests are conducted against the ground radar simulator equipment and surface-to-air missile (SAM) launchers. Aircraft being tested fly over these arrays to see if the aircraft’s onboard sensors—in particular its electronic warfare systems and ground mapping radar—combined with offboard intelligence provided via data links can detect the threats and respond appropriately, such as by warning the pilots, jamming the signals, or firing defense suppression missiles.
Click to expand...
basically he is complaining that the USAF doesn't have access to the latest Russian or chinese Radars. and that the simulated radars don't properly replicate the radar of these systems.
Equally crippling, until the ground radar simulator equipment is in place, the F-35 program will be unable to properly develop, validate, and update the F-35’s mission-critical onboard software files, called Mission Data Loads (MDLs). MDLs are huge files specifying all target and threat locations together with their individual electronic and/or infrared signatures and all relevant mapping data. Without accurate, up-to-date MDLs, the F-35 cannot find targets or evade and counter threats—nor can it carry out the networking and sensor fusion functions that are said to be its primary strengths. The F-35 cannot go to war without its MDLs. The MDLs also need to be updated continuously with information concerning such things as threats, targets, and signals that is gathered on every F-35 mission. F-35 pilots can only be sure the MDLs they need to survive work properly after they have been tested over ranges equipped with the necessary ground radar simulator equipment.
Click to expand...
which comes down to in war you can't know everything. the bulk of this is somehow trying to say that this is the F35 development program's fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top