|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Mar 20, 2009 13:55:23 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by flycookie on Mar 20, 2009 15:04:10 GMT 12
F35 cockpit, as of 2007.  Just me, or does the stick resemble nothing so much as an elongated Playstation controller for a unidextrous pilot? Must be the F35A or C proto - no shiny lever in sight! |
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Mar 20, 2009 15:28:14 GMT 12
Shiney levers are in the computers? Betta DAS video here: (10.8Mb .FLV)
GOTTA LOVE this Guy's appeal to REASON! ;D
"This is the first system of its kind guys. The technology is just alien-like. The most interesting thing to me is its ability to render maneuvability of enemy aircraft useless, since I've always question why the f-35 doesn't have thrust vector while its losing competitor, x-32 has.
And guys, I know due to the nature of the video, there gonna be some hot debate between the Russian and US aircrafts, but please respect yourself by not acting subhuman-like. Combat aircrafts are the spear of aviation, and people who makes them are dedicated geniuses whether it's Russian or US planes. Secondly, military powers in no way speaks about the value of one's country. So if the plane from your country is not as advanced, so what!? You yourself know how much you love, appreciate its unique beauties, and enjoy living on its land. With that say, enjoy!"
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Mar 21, 2009 14:15:00 GMT 12
www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/03/video-usmc-pilot-likes-his-bad.htmlVIDEO: USMC pilot likes his "bad-ass" F-35 By Stephen Trimble on March 20, 2009 "Meet Major Joseph T. Bachmann, a developmental test pilot for the F-35 Lightning II. Since yesterday, he also happens to be the first US Marine Corps pilot to fly the jet. Not surprisingly, he enjoyed the experience, especially its "wickedly sharp roll-rate" and "bad-ass" maneuvering. Watch the full interview with the DOD news crew below."
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Mar 21, 2009 14:23:45 GMT 12
JAPANESE Aircraft Carrier (be afraid Kiwis - very afraid) :-) I make a joke joyce. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7950164.stmThe Big Picture: Destroyer "13,950-ton JDS Hyuga (16DDH) is handed over to Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force from its builder IHI Marine United Inc. in Yokohama, southwest of Tokyo. The newly-built helicopter-carrying destroyer, similar in design to a small aircraft carrier, is the the largest Japanese warship since World War II. Photo: AP/Kyodo News, Yohei Kanasashi" 
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Mar 21, 2009 14:44:21 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Mar 21, 2009 16:49:03 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Mar 22, 2009 11:16:53 GMT 12
factoid JUMP of MUCH Skyness: "The HMS INVINCIBLE and ILLUSTRIOUS were both originally fitted with a 7-degree ski jump, while the ARK ROYAL featured a 12-degree ski jump when it was commissioned in 1985. Both the INVINCIBLE and ILLUSTRIOUS were later refitted with a 13-degree ramp. The Spanish light carrier DEDALO was not fitted with a ski jump, but the modern Spanish PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS and Thai CHAKRI NARUEBET both have 12-degree ski jumps." www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/Harrier_VTOL_Jump-Jet_part2.htmlQ: What are degree of RAN LHD ski jump? A: "Flight deck with 13 degree ski-jump, 6 in-line deck landing spots and permanent deck parking space for 6 extra aircraft." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_class
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Mar 22, 2009 11:46:47 GMT 12
Interesting thread here: "The A and the C have very little advantage over the B. At the same weight they will perform the same. The B has shorter range, but can be shipped anywhere in the world which is a huge plus and negates the loss in range. The B is just as stealthy, with all the same electronics, weapons (bar extra large internal) which go against F-35 ideologies and would be better suited for a mainland based F-18 delivery. The B can drop more bombs to more targets than a land based C dropping large munitions. I think there is a strong argument for B's even if they never see a LHD. In a region with so few improved runways, with 20,000 + islands, scattered over halfs the earths surface. A F-35B would be a hugely more useful aircraft. The F-35 can sea search, act as a AEW, provide intel over battlespace as well at any stage becoming a manned fighter. They are the perfect sea control aircraft." www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/512-40859.aspx |
|
|
|
Post by flycookie on Mar 27, 2009 15:32:00 GMT 12
 U.S. Marine Corps pilot Major Joseph T. Bachmann became the first Marine to fly the F-35 Lightning II, on March 19, 2009. Photo Lockheed Martin |
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Mar 28, 2009 12:28:55 GMT 12
The New Air Combat Capability (All the way with JSF) www.williamsfoundation.org.au/research/download/air-combat-capability.pdffrum: (As in "John Frum" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frumwww.williamsfoundation.org.au"There has been much media debate and speculation about a new air combat capability for the Australian Defence Force and whether the Joint Strike Fighter is the right aircraft for Australia. Such debate is valuable, given the importance of our air combat capability to Australia's future security and because of the amount of money involved. However, some of the public debate is poorly informed, and in some cases, naïve. Discussion on the new air combat capability has concentrated on the performance debates, comparing platform speed, range, stealth, turning performance, radar performance and missile performance. These parameters are vitally important, but by themselves, they are insufficient. The debate must address the full range of capability elements and the affordability of the capability as a part of the total force. Any discussion on affordability must include an assessment of the number of airframes necessary to meet a minimum level of capability and a minimum level of sustainability. The Kokoda Foundation (www.kokodafoundation.org) released an authoritative paper “Australia’s Future Joint Strike Fighter Fleet: How much is too little?” in October 2005 that addressed this issue in detail. The paper concluded that a three squadron force equating to 75 aircraft severely limits Government options in any strategic policy setting; a four squadron force equating to 97 aircraft allows the Government a greater freedom of strategic choice and reduces risk by allowing the option of either offensive or defensive postures; and a five squadron force equating to 120 aircraft provides the Government the greatest degree of flexibility by allowing a mix of offensive and defensive action and is sustainable over an adequate period. Sustainability in terms of personnel training and development is also a critical element when considering the size of the force: a force that is not self sustaining in personnel is not viable. When considering aircraft numbers marginal not project costs of additional aircraft must be considered. Turning to the less visible, but nevertheless critical capability factors, the “ultimate” performing aircraft in the world will not meet our needs unless it has: “supportability”; the logistics chain has a very high probability of obtaining the correct parts on time. “maintainability”; training and maintenance systems are geared to minimum turn around times. “reliability”; there is a high probability that the aircraft will return from a mission combat ready. “affordability”; acquisition of a large number of aircraft and more importantly maintenance of those aircraft does not distort defence budgets. “interoperability”; an air combat capability is but one important cog in a very large network of air, land and sea based systems and the aircraft must be able to interact with systems such as the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD), Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft as well as systems of our friends and allies. “operability”; it must have highly integrated sensor and weapons systems that can be operated effectively and efficiently by our people. “upgradeability”; no platform can be operated for its structural life of type and remain operationally relevant without significant through life capability upgrades. Platform systems architectures must be designed for easy upgrade and integration of future systems and there must be a large enough user community to share the non-recurring costs of such development programs. A number of commentators have suggested that Australia should purchase the F-22 Raptor. Whilst the Raptor is an outstanding air-combat capability, it will not meet all of Australia’s multi-role needs (that is both air combat and surface strike) in isolation and is/will be operated in limited numbers by only one country, albeit our major ally. Thus if Australia acquired the F-22 Raptor the RAAF would need to operate at least two air combat aircraft types to fulfil all the roles the ADF needs. The purchase and sustainment of multiple types of fast jet platforms for the next three to four decades would, in our view, be unaffordable for a country with our limited resources. Whilst we are airpower advocates, we strongly advocate a balanced total force. Consequently, our view is that disproportionate investment in any one service would be a disservice to our nation – that means Australia needs an affordable air combat force. Capability decisions are based on an analysis of cost and risk – rigorous analysis of the new air combat capability requirements is being undertaken by the Department of Defence as part of a broader affordable force structure, contrary to the often-derogatory remarks made by some commentators. No platform can maintain a clear capability advantage across all aspects of performance throughout its operational service - all platforms are operated in a manner which exploits performance advantages and limits the effect of any relative performance deficiencies. Australia will mitigate any performance risks of our force capabilities by the manner in which we operate the capability. Such operations will take into account a realistic assessment of the scenarios in which the aircraft are likely to operate and adversary systems encountered; not idealistic perfomance data unrepresentative of how a particular force is likely to be operated. Whilst the Williams Foundation does not categorically advocate that Australia must purchase the F-35, we do assert that the air combat capability debate must address the full range of capability considerations. An assessment of the F-35 under these criteria should place it very high on the list because it has been designed from the start to address all the key issues. For example the interoperability and upgradeability of the JSF will likely be without peer: with a minimum of nine partner nations representing 13 services indicating their intent to acquire, the economies of scale would be extremely competitive. Based on the analysis we have seen to date, no other platform comes close to matching the F-35 as a total, integrated, single multi-role air weapons system for Australia’s security in the 21st century. We therefore think it offers the best cost/capability/risk trade-off for Australia’s new air combat capability. We welcome the continued discussion and debate regarding the new air combat capability. However, such debate must address all capability aspects and not just platform performance."
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Mar 28, 2009 20:23:46 GMT 12
Ride the Lightning: Testing the Marine Corps' latest fighter March 27 by Dave Majumdar www.examiner.com/x-5411-NY-Military-and-Civil-Aviation-Examiner~y2009m3d27-Ride-the-Lightning-Testing-the-Marine-Corps-latest-fighterThe F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is entering one of the most challenging phases of its development according to manufacturer Lockheed Martin. The ambitious 300 billion dollar project is intended to replace the aging arsenal of legacy fighters in service with the US Air Force (USAF), US Navy (USN), US Marine Corps (USMC) and a host of foreign allies. Due to the disparate requirements of the three services, the aircraft will be built in three distinct variants. The first variant is the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A for the USAF. The USN requires that their version of the airplane be capable of taking-off and landing on the Navy’s fleet of aircraft carriers. This naval version will be designated the F-35C or CV variant. The most challenging requirements however come from the USMC. The Marine Corps version is known as the F-35B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant. Due to the unforgiving demands placed on Marine Corps aviation, the F-35B has some unique features. The aircraft needs to be able to operate from the small decks of amphibious assault ships and short, unimproved airstrips at Forward Operating Bases (FOB). The first among these unique features is a shaft driven lift fan mounted behind the cockpit of the STOVL aircraft, which provides vertical thrust during take-off and landing. The aircraft also has the capability to rotate the main engine exhaust nozzle downwards over 90 degrees in order to provide more thrust and additional control. Lastly, roll posts are embedded in the wings, which not only provide additional vertical thrust, but also act as control mechanisms. Combined, the system provides around 40 thousand pounds of vertical thrust. Designing and testing the STOVL variant, which will also be used by the British, is one of the most challenging aspects of the Joint Strike Fighter project says Graham Tomlinson, Lead Test Pilot for the F-35B. Tomlinson, a former Royal Air Force (RAF) Harrier pilot and a graduate of the prestigious Empire Test Pilot School, has over thirty years of flight test experience with STOVL aircraft. The F-35B is currently undergoing crucial tests in what is known as a hover pit. As Tomlinson explains, a hover pit is a specialized testing facility designed to measure the performance of a STOVL aircraft on the ground. “It’s not quite the same as flying, but almost. It’s like fooling the aircraft into thinking its flying. It’s as nearest to flying as we can make it.” Tomlinson said. The hover pit, as the name implies, is a concrete pit. The pit is rigged with sensors to measure the thrust produced by the F-35B’s engines while also “getting rid of the hot gas”, Tomlinson explained. A metal grate covers the top of the pit. It is upon this metal grate that the aircraft sits during testing. Hover-pit testing pushes the aircraft to its limits in a safe environment Tomlinson explained. The aircraft is tested at high power and at various stages of conversion from conventional mode to STOVL mode. For flight-testing purposes, the test pilots can go through the individual stages of conversion by inputting the necessary commands manually. The pilots “thrash it to death” inputting, “all sorts of silly commands which you would never do in real flight, like pitching the nose up sharply in STOVL mode” he explained. The harsh test regimen is necessary to ensure that the computer model embedded into the aircraft’s flight control laws are robust, Tomlinson said, adding “we’re validating the model in a real plane.” Tomlinson emphasized that validating the aerodynamic model is especially crucial as “all that is part of the airplane and the simulators. These are really important steps. These are all part of the clearance process”. As hover-pit testing advances, the metal grate will be covered in order to simulate operating the F-35B on a hard surface such as an airfield or ship, Tomlinson explained. For the operational Marine Corps pilots who will take the F-35B into battle, the brutal testing regime will provide tangible results, Tomlinson said. Compared to the legacy Harriers that Tomlinson flew during his RAF days and during most of his testing career, the F-35 is incredibly easy to fly. Converting the aircraft from conventional flight to jet borne hover is accomplished at the touch of a button. Every F-35 variant has an “identical cockpit. It’s just one switch that’s different”, Tomlinson explains, “On the USAF and CV versions that button says STOVL/HOOK and it drops the hook. In the STOVL version the same button initiates conversion.” Because the vertical landing process for the STOVL variant has been so simplified, Tomlinson expects that the F-35B “will have a much lower training burden compared to the CV version.” Tomlinson explains that while the CV version will have a landing speed of around 145 knots, the STOVL will be able to slow down to much lower approach airspeeds and will be able to hover depending on its load. Lower airspeeds make the pilots’ job easier. While flying the STOVL will be easier, Tomlinson cautions, “ you still need the background knowledge.” The flexibility in basing offered by the F-35B does come at a price however. The STOVL variant “loses a couple thousand pounds of fuel”, Tomlinson explained. The F-35B also has slightly shorter weapons bays, and is thus unable to carry the same 2000 lbs class weapons internally that the other two variants can. Tomlinson explains that the reduced capability is a trade-off for the flexibility required by the Marine Corps in order to base the aircraft on smaller ships and Forward Operating Bases. Tomlinson said that a fully combat loaded F-35B will take-off from a small unimproved airstrip in less than 1200ft. The F-35B also loses the ability to pull some Gs compared to the conventional USAF variant. The STOVL can only pull 7G compared to 9G for the F-35A and 7.5G for the F-35C. Tomlinson explained that this is not a result of any trade-off made for improved short field performance. “There’s no reason we can’t make a 9G STOVL airplane”, he said. Tomlinson explained, “Because of the stealth and sensors, the Marine Corps and Navy weren’t interested in more than 7G and 7.5G for their F-35 versions. The Marines and Navy have never been enthusiastic about a 9G capability. It’s not required for their mission. To get more G, you need to beef up that structure and that adds weight. The USAF made the trade-off for the 9G capability.” Other than the reduced G-limit, in conventional flight the F-35B handles almost exactly like the F-35A, Tomlinson explained. The F-35B retains the same outstanding low-speed, high angle of attack handling qualities as well as the same incredible acceleration as the F-35A. “You struggle to tell the difference between the CTOL and the STOVL in the cockpit,” Tomlinson said, adding that test pilots are trained to notice even minute differences in aircraft handling qualities. Tomlinson noted that while the F-35B’s lift-fan causes a visible bump in the aircraft’s outer mold line, the only cue in the cockpit is a slightly different wind noise. “STOVL only applies below 10 thousand feet and below 250 knots,” Tomlinson notes. Once BF-1, the first STOVL aircraft, completes the torturous hover-pit tests, Tomlinson said the aircraft would have to be thoroughly inspected and would subsequently be modified. The aircraft will then be flown conventionally in preparation for transfer to Patuxent River Naval Air Station where the first actual STOVL flight will take place later this summer. However, prior to the cross-country trip to Maryland, the aircraft will have to be qualified for aerial refueling with a USMC C-130 tanker and undergo cross-country checks. The Navy and Marine Corps use a drogue aerial refueling system, which is different from the boom refueling method used by the USAF. Tomlinson said that the program would “build down” to the first STOVL flight starting with conversions at 200 knots from 5000 ft in the air- exactly like the hover-pit."
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 9, 2009 1:14:35 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 13, 2009 0:18:35 GMT 12
One for the money, Two for the show, Three to get ready and go cat go...www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12176-sid-97bb71bc703be5903f24a92a2e8e306f.html"Well, I think we can all agree that missiles have come a long way since Vietnam. Back then, we have bore sighted, stern chase, Sidewinders and semi-active Sparrows. The former requires that you get within a relatively narrow cone on the enemy's hind quarters before you can get a lock and release the weapon. The Sidewinders of the day were also susceptible to go off homing into the sun, a lake reflection or flares. The Sparrow requires that the nose be trained on the target and the radar be used to paint it with continuous wave illumination so the semi-active seeker can find the enemy aircraft its supposed to hit. Break away and you lose guidance. Neither is true anymore. The AIM-9X does not require that you be on the hind quarters of the enemy, it doesn't even have to be pointed at the enemy to be launched. The Imaging Infrared seeker won't go for the sun, it won't go for ground effects and it is can tell the shape of flares that that of an aircraft. The AIM-120 is an active homer in the terminal phase. And it never requires illumination just periodic navigational updates. You never have to paint the target and you can break without losing your shot. If you try to jam the active seeker, it homes on the jamming signal. I think that assuming that you'll have a chance to try your guns is a much bigger folly than assuming that traditional dogfights won't happen." www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewforum-f-22-sid-0587c62982627af42ae1b5b727c179f2.html
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 13, 2009 23:21:09 GMT 12
RAF'S BLUNDER AND LIGHTNING (surely a newspaper written by crutons for crutons - RAF?!)   www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/76484/RAF-s-blunder-and-lightning/The F-35 Lightning II fighter jet will not fly properly in hot weather 12th April 2009 By Neil Chandler "THE £9billion supersonic jump jet seen as the future of the RAF and Royal Navy will not fly properly in hot weather, say experts. British forces are still flying over hotspots (YUK it up Doods) Iraq and Afghanistan – and are expected to be involved in the latter conflict for decades. But early versions of the showpiece F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter are “very limited” in the heat. The new plane will replace the Harrier jump jet and also fly from the new £3.8billion aircraft carriers HMS Prince Of Wales and Queen Elizabeth. In America, F-35s are only doing limited flying in hot weather while the makers try to fix the problem. Sources have told the Daily Star Sunday that the £60million supersonic wonder jets will have limited range and may even have problems landing with weapons on board. That could mean pilots having to dump any bombs that have not been used. The F-35 risks overheating because designers want it to be “stealthy” – so it won’t show up on enemy radar. That means it can’t have the usual air scoops and vents to cool its engine, since they would show up as infra-red hotspots. So pilots need lots of fuel on board to keep the jet cool, restricting mission range. It is an even bigger headache for the British F-35B jump jet model, which already has less range than other versions because its big fan for hovering takes up a lot of fuel space. Defence Technology International editor-in-chief Bill Sweetman told us: “JSF in its current form will be very limited in hot-weather performance and modifications intended to fix the problem won’t start to be tested until 2011 or 2012. “But by that time the UK will be well down the road to building ships that can only operate JSFs.” The Ministry of Defence admits sorting the F-35 for hot weather is “a demanding task” but insists they are on top of the problem and “it is not a programme risk”.RN JSF-Bs will likely use an automatic landing system (successfully trialled on an old Hairier) to help do 'rolling landings' (on a long deck!) to BRING BACK the pilot anyway. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 15, 2009 9:05:21 GMT 12
TWO better than NONE I wonder if Oz will order a test aircraft instead of placing any orders any time soon also? [Victory & Defeat for JSF? Just gotta laugh - JSF is beset by naysayers - maybe DAS will help 'em?] Dutch Compromise on JSF Order Posted by Bill Sweetman at 4/14/2009 www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a6898aba6-a30f-497f-9f9b-d4767e495aa5"It looks as if the Netherlands coalition government may have reached a compromise that will allow it to go ahead with the order for two F-35A Joint Strike Fighter test and evaluation aircraft. According to Dutch newspaper reports, the government will get to buy the test aircraft - but only on condition that the decision on the full order is postponed until 2011 or 2012. It had been planned for next year. Previously, a skeptical opposition group had persuaded a majority of the parliament to block the purchase of the test aircraft until the US provided the Netherlands with a fixed price - which nobody is in a position to do. Defense Minister Jack de Vries, however, threatened a fight that could split the ruling coalition. (Follow the links for the full back-story.) If the Dutch do sign an order under those conditions it will be both a victory and a defeat for the JSF program. Victory, because those aircraft are needed to augment the test force and because it represents a big cash commitment to the ultimate selection of the JSF by the Netherlands. Defeat, because the absence of the Dutch leaves a big hole in plans for a multi-year, multi-national JSF order, with the carrot of a fixed price and the stick of penalties for re-scheduling. The JSF team has been promoting this idea since 2007 and had wanted to get commitments this year, but now will have to wait - and plan on demonstrating performance, meeting milestones and getting closer to a fixed price before closing the deal. Moreover, a week, let alone two or three years, is a long time in politics; and de Vries has been forced to use the nuclear option of splitting the coalition to get this far. For the Netherlands, which a couple of years ago was probably a more solid JSF prospect than the US Navy, that's quite a change."
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 18, 2009 11:17:47 GMT 12
Curiously SQUASHED animation video of RN new carriers (I fink we has seed it before?) anyway....:
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier and Joint Strike Fighter
"Thales-produced animation of the UK Royal Navy's new CVF aircraft carriers, to be called HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. They are to be built by BAE Systems and VT Group and launched in 2014 and 2016. They will carry the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Merlin helicopter."
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Apr 22, 2009 11:12:35 GMT 12
From The Australian - www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25368297-31477,00.html Chinese hackers steal JSF secrets Mark Dodd | April 22, 2009 Article from: The Australian. CHINESE computer spies are suspected of having cracked the Pentagon's $500 billion Joint Strike Fighter program, accessing top-secret files containing details of the aircraft's stealth design and electronics. Details of the brazen break-in were reported yesterday in The Wall Street Journal newspaper, citing current and former US government officials. The Royal Australian Air Force has placed a tentative order for 100 of the F-35 JSFs for about $16 billion, easily making it Australia's biggest defence purchase. Last night, Defence confirmed it was aware of the report and was seeking more information. "Defence has seen the US reports and will discuss the issues raised with the JSF Program office in due course," it said in a written response to questions from The Australian. A Canberra-based spokesman for the JSF's maker, Lockheed Martin, said a statement was expected today from head office in the US. The JSF program is the US Defence Department's costliest, and according to the WSJ, the spies were able to siphon off "terabytes of data related to design and electronics systems", potentially making it easier to defend against the stealth-protected aircraft. "Former US officials say the attacks appear to have originated in China. However, it can be extremely difficult to determine the true origin because it is easy to mask identities online," the WSJ said. Unnamed US officials are quoted as saying cyber attacks on military projects appear to have escalated in the past six months. According to the WSJ, a Pentagon report issued last month warned that the Chinese military had made "steady progress" in developing online-warfare techniques. China hopes its computer skills can help it compensate for an underdeveloped military, it said. The F-35 JSF has proved a contentious buy, with critics saying the Rudd Government should have been more forceful in trying to pursuade the US to sell the RAAF the more expensive F-22 Raptor. Unlike the JSF, the Raptor is operational but prohibited from export. The JSF is intended to replace the ageing fleet of F-111 strike aircraft and the frontline F/A-18 jet fighters. While Australia can expect to retain a technology edge over its immediate neighbours in Southeast Asia, China will acquire 500-600 advanced fighter bombers over the next 30 years and is expected to surpass the US as the leading air power in East Asia. |
|
|
|
Post by flycookie on Apr 22, 2009 12:02:53 GMT 12
The people from Lockheed, Pentagon, et al, on the news here are genuinely baffled by these claims.
Utter bollocks, and total amount of classified data hacked is zero.
And, Mr Dipshit Dodd, no, the RAAF hasn't tentatively ordered 100 F-35s, or even 100 Anything-Elses.
Do your homework, son.
There is nothing remotely "contentious" about the F-35 outside the minds of the morons at APA and their apologists.
This whole non-story of the F-35's travails and inadequacies flouted only in the Oz media is really giving me the shits, these days.
Sick. Of. It.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 22, 2009 12:25:31 GMT 12
:-) Hear Hear! Harrumph. If MarkDoddly had quoted further he would have seen that the really good stuff about the JSF is quarantined from the internet (quite rightly). Security breaches of any kind are not good but hey mud sticks when it is hurled. Go here for another look at this story: Arrr, computer pirates steal F-35 maintenance data By Stephen Trimble on April 21, 2009 www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/04/defense-links-arrr-computer-pi.html"The hackers compromised data for the F-35's autonomic logistics system on non-classified networks. Classified data is still safe." Geez I just looked at my usual web site sources to get that. MarkoDoddle should employ me. NO!!!!!!!!!!! I jest jokin'. ;D & _________________________________________ F35 H4X0R3D ZOMG! Posted by Bill Sweetman at 4/21/2009 www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ac4744acd-6039-4829-a8e7-9032eb29d372"The Wall Street Journal reports today that part of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program's computer network has been penetrated and compromised, most likely by China-based intelligence operatives. Key points from the story: the intruders accessed terabytes of data; they used tools that made it impossible to determine exactly what they compromised; repeated break-ins have been detected from 2007 and 2008. Also, at least two break-ins were detected in partner nations, one of those being Turkey. Also, the WSJ reporters were told that the hackers "weren't able to access the most sensitive material, which is stored on computers not connected to the Internet." However, before breathing a sigh of relief and continuing to the next subject, it might be worthwhile to think about how intelligence actually works. What the hackers now have in their files is very valuable. Unless this is a huge deception exercise run by the US (including false leaks to the WSJ) they have a pile of material that they know is genuine, and they know that we don't know what they've got. This can be used in at least two ways. In a classic "mosaic" intelligence technique, it allows fragmentary, more sensitive intelligence that might be gathered in the future to be placed in its proper context and evaluated with greater confidence. For instance, if they now know where the Have Ruby system plugs in, they'll be much better placed if they later find out that it works in X-band. Even more valuable, such a large data haul gives the hackers a way to validate any future information that comes their way - through attacks on the expanding JSF data system or otherwise - and discriminate between genuine intelligence, private-enterprise fakes or deliberate plants. A big "Way to go there, Sparky" goes out to JSF program security." |
|
