It seems there is disagreement amongst the USAF senior leadership for cancellation of future acquisitions to some of their key programs such as the F-22 and C-17.
Thompson Files: Gates bungles USAF needs
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
Thompson Files: Gates bungles USAF needs
Of course there is. Lots of those men have spent the last four years screaming for more F-22s and dismissing UAVs and the COIN fight. Nothing is going to change that overnight, not even their leadership. However Thompson, a long since outed pro F-22 partisan, spins the story to make it seem as if Schwartz is under siege and week.
Statements like:
"accused him of betraying the service's requirements process"
"without rigorous analysis"
"signaled that Schwartz's credibility is at risk among his Air Force peers"
"Doubts about Schwartz have been rife"
"selected him to replace the less pliable"
"Schwartz's tenure could resemble a controlled flight into terrain"
Is all bullshit. A particularly nasty effort to demean the man to push the plane. Unfortunately the pro F-22 lobby has revealed in these tactics. They can't sell the aircraft based on its capabilities so they accuse those who don't support it as being professionally incompetent and so on.
Its all very pathetic considering they have well and truly lost the argument and there are very few remaining options left alive. And a heavily Democratic US Congress with a highly popular Democratic President who's defence policy is enshrined in the statements made by Gates is not something that is going to turn around and roll the SECDEF and keep the F-22 production going.
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Agreed............just more political spin!
When the Democrats are in control, they usually buy the less expensive weapons. That is the F-35, not the F-22. They will target for elimination of any expensive Star Wars projects as well. I am not even sure whether the Democrats will allow another vote for the F-22, they can kill it before it reaches the floor in committee.
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Its a complex issue with many parts.................While, I don't usually agree with Democrats or Obama. I think he has made the right call.........IMHO
F-15 Eagle
New Member
A cheap defense wont protect America........
Haavarla
Active Member
Dude, you don't need a ultra expensive F-22A to beat some floppy Taliban fighters hiding in some caves.
But you do need an UAVs for the jobb
Add 20 UAVs and we are talking.. still cheaper than an F-22A.
Thanks
F-15 Eagle
New Member
You think the Taliban is the only enemy the U.S. will face for the next 20-30 years? I beg to differ. What about Russia?Dude, you don't need a ultra expensive F-22A to beat some floppy Taliban fighters hiding in some caves.
But you do need an UAVs for the jobb
Add 20 UAVs and we are talking.. still cheaper than an F-22A.
Thanks
Thats the problem with penny-pitching democrats, they can't plain ahead because they don't want to spend a dollar more on defense because it might cut into their social programs like "fee" health care.
This is why I vote republican.....:nutkick
Is that the same Russia that the USA was meant to go to war with between 1948 and 1989 when both nations were spending staggering amounts on defence and Russia was an actual military threat as opposed to today when their military potential is dependent on chipping the post Soviet rust from it?
The F-22 is not the sole war winning deterrent the USA has against a potential high level threat like China or Russia. Frankly those UAVs (Reaper type) would do more to the Chinese or Russians in a comparative between UAVs and no UAVs versus F-22 or no F-22 both as part of the wider force as constituted.
I wouldn't classify the F-35 as cheap. Less expensive, but not cheap. Cheap would be to buy nothing.
I'd be looking closer at the middle east and China before Russia. The F-35 whilst perhaps not as good in the A2A field (yet to be proven), is still leagues ahead of the 4th gen systems possessed by any likely threat. So its not as though the US and its allies will not be going into battle in a machine that is inferior to it's opponents.
It's probably also worth noting that once F-35 is up and flying, it's not as though development of that airframe is going to stop and wait while the rest of the world catches up. A Lightning flying 20 years from now is going to have two decades worth of software/hardware improvements, weapons integration, etc flying with it.
In so far as that goes, I think F-35 will have a far easier time maintaining a competitive edge through the 20-30 year timeframe than F-22 anyway. From what I understand of how the F-35's software systems are coded, it will be much easier to integrate future systems onto the Lightning than the Raptor.
I might be wrong, and I welcome corrections if I am, but I seem to recall reading that the F-35 software is written in object-oriented code (C++, maybe?) rather than the machine code used in the F-22.
Your continuing ignorance on the subject is astounding. The Russian military doctrine clearly states that NATO is to be dealt with via a nuclear deterrent. I.e. Russia will not fight NATO. Are you suggesting that the US plans to fight Russia? With the potential for a full nuclear exchange? Get real.You think the Taliban is the only enemy the U.S. will face for the next 20-30 years? I beg to differ. What about Russia?
Thats the problem with penny-pitching democrats, they can't plain ahead because they don't want to spend a dollar more on defense because it might cut into their social programs like "fee" health care.
This is why I vote republican.....:nutkick
Not to mention that we don't currently have any fighter even in the same generation as the F-35. And will not have one in squadron service (even theoretically) until 2018-2020.
I won't comment on your remark about the Democrats, just realize that in principle there is little difference between them and the Republicans. (don't believe me? zoom out, they're both liberal parties near the center with minor policy differences)
Haavarla
Active Member
You think the Taliban is the only enemy the U.S. will face for the next 20-30 years? I beg to differ.
Thats the problem with penny-pitching democrats, they can't plain ahead because they don't want to spend a dollar more on defense because it might cut into their social programs like "fee" health care.
This is why I vote republican.....:nutkick
Oh, you're going all political on me?
I could with ease deride the Repuplicans 8 year period in the Whitehouse..
Well i want fall for that.
Btw, going for the F-22A production are in my mind NOT the worst thing the Republicans have done..
It's just that the US don't need any more F-22A, if looking at the threat theather against the US.
Welcome to 2009 dude
I got some cues for you, Obama new political course & Nuclear deterrent.
Plz shake of your cold war prejudice against Russia, it wont do anybody any good.
Thanks
Last edited:
Correct on many points. Yes to C++ also.
The F-35 is due to get a Full FOV DIRCM in Block 5 due soon after 2017. Other items in it's future are:
Cooperative EW
Inverse ISAR radar modes
Better Range and more Lbs of thrust
Electronic attack modes for the Radar
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Despite all the negativity relating to the F-35 program around the place, advances keep getting made all the time, making the naysayers start to look rather foolish in my book...
First is the initial description of BF-1's hover pit testing:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/04/23/325579/stovl-f-35-beats-vertical-thrust-target.html
Of interest is that the F-35B demonstrated that it CLEARLY exceeds it's KPP in this regard (key performance parameters) in it's very first trials on the "hover pit", demonstrating 41,100lbs of vertical thrust.
The original requirement was 39,000lbs and the re-baselined limit was 40,550lbs of vertical thrust to offset weight gained during development.
Why this is so important is because the F-35's rather vocal detractors have claimed for some time is that there is no "margin for growth" in the aircraft's design.
Clearly this is a nonsense and the assumptions made about the aircraft on this basis are CLEARLY wrong.
It also shows that the aircraft is capable of exceeding it's KPPs, another critical point it's detractors like to try and target. Speed being one such issue detractors often point to, notwithstanding the VERY minimal issue that a lack of outright, top-end speed IS for anything beside marketing purposes.
Mr Goon wants to discuss "bring back" capability for the F-35B. I wonder if the new test results will make him try another tack?
First is the initial description of BF-1's hover pit testing:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/04/23/325579/stovl-f-35-beats-vertical-thrust-target.html
Of interest is that the F-35B demonstrated that it CLEARLY exceeds it's KPP in this regard (key performance parameters) in it's very first trials on the "hover pit", demonstrating 41,100lbs of vertical thrust.
The original requirement was 39,000lbs and the re-baselined limit was 40,550lbs of vertical thrust to offset weight gained during development.
Why this is so important is because the F-35's rather vocal detractors have claimed for some time is that there is no "margin for growth" in the aircraft's design.
Clearly this is a nonsense and the assumptions made about the aircraft on this basis are CLEARLY wrong.
It also shows that the aircraft is capable of exceeding it's KPPs, another critical point it's detractors like to try and target. Speed being one such issue detractors often point to, notwithstanding the VERY minimal issue that a lack of outright, top-end speed IS for anything beside marketing purposes.
Mr Goon wants to discuss "bring back" capability for the F-35B. I wonder if the new test results will make him try another tack?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bloody marvellous!
That vid that Abe Gubler posted a little while back of the F-35's radar in action was something to see, too. I'm just glad the program's continuing to produce tangible results, can't imagine what the press would be saying if the plane was actually bad.
Are they STILL going?Mr Goon wants to discuss "bring back" capability for the F-35B. I wonder if the new test results will make him try another tack?
This is why we can't have nice things...
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Actually I don't think the press would be saying much about the aircraft at all, if it were "bad".Bloody marvellous!
That vid that Abe Gubler posted a little while back of the F-35's radar in action was something to see, too. I'm just glad the program's continuing to produce tangible results, can't imagine what the press would be saying if the plane was actually bad.
I doubt it would exist and we'd see USAF buying more F-22s, developing and acquiring "super" F-16 variants and USN/USMC developing even further and buying far more F/A-18E/F + Super Hornets.
Clearly, these developments aren't happening...
I'm afraid so...
Still, when you are forced through financial and other circumstance to deregister your own company, sell your house etc, it seems somewhat difficult to try and pretend that you are a SERIOUS defence industry player, but they ARE still trying...
ToucheActually I don't think the press would be saying much about the aircraft at all, if it were "bad".
I doubt it would exist and we'd see USAF buying more F-22s, developing and acquiring "super" F-16 variants and USN/USMC developing even further and buying far more F/A-18E/F + Super Hornets.
Clearly, these developments aren't happening...
Geez, he had to sell his house? That's rough, but I suppose ruin of one kind or another was the logical thing to follow in the wake of an agenda like his...
- Status