It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-35 "deploys" for the first time

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: drwire
a reply to: intrptr

thats just propaganda.

Ha ha, the propaganda is that the F35 is a viable weapons system. Way too complex, way too expensive and fraught with delays and bugs.

Its an over overall, ongoing shortfall considering that new automated drone capabilities are being deployed now by OPFOR countries that will do much the same tasks much cheaper per unit.


..the margin of improvement offered by an aircraft like the F-35 over a purpose-built combat drone does not seem to represent a good return on investment or the sort of value for money that the Australian people expect in times of relative austerity.

Given the problems that plague new acquisition programs and the length of time it can take to fix them, the government needs to consider the next generation of warfare and the fact that our enemies are already deploying highly sophisticated drone technology.

Read more: www.canberratimes.com.au...
Follow us: @canberratimes on Twitter | CanberraTimes on Facebook

edit on 12-2-2016 by intrptr because: additional




posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

Initial cost maybe. But they also won't survive long compared to the F-35.

Quantity has its own quality. Russians understand that very well from fighting the Germans in WWII.

In a fur ball between an F35 and ten Autonomous drones, I'll bet on the drones.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And you'd lose. No one has a UAV capable of air to air, autonomous or not.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

And you'd lose. No one has a UAV capable of air to air, autonomous or not.

The F35 isn't actually "deployed" yet, either.

Besides rapidly advancing drone technology, the wealth of smart missiles already out there are steadily getting "smarter".

Who needs billion dollar fighters with nothing to fight except swarms of lo tech missiles, smart drones and other aircraft.

Didn't the Chinese already hack the Pentagons computer files on the F35… too?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

UAVs are 10+ years away from even rudimentary air to air capability, let alone autonomous capbility. Unless someone has different laws of physics than the rest of the world. The F-35 will be deployable long before that happens.

It doesn't matter if they're getting smarter, if the launch platform can't lock on to the target aircraft. A missile can be the smartest thing out there, but if it can't see the target, you can't hit the target.

They hacked some data, yes.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Define rudimentary in this case, Zaph.

They've hung Stingers off of Predators before. With some unintentionally amusing humiliation.

But again. What's your level of rudimentary?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Effective control, through a base station, of an effective air to air platform, using air to air weapons, not just an air to air Stinger setup.
edit on 2/12/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

A bit late to the party but VTOL is utilised, how do you give marines and SF CAS if the only airfield close is your carrier and it's not the big ones.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Rudimentary: If you can see it you can kill it.

$tealth is minimized during close air support. I mean it has to do something , besides just sitting in hangars waiting for WWIII.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick
a reply to: intrptr

A bit late to the party but VTOL is utilized, how do you give marines and SF CAS if the only airfield close is your carrier and it's not the big ones.


With attack helicopters?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Rudimentary: Actually capable of air to air, which doesn't exist.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Which die faster than anything against even decent surface to air systems.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

Rudimentary: Actually capable of air to air, which doesn't exist.

Being replaced with surface to air. Like the disparity of stacking a carrier fleet against modern day, quieter diesel subs with rocket torpedoes, surface skimming hypersonic missiles and rocket mines.

Who need Carriers? Empire builders do.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Wait, so instead of air to air UAVs, now your big threat is surface to air missiles? Stealth is designed to work against that threat, which is half the point of it. And the point of internal weapons bays is to keep the stealth features intact, to continue to work against that threat.

So you're going to finally admit that China and Russia are empire building? Because they're both building carriers. Oh wait, that's just because the Evil US has them, right? Or what's the excuse going to be now?
edit on 2/13/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Wait, so instead of air to air UAVs, now your big threat is surface to air missiles?

No the threat to the world is the US military. But seemingly they can;t or won't recognize they are the bully (go figure) and won't stand down, ever increasing tensions, endless war and debt until some catastrophic, destructive world wide war erupts.

Done here.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes of course they are. The US is solely responsible for every problem in the world.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The biggest problem maker, yes.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Prayers go out to the Idahoans. Keep your head down!



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Given that nobody in the Australian defence community cares about what Dr Jai Galliott says, the piece constructs a strawman about the F-35 and misrepresents multiple facts, and does not attack the real reasons for the F-35, your source is literally propaganda for the Australian public, and not credible at all.

It will therefore not be considered or taken seriously by real experts. Like I said, nobody cares what some armchair expert (not you, Dr Jai Galliott) thinks.
edit on 13/2/16 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Just to take it away from your US bashing and back to the F-35.

30 years ago, Argentina invaded a British territory called the Falkland Islands, 2 carriers went south and along with some SAM batteries and ship defence systems were the only defence against an airforce flying from mainland bases.

Carriers had to remain at a distance so fast jet was the only credible AA, UK only operates STOVL and so Sea Harriers were the only aircraft we could use. In addition, when a beach head was established an austere airfield was laid, again, only credible aircraft solution was STOVL.

With that established you could then use attack helicopters with the help of STOVL in a Anti Radiation mode and Air to Air to protect the helicopters.

This is not a theoretical situation and one which is a threat today, not just here in the South Atlantic but around the world and with our allies.

What else could not only fill the role of 3 aircraft in one but operate in support of advanced / isolated troops from austere airfields or a carrier off the shore.


edit on 13 2 2016 by Forensick because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join