F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

Derek 2.0 · October 12, 2014

Do you unsderstand why the F 35 didn't make it to Europe for those airshows likw Farnborough?

score: 2 subject change, 1 deferral :lol:

On Guard for Thee · October 12, 2014

score: 2 subject change, 1 deferral

Apparently you are avoiding the question. But alluding to icons is quite fun...as well as telling.

waldo · October 12, 2014

Yet the USN has been attempting to develop their own stealth aircraft since the 1980s........and are both committed to the F-35C and development of a 6th generation stealth aircraft to replace the Super Hornet..........of note, the F-35 will field low RCS stand-off weapons

somehow, as before, you've managed to completely ignore those comments from USN Admiral Greenert. And, of course, you completely ignore all past references that have spoken to the USN being anything but supportive of the F-35C. As I said, all that seems to have been reigned in over the past year or so... can't have a public military display of f-35 criticism when LockMart is out trying to rustle up sales!

.

Derek 2.0 · October 12, 2014

Apparently you are avoiding the question. But alluding to icons is quite fun...as well as telling.

I still await your answer:

Keep searching until you find one that demonstrates how the Russians/Chinese have defied natural physics, allowing a long wavelength radar beam the ability to provide the required resolution in terms of both angle and range to act as a fire control radar.........Also, if they do develop an AESA radar in the VHF/UHF bands, how such an active radar won't be vulnerable to not only conventional kinetic weapons, but electromagnetic attack from the much more flexible (in terms of frequency jumping) short-wavelength AESA radar found within the F-35.......this of course precludes the F-35's DRFM countermeasures, which allow the F-35 the ability to manipulate a threat radar signal, altering return values in terms of the targeted F-35's RCS, range, angle and speed.

Derek 2.0 · October 12, 2014

somehow, as before, you've managed to completely ignore those comments from USN Admiral Greenert. And, of course, you completely ignore all past references that have spoken to the USN being anything but supportive of the F-35C. As I said, all that seems to have been reigned in over the past year or so... can't have a public military display of f-35 criticism when LockMart is out trying to rustle up sales!

.

If you remember, in this very thread, we discussed said comments, and when quoted in their entirety, read quite different.

On Guard for Thee · October 12, 2014

If you remember, in this very thread, we discussed said comments, and when quoted in their entirety, read quite different

Go look up Frank Kendall.

Derek 2.0 · October 12, 2014

Go look up Frank Kendall.

What of him?

scr_Kendall%20FP141426-0020a.jpg

waldo · October 12, 2014

If you remember, in this very thread, we discussed said comments, and when quoted in their entirety, read quite different.

really? All those articles, all those journalists... they all got USN Admiral Greenert's comments wrong? Below, I've re-quoted the pertinent section of my prior post... see how it compares to Greenert's writing as it originally appeared in the U.S. Naval Institute... of course, key on the section titled "The Limits of Stealth":

of course whenever you trot out this stealthy thingee, I'll keep throwing down reference to the 2012 comments from the USN's top guy, Admiral Greenert... before he got muzzed and told to keep to the party line! Top U.S. admiral questions need for stealth technology like that used in F-35

In an article published by the U.S. Naval Institute this month, Greenert writes that a rapid expansion in computing power combined with changes to sensor technology have made it increasingly easy to sidestep the stealth capabilities of ships and aircraft.

Staying ahead of the curve is possible, he adds, but it would be require even larger financial investments than have already been made.

“It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned system — or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them,” Greenert concludes.

On Guard for Thee · October 12, 2014

What of him?

I'm sure you know tht he coined the phtrase " Acquasitin Malpractice" reffering to that airplane behind him?

Derek 2.0 · October 12, 2014

really? All those articles, all those journalists... they all got USN Admiral Greenert's comments wrong? Below, I've re-quoted the pertinent section of my prior post... see how it compares to Greenert's writing as it originally appeared in the U.S. Naval Institute... of course, key on the section titled "The Limits of Stealth":

and from the piece:

.....Those developments do not herald the end of stealth, but they do show the limits of stealth design in getting platforms close enough to use short-range weapons. Maintaining stealth in the face of new and diverse counterdetection methods would require significantly higher fiscal investments in our next generation of platforms. It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems—or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them

Hence, the USN will look towards weapons that enable a greater standoff capability from current and future sea-based, sub-surface and airborne platforms.......Lockheed's response

waldo · October 12, 2014

and from the piece:

uhhh... what's your point? You do realize your quote extract is an example confirmation of what the assortment of articles stated/quoted of USN Admiral Greenert? Limitations of stealth... dealing with those limitations will require significantly higher fiscal investments. I expect given the difficulty in securing funding, given cutbacks, Greenert offers his preferred alternative: "It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems—or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them"..... for example, 'drone, baby drone'!

Derek 2.0 · October 12, 2014

uhhh... what's your point? You do realize your quote extract is an example confirmation of what the assortment of articles stated/quoted of USN Admiral Greenert? Limitations of stealth... dealing with those limitations will require significantly higher fiscal investments. I expect given the difficulty in securing funding, given cutbacks, Greenert offers his preferred alternative: "It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems—or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them"..... for example, 'drone, baby drone'!

The point is the actual intent of the passage, which address the decades long shortfall in development coupled to reliance on the part of the USN on standoff technology that traces its roots back to the 1970s and 1960s.......an area where the USN is falling behind not only European programs, but also Russian.

waldo · October 12, 2014

The point is the actual intent of the passage, which address the decades long shortfall in development coupled to reliance on the part of the USN on standoff technology that traces its roots back to the 1970s and 1960s.......an area where the USN is falling behind not only European programs, but also Russian.

yeesh! The guy outlines stealth limitations, says it will cost a lot of dough to deal with them, says there's a better way... says "it's time to chart a new course... payloads over platforms"; again: "It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems—or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them"

Derek 2.0 · October 12, 2014

yeesh! The guy outlines stealth limitations, says it will cost a lot of dough to deal with them, says there's a better way... says "it's time to chart a new course... payloads over platforms"; again: "It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems—or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them"

It appears the passage:

shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons

Is lost on you........As stated, the USN (and by extension the Marines) have a limited ability to deliver longer range weapons when contrasted with not only other nations, but also the USAF........such weapons negate any current or future detection abilities an enemy could leverage against both conventional and stealth forces, up to and including OGFT's reference to VHF/UHF radars........When one has the ability to poke the eyes out of an advisory, the level of stealth deployed pays little consequence.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Derek 2.0

waldo · October 12, 2014

It appears the passage:

Is lost on you........

and what's lost on you is the stated emphasis on stealth limitations... that the significant fiscal investment in attempting to deal with those limitations is better applied elsewhere... the elsewhere as detailed. That is what is "lost on you"!

Derek 2.0 · October 12, 2014

and what's lost on you is the stated emphasis on stealth limitations... that the significant fiscal investment in attempting to deal with those limitations is better applied elsewhere... the elsewhere as detailed. That is what is "lost on you"!

Again, the first line in the chopped and quoted paragraph:

Those developments do not herald the end of stealth, but they do show the limits of stealth design in getting platforms close enough to use short-range weapons. Maintaining stealth in the face of new and diverse counterdetection methods would require significantly higher fiscal investments in our next generation of platforms. It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems—or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them

Context Waldo, context.............The Admiral speaks to weaponry deployed by stealth platforms. With the shift in focus away from shorter range weapons be they bombs, short range missiles etc...........There is no dispute that an aircraft that can deliver a long range missile form 50-100+km away from it's target is more advantageous then an aircraft that requires delivering a smart bomb within ~5km of it's target.......Clearly longer range weapons garner the ability to avoid a whole host of potential threats to the platform deploying said weapon........

As is said, this is not the end of stealth (or the USN's plans for the F-35C and 6th gen Super Hornet replacement), but the inclusion of longer range weapons to be deployed by the USN's aircraft, ships and submarines.

bush_cheney2004 · October 15, 2014

Here's a fun little F-35 Lightning II Mustang spinoff from the Ford Motor Company.....note Canadian flag decal on lower door panel.

Edited October 15, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

On Guard for Thee · October 15, 2014

Here's a fun little F-35 Lightning II Mustang spinoff from the Ford Motor Company.....note Canadian flag decal on lower door panel.

Looks equally inefficient and ugly as the airplane.

Smallc · October 15, 2014

It's probably more efficient than most cars on the road...certainly ones with their root design in the 70s....just like the F-35.

Derek 2.0 · October 15, 2014

Here's a fun little F-35 Lightning II Mustang spinoff from the Ford Motor Company.....note Canadian flag decal on lower door panel.

I prefer the Raptor inspired Camaro....

Derek 2.0 · October 15, 2014

And in other news:

The U.S. Defense Department said its new $592 million contract with Pratt would cover 36 engines, adding to an earlier advanced procurement contract worth $88 million. The company also won a maintenance contract worth $263 million in December.

Pratt and the Pentagon said they expected to finalize a follow-on contract for an eighth batch of 48 engines in "the near future."

Contrasted with last Augusts 38 engine order for ~1 billion USD.... a fair decrease.

Also of note:

As a precursor to the contract, the statement said a joint team investigating the engine failure had met and agreed on the cause of the engine failure: that prolonged rubbing of certain material in a part of the engine had led to small cracks which eventually caused the third stage fan rotor to break apart.

The statement said Pratt and the F-35 program office were executing a plan to modify the current operational and test jets, and implement a long-term solution for future jets.

As part of the contract for the seventh batch of jets, Pratt agreed to cover the cost of corrective actions for previously delivered engines and modules to fix the engine issue.

And rightly so.