F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
JTO - Maybe the Navy will pay to fix the datalink....
Navy F-35C Prepares for Ship Trials, Faces Headwinds - Blog
Navy guy, translated: "This is an expensive and complicated niche capability that may be useful when it gets a long-range, wideband LPI/LPD datalink". (Let us not forget that those three attributes tend to be mutually exclusive in a datalink, so this qualification has a small degree of "and if my Auntie had a
she'd be my Uncle" about it.)
And it's nice for the LockMart guy to say that we need a new MRAAM after they have effectively propagandized against it for a decade or more, by claiming that the Armadillo will achieve air dominance with AMRAAM.
Navy F-35C Prepares for Ship Trials, Faces Headwinds - Blog
Navy guy, translated: "This is an expensive and complicated niche capability that may be useful when it gets a long-range, wideband LPI/LPD datalink". (Let us not forget that those three attributes tend to be mutually exclusive in a datalink, so this qualification has a small degree of "and if my Auntie had a
she'd be my Uncle" about it.)And it's nice for the LockMart guy to say that we need a new MRAAM after they have effectively propagandized against it for a decade or more, by claiming that the Armadillo will achieve air dominance with AMRAAM.
Last edited by LowObservable; 18th Feb 2014 at 13:46.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the F-35C to become a node in the NIFC-CA scheme, they have 4 choices: Link16, a multiplexed/stacked Link16 variant, Satcom, or a new LPI/HiBandwith technology. Only one comes with the jet off the shelf, and it is not stealthy - Link16. Satcom comes with Block 4. The other 2 have yet to be developed, and are not in the F-35 program roadmap. Ironically, the Super Hornets / Growlers will be have this capability with the first NIFC-CA equipped CVG in 2015 (scheduled for the Pacific.) It looks like the Navy will have to develop the new link waveform, since the USAF is not participating in NIFC-CA (although the Army is.) And of course, the USAF is complaining.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read this thread, yet, as I thought it was all a bit of hype. But perhaps not, it looks like the writing is on the wall. I know it's the Mail but I imagine it will have wider publication in due course.
'American dominance in the seas, sky and space can no longer be taken for granted,' admits Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel as he slashes Army to smallest size in 74 YEARS | Mail Online
'American dominance in the seas, sky and space can no longer be taken for granted,' admits Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel as he slashes Army to smallest size in 74 YEARS | Mail Online
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they still spend more on their armed forces than the next 12 countries added together
BBC News - Pentagon's Chuck Hagel plans to downsize US military
Pentagon's Chuck Hagel plans to downsize US military
Hagel: "American dominance... can no longer be taken for granted"
Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has unveiled plans to shrink the US Army to its smallest size since before the US entered World War Two.
Outlining his budget plan, the Pentagon chief proposed trimming the active-duty Army to 440,000-450,000 personnel, down from 520,000 currently.
Cold War-era Air Force fleets - the U-2 spy plane and the A-10 attack jet - will also be retired.
The US defence budget remains higher than during most of the Cold War.
'Difficult decisions ahead'
Military spending doubled after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks but has slowly started to decline in response to the country's budget crisis, and
Mr Hagel said the country no longer felt inclined to engage in the kind of long and costly operations it had mounted in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is not only fiscal pragmatism that has caused the US to curtail its military ambitions of course. After more than a decade of war the American people have clearly grown tired of conflict - and the impact it can make on the families of those on the front line.
On Monday, Mr Hagel noted the US military had come under pressure to downsize after two costly foreign wars.
"This is a time for reality," he said.
"This is a budget that recognises the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges."
The number of active-duty US Army members was already expected to be pared down to 490,000, as the US prepares to end its combat role in Afghanistan later this year.
Mr Hagel added: "Since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged stability operations, an Army of this size is larger than required to meet the demands of our defence strategy."
He said the administration would also recommend closing some domestic military bases in 2017, though such proposals have been rejected by Congress in recent years.
The Pentagon chief went on to unveil plans for changes to pay and benefits, including curbing housing allowances and limiting pay raises.
'No retreat' However, Winslow Wheeler, a defence budget analyst with the Project on Government Oversight in Washington DC, criticised the proposal as "hype".
He said that even after the cuts in troop levels and the elimination of the A-10 and U-2 aeroplanes, overall military spending including for the war in Afghanistan and on the US nuclear weapons programme will remain near 2005 levels.
"That level is scores of billions above what we spent during the Cold War when the threats were real and huge," he told the BBC.
"We're making all the wrong decisions in terms of the bang for the buck that we're getting for the budget. We will be spending multiples of what China and Russia spend combined."
And even the relative modest cost-cutting drive could well cause ructions on Capitol Hill, which is gearing up for November's midterm elections.
Reaction to the proposal was swift, with Republican members warning such cuts could hurt military readiness.
"This is not the time for us to begin to retreat, and certainly not the time to cut our military," Republican Representative Michael Turner told Bloomberg News.
The proposed Army staffing levels would be the lowest since 1940, when the US employed 267,767 active-duty soldiers. The US entered that conflict in 1941 following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
By the end of World War Two, there were 8.2 million active-duty US Army members, according to figures provided on Monday by the Pentagon.
The number was 482,000 in 2000, a year before the attacks of 11 September 2001. After those attacks, the force peaked at 566,000 in 2010.
BBC News - Pentagon's Chuck Hagel plans to downsize US military
Pentagon's Chuck Hagel plans to downsize US military
Hagel: "American dominance... can no longer be taken for granted"
Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has unveiled plans to shrink the US Army to its smallest size since before the US entered World War Two.
Outlining his budget plan, the Pentagon chief proposed trimming the active-duty Army to 440,000-450,000 personnel, down from 520,000 currently.
Cold War-era Air Force fleets - the U-2 spy plane and the A-10 attack jet - will also be retired.
The US defence budget remains higher than during most of the Cold War.
'Difficult decisions ahead'
Military spending doubled after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks but has slowly started to decline in response to the country's budget crisis, and
Mr Hagel said the country no longer felt inclined to engage in the kind of long and costly operations it had mounted in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is not only fiscal pragmatism that has caused the US to curtail its military ambitions of course. After more than a decade of war the American people have clearly grown tired of conflict - and the impact it can make on the families of those on the front line.
On Monday, Mr Hagel noted the US military had come under pressure to downsize after two costly foreign wars.
"This is a time for reality," he said.
"This is a budget that recognises the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges."
The number of active-duty US Army members was already expected to be pared down to 490,000, as the US prepares to end its combat role in Afghanistan later this year.
Mr Hagel added: "Since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged stability operations, an Army of this size is larger than required to meet the demands of our defence strategy."
He said the administration would also recommend closing some domestic military bases in 2017, though such proposals have been rejected by Congress in recent years.
The Pentagon chief went on to unveil plans for changes to pay and benefits, including curbing housing allowances and limiting pay raises.
'No retreat' However, Winslow Wheeler, a defence budget analyst with the Project on Government Oversight in Washington DC, criticised the proposal as "hype".
He said that even after the cuts in troop levels and the elimination of the A-10 and U-2 aeroplanes, overall military spending including for the war in Afghanistan and on the US nuclear weapons programme will remain near 2005 levels.
"That level is scores of billions above what we spent during the Cold War when the threats were real and huge," he told the BBC.
"We're making all the wrong decisions in terms of the bang for the buck that we're getting for the budget. We will be spending multiples of what China and Russia spend combined."
And even the relative modest cost-cutting drive could well cause ructions on Capitol Hill, which is gearing up for November's midterm elections.
Reaction to the proposal was swift, with Republican members warning such cuts could hurt military readiness.
"This is not the time for us to begin to retreat, and certainly not the time to cut our military," Republican Representative Michael Turner told Bloomberg News.
The proposed Army staffing levels would be the lowest since 1940, when the US employed 267,767 active-duty soldiers. The US entered that conflict in 1941 following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
By the end of World War Two, there were 8.2 million active-duty US Army members, according to figures provided on Monday by the Pentagon.
The number was 482,000 in 2000, a year before the attacks of 11 September 2001. After those attacks, the force peaked at 566,000 in 2010.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC Look North
Was highlighting the input a small private engineering firm in Stanley had in supplying small parts for part of the whole machine (last night on TV news). Complex machine tools, quite a few people involved, specialist work etc. Good for them, keeps money wheel going around, people in employment.
The programmed said substantial order for the aircraft was "imminent", to many peoples relief.
I haven't kept pace with the saga myself, life's too short.
The programmed said substantial order for the aircraft was "imminent", to many peoples relief.
I haven't kept pace with the saga myself, life's too short.
To the rest of you: you are welcome.
When you find that China is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, you will also find that they aren't as nice as the Americans were.
Good luck with your future.
Without getting too far off-topic...
It's not just "underwriting global security". Factors in the huge US budget include high personnel costs and benefits (including a hell of a lot of flag officers, and medical benefits that fall on the civil government's tab in many countries); a lot of expensive infrastructure that Congress insists on keeping, because in many places the military is the only employer above farm and Wal-Mart pay scales; and very large land forces as a legacy of a decade-plus of nation-building that had very little to do with global security.
It's not just "underwriting global security". Factors in the huge US budget include high personnel costs and benefits (including a hell of a lot of flag officers, and medical benefits that fall on the civil government's tab in many countries); a lot of expensive infrastructure that Congress insists on keeping, because in many places the military is the only employer above farm and Wal-Mart pay scales; and very large land forces as a legacy of a decade-plus of nation-building that had very little to do with global security.
While I do agree that their relatively active Military procurement is not the best sign for their immediate Neigbours (mainly Taiwan plus some Japanese Islands) I would say that Economically they are the 800 Pound Gorilla.
From a Military perspective on the other hand they are still quite far from that. They don't have much global Reach and can't compare to the US Military and are still struggeling to effectively surpass Russia especially when it comes to stategic assets. They have a significant (Man Power) Army but not highly mobile nor particularly sophisticated.
China's real Threat potential to the Western World is a different one:
They effectively own a significant part of the World financially and could easily ruin the US and big Parts of Europe by simply claiming back all their Money they loaned to Western State Banks and selling their Shares in Companies at once. The whole economic Systems would immediately and totally implode.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They effectively own a significant part of the World financially and could easily ruin the US and big Parts of Europe by simply claiming back all their Money they loaned to Western State Banks and selling their Shares in Companies at once. The whole economic Systems would immediately and totally implode.
And if the US and China ever do square up to each-other, the US (and the West) could just give two fingers to their debt obligations.
I have to say, I'm with Lonewolf; Chinese aggression seems to be advancing rapidly...we can think of it as nonsense sabre rattling, but I see trouble brewing.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinese aggression? There is hardly such a thing when compared with US, UK, French and general western aggression! Sadly our nations seem to thrive on war and sticking our noses into the business of other nations. The Chinese on the other hand seem far more interested in doing business! I would imagine one reason for their large military build up is to counter against the considerable and soon to be increasing US military presence in the region. From their point of view they see Washington as dangerous and unpredictable, having a tendency to lash out and invade other nations etc. Having a massive military which they can easily afford to do is a good counter for that. When it comes to risking warfare I am far more concerned about the reckless actions of Washington and our own government than I am about China. China thrives on stability, the west thrives on chaos!
Gone too far to be cancelled.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR, really? Afghanistan may be unpopular, difficult to win and improperly executed, but that doesn't make it unjustified...you may find it difficult to believe, but every source suggests (rather unsurprisingly when you think about it) that George Bush was very, very insular in his world outlook and therefore, foreign policy before 9/11.
Other than Iraq, what 'invasions' do you refer to as a result of a tendency to 'lash out'?
The last time I was aware, it was China that was openly publishing its ability to hit targets on the West Coast of the US, with their new class of ballistic missile subs, not the other way around.
Other than Iraq, what 'invasions' do you refer to as a result of a tendency to 'lash out'?
The last time I was aware, it was China that was openly publishing its ability to hit targets on the West Coast of the US, with their new class of ballistic missile subs, not the other way around.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the simple reason that the US underwrites global security, not just its own national security, as a matter of policy since about 1945.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR, it's great power politics not a question of who's more at fault. Or in simple terms, who's the biggest kid on the playground? I don't really want to fight him, but I need to have a plan in case. In the end, if all my sneaky, skinny kid diversion tactics don't work to avoid a fight the surest way to not get my butt kicked is to just be the better fighter.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bastardeux, I should have maybe said ''attacked'' as well as invade.
But certainly Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia the Balkans.
Even Afghanistan has been handled badly, even now the US wants to remain there if possible!
As far as Britain is concerned since 1980 about the only thing I agree with is the Falklands war, but none of the rest.
When I think how close we came to getting involved in Syria its terrifying to!
As for such talk coming from China, I remember hearing various US politicians such as John McCain talking about attacking Iran, also openly talking about strikes upon Syria! There were many British politicians also doing the same.
I have no problem with the US having such a great military, it can do a great deal of good, often helping after natural disasters etc. But just because it exists does not mean it has to be used all the time in pointless wars which are mostly none of our business anyhow. Also there is no reason for Washington to be so provocative. If I was the US government I would be far more keen to keep more of my forces based at home in the US, possibly retaining a network of bases around the globe under care and maintenance. But not having forces based at them all the time. I would certainly have that policy when it comes to the Pacific with no permanent based US forces beyond say Hawaii. When one thinks of the money that could be saved! In the event of a problem you could likely deploy to the empty bases within say 48 hours.
It does seem harsh that Americans lose their local bases thus starving their local economies but much more money can be found to retain costly overseas bases thus helping foreign economies rather than that of the US.
But certainly Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia the Balkans.
Even Afghanistan has been handled badly, even now the US wants to remain there if possible!
As far as Britain is concerned since 1980 about the only thing I agree with is the Falklands war, but none of the rest.
When I think how close we came to getting involved in Syria its terrifying to!
As for such talk coming from China, I remember hearing various US politicians such as John McCain talking about attacking Iran, also openly talking about strikes upon Syria! There were many British politicians also doing the same.
I have no problem with the US having such a great military, it can do a great deal of good, often helping after natural disasters etc. But just because it exists does not mean it has to be used all the time in pointless wars which are mostly none of our business anyhow. Also there is no reason for Washington to be so provocative. If I was the US government I would be far more keen to keep more of my forces based at home in the US, possibly retaining a network of bases around the globe under care and maintenance. But not having forces based at them all the time. I would certainly have that policy when it comes to the Pacific with no permanent based US forces beyond say Hawaii. When one thinks of the money that could be saved! In the event of a problem you could likely deploy to the empty bases within say 48 hours.
It does seem harsh that Americans lose their local bases thus starving their local economies but much more money can be found to retain costly overseas bases thus helping foreign economies rather than that of the US.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR, you are talking as if we, in a highly globalised economy that relies very heavily on stable commodity prices and trading routes, could just sit back and let the world's problems fester.
All the Cold War proxy conflicts were, quite understandably, fought under the understanding of Communist containment...do you seriously think the West would just sit back and let all its trading partners capitulate to an ideology that was completely incompatible with Western Capitalism!? No. Do you think sitting back and allowing the former Yugoslavia to continue the way it was heading would have been a positive thing for the stability of Europe!? No.
Whether you like it or not, international interventionism is almost always the result of trying to maintain domestic standards of living, one way or another. So, unless you're happy for your way of life to be consistently challenged, with all due respect, get off your high horse!
All the Cold War proxy conflicts were, quite understandably, fought under the understanding of Communist containment...do you seriously think the West would just sit back and let all its trading partners capitulate to an ideology that was completely incompatible with Western Capitalism!? No. Do you think sitting back and allowing the former Yugoslavia to continue the way it was heading would have been a positive thing for the stability of Europe!? No.
Whether you like it or not, international interventionism is almost always the result of trying to maintain domestic standards of living, one way or another. So, unless you're happy for your way of life to be consistently challenged, with all due respect, get off your high horse!