160 per year in 2023.Just achieving FRP is 160 jets per year.
you said it is at 200 per year.
160 per year in 2023.Just achieving FRP is 160 jets per year.
160 per year in 2023.
you said it is at 200 per year.
A half to come back to factory for overhaul, repair and upgrade ?View attachment 1964
https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa8...ckcdn.com/13567/f-35_fast_facts_feb_2018_.pdf
200+ per year is not in the plans as of feb 2018.
the numbers are actually anticipated to come down due to the budgets required for maintenance.
Very strange to see USA upgrading a lot of old F15 and F16..... not so obsolete it seems.So if General Hostage says even their upgraded F-15s and F-16s are obsolete
Very strange to see USA upgrading a lot of old F15 and F16..... not so obsolete it seems.
Nice to see some press articles written by people who know how to look beyond the defense manufacturers' shiny brochures and can see the bigger picture.
You're dreaming if you believe the USA would treat you in the same way they treat the Israeli. Not even the other Five Eyes nations are treated like that; why would they give India something they deny to the UK and Australia?The Israelis have fixed their own interfacing issues with the F-35, which is an option for us.
You're dreaming if you believe the USA would treat you in the same way they treat the Israeli. Not even the other Five Eyes nations are treated like that; why would they give India something they deny to the UK and Australia?
The UK did, and backed their demand with the fact they were Tier 1 partners -- the only country to be so. The US response was "LOL" and it didn't go farther than that. (On the other hand, Israel kept insisting and were finally given what they wanted.)The Five Eyes haven't asked for it.
It definitely is a closed system, and it definitely isn't NATO-compatible. The entire play of the US with the F-35 is to say "we've defined a new standard with the F-35, if you want to be compatible with our new standard you have to buy the F-35, all other aircraft -- your old US aircraft like the aircraft built by our European competitors -- are not going to be compatible so do not even think about buying them instead, it's the F-35 or nothing, do as we tell you and obey." The F-35 networks, be they for maintenance and logistics, for in-flight data transfer, or for mission preparation, are all closed proprietary software instead of conforming to NATO standards. They're using the arguments that NATO standards are either insufficient (Link 16 bandwidth doesn't have enough data throughput to share high-res video feeds in real-time, so stuff like MADL is required) or inexistent so as to go with their own proprietary design instead of creating new NATO standards. And they keep as many details under wraps as possible to get a competitive advantage in the few remaining NATO countries that haven't bought the F-35 yet. They won't open these standards as long as they haven't won all the contracts they think they can won.The F-35 is not a closed system, it is NATO compatible.
Translation:Et bien justement, moi je l'ai fait quand j’étais jeune ingénieur chez Dassault; je participais à des groupes d'interopérabilité de l'OTAN dans les cercles OTAN à Bruxelles, et on définissait les normes qui nous permettent de travailler. Le modèle américain du F-35 casse ces codes. Il vous dit "il n'y a plus interopérabilité, il y a intégration avec le F-35" c'est à dire "vous êtes Américain ou vous ne l'êtes pas". Et c'est proprement scandaleux que l'OTAN accepte ça. Normalement c'est l'interopérabilité et on est en train de passer à l'uniformisation et l'intégration dans les armées américaines.
And as it happens, I did that when I was junior engineer at Dassault; I participated to NATO interoperability groups in the NATO offices at Brussels, and we defined the norms that would let us work together. The American model of the F-35 breaks those codes. It tells you "interoperability no longer exists, now there is integration with the F-35 instead", that is to say, "you're either American or you aren't". And it's a right scandal that NATO accepts that. Normally it's interoperability and we're transitioning to uniformisation and integration in the American armed forces.
The UK did, and backed their demand with the fact they were Tier 1 partners -- the only country to be so. The US response was "LOL" and it didn't go farther than that. (On the other hand, Israel kept insisting and were finally given what they wanted.)
U.S. to withhold F-35 fighter software code
It definitely is a closed system, and it definitely isn't NATO-compatible. The entire play of the US with the F-35 is to say "we've defined a new standard with the F-35, if you want to be compatible with our new standard you have to buy the F-35, all other aircraft -- your old US aircraft like the aircraft built by our European competitors -- are not going to be compatible so do not even think about buying them instead, it's the F-35 or nothing, do as we tell you and obey." The F-35 networks, be they for maintenance and logistics, for in-flight data transfer, or for mission preparation, are all closed proprietary software instead of conforming to NATO standards. They're using the arguments that NATO standards are either insufficient (Link 16 bandwidth doesn't have enough data throughput to share high-res video feeds in real-time, so stuff like MADL is required) or inexistent so as to go with their own proprietary design instead of creating new NATO standards. And they keep as many details under wraps as possible to get a competitive advantage in the few remaining NATO countries that haven't bought the F-35 yet. They won't open these standards as long as they haven't won all the contracts they think they can won.
Quoting Trappier:
Translation:
Also it's not just European countries that are affected by the F-35's obfuscating proprietary nature:
U.S. Navy vexed by lack of access to F-35 logistics coding
The US Navy criticizes the F-35's maintenance and logistics software for being a black box that they can't integrate with their onboard software, and which requires the presence of LockMart contractors on their ships. Again, that's the United States Navy. Not Japan or Turkey or Australia, but the United States' own military navy that is frustrated by the closed nature of the F-35 software. If they can't access it, what makes you think you can?
Israel is an anomaly. Its situation in US politics is incomparable to anything else in the world. Bringing unconditional support to Israel in all circumstances is a key platform of the religious right in the USA because they're persuaded that the existence of Israel is a necessary precondition for the second coming of Jesus Christ and the Rapture. It's a whole bunch of nonsense which only proves that they're shit at theology, but it has a tremendous impact on US foreign policies. The key point here is that India is not at all in this situation; no other country in the world is.
The USA will not consider India to be a peer.This will be the first time in US history that the Americans will be dealing with a potentially peer ally
The USA will not consider India to be a peer.
At least not during the timeframe in which the F-35 will be relevant.
You're dreaming if you believe the USA would treat you in the same way they treat the Israeli. Not even the other Five Eyes nations are treated like that; why would they give India something they deny to the UK and Australia?
My estimate was and remain that it will be ready for war in 2031.....@A Person @Picdelamirand-oil
Admiral Harris told members of Congress, “At the moment, India is considering a number of U.S. systems for purchase, all of which USPACOM fully supports: the F-16 for India’s large single-engine, multi-role fighter acquisition program; the F/A-18E for India’s multi-engine, carrier-based fighter purchase; a reorder of 12-15 P-8Is; a potential purchase of SeaGuardian UAS; MH-60R multi-role sea-based helicopter; and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.”
Don't dismiss the F-35 for the navy.
My estimate was and remain that it will be ready for war in 2031.....