Leaked Pentagon Report: The F-35 Won't Stand A Chance In Aerial Combat

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-would-be-defeated-aerial-combat-2013-3



According to an article published by the Washington Times, the F-35A, the Conventional Take Off and Landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, would be defeated in aerial combat because of its current shortcomings.

Mentioning a leaked Pentagon report made available by POGO, the article explains that “out-of-cockpit visibility in the F-35A is less than other Air Force fighter aircraft,” thus limiting a pilot’s ability to see aerial threats surrounding him.

The problem is in the large head rest that impedes rear visibility and the ability of the pilot to check the aircraft’s 6 o’clock for incoming aerial or surface threats.

Another shortcoming is the aircraft adveniristic helmet mounted display system (HMDS Gen. II), that has not yet solved focal problems, blurry and double vision in the display and misalignment of the virtual horizon display with the actual horizon.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-would-be-defeated-aerial-combat-2013-3#ixzz2MxaF5ycE

[dipsydoodle]

1. Good job there's not many of these about then

[xchrom]

5. !

[backscatter712]

8. Curse you, Red Baron! n/t

[madokie]

2. What!

No rear view camera

[GiveMeFreedom]

24. I was thinking the same thing.

Cheap too!

[Hayabusa]

3. Should have just

remodeled the F-16, then. Probably would have been less expensive.

[Mr Dixon]

9. Agreed

[Hayabusa]

12. This is, what, the second failed "Fighter Jet of the Future?

First the F-22 and now this.

[Mr Dixon]

13. IMO

This is all about contracts in the billions, the rich get richer weather there product works or not.

[Hayabusa]

14. Such a shame

especially for those test pilots...

[Mr Dixon]

19. IMO

The Soldier’s are collateral damage, not sure why anyone would sign up to be a test pilot. What is really curious is why we need these planes at all, the drones seem to be doing a good job, why risks a human life? As you stated why not upgrade the planes we already have like Russia and china did? The simple answer is the military industrial complex never saw a dollar that could not spend.

[Hayabusa]

20. I don't know if the drones have been tested in

a dogfighting experience, not that we're likely to ever get that way in air combat again. Remember, the Predators are essentially modified recon aircraft.

[Egalitarian Thug]

23. Sure, but how are they going to justify the hundreds of billions in corporate welfare

if they just keep building and improving what already works better than anything else?

[WilliamPitt]

4. Good thing they're all grounded right now. Oh, wait...

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which costs around $400 billion, was recently globally grounded due to a crack in an engine fin, a new reason among many others why no one wants this plane to begin with, yet it keeps getting built. The V-22 Osprey has been killing Marines for years now, yet it also keeps getting built, to the tune of $35 billion.

Cancel these two "defense" programs that don't work and are not wanted by the service branches expected to use them, and...gosh. That's $435 billion we just saved, along with the lives of any number of servicemembers.

Two programs.

$435,000,000,000.00

Me: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14793-the-fix-is-in-laying-bare-some-sequester-lies

[NewJeffCT]

22. Sorry Will

you're usually a terrific writer, but if we canceled the F-35 program today, it would not save $400 billion. We've already spent somewhere north of $200 billion, maybe even $300 billion, on the F-35. Our current outlay for this fiscal year for the F-35 is $9.4 billion. The V-22 outlay for this year is $2.1 billion.

So, by cutting the two programs, you've saved $11.5 billion for this year, and likely a similar amount for next year.

If we cut the amount we spend on overseas bases & troops in half, we could save over $30 billion in one year. Plus, by relocating those troops back to the US, we're boosting the economy around the bases where the troops get relocated to.

[AndyA]

6. Obviously, we need to dump a lot more money into this program!

We can eviscerate social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other worthless programs that waste money, then spend lots more on something worthwhile--like this!

[guardian]

7. Do what the Israelis did

They added rear view mirrors to their jets

[Bandit]

11. That was so they had a place to hang their fuzzy dice.....

[guardian]

16. But where do you put

the plastic Jesus?

[hootinholler]

17. In an Israeli jet?

Masuguna!

[MadHound]

10. Which obviously means that we need to start a whole other aircraft program to take its place,

And spend untold billions on it.

That's one way the MIC is continuously well fed and cared for.

[Octafish]

18. Try a Trillion.

$1 trillion Fighter plane project likely to be more costly

Program cutbacks now may drive up costs later.

The total cost of the F-35 program is more than $1 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office.

By John Nolan
Staff Writer
Updated: 10:53 p.m. Sunday, Feb. 26, 2012 | Posted: 10:23 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 25, 2012

The Obama administration’s cost-cutting decision to reduce purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in the program’s early years will likely drive up costs during the long term on a project that is already on its way to becoming America’s most expensive military acquisition ever.

Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the F-35 program office in Crystal City, Va., acknowledged that the stealth fighter’s price tag — estimated to be more than $1 trillion — will likely increase during the 30-year buying period, due to reducing demand at the beginning, which may have held down costs through economies of scale.

The new plan to buy 244 of the planes in the next five years — down from the previously scheduled 423 — would reduce funding by $15 billion during that period, he said.

“We’re in the reality of tight fiscal constraints,” DellaVedova said.

The cost comes in part because the plane, which will modernize the attack fleet, is tailored to the needs of multiple armed services including the U.S. and its allies.

CONTINUED...

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/-1-trillion-fighter-plane-project-likely-to-be-more-costly-1334400.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Oh, no! What will protect us from the mighty Taliban Air Force???

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

21. Ha ha very funny!!

You do know those kites probably have those box cutter type razors, right? Which is why we need an anti missile shield as well.

[GiveMeFreedom]

25. We already have an answer to this.

Remote controlled kite.