F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[DarthAmerica]

First I can't even begin to understand how in 2011 we are still debating this F-35 vs Typhoon nonsense. It's not even the right question! What's relevant is what are the operational requirements that are trying to be met. That's as "personal" as choosing pairs of shoes. The facts are that the F-35 represents a huge leap in capability over legacy aircraft and much of that leap isn't measured purely by physical performance or dollar amounts. Want to fly fast? Get an MIG-25. Want to fly cheap? Get an F-16. None of that matters if it's not part of the operational requirements and those are user specific.

JWCook, you are perhaps the most bias critic of the F-35 short of the APA! Assume that EVERYTHING you said about the F-35 were true, which it isn't!!! But if so, how do you account for the FACT that the F-35 is a more modern design in almost every respect AND that buyers are trying to BEST integrate their fighting forces logistically with the most likely coalition partner?

C'mon man! Have you been paying attention to the challenges the Europeans have had to deal with in this Libyan conflict? Your arguments don't make sense. And how much fuel does a strike package of legacy fighters and ALL ASSOCIATED SUPPORT systems require? What about the necessity for naval aviation? I bet the UK wouldnt mind a few F-35B/C right now...

-DA

 

[Abraham Gubler]

(I hope metalstorm wins a contract soon too..)

Wow MetalStorm... thats as 1999 as the rest your Typhoon mania nonsense.

 

[SpudmanWP]

DoD says that going to war with the F-35 BEFORE IOC (Blk2b) is possible if the field commanders want it and there are no safety issues.

U.S. Military May Deploy F-35 Before Formal IOC - Defense News

The U.S. military may deploy the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) before the tri-service fighter is formally declared Initial Operational Capable (IOC), top uniformed officials told Congress on May 24.

 

[gf0012-aust]

my first comment on the JSF in this thread was 2004.

the end of the world re this platform was a topic then - he we are 7 years later.... and the aviation world hasn't imploded and those evil americans are still apparently suckering 10 nations because none have cancelled orders or withdrawn from the project....

 

[gf0012-aust]

Good! I glad you'll make money and invested in an Australian company too.

(I hope metalstorm wins a contract soon too..)

Cheers

Having nworked with Metalstorm and been privy to the IP exchange constructed by AustGov and DSTO, and having been involved in technology that took advantage of MS capability, and what we allow the americans access to, I can quite happily explain the complexity and simplicity of the contract to you offline.

btw the americans have invested over $200m into the tech - AustGov has invested less than $5m, and the americans are still funding development projects for RV dismounts. Not to put too fine a point, something that MS didn't have a clue about and which was instigated by SAIC (a US company)

 

[JWCook]

Having nworked with Metalstorn and been privy to the IP exchange constructed by AustGov and DSTO, and having been involved in technology that took advantage of MS capability, and what we allow the americans access to, I can quite happily explain the complexity and simplicity of the contract to you offline.

btw the americans have invested over $200m into the tech - AustGov has invested less than $5m, and the americans are still funding development projects for RV dismounts. Not to put too fine a point, something that MS didn't have a clue about and which was instigated by SAIC (a US company)

I can't beleive that it hasn't been much more successful, (it was too broad a range to begin with and they needed to focus on fewer products earlier).
That said I think they may just be turning a corner.

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

I can't beleive that it hasn't been much more successful, (it was too broad a range to begin with and they needed to focus on fewer products earlier).
That said I think they may just be turning a corner.

Cheers

Metalstorms problems can be directly attributed to a common denominator.

If you look at the technology shifts recently made, and various changes in the Board of Directors then one can draw some conclusions which are kind of indefensible....

Losing people like Adm Owens caused a wake up....

 

[fretburner]

Quick question: Does the F-35's Horizontal Stabilizer move?

 

[Scorpion82]

@fretburner,
you mean the vertical stabiliser for yawing aka fins? If yes, no they don't move. The horizontal stabilizers for pitching and rolling moves.

 

[fretburner]

^ Yes, right below the canted tail, and protruding beyond the nozzle.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Um, yes... it has an "all moving" horizontal stabilizer.

 

[fretburner]

Um, yes... it has an "all moving" horizontal stabilizer.

I think you're right: AF-03 Take Off

That's a -35A taking off right? I did notice those stabilizers "dropping" on the -35B vertical landing pictures. I just didn't notice it "move" in the pictures of A and C version. And it's hard to see the "break" where the stabilizer would pivot on, unlike most AC.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That's a -35A taking off right? I did notice those stabilizers "dropping" on the -35B vertical landing pictures. I just didn't notice it "move" in the pictures of A and C version. And it's hard to see the "break" where the stabilizer would pivot on, unlike most AC.

Many aircraft have what's called an all flying tail in which the entire tail moves not just the aft bit. If you watch this video you can see quite a bit of tail movement.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI_0HZrsQdo"]YouTube - ‪Lockheed F-35 JSF Afterburner Takeoff (Turn It Up)‬‏[/nomedia]

 

[gf0012-aust]

Gates Says Military Troop Cuts May Protect F-35, Submarine

By Viola Gienger - May 25, 2011 8:12 AM GMT+1000


Outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Pentagon may have to cut pay, benefits and the size of the armed forces to reduce costs while protecting weapons programs such as Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 fighter jet.
President Barack Obama’s goal of paring $400 billion over the next 12 years from the defense budget won’t be accomplished by piecemeal trimming or efficiency savings, Gates said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a policy group in Washington. Meeting the goal will require “real cuts” and “real choices,” he said.
“To reduce the resources and the size of the U.S. military, people need to make conscious choices about what the implications are for the security of the country,” said Gates, who plans to retire next month once the Senate likely confirms his successor, Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta.
“To shirk this discussion of risks and consequences and the hard decisions that must follow, I would regard as managerial cowardice,” said Gates, 67, who first entered government service in 1966.
Boeing Co. (BA)’s new Air Force refueling tanker and Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are among the programs that must be retained, Gates said. Other priorities include building more Navy ships and replacing its ballistic missile submarine fleet, he said.
$400 Billion Review

Speaking at AEI, a group that he said generally backs increases in defense spending, Gates sought to lay the groundwork for cuts beyond the $78 billion he proposed in January, as Obama aims to lower the U.S. budget deficit. The Pentagon last week began a review of priorities, strategy and risks to meet the target of holding national security spending $400 billion below current projections, to a level just below inflation.
“There is going to be a considerable amount of pressure on the Pentagon’s budget beyond what we’ve seen already,” Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, told the AEI audience after Gates’s address. “The question is how do you balance roles and missions and rethink roles and missions in a way that does not result in a hollowing out of the force.”
‘Modest Gains’

The deficit itself might become a national security risk if not reduced, Gates said. “What’s being proposed by the President is nothing close to the dramatic cuts of the past,” he said.
Gates questioned the results of what he said was a near- doubling of spending on new weapons after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. The more than $700 billion in additional spending over the past 10 years “resulted in relatively modest gains in actual military capability.”
While defense spending isn’t the cause of the nation’s fiscal woes, the Pentagon can’t be spared in addressing them, Gates said.
“As a matter of simple arithmetic and political reality, the Department of Defense must at least be part of the solution,” he said.
Gates reiterated his push for targeted cuts rather than “taking a percentage off the top of everything.” He cited his efforts in the past two years, canceling more than 30 programs that otherwise would have cost $300 billion and plowing the savings into higher priorities such as a bomber for the Air Force and a ground-combat vehicle for the Army.
Cuts Harder

The most questionable weapons programs no longer exist, he said, making today’s cuts harder.
The Pentagon review will consider spending areas that politicians have avoided, Gates said, including pay, retirement benefits, health care and the size of the armed forces.
“The overarching goal will be to preserve a U.S. military capable of meeting crucial national security priorities even if fiscal pressure requires reductions,” he said.
Gates recalled that he went to Congress during both of his first two years in office seeking a slight increase in fees under the military’s Tricare health plan “and got my head lopped off. So the third year, I didn’t try.”
He’s trying again this year.
Gates also called for a more flexible retirement system to retain military and civilian personnel with critical skills. The current system provides full retirement benefits to those who have served for 20 years or more, giving them “every incentive to leave,” even if the military needs them.
Troop Benefits

About 70 percent of the military force doesn’t stay for retirement. “Somebody who serves for 10 years leaves with nothing,” Gates said. “That doesn’t make any sense. That’s not fair.”
Administrative costs offer potential savings, Gates said, while calling his search for such cuts in the past year “disappointing.” They amounted to less than $1 billion from organizations that account for $64 billion in annual spending, he said.
Gates called them “an amalgam of fiefdoms without centralized mechanisms to allocate resources, track expenditures and measure results.”
“There are still too many headquarters, offices and agencies employing too many high-ranking personnel and contractors consuming too many resources relative to real military missions and measurable results,” Gates said.
Analysts, including Michael O’Hanlon, director of research at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said they’re skeptical Congress will follow Gates into controversial terrain, at least before the 2012 general election.
“We have a fundamental conflict going on in the Congress between deficit hawks and defense hawks that seems almost irreconcilable,” said Danielle Pletka, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at AEI.

 

[jack412]

Thats good news for some important programs, but no one said it was cheap having a Global Empire

The number of countries that the United States has a presence in is staggering. According the U.S. Department of State's list of "Independent States in the World,"
According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has troops in 135 countries.

This means that the United States has troops in 70 percent of the world's countries. The average American could probably not locate half of these 135 countries on a map.
To this list could be added regions like the Indian Ocean territory of Diego Garcia, Gibraltar, and the Atlantic Ocean island of St. Helena

Here is the list:
The U.S. Global Empire by Laurence M. Vance

 

[gf0012-aust]

The average American could probably not locate half of these 135 countries on a map.

The average punter, not just americans.

most australians would have no idea how many operations we currently have running..

they'd have fat chance of knowing what and where the americans are.....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

"Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has troops in 135 countries.

LOL. They count defence attaches as part of that total. I don't think the one US uniform at the embassy really counts as a military presence... By the same measure Australia has a troop presence in over 70 countries. Yay global mini-empire!

 

[Hoffy]

A very real US debt crisis is looming. In the last couple of weeks the legal federal borrowing limit of over 14 trillion dollars was finally reached. At the moment the congress is treading water in relation to a new approved debt level ceiling. But one thing is certain , at this rate the USA is in deep trouble financially.

Whether or not this ultimately has an impact on the F35 programme remains to be seen.
I would think it highly unlikely that the current levels of US military spending are sustainable.

 

[jack412]

AG.. ok, perhaps I should have googled "USA Garrisons" but I think we both would agreee they have significant forces outside mainland USA

GF..other than the ADF page, as a mushroom I have no idea where we are

 

[StingrayOZ]

LOL. They count defence attaches as part of that total. I don't think the one US uniform at the embassy really counts as a military presence... By the same measure Australia has a troop presence in over 70 countries. Yay global mini-empire!

I dunno, ever been to a US embassy. I would say in some areas they would be able to hold their own against any regional threat in the short term. US could cut back on troops in Germany for example and let the europeans keep Stuttgart safe...