Jump to content

The F-35 Thread


Groove

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-01/canceling-lockheed-f-35-said-to-be-among-pentagon-options.html

Canceling the $391.2 billion program to build Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 fighter jet is among options the Pentagon listed in its “strategic review” of choices if forced to live with automatic budget cuts, according to people familiar with Defense Department briefings.

The F-35 was a program listed for potential elimination in charts at briefings held July 31 by the Defense Department, according to the people, who asked not to be identified discussing the closed-door sessions.

Enlarge image Canceling Lockheed F-35 Said to Be Option in Pentagon Review

Scrapping the fighter wasn’t among options disclosed to reporters that day by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel as he outlined in broad terms results of the review he ordered of alternative approaches if the military must continue to absorb about $50 billion a year in cuts under the process known as sequestration. Hagel indicated the Pentagon may have to choose between a “much smaller force” and a decade-long “holiday” from modernizing weapons systems and technology.

“We have gone to great lengths to stress that this review identified, through a rigorous process of strategic modeling, possible decisions we might face under scenarios we may or may not face in the future,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said in an e-mailed statement. “Any suggestion that we’re now moving away from key modernization programs as a result of yesterday’s discussion of the outcomes of the review would be incorrect.”

Protecting F-35

The F-35 is the Pentagon’s costliest weapon system, with the estimated price tag of $391.2 billion for a fleet of 2,443 aircraft, up 68 percent from the projection in 2001, as measured in current dollars. The rising costs and troubles in building the plane as it’s still being developed have led to criticism in Congress.

The Pentagon moved to protect the F-35 from sequestration’s initial impact this year, locking in several contracts before the cuts took effect. Frank Kendall, the Defense Department’s chief weapons buyer, has said he will continue to do his best to protect the plane built by Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed in the future.

Based on that track record, “the implication is that any ‘option’ to kill the program is an academic exercise rather than a serious possibility,” according to Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the nonprofit Arlington, Virginia-based Lexington Institute. Thompson wasn’t briefed on the charts.

While the Pentagon and its supporters have lobbied for relief from sequestration, President Barack Obama and congressional leaders aren’t engaged in active efforts to find an alternative to the automatic cuts.

Protecting Weapons

In Hagel’s presentation to reporters, he cited the F-35 among weapons systems that could be protected if substantial cuts are made instead to forces.

Asked on July 31 whether there is an emerging consensus in the Pentagon about protecting forces or weapons capability, Admiral James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, predicted “we will edge slightly probably toward capability, because we have to keep our industrial base alive, we have to keep focusing on new technologies.”

Pentagon officials and the Government Accountability Office have said this year that the F-35 is making steady progress in development and flight testing.

Lockheed and the Pentagon reached an accord this week for the company to produce 71 more F-35 jet fighters, saying costs per plane have been reduced by about 4 percent.

‘High Priority’

“The F-35 is a very high priority,” Kendall, the undersecretary for acquisition, said in July 15 interview. “Could we protect it completely? I’m not sure. We have to look at all the trade-offs. We may address some of those decisions in the fall, but right now, we are committed to the program. That hasn’t changed.”

The supersonic F-35 was intended to transform military aviation. Three versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps would be built off a common assembly line, an approach designed to permit faster production, reduced costs and compatibility among allied air forces.

About a quarter of the aircraft would be purchased by other countries. Norway, Canada, the U.K., Australia, Turkey, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S. agreed in 2006 to cooperatively produce and sustain the F-35 jet. Israel and Japan later signed on to purchase jets and take part in their development.

"Я ошеломлён, но думаю об этом другими словами", - некий гражданин

Ноет котик, ноет кротик,



Ноет в небе самолетик,

Ноют клумбы и кусты -

Ноют все. Поной и ты.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^At least while there is cash to go around. :D

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.defencetalk.com/pentagon-considers-cancelling-f-35-program-48653/

 

Leaked documents from a Pentagon budget review suggest that the agency is tired of its costly F-35 fighter jets, and has thoughts about canceling the $391.2 billion program that has already expanded into 10 foreign countries.

 

Pentagon officials held a briefing on Wednesday in which they mapped out ways to manage the $500 billion in automated budget cuts required over the next decade. A slideshow laid out a number of suggestions and exposed the Pentagon’s frustration with its F-35 jets, which are designed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corp. based out of Bethesda, Md. The agency also suggested scrapping plans for a new stealthy, long-range bomber, attendees of the briefing told Reuters.

 

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke to reporters on Wednesday and indicated that the Pentagon might have to decide between a “much smaller force” and a decade-long “holiday” from modernizing weapons systems and technology.

 

Pentagon briefing slides indicated that a decision to maintain a larger military “could result in the cancellation of the $392 billion Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 program and a new stealthy, long-range bomber,” Reuters reports.

 

When officials familiar with the budget review leaked the news about the F-35s, the agency tried to downplay its alleged intentions.

 

The F-35 program is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapon system. A fleet of 2,443 aircraft has an estimated price tag of $391.2 billion, which is up 68 percent from the projected costs measured in 2001. Earlier this year, Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program manager, condemned the manufacturer for “trying to squeeze every nickel” out of the Department of Defense.

 

Although the warplane is the most expensive combat aircraft in history, its quality is lacking. In February, the US military grounded an entire fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters because of a crack found on a turbine blade on one of the jets, marking the fourth time that a fleet was grounded because of manufacturing problems. In April, Bogdan told a Senate committee that he doubted the planes could withstand a sophisticated cyberattack.

 

But before the sequestration took effect this year, the Pentagon secured several contracts with Lockheed Martin to ensure the continued production and maintenance of the costly F-35s. This week, the Defense Department struck another deal with the company to produce 71 more jet fighters, claiming the costs per aircraft have been reduced by about 4 percent – an insignificant reduction when compared to the 68 percent price increase that has occurred since 2001.

 

After news broke of the Pentagon’s prospect to cancel the program, officials tried to control the damage of such an alarming statement that runs counter to the claims they publicly make.

 

“We have gone to great lengths to stress that this review identified, through a rigorous process of strategic modeling, possible decisions we might face, under scenarios we may or may not face in the future,” Pentagon Spokesman George Little told Reuters in an email when asked about the slides. “Any suggestion that we’re now moving away from key modernization programs as a result of yesterday’s discussion of the outcomes of the review would be incorrect.”

 

An unnamed defense official familiar with the briefing told Reuters that the leaked budget document indicated possibilities for a worst-case scenario. He admitted that the Pentagon considered scrapping the program, but said it was unlikely, since “cancelling the program would be detrimental to our national defense.”

 

Regardless of the Pentagon’s intent, Congress is responsible for authorizing Department of Defense spending, and has often forced the agency to make costly and unnecessary weapons purchases.

 

Last year, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said that the US has no need for new tanks. But even though senior Army officials have repeatedly stated that there is no need to spend half a billion dollars in taxpayer funds on new 70-ton Abrams tanks, lawmakers from both parties have pushed the Pentagon to accept the useless purchases.

 

Earlier this year, an investigation revealed that lobbying efforts by Northrop Grumman have kept a costly Global Hawk drone flying, despite the Pentagon’s attempt to end the project. A defense authorization bill passed by Congress requires the Air Force to keep flying its Block 30 Global Hawks through at least 2014, which costs taxpayers $260 million per year.

 

The US spends more money on defense than any other nation, but lawmakers from both parties often insist that the agency continue to buy tanks and keep ships and planes it no longer needs. Although the Pentagon has expressed its frustration with the costly F-35 fighter jets, there is little the agency can do without congressional support.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What some in the media tend to forget is that these planes are not only very big business, but also a lot of jobs for a lot of people in the U.S. and multiple participating countries.

 

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=dbdd06c33c4d849643211bc42f6d77d1&tab=core&_cview=0

 

Doesn't seem like they are slowing down on the number of LRIP aircraft production, in fact it appears to be ramping up.

 

This reminds me of the old F-22 debate over a decade ago before they were accepted into the airforce. "Their too expensive, have too many computer problems, stealth won't work." Plus the program threatening to be cancelled and behind schedule, "It's just never going to happen." Yet here we are with over 180 F-22's deployed.

 

And here we are with LRIP F-35's in numbers most countries would consider a respectable number.

 

Haters gonna hate I guess. :lol:


Edited by Invader ZIM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about the stealth technology (FYI I only understand the very basics of how radar detection works...):

 

I've heard people say on youtube that the F-35's stealth signature is about the size of a golf ball to beach ball.

And that of course you can detect this on radar if you tune it to pick up small objects, and that the reason it is stealthy is that you can't tell the difference on a radar between the F-35's beach ball sized signature vs say a bird's radar signature - and you don't want to track birds on your radar.

 

So to me it sounds like that the stealth is based on the principle that the enemy radar cannot distinguish between birds and the F-35.

 

If that is the case, can't they just detect everything, and then filter out things that would fly slower than an F-35? As no bird would be flying at even the slowest speed of the F-35 (let alone Mach 1+) right?

 

Is my limited knowledge of radar technology way off, or did I just ruin stealth technology for everyone lol? (and I'm probably going to die in an "accident" care of Lockheed Martin)


Edited by schkorpio

Sponsored by: http://www.ozpc.com.au

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that signature is not a universal constant but rather it deffers from radar to radar... And is safe to assume that better radar will get a better signature. Also birds don't fly too high. Neither golf balls :) .

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

I5 4670k, 32GB, GTX 1070, Thrustmaster TFRP, G940 Throttle extremely modded with Bodnar 0836X and Bu0836A,

Warthog Joystick with F-18 grip, Oculus Rift S - Almost all is made from gifts from friends, the most expensive parts at least

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is the case, can't they just detect everything, and then filter out things that would fly slower than an F-35? As no bird would be flying at even the slowest speed of the F-35 (let alone Mach 1+) right?

Maybe this is why it was made to be so slow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your limited knowledge of radar is way off.

 

To keep things simple, stealth reduces the radar's ability to detect a target to the point where that aircraft can attack said radar before the aircraft is detected.

 

Or if you prefer, a stealth aircraft is detectable at about 1/10th the range of a non-stealth aircraft.

 

Is my limited knowledge of radar technology way off, or did I just ruin stealth technology for everyone lol? (and I'm probably going to die in an "accident" care of Lockheed Martin)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or we can strap AMRAAMs to pigeons?

That would look more like pigeon to AMRAAM.

"Я ошеломлён, но думаю об этом другими словами", - некий гражданин

Ноет котик, ноет кротик,



Ноет в небе самолетик,

Ноют клумбы и кусты -

Ноют все. Поной и ты.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Still second only to the raptor, too much money. :)

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but i still don't want to have this plane in my country, the eurofighter is more then enough. The next generation electronic devices will dominate modern combat and a half stealth plane like f-35 will be useless, and we don't have the money to grease US economy...we have already half of our country sucking money!! :(

PC: i7-13700K - MSI RTX 4080 Gaming X Trio - 32GB DDR5 6200 - VPC MongoosT-50CM3 - VKB GF pro - MFG Crosswind - Msi MPG321UR-QD + Acer XB271HU - TrackIR5 - Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a full stealth plane, full of next generation electronic devices.

 

The next generation electronic devices will dominate modern combat and a half stealth plane like f-35 will be useless,

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a full stealth plane, full of next generation electronic devices.

 

Here he comes. I'll change my mind when i'll see the f-35 in combat, we didn't see yet the f-22. I'll be the first to apologize if I'm wrong, but for now economically is an expensive eating money machine.. in this crisis times.

PC: i7-13700K - MSI RTX 4080 Gaming X Trio - 32GB DDR5 6200 - VPC MongoosT-50CM3 - VKB GF pro - MFG Crosswind - Msi MPG321UR-QD + Acer XB271HU - TrackIR5 - Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here comes what? You're saying things that are simply not true with respect to the technology, money aside. And FYI, Eurofighter is about as expensive.

 

Have you seen a eurofighter in combat?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen a eurofighter in combat?

Libya.

 

Have we actually ever seen any 4th gen+ fighters in combat against similar opponents with similar battlefield support ever?

That would imply WWIII but the Typhoon and Rafale have operated in Libya and Mali (Rafale only). The F-22 costs too much to operate in combat, in fact it costs too much to operate out of combat which is why the production run was cancelled despite it creating jobs in 44 separate states.


Edited by popcorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...