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

[Jura The idiot]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

On F-35C Basing:

Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 23, 2014

The Navy recently released a final environmental impact statement for F-35C Joint Strike Fighter West Coast home basing, recommending Naval Air Station Lemoore, CA as the aircraft's homebase. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus will sign a record of decision in about 30 days making the decision final.

The final EIS, released May 15, looked at the potential environmental effect of homebasing F-35C squadrons at either Lemoore or Naval Air Facility El Centro, CA. The document provided a preferred alternative of placing seven fleet squadrons plus the fleet replacement squadron at NAS Lemoore while maintaining training operations at NAF El Centro.

"This alternative best meets mission requirements; optimizes operational efficiencies related to personnel, training and logistics support functions; maximizes the reuse of existing facilities and minimizes the need for new construction; and preserves NAF El Centro as a valuable training asset," according to a May 15 statement from U.S. Fleet Forces Command.

A total of 70 F/A-18 Hornet aircraft or seven Pacific Fleet squadrons will transition to the new F-35C aircraft beginning in 2015 with the transition to be complete by 2028, the final EIS reads.

"The plan would also involve the establishment no earlier than 2017 of an F-35C Fleet Replacement Squadron consisting of approximately 30 F-35C aircraft to meet the requirements for training Navy pilots," the document reads.

Environmental resource topics the study considered include: airfields and airspace, noise, air quality, safety, land use, infrastructure and utilities, socioeconomics, community services, ground traffic and transportation, biological resources, topography and soils, water resources, cultural and traditional resources, and hazardous materials and waste.

The final EIS evaluated three alternatives: NAF El Centro homebasing, NAS Lemoore homebasing and a no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative, the Navy would not provide facilities and functions on the West Coast to support F-35C homebasing in the Navy Pacific Fleet.

In February 2011, the Navy held public scoping meetings in El Centro and Lemoore. The meetings were to "enhance" public understanding of the project. A total of 187 people attended the two meetings and a total of 253 comments and issues were covered.

"Primary issues raised during scoping related to socioeconomics, community facilities and services, infrastructure and utilities and land use," the final EIS reads.

 

[valapak]

Re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

i dont say something about the cruise missile of kongsberg, but yes sorry, i meant the JAGM, but this can be carried i read...
so back on topic

 

[delft]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I found this in The Daily Telegraph:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Britain 'should consider scrapping F-35 stealth fighter'

A senior US Air Force officer says Britain's new stealth jet may be no better than existing aircraft

By Ben Farmer, Defence Correspondent
6:00AM BST 18 May 2014

Britain's long-delayed £70 million stealth fighter may need to be cancelled because of its poor performance, according to an analysis by a senior American air force officer.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being built for British and US forces is based on outdated ideas of air warfare, it is claimed. The aircraft could be unable to evade enemy radar and be too expensive for long campaigns.
The critique in the US Air Force’s own journal concludes that the new fighter may even have “substantially less performance” than some existing aircraft.
Britain is preparing to buy at least 48 of the Lockheed Martin aircraft to replace its scrapped Harrier jump jets; the US military is expected to order more than 2,400.
The £235 billion programme is the most expensive weapons system in history at a time when defence budgets on both sides of the Atlantic are being cut.
The analysis in the Air and Space Power Journal states: “Even if funding were unlimited, reasons might still exist for terminating the F-35.
“Specifically, its performance has not met initial requirements, its payload is low, its range is short, and espionage efforts by the People’s Republic of China may have compromised the aircraft long in advance of its introduction.”
Advances in Russian and Chinese radar defences mean it is not clear the stealth technology will still work, the analysis warns.
“These facts make the risk calculation involved with prioritizing stealth over performance, range, and weapons load out inherently suspect - and the F-35 might well be the first modern fighter to have substantially less performance than its predecessors.”
The author, Col Michael Pietrucha, suggests the F-35 programme should be put on hold and the US Air Force should instead look at a mix of fighters for the future.
If America pulled out of the programme, Britain would have to follow, analysts said.
Col Pietrucha told The Sunday Telegraph: “All fighter programmes have developed problems. This one is particularly troubling, not necessarily because the aircraft is inherently bad, but because … they are being bought before they have been proven. They have not been tested outside a computer simulation.”
Britain originally said it would buy 138 of the fighters, but has now committed itself to only 48 of the jump jet variant, spread between the RAF and Navy. The first are due to enter service in 2018.
Edward Hunt, a senior aerospace analyst at IHS Jane’s, said the F-35’s performance was the subject of widespread debate in military aviation circles.
“It’s very difficult to peel back what’s being said because lots of people have an axe to grind,” he said.
“The whole F-35 programme hinges on US orders, so any significant cuts … would have significant knock-on effects for partner nations.”
Elizabeth Quintana, senior research fellow for air power at the Royal United Services Institute, said there was a debate to be had about whether it was wise to rely exclusively on a fleet of high-end stealth fighters when a mix of high-end and cheaper, light attack or remotely piloted aircraft could give more options for a range of future battlefields.
The Ministry of Defence defended the F-35 as the “most advanced combat jet in the world with unprecedented stealth capability as well as state of the art sensors and weapons”.
A spokeswoman said: “The aircraft has been specifically designed to be updated throughout its lifetime so it can benefit from new technology to counter emerging threats and keep ahead of our enemies.”

What is the reputation of "Air and Space Power Journal"?

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Air and Space Power Journal is a Air force magazine

Welcome to the Air and Space Power Journal (ASPJ), the US Air Force’s (USAF) professional peer-reviewed journal and the leading forum for airpower thought and dialogue. ASPJ seeks to foster intellectual discussion and debate among air, space, and cyber power leaders, both domestically and internationally.

The original article questioning the F35 was part of a piece by a Col. Michael W Pietrucha
entitled the Comanche and the Albatross
Please note they included a disclaimer. stating that these are not the Views of the publication but those of the Author. because ASPJ is a official USAF affiliated Journal

you can read his statements on this PDF

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[delft]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I read the article in ASPJ and the comments which were mostly favorable, to my surprise. But this is my only experience with the magazine, that's why I asked.

 

[Jura The idiot]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Air and Space Power Journal is a Air force magazine

The original article questioning the F35 was part of a piece by a Col. Michael W Pietrucha
entitled the Comanche and the Albatross
Please note they included a disclaimer. stating that these are not the Views of the publication but those of the Author. because ASPJ is a official USAF affiliated Journal

you can read his statements on this PDF

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

TE, a moment ago I like randomly chose two more articles and they both contained the Disclaimer you mentioned. It reads

Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed or implied in the
Journal
are those of the authors and should not be construed as carry
-
ing the official sanction of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, or other agencies
or departments of the US government. This article may be reproduced in whole or in part without permission. If it is reproduced, the
Air
and Space Power Journal
requests a courtesy line.

and I acknowledge the source, which of course is AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL
By the way, one of the articles I clicked on seems to be cool, check:
May–June 2014
Air & Space Power Journal
|
48
Feature
Nightfall
Machine Autonomy in Air-to-Air Combat
by Capt Michael W. Byrnes, USAF

 

[Jura The idiot]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I read the article in ASPJ and the comments which were mostly favorable, to my surprise. ...

yeah I thought the Author would be sent to Hell He wasn't:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

The Journal is Fine, It's a Peer Reviewed Publication, like any other only this one is part of the USAF.
His opinion is however his opinion and I really don't agree. his holding on F35 at low numbers would drive the price through the roof plus the design is optimized for frontal stealth not all around like the F117. His plans for the T-X I could see to a degree but as a main line fighter no. He wants a Hight low mix I can agree to that but the T-X is calling for a trainer and a light jet not a fighter.. a OA and A-x would be nice, but the Mission threats of the Future are changing. As to Cancelling the F35B for Britain and replace it with what? When Compared to the Harriers ( which by the Way are no longer built) F35B is a massive upgrade, He is comparing I think to F16 or EF2000 in which F35B comes out as more or less a Equivalent when compared to the AV8 series F35B would offer a far more flexible platform even with out stealth, it's a more energetic faster fighter.
He links F35 to the RAH66 Comanche. Comanche was a Helicopter meant to fly at low level, And one that will still eventually be replaced. the Cancellation of Comanche was fueled by the realization of the army that it was eating the Entire Army rotary wing budget. That the Army was fighting non conventional forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Against the Emerging threat environment with the PRC and RF selling sophisticated Air defense systems that conflict model is going to change again. He is pushing the asymmetric model which if we were dealing with a insurgency would be fine but the US is now Just as likely to face conventional forces with Iran building up, Putin pushing buttons and the Tensions in Asia. A new model would be needed not just conventional or Non conventional but Flexible.

 

[Franklin]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I found this in The Daily Telegraph:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What is the reputation of "Air and Space Power Journal"?

Not going to happen. The F-35 purchase is just as much if not more about politics than about a weapons system. Countries that purchase the F-35 are willing to tie themselves to the US strategically. For those countries the US and its political and military power is a major part of their strategic thinking and is a integral part of their national security.

A lot of members here are willing to give the performence of this plane a pass. Much more than the media is willing to do. So i will give the F-35 the benefit of the doubt. We will all have to wait and see what this plane really can do in the future.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Agreed Franklin the writer of the Telegraph piece is jumping the gun. the Col is a USAF officer and he gives no altternitives for the F35B. IT's just more hype.