Comments on: US Guards JSF Crown Jewels

By: Goof Ball

Goof Ball — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:58:56 +0000

If I’m not mistaken, we share SLBM (submarine launched nuclear ballistic missile), submarine, and nuclear reactor technology with Great Britain, and have for years. Is the F-35 more advanced and dangerous that that? Of is it an Air Force problem?

By: chuteok

chuteok — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:30:18 +0000

PART 2
Global Hawk was 1/3rd OZ input {electronics} . Now think about this, the JSF has a worldwide Network system that can help any JSF anywhere with a problem and send a fix, but it still needs the codes to do major work,
Imagine sending a JSF {or 2–3 a} all the way back to the US for a 1 day fix from 11–000 miles. Trust is key, allies are allies. Yes I can understand EU, they screw with our commodities on the open market as well as they do you, but even they have seen the light on Mil matters no matter a semi socailist Govt or a right wing one.
.Australia always wanted the updated F-111 to keep going, hell no other plane flying can still do its mission, Super Hornet with latest gen systems are a good fix with some F-22’s in there, but the JSF has been a bit of a “plnker’ for years, though many great innovations have come from building it. Harrier, A-10 were all going to go..I do not see that happening in the near future can you?

By: chuteok

chuteok — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:32:16 +0000

part 6
Britain only several years ago was finally able to pay off LEND LEASE from World War 2, that tiny Island had to pay back every dammcent to the US..how would you feel with the size of your poulation then being up against it and having that caveat on your head
, and Russia never bothered,to pay the massive Lend Lease to them did it!
UK { I am an Aussie} had land , banks, and funds that wer emade forfiet to the USA. , They lost everything they owned inthe US
So do not have a shot at a country that was fighting from the start of the War {WW1} to the finish, and also from 1939 to 45 {not 42–45 as the US did} All our nations were hurt, but that is what it took to finish it off, even the Germans who had surendered said arm us and we will fight the Russians {not a bad idea at the time}, as my Grandfather fought in 1919 against the Revolution in Russia after WW1
back to the topic
JSF…a waiting game, and be brave buy the EADS Tanker and stop the Boeing crap

By: chuteok

chuteok — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:31:55 +0000

Part 5
Now off track a bit BUT::::::: read below and study your Mil history

Lets see who wrote “we lots Millions in World War 1″ careful with your history, you entered the War late , the first battle you fought was green US troops being trained by Aussies, and getting ready They were doing fine both Army US/OZ getting on well
, Pershing wanting self control over his men {not so bad as Australia finally got it after inept Brit Generals caused mayhem} the US fought alongside Australians 1s,t at the Battle of Le Hamel and did ok, it was planned for 90 mins it went 93, and was planned as the first use of Inf/tank and Artillery combined at once, with airl resuply too I might add. It became to blueprint for all future battels against braking the Hindenburg Line

By: chuteok

chuteok — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:31:02 +0000

Part 3
The Brit Govt has justdone a hachet job on 7 Sqns in the RAF only to give 2 Typhoon Sqns back and are closing bases galore, they are broke {Blair and the rest of the socialist morons}, The Navy was toget 2 carriers for the JSF, now 1 , the other will be a Helo carrier saving them some billions, they cannot afford the new Astute Subs or Type 45 frigates..they are in a jam, but they ARE YOU ALLIES!!!

Israel has put more systems into Chinese, Pakistani, Indian waeponry than I know of , are they the No 1 ally of the US.

By: chuteok

chuteok — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:29:11 +0000

Well listen guys I understand the paranoia this will create with some, but Australia as well has had those codes for some time, we do “a fair bit of work” on the JSF. Australia is one of the USA ‘s most trusted allies and would have gotten some F-22’s if Obama had not vetoed it. Why, the sea lanes here, proximity to SEA/China etc, there are massive bases set in Australia {and Area 51–1/2 is here at a place called Woomera Rocket Range} up for Marine Divisions with all the gear in place, they arrive the stuff is here, we run the Elint , Sigint here for the US as well as the important comms for the BOOMER fleet.

By: Youralltards

Youralltards — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 02:48:24 +0000

I like how this gets down to SCREW AMERICA!!! FLANKERS BEAT EVERYTHING!!

1. Russia = more broke than America.… Russia is currently … what? The world’s 5th ranked economy? Russians just ordered their first flankers in over 20 years! SU-35s! All 40 something of them! To counter our entire fleet of F-22s?

2. PAK Fighter DOESNT EXIST…it might exist in 2025 but not today, not tomorrow, not in 2010 or probably 2011. The components for the PAK is there but it doesnt exist as a fighter. Google it and read how every single year since 1999 Russians been claiming the PAK fighter will fly the next year and will be production 5 years from that date and how every year Russian generals change their stories. Russians always boast WE HAVE MYTHICAL FIGHTERS THAT WE HAVE NO PROOF OF WILL BLOW AWAY YOUR FIGHTERS!

3. I’m sure when PAK comes out it will be advanced but whos to say when PAK comes out we wont have a successor to the F-22?

4. Contrary to all the JSF bashers, JSF is pretty good. With high off bore sight AIM-9 and AIM-120D with near 120 mile range. And the JSF’s revolutionary 360 degree optical sensors. It can literally target and shoot aircraft thats behind it. So while your flanker has to manuever behind the JSF, I can turn tail and fly away and defeat your missile shot while still shoot mine at you.

3. Russia .… is pretty poor.… how is it going to afford a stealth fighter? A fifth generation fighter has to have a certain degree of stealth absorbing material to be considered fifth generation. How are two major world powers but not superpowers going to afford that? The US spent probably close to a trillion perfecting stealth technology over several airframes and over hundreds of aircrafts to get to where we are. Are the Russians and Indians over a few years without anything except the Mig 1.55 demonstrator going to perfect stealth technology akin to the F-22? I think not.

The JSF has its issues but it does not play second fiddle to the Flanker. The Flanker is a air superiority fighter, the JSF is a multi role fighter, even if the Flanker is more agile has longer range, it really doesnt matter if I can see you before you see me and shoot you with my back turned to you.

So if you wanna criticize the program, do so, but dont use the same old RUSSKIES WILL CRUSH YOU WITH THE SECRET UNKNOWN MYTHICAL ADVANCE FIGHTERS THAT THEY BOAST ALL THE TIME BUT NEVER HAVE ANY PROOF AND HAVE BEEN BOASTING FOR A DECADE AND WILL KEEP ON BOASTING FOR 2 MORE DECADES BEFORE IT FLIES!

So please Freefall take your RUSSIA = No.1 trolling to youtube where all the other America Haters live.

By: Bill R.

Bill R. — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:54:11 +0000

This reminds me of an old joke we had in BBN — you can buy a better packet switch but you won’t pay any more for it. The bigger problem than ITAR is that DoD does not have a coherent policy for managing software and its reuse. Failing to share software with our allies just puts a big “not-invented-here” fence around Distribution D government and its contractors only rights. You might as well be buying a restricted node lock license for each computer on each aircraft. Why even bother delivering the source code to the government at all ? So the Brits have two choices — they can rewrite the entire package and probably deploy it on their own national systems — so then you have to make sure that the over-the-air interfaces are compatible. Or they find some other way to work around the source code restriction. Think wrappers. Think integrating mainframes in an enterprise environment. Lots of good work for the Silicon Glen. As far as the IA objections — I have a hard time believing that you can’t protect your national systems with the right locks on the front door. If you find out that your programmers have put in back doors, fire ‘em and revoke their clearances.

By: guest

guest — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:18:33 +0000

Why bother? Just buy it from the Chinese who probably already have it. But seriously, this will cause great problems. After the Chinook disaster, in which the brits didn’t buy the (expensive) software but decided to make their own (great failure) They are not likely to have that happen again. There are cheaper alternatives that perform just as well (Saab). If the Brits bail out, so will a lot of other nations like the Netherlands.

By: Livvinit2damach

Livvinit2damach — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:08:12 +0000

It is amazing how short the memory of the US Military decision maker can be. Who developed the very concept of a vertical take off aircraft? Who first tested and proved the idea? Who designed, built and flew the first successful vertical take off fighter. Who used it in the falklands against much faster mirage aircraft, and showed the world just how powerful the concept was. That’s right sportsfans, the British!

And what did they do with all this fantastic technology once they had it? They gave it all to the Americans! No questions about security or mistrust, no. Following that, the US and UK worked in harmony, and made it even better. Isn’t it just possible the same could happen again?

The US and UK are great allies. Possibly the best. This sort of exaggerated paranoia will only damage a perfect friendship. The US military need to learn to trust it’s friends. For if you never learn to trust your friends, you’ll only ever have enemies…

By: Richard Crouch

Richard Crouch — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:39:33 +0000

Why not Canada?

By: B Lucciotti

B Lucciotti — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:00:47 +0000

Come on, guys…this is England, Australia and Isreal we’re talking about here…our ONLY dependable allies in this ever dangerous world.…its not like our security is all that great.….how many Muslem spys in
our Govt already have access to these secrets, God only knows.….hell, we can’t even screen out dangerous extremeists from our own military, nor can we provide efficient security for White House Social events. I say, give them the code, if it will keep them on our side…God knows we need dependable allies.…

By: nh1

nh1 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:37:45 +0000

I agree 100%

By: nh1

nh1 — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:34:39 +0000

It’s a bad idea to “share” anything defense related with any other countries, because it will jeopardize our self sufficiency. We never know how the relationships with our current allies will be in the future therefore it’s best to be self sufficient in defense.

By: Daniel Russ

Daniel Russ — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:23:50 +0000

The Yak-38 and the 141 Freestyle don’t have near the capabilities of the F-35. They are first gen STOVL. All this talk about how the F-35 is a derivative of the Soviet designs is poppycock, pure and simple.

The plane itself is less important than the fact that it is a missile and digital information platform.

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com.

By: Zach

Zach — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:09:08 +0000

They are developing a counterpart to the F-22... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

By: JTF536

JTF536 — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:33:06 +0000

1. This nut “Freefallingbomb” sounds like an 85-year old grandmother who’s just discovered speed. Stop babbling and chill out.

2. The Brits have no choice but to continue with the F-35 purchase. The other fighters mentioned (and particularly the ludicrous notion of a Dutch avionics-equipped Russian fighter!) are simply not viable alternatives.

Checkmate, USA.

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:20:35 +0000

Part V :

Having positively determined that such an aeronautical abortion could never fly, let alone fight, in 1991 the Soviets obviously lost all interest in it, cancelled the project and strongly recommended it to you U.S. Americans.

And you, like anxious little ducklings, FELL FLAT for the wily Russian bear’s ruse and invested xillions of dollars into it, during almost 20 years, as well as your / our allies did… for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !!!

Yup, keep talking about losing one’s marbles… Cover your head in ashes, you gullible (photo-)copy-cats!!!

Why, do you think, are the Russians in no hurry now to develop a counterpart to the F-22 and to the F-35 , LOLLLLL ??!

By: F-35 MAKING COWBOY

F-35 MAKING COWBOY — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:19:16 +0000

Part IV :

“Lockheed-Martin, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter program, quickly stepped forward, and with their assistance 48–2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992.
Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed-Martin for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics.
Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-141M included an increase in STOL weight to 21.500 kg (47.400 lb).
One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer.

…

The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed-Martin until June 1994.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141

(Continued)

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:18:36 +0000

Part III :

“A considerable amount of time was spent in the development of a flat, rectangular nozzle similar to that later employed on the American F-22 Raptor.”

…

“On 26 September 1991, Sinitsyn made the first vertical landing on the Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov (ex-Baku) in 48–2. An hour later, Vladimir A. Yakimov landed 48–3 on the same deck.”

(Continued)