Jets & Planes but no UAV's here. - Page 38

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**371** November 30th, 2016, 01:53 AM

Your good. They updated the one from the 28th with one from the 29th. When they do that, and the article is locked out (Red Padlock.) it drops the previous one into the text so that only paid subscribers can access the full document. They're good but not JANE's good to where I'd pay for it. It's still a good source but for major programs it's getting harder and forces me to look elsewhere for "hot" issues when all I can access is the update where Israel is upping their buy to 50 F-35 fighters.

What I posted was the update concerning a sub contractor having manufacturing issues in the cooling parts related to a key electrical suite which caused the grounding of many F-35A fighters this past summer. Also another milestone has been reached and it looks like the USAF will probably get more F-35A fighters.

So again "red padlock" you'll only be able to read the update. Eventually they will unlock the story and when that happens it's "pad of paper & pen time" and take notes on any new data I didn't already have.

Here's a supplement for the F-35...
http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...ntract-5681234

And while I'm at it I've been watching this one for many years as well, the real big deal here is the AESA radar.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...grades-5677199

So because China been "misbehaving" the above country will get those F-16 fighters brought up to the F-16V platform which is the most advanced version of the F-16. China blew it here (Though N. Korea doesn't get off lightly either.) Because our Congress for years has blocked any significant improvements to these F-16's so as not to upset China.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...-role-fighter/
http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/fe...the-F-16V.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-first-flight/

Regards,
Pat

IronDuke99 · #**372** December 3rd, 2016, 01:57 AM

With reference to STOVL F-35B. I think we can consider it fairly safe not to be cancelled now, given the new US Secretary of Defense is a Marine and the USMC really want that aircraft, alongside the RN Fleet Air Arm.

Wonder what Suhiir thinks of him?

Suhiir · #**373** December 3rd, 2016, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Wonder what Suhiir thinks of him?

Don't know anything about him other then what I read.

I was with 2nd MarDiv during Gulf I, Mattis commanded 1st MarDiv, so all I know is when the reserve units were activated it was decided to transfer most of the active duty MP's to 1st MarDiv and 2nd MarDiv got the activated reserve MP's. A few of us in specialized roles were retained in 2nd MarDiv; the CID folks (the US Navy/USMC equivalent of a police detective) , myself as a counter-terrorist specialist with an extensive background in NBC, and a couple others I don't recall.
As it turned out the reserve MP's had better training/background in convoy escort and POW handling then the active duty folks. Not too surprising as the active duty folks spend very little time training and concentrate almost entirely on law enforcement.

I do believe this is the first time the Secretary of defense has ever been a former Marine tho.

IronDuke99 · #**374** December 3rd, 2016, 06:00 AM

Hopefully it will be a case of 'Semper Fi'. Saw him answering questions from assorted US Marines on a USMC YouTube channel (easy enough to find) and from that he came across as professional, straight talking, yet thoughtful, 'Gung ho' but with a good brain if you like. I rather liked him. Reminded me a bit of my Grandfather who was also a professional soldier (inter war on North West Frontier of India and then WWII) although my granddad only reached the giddy heights of CSM, although senior NCO's are the actual backbone of any military force.

Have to say I wish Great Britain could have a Minister of Defence like this man, someone who knew the military from the inside.

Suhiir · #**375** December 3rd, 2016, 08:55 AM

I know it may sound a bit strange but the whole time I was in I never met anyone Colonel or above, or a Sgt Major that I ever had any issues with, and very few light Colonels or 1st Sgts (like 1 or 2 each) that struck me as "unworthy". So being a former General and a division commander (vice a purely staff type) I'll assume he's competent until I see otherwise.

While the senor NCO's definitely keep things operating on a day-to-day basis it's the long-term planning and equipment acquisition senior officers do that fosters a military force effectiveness and reputation in the long run.

DRG · #**376** December 3rd, 2016, 02:47 PM

Mattis is described in this article as being a" Marine's Marine"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gen-jame...orable-quotes/

I like him. He sounds like me.......

I may add a quote or two to the game

Don

Suhiir · #**377** December 4th, 2016, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRG

Mattis is described in this article as being a" Marine's Marine"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gen-jame...orable-quotes/

I like him. He sounds like me.......

I may add a quote or two to the game

Don

Yeah, made it a point to read up on him a bit ... looks pretty good, take a look at this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKIJKQRb53o

He definitely seems to know the Mid East and it's issues.

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**378** December 5th, 2016, 12:20 AM

To say I've not been a fan of the F-35 would at times, be an understatement. I've been watching and posting on the project from the start and I feel good or bad I've been fair in the posting the "news" concerning this project. That being said I'm not very happy about some of the conclusions the following have come to especially, as what it means potentially to the air crew flying them. The sources are legitimate and surprising as to where it comes from and by whom. They patch together the many various data points I've already posted and revealed some "tidbits" that to some degree I'm somewhat surprised by. I've taken from Ref. 1, the highlighted "memo" by Dr. Michael Gilmore, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) Ref. 2 and Senator John McCain's memo to the SECDEF Mr. Ashton Carter Ref. 3. All other highlighted words or phases are a click away for further reading. I would say given this recent information, the A-10 might just be sticking around a little longer beyond games end.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-jeopardy.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...gress-and.html
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/...D-5D157784085F

I need to do a better job of following my resources I guess.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir · #**379** December 5th, 2016, 09:21 AM

I'll be very curious to see what happens when Trump and (probably) Mattis get in place. Obviously it will (should) take a bit of time for them to find out what's going on and formulate a strategy. I'm hoping defense contractors actually start being held accountable rather then just getting more money tossed at them as has been happening more and more often in recent years.

Of course there's also the problem of the DOD having reasonable expectations when it comes to new weapons systems ... sometimes I start to wonder in growing up watching Star Trek/Wars has led to unreasonable expectations.

IronDuke99 · #**380** December 5th, 2016, 10:41 AM

Looking at this from a British point of view (and UK has actually put a lot of money into F-35)

I see an aircraft that is vital to the new Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers, because those carriers, although second in size only to USN Carriers, do not have cats and traps.

I see an aircraft that is not dedicated to the RN Fleet Air Arm, as it should be, but instead will be under at least partly RAF control (and the RAF see F-35B as a Tornado replacement for some reason).

Cannot help thinking that my views back in the early 2000's (make both the new British Carriers cats and traps and buy Super Hornet but with the option to also buy Rafale, and, maybe, later down the track F-35C) would have been better than the position now.

UK making 70,000 ton Carriers STOVL only ever really made (some) sense if their had been a smooth transfer from Harrier to F-35, as was the original plan back in the 90's. FAA Sea Harrier has been gone for years now and so have all Harriers from British service, due to an RAF (who had been given control of the British 'joint' Harrier force) choice to scrap them.

So why build very large carriers and make them carry STOVL F-35B a aircraft that has less range, less internal weapons capacity (and you only keep the limited F-35 stealth capacity with internal weapons) and less agility than F-35C, will cost more per unit to buy and will inevitably require more maintenance (because it has an extra dirty great heavy 'lift' fan, that is entirely useless to the aircraft except in landing, or taking off vertically, which has no real use in actual ops).

HMS Queen Elizabeth (named after Elizabeth I of defeat of the Spanish Armada fame) Does sea trails next year, but is unlikely to have a single fixed wing jet aboard before 2020 and will not have even a very modest 24 F-35B air group much before 2023 (the plan is, in a major conflict this would rise to at least 36 fixed wing aircraft). Assuming that is the RAF cooperates...

The whole thing strikes me as a hugely expensive mess, that passed by while most attention was on fighting expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that we did not bloody win in any case.