Humm ok lol

 

Anyone else can tell me where i am wrong ? (with the under line, it look terribly wrong)

your implication is that it is a definable product that can be modified to suit a weather circumstance when the priority anyway is managing the emmissions from a given asset.

finally, you're assuming that it has weather resistanceissues.  those issues WRT the B2 for example were resolved years ago.

 

I've just had a cracking idea - can you do that - just list the claims and the rebuttals and I'll pack 'em into a web page with numbered points that we can all link to - that means next time BW starts in about say, Spectra being the equivalent of a Romulan cloaking device, we can all just post a link to the webby and a bullet point number that corresponds to a definitive response.

 

It'll save a ton of typing :)

 

Ian

 

 

There's always a degree of recycling on any community forum but usually it's newer members not searching for old well worn topics - BW with the Rafale thing defies belief tho !

 

Ian

 

If this website had decent software we could have sticky threads rather than having to rehash well worn topics ad infinitum.

Massive F-35 purchase cut expected in QDR < link >

 

- Two aircraft carrier groups cut.

- Along with F-35C to go with those canceled carriers.

- Two USAF F-35 wings cut.

As for USAF, it wouldn't bother me any to lose two Wings, and if they are all F-35 then that means we would buy about 1560 F-35A instead of 1760.  Sounds just fine.  And contrary to the "Likely Kills Two Carriers" in the title, all the text seems to point to the tough fight any such cuts in naval airpower will face, and if anything it sounds more like the USN will still need to buy all of its several hundred F-35C even if they do cut one or two carriers:

 

""Folks on the Hill are watch­ing the car­rier cuts par­tic­u­larly closely. They were will­ing to accept the tem­po­rary loss of one car­rier but two groups may just be too much for law­mak­ers to swal­low though it would con­ve­niently answer the hot debate about whether the Navy faces a fight....

 

"?Even if they cut two car­rier strike groups (which will be an uphill bat­tle for DOD), they still face a sig­nif­i­cant USN fighter gap,? said a con­gres­sional aide fol­low­ing this. ?The Navy seems to rec­og­nize this, but every­thing we?ve heard thus far from OSD seems to indi­cate that they?d rather try funny math then address a clear gap.?

 

"The 2010 defense autho­riza­tion report noted care­fully that Congress was will­ing to accept the ?tem­po­rary reduc­tion in min­i­mum num­ber of oper­a­tional air­craft car­ri­ers? from 11 to 10 until CVN 78 is com­mis­sioned in 2015. The report also noted that ?the Navy has made a long-term com­mit­ment to field 11 air­craft car­ri­ers out­fit­ted with 10 car­rier air wings com­posed of 44 strike-fighters in each wing.? Congress, the report?s authors said, is ?very con­cerned? about ?cur­rent and fore­casted short­falls in the strike-fighter inven­tory.? Given the totemic nature of car­ri­ers for the Navy and the num­bers of jobs and the money at stake for mem­bers of Congress, a bat­tle royal over plans to per­ma­nently reduce the fleet by two car­rier groups seems assured."

 

 

Aaccchhh!  I didn't even notice the sub-title the first time I read it.

 

The so-called "massive" F-35 cuts would be "about 100 planes."  Let me translate that for you:  In a program scheduled for 1760+ USAF + ~600 USN & USMC + ~700+ sold to allies (I'm not sure the exact numbers offhand) that adds up to somewhere around about 3200 aircraft, they're talking about cutting 100 aircraft.

@ warpig

 

 

USAF requirement has already been cut to 1,000~1,200.

 

If it is 1,000 now due to cost overruns and budget cuts, the new low is 910, new high is 1110.