Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Not that any country in its right mind should want association with this farce of a project, let alone Russia.
Well you hit the nail with a sledgehammer.
+80
d_taddei2
TMA1
Arrow
ALAMO
Atmosphere
Finty
Kiko
Backman
lancelot
owais.usmani
lyle6
Hole
thegopnik
Cyberspec
The-thing-next-door
dino00
Isos
nero
MiamiMachineShop
Walther von Oldenburg
LMFS
PhSt
ATLASCUB
Anonymous Fighter
moskit
miketheterrible
FichtL_WichtL
GarryB
nomadski
Godric
George1
KiloGolf
Airman
KoTeMoRe
Grazneyar
JohninMK
PapaDragon
AlfaT8
jka
max steel
Book.
AirCargo
Zhukov-Patton
OminousSpudd
Manov
VladimirSahin
Kyo
Battalion0415
medo
kvs
higurashihougi
Mike E
sepheronx
BlackArrow
Werewolf
KomissarBojanchev
collegeboy16
Hannibal Barca
Airbornewolf
SOC
TR1
magnumcromagnon
flamming_python
zino
NationalRus
As Sa'iqa
Regular
BTRfan
gaurav
Viktor
nemrod
Corrosion
ahmedfire
Admin
IronsightSniper
Austin
nightcrawler
Russian Patriot
Vladislav
Turk1
84 posters
F-35 Lightning II: News thread
Werewolf- Posts : 5915
Points : 6104
Join date : 2012-10-24
Well you hit the nail with a sledgehammer.
higurashihougi- Posts : 3123
Points : 3210
Join date : 2014-08-13
Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.
TR1 wrote:Yak was not forced to share any data with LM.
That is not what stealing is.
Plus, they got some basic engine concepts from Yak, not an entire system. Yak's role in the F-35s propulsion is grossly overstated by some.
I do not really care whether they steal it or copy it or mimic it.
In order to create a weapon to defend ourselves, we have to get the info from whatever sources we can. For the sake of building our fangs and claws we have to do it.
That's why spy and espionage exist. To copy and mimics.
The points here is, F-35 is a damn failure. Too expensive, damn sluggish, and NOT EFFECTIVE stealth cloak.
Even the crafts which are designed to be truly stealth like F-117 and RQ-170 could not escape the fangs of enemy defense system, let alone F-35 which only have stealth capabilities, not truly stealth aircraft.
Russian ground radar is strong enough to use long wavelength radar to strip off the stealth cloak, and Russian T-50 has a 10-metre L-band radar.
GarryB- Posts : 39071
Points : 39567
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Funny... the US has the largest most powerful spy network the world has ever seen... even George Orwell would be impressed, yet they accuse China of stealing their secrets...
Hahahahaaha... Balls like a race horse....
Hahahahaaha... Balls like a race horse....
George1- Posts : 18327
Points : 18824
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
F-35 tests demonstrate Interoperability, Close Air Support
Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) are conducting extensive testing toward the program's main milestone - declaring Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VFMA-121) at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma - the first Marine Corps F-35 unit 'operational ready' by the end of July 2015. Although only the USMC unit flying F-35B is due for this clearance, some of the testings are done on the Air Force's F-35A and Navy F-35Cs, since many of elements of the different variants, particularly the software versions - are identical. This procedure was recently highlighted by the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) in his annual report.
Share on email Share on printfriendly Share on pocket More Sharing Services39
Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) are conducting extensive testing toward the program’s main milestone – declaring Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121) at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma – the first Marine Corps F-35 unit ‘operational ready’ by the end of July 2015. Part of the tests are demonstrating how the ‘Lightning II’ can communicate with other aircraft, including coalition fighters, as well as with ground forces, using Link 16 and combat networks using legacy SINCGARS radios.
The effort is shared by elements training, testing and supporting the aircraft and its equipment, with the Marine Corps, Air Force and navy. Although only the USMC unit flying F-35B is due for this clearance, some of the testings are done on the Air Force’s F-35A and Navy F-35Cs, since many of elements of the different variants, particularly the software versions – are identical.
This procedure was recently highlighted by the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) in his annual report. “Rather than carrying out a full Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE), JPO is conducting ‘limited assessments’ of Block 2B capability, using F-35A operational test aircraft at Edwards AFB, California. Adhering to OUE testing with F-35B with Block 2B capability would have delayed the start of the evaluation into late 2016. This in turn threatened to delay the development of Block 3F software.
Developmental testing of the Block 2B software is expected to be complete in february 2015, earlier than the DOT&E predicted in its 2013 report (May to November 2015). Moreover, the consolidation of test points from earlier blocks into 2B testing has accelerated the process, eliminating 840 test points, equivalent to four months of testing.
The review highlight concern about the ability of the aircraft to identify hostile radars, creating ‘significant operational risk to fielded unit’ the report stated that the necessary software updates will not be available until November 2015. Other concerns are with the aircraft unique ‘Distributed Aperture System’ (DAS), providing the pilot a panoramic view of the aircraft surroundings and automatic threat warning and identification. The report said DAS still “exhibit high false-alarm rates and false target tracks, and poor stability performance, even in later versions of software.”
Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) are conducting extensive testing toward the program's main milestone - declaring Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VFMA-121) at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma - the first Marine Corps F-35 unit 'operational ready' by the end of July 2015. Although only the USMC unit flying F-35B is due for this clearance, some of the testings are done on the Air Force's F-35A and Navy F-35Cs, since many of elements of the different variants, particularly the software versions - are identical. This procedure was recently highlighted by the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) in his annual report.
Share on email Share on printfriendly Share on pocket More Sharing Services39
Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) are conducting extensive testing toward the program’s main milestone – declaring Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121) at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma – the first Marine Corps F-35 unit ‘operational ready’ by the end of July 2015. Part of the tests are demonstrating how the ‘Lightning II’ can communicate with other aircraft, including coalition fighters, as well as with ground forces, using Link 16 and combat networks using legacy SINCGARS radios.
The effort is shared by elements training, testing and supporting the aircraft and its equipment, with the Marine Corps, Air Force and navy. Although only the USMC unit flying F-35B is due for this clearance, some of the testings are done on the Air Force’s F-35A and Navy F-35Cs, since many of elements of the different variants, particularly the software versions – are identical.
This procedure was recently highlighted by the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) in his annual report. “Rather than carrying out a full Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE), JPO is conducting ‘limited assessments’ of Block 2B capability, using F-35A operational test aircraft at Edwards AFB, California. Adhering to OUE testing with F-35B with Block 2B capability would have delayed the start of the evaluation into late 2016. This in turn threatened to delay the development of Block 3F software.
Developmental testing of the Block 2B software is expected to be complete in february 2015, earlier than the DOT&E predicted in its 2013 report (May to November 2015). Moreover, the consolidation of test points from earlier blocks into 2B testing has accelerated the process, eliminating 840 test points, equivalent to four months of testing.
The review highlight concern about the ability of the aircraft to identify hostile radars, creating ‘significant operational risk to fielded unit’ the report stated that the necessary software updates will not be available until November 2015. Other concerns are with the aircraft unique ‘Distributed Aperture System’ (DAS), providing the pilot a panoramic view of the aircraft surroundings and automatic threat warning and identification. The report said DAS still “exhibit high false-alarm rates and false target tracks, and poor stability performance, even in later versions of software.”
George1- Posts : 18327
Points : 18824
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Pentagon Claims F-35 Extreme Weather Testing Proving Aircraft’s Capability
Pentagon claims that the advanced next generation F-35 fighter jet plane has nearly completed climatic testing that subjects the aircraft to extreme temperatures and weather conditions.
WASHINGTON, January 31 (Sputnik) — The advanced next generation F-35 fighter jet has nearly completed climatic testing that subjects the aircraft to extreme temperatures and weather conditions, Pentagon’s F-35 Lighting II program announced Friday.
“An F-35 Lightning II has endured extreme weather temperatures to certify the fleet to deploy to any corner of the world,” the program said in a statement.
Testing carried out on the F-35B version of the fighter plane, which has short take off and vertical landing capability, is assessing the plane’s performance in extreme temperatures and weather conditions, including freezing rain, snow, wind and humidity, the statement said.
The six month testing program is in its fourth month at an indoor climatic laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base in the US state of Florida.
Billie Flynn, an F-35 test pilot, said in the statement the fighter plane is meeting expectations.
"It has flown in more than 100 degree heat while also flying in bitter subzero temperatures. In its final days of testing, it will fly through ice and other conditions such as driving rain with hurricane force winds. We are learning more and more about the aircraft every day," Flynn said.
The F-35 is a single-seat, single-engine strike fighter with stealth technology. The nearly $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program is largely funded by the United States. The United States plans to buy 2,443 F-35s while the 10 allied countries will purchase 721 fighters, according to the plane’s producer Lockheed Martin.
The F-35’s development has been beset by delays, cost overruns and technical problems. Critics of the program argue the program is unnecessary and a waste of money.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150131/1017577839.html#ixzz3QO34r2J0
Pentagon claims that the advanced next generation F-35 fighter jet plane has nearly completed climatic testing that subjects the aircraft to extreme temperatures and weather conditions.
WASHINGTON, January 31 (Sputnik) — The advanced next generation F-35 fighter jet has nearly completed climatic testing that subjects the aircraft to extreme temperatures and weather conditions, Pentagon’s F-35 Lighting II program announced Friday.
“An F-35 Lightning II has endured extreme weather temperatures to certify the fleet to deploy to any corner of the world,” the program said in a statement.
Testing carried out on the F-35B version of the fighter plane, which has short take off and vertical landing capability, is assessing the plane’s performance in extreme temperatures and weather conditions, including freezing rain, snow, wind and humidity, the statement said.
The six month testing program is in its fourth month at an indoor climatic laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base in the US state of Florida.
Billie Flynn, an F-35 test pilot, said in the statement the fighter plane is meeting expectations.
"It has flown in more than 100 degree heat while also flying in bitter subzero temperatures. In its final days of testing, it will fly through ice and other conditions such as driving rain with hurricane force winds. We are learning more and more about the aircraft every day," Flynn said.
The F-35 is a single-seat, single-engine strike fighter with stealth technology. The nearly $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program is largely funded by the United States. The United States plans to buy 2,443 F-35s while the 10 allied countries will purchase 721 fighters, according to the plane’s producer Lockheed Martin.
The F-35’s development has been beset by delays, cost overruns and technical problems. Critics of the program argue the program is unnecessary and a waste of money.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150131/1017577839.html#ixzz3QO34r2J0
George1- Posts : 18327
Points : 18824
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Proposed US Defense Budget Includes $10.6Bln for F-35 Joint Strike Fighters
higurashihougi- Posts : 3123
Points : 3210
Join date : 2014-08-13
Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/04/cno-greenert-navys-next-fighter-might-not-need-stealth-high-speed
CNO Greenert: Navy’s Next Fighter Might Not Need Stealth, High Speed
CNO Greenert: Navy’s Next Fighter Might Not Need Stealth, High Speed
ahmedfire- Posts : 2134
Points : 2314
Join date : 2010-11-11
Location : The Land Of Pharaohs
2014 report
The F-35 O&S Cost Cover-up
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; published Feb. 04, 2014)
By guest contributor Don Bacon
The F-35 selected acquisition report (SAR) reported last Spring that there had been no progress in reducing its staggering $1 trillion, 50-year life-cycle cost. Then in June 2013 it was reported that "the company and the U.S. military are taking aim at a more vexing problem: the cost of flying and maintaining the new warplane." Not only was the total cost stratospheric but the cost per flying hour was much higher than the legacy fleet at $31,922.
What could be done to cut high operations and sustainment (O&S) costs? International customers were being scared away by high production costs, and particularly by high operating cost.
The F-35 program office had the answer. Simply announce that the costs are lower! Why not? The result:
Pentagon Cuts F-35 Operating Estimate Below $1 Trillion
WASHINGTON (Reuters), Aug 21, 2013 - "The U.S. government has slashed its estimate for the long-term operating costs of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets by more than 20 percent to under $1 trillion, according to a senior defense official, a move that could boost international support for the program."
That arbitrary announcement out of the F-35 program office that operating cost had dropped from $1.1 trillion to $857 million didn't fly very high. (See related story—Ed). On September 6 the Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall announced that there would be a review of F-35 operating costs. Kendall indicated that the program office's estimate might have been overly optimistic.
In fact the GAO has reported that F-35 operating and support costs (O&S) are currently projected to be 60 percent higher than those of the existing aircraft it will replace.
“We’re … looking at that number,” Kendall said. “The official number is still the one we put up in the SAR [selected acquisition report]. We’re going to do a review of F-35 this fall. We’ll get another estimate out of CAPE [Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation] for that and we’ll probably make some adjustments.
On October 6, 2013 Kyra Hawn, spokeswoman for the Pentagon’s F-35 program office, said a high-level Defense Acquisition Board meeting was expected to proceed on Monday despite the partial government shutdown. The meeting has already been postponed several times.
Well that CAPE meeting came and went, with no news on F-35 operating cost. The cost data must have been bad and so it had to be covered up, just like other cost data (production cost, etc.) on the F-35. We did get some PR fluff out of the meeting, though. “While risks remain, progress on the F-35 program at this point has been adequate to support a decision to budget for increased rates,” Frank Kendall, under-secretary for acquisition, said in a decision memo.
If it was good cost news supporting an increase in production rates, then why didn't Kendall release the data? Apparently the opposite was true, the data was bad. And now we have the data, in the FY2013 F-35 test report, and it isn't pretty.
FY13 DOT&E Report
-- Mean Flight Hours Between Critical Failure (MFHBCF)
variant--threshold/observed
F-35A--20/4.5
F-35B--12/3.0
F-35C--14/2.7
-- Mean Corrective Maintenance Time for Critical Failure (MCMTCF)
variant--threshold/observed/FY12 Report
F-35A--4.0/12.1/9.3
F-35B--4.5/15.5/8.0
F-35C--4.0/9.6/6.6
So you fly the F-35A for 4.5 hours, get a critical failure, and then it takes 12.1 hours to fix it, or nearly three hours longer than it took last year. (That's hours, not manhours; Eglin AFB has seventeen mechanics per F-35.)
Similarly with the F-35B -- fly it for 3 hours, critical failure, then corrective maintenance takes 15.5 hours (7.5 hours more than last year).
The F-35C will fly for only 2.7 hours before 9.6 hours for corrective maintenance time. (Only one engine, too, out over the deep blue water.)
If anybody thinks the acquisition cost is high, and it is, it will be totally eclipsed by the operating cost. An independent audit by KPMG has estimated the cost of buying and operating the F-35 warplanes at $600-million per jet, two-thirds of that operating cost.
Captain Overstreet of the F-35 program office warned in November that while development costs are high for the F-35, they will be “dwarfed” by the sustainability costs. Back in May 2011 Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition Ashton Carter described current projected costs for the F-35 as “unacceptable.”
All of this reality runs against what the early F-35 promises were.
-- From the 1997 doc -- "The Affordable Solution - JSF":
Tactical Aircraft Affordability Objective 1997: R&D 6%, Production 54%, total dev & prod 60%, O&S 40%.
-- The actual 2014 test data is way different:
dev & prod -- $397B = 26%, O&S -- $1,100B = 74%, total -- $1,497
So the F-35 has gone from an initial-operating cost ratio of 60-40 to 26-74, and that's with much higher production costs. Nobody can afford that, especially foreign customers -- which is why it's been covered up.
link
The F-35 O&S Cost Cover-up
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; published Feb. 04, 2014)
By guest contributor Don Bacon
The F-35 selected acquisition report (SAR) reported last Spring that there had been no progress in reducing its staggering $1 trillion, 50-year life-cycle cost. Then in June 2013 it was reported that "the company and the U.S. military are taking aim at a more vexing problem: the cost of flying and maintaining the new warplane." Not only was the total cost stratospheric but the cost per flying hour was much higher than the legacy fleet at $31,922.
What could be done to cut high operations and sustainment (O&S) costs? International customers were being scared away by high production costs, and particularly by high operating cost.
The F-35 program office had the answer. Simply announce that the costs are lower! Why not? The result:
Pentagon Cuts F-35 Operating Estimate Below $1 Trillion
WASHINGTON (Reuters), Aug 21, 2013 - "The U.S. government has slashed its estimate for the long-term operating costs of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets by more than 20 percent to under $1 trillion, according to a senior defense official, a move that could boost international support for the program."
That arbitrary announcement out of the F-35 program office that operating cost had dropped from $1.1 trillion to $857 million didn't fly very high. (See related story—Ed). On September 6 the Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall announced that there would be a review of F-35 operating costs. Kendall indicated that the program office's estimate might have been overly optimistic.
In fact the GAO has reported that F-35 operating and support costs (O&S) are currently projected to be 60 percent higher than those of the existing aircraft it will replace.
“We’re … looking at that number,” Kendall said. “The official number is still the one we put up in the SAR [selected acquisition report]. We’re going to do a review of F-35 this fall. We’ll get another estimate out of CAPE [Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation] for that and we’ll probably make some adjustments.
On October 6, 2013 Kyra Hawn, spokeswoman for the Pentagon’s F-35 program office, said a high-level Defense Acquisition Board meeting was expected to proceed on Monday despite the partial government shutdown. The meeting has already been postponed several times.
Well that CAPE meeting came and went, with no news on F-35 operating cost. The cost data must have been bad and so it had to be covered up, just like other cost data (production cost, etc.) on the F-35. We did get some PR fluff out of the meeting, though. “While risks remain, progress on the F-35 program at this point has been adequate to support a decision to budget for increased rates,” Frank Kendall, under-secretary for acquisition, said in a decision memo.
If it was good cost news supporting an increase in production rates, then why didn't Kendall release the data? Apparently the opposite was true, the data was bad. And now we have the data, in the FY2013 F-35 test report, and it isn't pretty.
FY13 DOT&E Report
-- Mean Flight Hours Between Critical Failure (MFHBCF)
variant--threshold/observed
F-35A--20/4.5
F-35B--12/3.0
F-35C--14/2.7
-- Mean Corrective Maintenance Time for Critical Failure (MCMTCF)
variant--threshold/observed/FY12 Report
F-35A--4.0/12.1/9.3
F-35B--4.5/15.5/8.0
F-35C--4.0/9.6/6.6
So you fly the F-35A for 4.5 hours, get a critical failure, and then it takes 12.1 hours to fix it, or nearly three hours longer than it took last year. (That's hours, not manhours; Eglin AFB has seventeen mechanics per F-35.)
Similarly with the F-35B -- fly it for 3 hours, critical failure, then corrective maintenance takes 15.5 hours (7.5 hours more than last year).
The F-35C will fly for only 2.7 hours before 9.6 hours for corrective maintenance time. (Only one engine, too, out over the deep blue water.)
If anybody thinks the acquisition cost is high, and it is, it will be totally eclipsed by the operating cost. An independent audit by KPMG has estimated the cost of buying and operating the F-35 warplanes at $600-million per jet, two-thirds of that operating cost.
Captain Overstreet of the F-35 program office warned in November that while development costs are high for the F-35, they will be “dwarfed” by the sustainability costs. Back in May 2011 Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition Ashton Carter described current projected costs for the F-35 as “unacceptable.”
All of this reality runs against what the early F-35 promises were.
-- From the 1997 doc -- "The Affordable Solution - JSF":
Tactical Aircraft Affordability Objective 1997: R&D 6%, Production 54%, total dev & prod 60%, O&S 40%.
-- The actual 2014 test data is way different:
dev & prod -- $397B = 26%, O&S -- $1,100B = 74%, total -- $1,497
So the F-35 has gone from an initial-operating cost ratio of 60-40 to 26-74, and that's with much higher production costs. Nobody can afford that, especially foreign customers -- which is why it's been covered up.
link
Kyo- Posts : 494
Points : 541
Join date : 2014-11-03
Age : 75
Location : Brasilia
New Setback: F-35s Won’t Be Able to Conduct Close-Air-Support Until 2020
The Department of Defense’s much maligned F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ran into yet another setback Tuesday when it was announced that the aircraft will not reach full close-air-support potential until 2022.
Unlike previous precision-guided air-dropped weapons, the Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) has the ability to track and hit moving targets from up to 40 miles. It will enter service in 2017.
The F-35 however, will not have the software package required to operate the bomb until 2022.
The proposed $585 billion Defense Department budget includes $10.6 billion in funding for the procurement of 57 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft
The delay will reduce the F-35’s ability to provide close-air support to ground troops, and raises questions about the aircraft’s ability to adequately replace the A-10 Warthog if Congress allows the Air Force to retire it.
Air Force leaders want to retire the A-10 by February 2019 so it can transfer the resources supporting the aircraft to the development of the F-35, which will be one of many aircraft that will backfill the A-10.
The SDB II will not even fit onto the F-35B – the Marine Corps variant – without modifications to the aircraft’s weapons bay. But the Pentagon is in no rush to make those changes, because the weapon still will not work until the correct software package is installed.
“When we get to the (software upgrade) of the F-35s those are going to be great CAS (close air support) platforms – when we get there. So we’ve got to continue to move down that with respect to the systems,” Air Force Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, Commander of Air Combat Command, told reporters on March 6.
The SDB II uses a guidance system known as a “tri-mode” seeker, which can direct the weapon using millimeter wave radar, uncooled imaging infrared guidance and semi-active laser technology.
“Really, in the close-in CAS fight, and the most challenging being danger close where you have adversaries and friendlies in very close proximity – we have to be able to support the ground component at that point. We need the ability to deliver weapons rapidly. We need the high magazine, we need precision and we need to be able to control the yield,” Carlisle said.
Part of the Joint Strike Fighter program’s developmental strategy includes a series of incremental software drops, each of which adds new capability. The drop that will make the F-35 capable of operating the SBD II is not scheduled to take place until 2022.
The Marine Corps’ F-35B is slated to reach operational status following a software drop later this year. The Air Force plans to reach operational status with its F-35A in 2016 using the next software update.
higurashihougi- Posts : 3123
Points : 3210
Join date : 2014-08-13
Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/threat-data-biggest-worry-for-f-35as-ioc-but-it-will-be-on-time/
PENTAGON: The F-35‘s highly sensitive sensors suffer a basic problem right now: They often aren’t sure what they are detecting. That results in a high rate of false alarms. The key to fixing this lies in building highly complex data files — what we can colloquially call the threat library — and integrating them with the Joint Strike Fighter‘s software.
ahmedfire- Posts : 2134
Points : 2314
Join date : 2010-11-11
Location : The Land Of Pharaohs
Every hour, taxpayers in United States are paying
$861,289 for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in 2014 .
And count :
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/f-35/
$861,289 for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in 2014 .
And count :
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/f-35/
nemrod- Posts : 839
Points : 1333
Join date : 2012-09-11
Age : 59
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/15/How-Build-400-Billion-F-35-Doesn-t-Fly
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/31/How-DOD-s-15-Trillion-F-35-Broke-Air-Force
Finally, why, and who should complain ? This shit has destroyed 1.5 trillion to US military budget, moreover, JSF is eroding the tool of US Air Force.
Quotes :
How to Build a $400 Billion F-35 That Doesn’t Fly
How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force
During an interview on 60 Minutes, Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, who is in charge of the program, said, “Long gone is the time when we will continue to pay for mistake after mistake after mistake. Lockheed Martin doesn’t get paid their profit unless each and every airplane meets each station on time with the right quality.”
However, a new progress report from the Defense Department casts serious doubts on the progress of the program.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/31/How-DOD-s-15-Trillion-F-35-Broke-Air-Force
Finally, why, and who should complain ? This shit has destroyed 1.5 trillion to US military budget, moreover, JSF is eroding the tool of US Air Force.
Quotes :
How to Build a $400 Billion F-35 That Doesn’t Fly
How to Build a $400 Billion F-35 That Doesn’t Fly
Reuters
Printer-friendly versionPDF version
a a
Type Size: Small
By Brianna Ehley,
The Fiscal Times
March 15, 2015
The Pentagon’s embattled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter continues to be plagued with so many problems that it can’t even pass the most basic requirements needed to fly in combat, despite soaring roughly $170 billion over budget.
As the most expensive weapons program in the Pentagon’s history, the $400 billion and counting F-35 is supposed to be unlike any other fighter jet—with high-tech computer capabilities that can identify a combatant plane at warp speed. However, major design flaws and test failures have placed the program under serious scrutiny for years—with auditors constantly questioning whether the jet will ever actually get off the ground, no matter how much money is thrown at it.
Related: How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force
Last year, military officials faulted contractors for all of the mistakes. Contractors claimed they had corrected the issues and that there wouldn’t be more costly problems down the road.
During an interview on 60 Minutes, Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, who is in charge of the program, said, “Long gone is the time when we will continue to pay for mistake after mistake after mistake. Lockheed Martin doesn’t get paid their profit unless each and every airplane meets each station on time with the right quality.”
However, a new progress report from the Defense Department casts serious doubts on the progress of the program.
The DOD’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation cites everything from computer system malfunctions to flaws with its basic design—it even found that the jet is vulnerable to engine fires because of the way it’s built.
A separate report from Military.com unearthed another embarrassing issue with the jet that suggests it won’t take off on time.
Related: 5 Expensive Weapons Programs No One Wants
The “precision-guided Small Diameter Bomb II doesn’t even fit on the Marine’s version of the jet," according to Military.com. On top of that, the software needed to operate the top close-air support bomb won’t even be operational until 2022, inspectors said.
The Defense Department’s report also suggested that the program’s office isn’t accurately recording the jet’s problems.
“Not all failures are counted in the calculation of mean flight hours between reliability events, but all flight hours are counted, and hence component and aircraft reliability are reported higher than if all of the failures were counted,” the report said.
The Project on Government Accountability summed up the report in an independent analysis, concluding that the program isn’t realistically going to meet its goal of being operational for the Marines by this summer.
“The F-35 is years away from being ready for initial operational capability. To send this airplane on a combat deployment, or to declare it ready to be sent, as early as the Marines’ 2015 or the Air Force’s 2016 IOC dates, is a politically driven and irresponsible mistake. DOT&E's report shows that the current plans for the F-35A and B should be rejected as unrealistic. Without meaningful oversight from the Department of Defense or Congress, however, these IOC declarations will go unchallenged,” POGO said on its website.
While more problems with the program are identified, the costs keep climbing.
Last year alone, the JSF was $4 billion over budget, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office. At the same time, the program was scaled back to include fewer jets. The GAO noted the Pentagon was spending more for less.
- See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/15/How-Build-400-Billion-F-35-Doesn-t-Fly#sthash.F4hCBKKp.dpuf
How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force
How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force
The F-35 program has failed in its purpose to save U.S. taxpayers money, and has received widespread criticism, according to Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). Many in the Navy point out that the existing fleet of F/A-18E/Fs can perform the F-35’s ai
Getty Images
Printer-friendly versionPDF version
a a
Type Size: Small
By David Francis,
The Fiscal Times
July 31, 2014
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive, and possible the most error ridden, project in the history of the United States military. But DOD has sunk so much money into the F-35 - which is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over the 55-year life of the program - that the Pentagon deemed it “too big to fail” in 2010.
Now, the Air Force has taken steps to make sure that the unmitigated disaster that the F-35 has become does not happen again.
The Air Force, in its 20-year strategic forecast entitled “America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future,” has called for an end to big-ticket programs like the F-35. Instead, it plans to invest in what DOD officials have called more “agile” weapons that can be adapted for multiple uses.
Related: 5 Expensive Weapons Programs No One Wants
The report paints a future of the Air Force that resembles an innovative 21st Century company as opposed to a traditional fighting force. The document says that it’s now impossible for the United States to build a strategy advantage with large, expensive programs that take years – in the case of the F-35, 14 years and counting to complete.
Pentagon Approves Limited Flight For F-35 Ahead...
Daily Caller
“We believe rapid change is the new norm and has serious implications for the Air Force,” the document states. “The pace at which disruptive technologies may appear and proliferate will result in operational advantages that are increasingly short-lived. Dynamic and increasingly frequent shifts in the geopolitical power balance will have significant implications for basing, posture, and partner capabilities that may favor flexibility over footprint.”
The F-35 isn’t mentioned by name in the forecast, but the program’s greasy fingerprints are all over it. The Air Force is apparently concerned that it is pricing itself out of the weapons market because it is spending so much time and money on large programs.
“Agility is the counterweight to the uncertainty of the future and its associated rapid rate of change. We learned from sequestration that our brittle system often leads to suboptimal decisions that are difficult to reverse,” the document reads. “Huge, long-term programs limit our options; we are too often left with ‘all or nothing’ outcomes and ‘double or nothing’ budget decisions.”
“Large, complex programs with industrial-era development cycles measured in decades may become obsolete before they reach full-rate production,” the authors added. “The system is cumbersome, as the cost and complexity of these large programs draw additional layers of oversight and scrutiny.”
The strategy shift is also a recognition of the shrinking budget environment at DOD, which is expected to lose $600 billion over the next decade. According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the change is also a reflection of compensation for members of the Air Force rising dramatically over the last 16 years.
Related: World’s Most Lethal Drone Just Flew over Florida
More than anything, the shift in strategy is an indictment of the way that the Air Force and the rest of DOD have been doing business for years. The F-35 has come to symbolize all that’s wrong with American defense spending: uncontrolled bloat, unaccountable manufacturers (in this case, Lockheed Martin), and an internal Pentagon culture that cannot adequately track taxpayer dollars.
It’s no small irony that on the same day the change in Air Force strategy was revealed, Winslow Wheeler, a staff member at the Project On Government Oversight and a long-time critic of the F-35 program, reported that American taxpayers will pay between will pay between $148 million and $337 million per jet in 2015, depending on the model.
“A single Air Force F-35A costs a whopping $148 million. One Marine Corps F-35B costs an unbelievable $251 million. A lone Navy F-35C costs a mind-boggling $337 million. Average the three models together, and a ‘generic’ F-35 costs $178 million,” Wheeler wrote.
Related: Flawed $1.5 Trillion F-35 Misses Its Global Debut
“It gets worse. These are just the production costs. Additional expenses for research, development, test and evaluation are not included,” he added.
Of course, this price tag is up dramatically from 2014.
“The cost of an F-35B grew from $232 million in 2014 to a bulging $251 million by 2015,” Wheeler wrote. “The cost of the Navy’s F35C grew from $273 million in 2014 to a wallet-busting $337 million by 2015.”
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times
- See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/31/How-DOD-s-15-Trillion-F-35-Broke-Air-Force#sthash.o60BhRnk.dpuf
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
“We—the U.S. [Department of Defense]—haven’t been pursuing appropriate methods to counter EA [electronic attack] for years,” a senior Air Force official with extensive experience on the F-22 told The Daily Beast.
“So, while we are stealthy, we will have a hard time working our way through the EA to target [an enemy aircraft such as a Russian-built Sukhoi] Su-35s and our missiles will have a hard time killing them.”
“AMRAAM’s had some great upgrades over the years, but at the end of the day, it’s old technology and wasn’t really designed with today’s significant EA in mind,”
“While we are stealthy, we will have a hard time targeting Russian Su-35s and our missiles will have a hard time killing them.”
“Getting a first shot is one thing,” said a former Air Force fighter pilot with extensive experience with Russian weapons.
“Needing another shot when you have expended your load is another when your force structure is limited in terms of the number of platforms available for a given operation.”
“Look to a new generation of U.S. air-to-air missiles, like Cuda, to neutralize any potential numerical advantage,” one senior industry official said.
“I doubt you can solve range and the need for a large magazine with the same missile,” he said.
Russia Can Outshoot US' Stealth Jets (F-22 & F-35)
higurashihougi- Posts : 3123
Points : 3210
Join date : 2014-08-13
Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.
If Russian system can destroy F-117 then it can also defeat F-22/35.magnumcromagnon wrote:Russia Can Outshoot US' Stealth Jets (F-22 & F-35)
F-117 is a specialized bomber and it can sacrifice aerodynamics to maximize stealth. But F-22/35 cannot.
GarryB- Posts : 39071
Points : 39567
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The F-117 was designed at a time and indeed built at a time when computers and aircraft manufacturers were unable to produce curved surfaces that were stealthy.
Improved construction technology and faster computers and better computer models allow stealthy curved shapes with better aerodynamic shapes.
Improved construction technology and faster computers and better computer models allow stealthy curved shapes with better aerodynamic shapes.
George1- Posts : 18327
Points : 18824
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
F-35 II Joint Strike Fighter Program Develops Cyber-Attack Pod
The Lockheed Martin F-35 II Joint Strike Fighter Program is prototyping a pod-mounted cyber-attack system.
The F-35 II Joint Strike Fighter is one of the US Military’s most ambitious – and expensive – programs. Running the cost of an estimated $1.5 trillion, the program’s aircraft is expected to become the main warplane for the US and its allies for decades to come. The US Navy, Marines, and Air Force are all testing different versions of the aircraft, with the intent of replacing 10 models that are currently in use.
The new pod-mounted cyber-attack system is now expected to launch the stealth aircraft into the field of cyber warfare. Announcing the new development at the Precision Strike Association conference in Springfield, Virginia, the deputy program executive officer Rear Admiral Randy Mahr said “Industry is developing a pod that would not degrade the signature of the war plane.” This means that the system will probably be an external weapon that will not compromise the aircraft’s signature stealth.
As is the case with most new weapons systems, the development is cloaked with secrecy and there is no information on what exactly it will do or how it will work. Speaking to IHS Jane, Mahr said that the new offensive system is in a “prototyping phase”, and that it was not being designed by Lockheed Martin, F-35’s primary contractor, but decline to name the developer.
The F-35 II Joint Strike Fighter Program has faced some significant hurdles throughout its development, but construction on the aircraft has continued. During a live flight testing, Pentagon officials compiled a point-by-point report on the program’s setbacks. Among the problems identified, the report detailed deficiencies in the aircraft’s software system and the Automatic Logistics Information System (ALIS) which monitors all operations within the aircraft.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/news/20150323/1019901883.html#ixzz3VIDPnzoY
The Lockheed Martin F-35 II Joint Strike Fighter Program is prototyping a pod-mounted cyber-attack system.
The F-35 II Joint Strike Fighter is one of the US Military’s most ambitious – and expensive – programs. Running the cost of an estimated $1.5 trillion, the program’s aircraft is expected to become the main warplane for the US and its allies for decades to come. The US Navy, Marines, and Air Force are all testing different versions of the aircraft, with the intent of replacing 10 models that are currently in use.
The new pod-mounted cyber-attack system is now expected to launch the stealth aircraft into the field of cyber warfare. Announcing the new development at the Precision Strike Association conference in Springfield, Virginia, the deputy program executive officer Rear Admiral Randy Mahr said “Industry is developing a pod that would not degrade the signature of the war plane.” This means that the system will probably be an external weapon that will not compromise the aircraft’s signature stealth.
As is the case with most new weapons systems, the development is cloaked with secrecy and there is no information on what exactly it will do or how it will work. Speaking to IHS Jane, Mahr said that the new offensive system is in a “prototyping phase”, and that it was not being designed by Lockheed Martin, F-35’s primary contractor, but decline to name the developer.
The F-35 II Joint Strike Fighter Program has faced some significant hurdles throughout its development, but construction on the aircraft has continued. During a live flight testing, Pentagon officials compiled a point-by-point report on the program’s setbacks. Among the problems identified, the report detailed deficiencies in the aircraft’s software system and the Automatic Logistics Information System (ALIS) which monitors all operations within the aircraft.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/news/20150323/1019901883.html#ixzz3VIDPnzoY
Kyo- Posts : 494
Points : 541
Join date : 2014-11-03
Age : 75
Location : Brasilia
Pentagon extends F-35 software flaws testing
George1- Posts : 18327
Points : 18824
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Pentagon Promises Tough Review of its Struggling F-35
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/news/20150409/1020687196.html#ixzz3WsZIMynC
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/news/20150409/1020687196.html#ixzz3WsZIMynC
George1- Posts : 18327
Points : 18824
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
New F-35 Delays: This Time Maintenance System Plagued With Problems
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150416/1020945404.html#ixzz3XTGx8uis
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150416/1020945404.html#ixzz3XTGx8uis
Airbornewolf- Posts : 1502
Points : 1568
Join date : 2014-02-05
Location : https://odysee.com/@airbornewolf:8
i havent read the entire thread trough, but here are the protest and objections i hear from EU airforce pilots. primarily Dutch Pilots and techs involved with the F-35 testing.
1. F-35 is not "stealth" at all, just at an certain angle. but as an Airforce Tech said "there are various types of Radar's, just because it does not show up on one does not mean another one cant detect it". and stealth only works at a certain angle and like Serbia's F-117. you get detected and painted when you open your bomb-bays.
2. absurdly high-maintenance hours and requirements, because of the F-35 complexity and "stealth" features it requires massive ground-work. every scratch and dent needs to be removed to preserve its stealth features. its VTOL systems not being serviced in detail will cause malfunctions and even engine fires. Techs rather prefer the "ease of use" of the current F-16. "you refuel the thing, rack new ordnance on it and clear the pilot back on the runway".
3. airforce pilots absolutely hate the low payload the F-35 can take. two low-load "hardpoints" and two large internal ones. giving them two AMRAAM's at best. and F-16 pilot said if he had to take the F-35 in its current state to war against an modern opponent he either demanded an F-16 or quit on the spot. "an SU-35 has 12 hardpoints and equipped with modern ECM and manouvring. the F-35 4 hardpoints, the thing fly's like a brick and no operational ECM defenses. get me an F-16 or i wont throw my life away in that death trap".
4. extremely poor flight peformance. because of its VTOL characteristics and design it has rather stubby wings and an "bulky" fuselage. giving it low-lift and low maneuverability. some rumours already exist that the F-35 can be shot down by an old Mig-21. when i mentioned it to an airforce member he just shrugged. "Lockheed said, the F-35 is not intended to be an dogfighter". so make your own assumptions.
also, recently Lockheed Martin removed the seals of the fuel tanks that are build around the main engine to save weight because of modifications the F-35 got too heavy. so if an F-35 would get hit by an 20 MM or above it pretty much would turn into an flying blowtorch.
1. F-35 is not "stealth" at all, just at an certain angle. but as an Airforce Tech said "there are various types of Radar's, just because it does not show up on one does not mean another one cant detect it". and stealth only works at a certain angle and like Serbia's F-117. you get detected and painted when you open your bomb-bays.
2. absurdly high-maintenance hours and requirements, because of the F-35 complexity and "stealth" features it requires massive ground-work. every scratch and dent needs to be removed to preserve its stealth features. its VTOL systems not being serviced in detail will cause malfunctions and even engine fires. Techs rather prefer the "ease of use" of the current F-16. "you refuel the thing, rack new ordnance on it and clear the pilot back on the runway".
3. airforce pilots absolutely hate the low payload the F-35 can take. two low-load "hardpoints" and two large internal ones. giving them two AMRAAM's at best. and F-16 pilot said if he had to take the F-35 in its current state to war against an modern opponent he either demanded an F-16 or quit on the spot. "an SU-35 has 12 hardpoints and equipped with modern ECM and manouvring. the F-35 4 hardpoints, the thing fly's like a brick and no operational ECM defenses. get me an F-16 or i wont throw my life away in that death trap".
4. extremely poor flight peformance. because of its VTOL characteristics and design it has rather stubby wings and an "bulky" fuselage. giving it low-lift and low maneuverability. some rumours already exist that the F-35 can be shot down by an old Mig-21. when i mentioned it to an airforce member he just shrugged. "Lockheed said, the F-35 is not intended to be an dogfighter". so make your own assumptions.
also, recently Lockheed Martin removed the seals of the fuel tanks that are build around the main engine to save weight because of modifications the F-35 got too heavy. so if an F-35 would get hit by an 20 MM or above it pretty much would turn into an flying blowtorch.
higurashihougi- Posts : 3123
Points : 3210
Join date : 2014-08-13
Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.
Airbornewolf wrote:1. F-35 is not "stealth" at all, just at an certain angle. but as an Airforce Tech said "there are various types of Radar's, just because it does not show up on one does not mean another one cant detect it". and stealth only works at a certain angle and like Serbia's F-117. you get detected and painted when you open your bomb-bays.
Fighters like F-22/35, MiG 1.44 and Su T-50 cannot be completely "stealth" like F-117, B-2 or RQ-170. A fighter has to achieve a good level of maneuverability and retain a good aerodynamic shape. That means, the aircraft's shape cannot be maximized for stealth.
Furthermore, Russian-type radars have used low band long wavelength (L-band or even lower) to scan and track for a long time. Current stealth techs cannot cover the aircrafts against Russian L-band or VHF band or even lower.
Actually stealth aircrafts can do well against nose-mounted radars which have to be small (biggest one in MiG-25/31 is only 1,4 metre in diameter) and do not have enough resolution to use low band. But now the T-50 has a 10 metre L-band radar, thanks to AESA techs. And the ground radars can provide the information for fighters, too.
Werewolf- Posts : 5915
Points : 6104
Join date : 2012-10-24
higurashihougi wrote:Airbornewolf wrote:1. F-35 is not "stealth" at all, just at an certain angle. but as an Airforce Tech said "there are various types of Radar's, just because it does not show up on one does not mean another one cant detect it". and stealth only works at a certain angle and like Serbia's F-117. you get detected and painted when you open your bomb-bays.
Fighters like F-22/35, MiG 1.44 and Su T-50 cannot be completely "stealth" like F-117, B-2 or RQ-170. A fighter has to achieve a good level of maneuverability and retain a good aerodynamic shape. That means, the aircraft's shape cannot be maximized for stealth.
Furthermore, Russian-type radars have used low band long wavelength (L-band or even lower) to scan and track for a long time. Current stealth techs cannot cover the aircrafts against Russian L-band or VHF band or even lower.
Actually stealth aircrafts can do well against nose-mounted radars which have to be small (biggest one in MiG-25/31 is only 1,4 metre in diameter) and do not have enough resolution to use low band. But now the T-50 has a 10 metre L-band radar, thanks to AESA techs. And the ground radars can provide the information for fighters, too.
Nothing is ever completley stealth, the only thing that is completley stealth are things that do not exist and F-117 and RQ-170 have been already tracked by much older russian radars than russia has currently.
Zhukov-Patton- Posts : 13
Points : 24
Join date : 2015-03-30
Location : USA
Not sure how these engine problems could be ignored this long but I guess they where 
here is a link to an article that goes over a government commission that found the F-35s engine is to complex to run: http://news.yahoo.com/red-alert-billions-over-budget-191100667.html;_ylt=A0LEVzFgTkBVvDEAvhVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTExZzQ0YmY1BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDVUlDMV8xBHNlYwNzYw--
Enough to make a grown man cry
If your trying to defend America anyway. At least there will be a lot of them.
here is a link to an article that goes over a government commission that found the F-35s engine is to complex to run: http://news.yahoo.com/red-alert-billions-over-budget-191100667.html;_ylt=A0LEVzFgTkBVvDEAvhVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTExZzQ0YmY1BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDVUlDMV8xBHNlYwNzYw--
Enough to make a grown man cry
If your trying to defend America anyway. At least there will be a lot of them.
Zhukov-Patton- Posts : 13
Points : 24
Join date : 2015-03-30
Location : USA
Okay so I have heard that the F-35 is to have super data link thingy to make it so it can call a local destroyer or something with SAMs to a location and guide the shot kind of like a arty spotter. So questions one is this tech that wonderful? Two can a hacker possibly get into the F-35s system and use the data link against itself? I mean the F-35 is almost like a flying super computer from what I have read from pilots he flew the thing. and Three is this a good idea of just crazy?
Airbornewolf- Posts : 1502
Points : 1568
Join date : 2014-02-05
Location : https://odysee.com/@airbornewolf:8
Zhukov-Patton wrote:Okay so I have heard that the F-35 is to have super data link thingy to make it so it can call a local destroyer or something with SAMs to a location and guide the shot kind of like a arty spotter. So questions one is this tech that wonderful? Two can a hacker possibly get into the F-35s system and use the data link against itself? I mean the F-35 is almost like a flying super computer from what I have read from pilots he flew the thing. and Three is this a good idea of just crazy?
no, it opens up Pandora's box. but it has already happened within NATO. below in the quote was my reply on the vulnerability of NATO BMS (Battlefield Management Systems) in another thread.
as you are might be aware NATO has not faced an equal threat since the 90's and millitary encryption and software security has never developed beyond that either. most army computers run on windows 95 go figure. the only thing that made leaps forward where indeed these high tech systems that shared millitary data trough multiple units. unit locations, targets, and yes also being able to transmit target data to another combatant's firing computer for remote targeting.
Airbornewolf wrote:Mike E wrote:I thought that the "hacking incident" was just made up...
well, i did not want to jump to conclusions either at the time.
but i asked some airforce guys i knew from Afghanistan's KAF.
appearantly according to them all those TU-95 excursions into europe and last time the U.S coastline is to precisely test such Electronic Warfare equipment out by "passive testing". their electronics "suck-up" NATO millitary electronic signals and by way of DFRM (digital radio frequency Memory) its stored for later use. Dutch F-16 technicians have concerns that with all the TU-95's the F-16's "intercepted" that the Russians can now "chew" trough any encryption they use because the encryption just changes codes...but never the encryption tech itself. and its not just the F-16's. they fly over naval bases, radar stations, airfields...etc.
and what happened in the story of the Cooke trying to lock-on on the SU-24's is an textbook DFRM attack. the ships fire control radar attempts to lock on the SU. but receives and friendly signal from the Electronic warfare module. the crew reported the fire control refused to lock on, and when it got closer the CIWS just ignored the order to lock-on.
and it pretty much escalated from there, the Cooke lost all control over its systems from there. fire control, radar, sonar, EAGIS, BMS. the crew said they just had basic navigation control of the ship itself as one after another just "went dark".
i wondered myself a lot about how DFRM could eat its way trough an entire ship, but before i excited service we had our own "modernisation" program called BMS. that stands for Battlefield Management system. it allows individual units to see the battlefield on an Command and Conquer-style view in real time. where enemy units are , friendly units. etc etc.
but, and here is the snake in this high tech gadget. the BMS system shares data to any sensor/fire computer on board that allows targeting an target outside the firing's unit detection. for example, this Eagis cruiser might not see enemy missiles on its radar. but trough another radar-station like an AWACS it can use its radar data to target its weapons nonetheless and do not get an "invalid target" feedback from its firing computer. it just accepts the incomming remote data as if it was its own to target its weapons. awesome in theory, but clearly as the Russians showed its an deadly mistake in weapon design. its like giving an program on your own computer Admin rights to share data computer-wide from the outside. couple that with DFRM and you are asking for the apocalypse.
in my opinion, its just arrogance of NATO to never even consider someone can use such networked systems against you.
Basically, the Russians "chewed" their way trough the Cruiser its network and all it takes is sending something like an virus to one of its linked computers to eat its way trough its electronic heart.
|
|
|