Courtesy of my buddy Joe!....He also provided this link if you have difficulty reading the attachment here...
DOD F-35 Concurrency Quick Look Review, 29-Nov-2011
DOD F-35 Concurrency Quick Look Review, 29-Nov-2011
The Royal Navy’s new Joint Strike Fighter may be unable to land on an aircraft carrier because of a design flaw according to a Pentagon report leaked to a national newspaper.I don't know this website.
Documents obtained by The Sunday Times reveal the report – called the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review – has identified a serious flaw in the aircraft’s design.
It reveals eight simulated landings of the new variant all-purpose jet, known as the F-35C, failed because the “arrestor” hook, used to stop the plane during landing, is too close to the undercarriage at just seven feet away, compared with 18ft on existing US Navy aircraft.
The report concludes that a “significant redesign” of the aircraft is needed and that the future of the aircraft is at risk.
It also suggests the new fighter may be unable to fire British Asram air-to-air missiles and is untested in several other areas. It says if a redesign proves too costly and complicated the entire F-35C programme may have to be scrapped.
The Ministry of Defence has declined to comment on the leaked report but said
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond “discussed a number of issues including the Joint Strike Fighter” with his counterpart Leon Panetta in his recent visit to Washington.
A spokesman said: "We are taking delivery of our first Joint Strike Fighters for test and evaluation purposes this year and are committed to purchasing the carrier variant of the JSF. Our plans remain on track to have a new carrier strike capability from around 2020.”
My initial reaction to the video was something along the lines of, “What? How stupid do you have to be to film something like this and put it up online?” Many people are reeling in disgust, the very idea that someone could do such a thing to another human being is outrageous to most Americans. But then again, most Americans have never stepped foot in a combat zone, let alone killed anyone.So long story short.
My question for the average person then is what is the line? The powers of the United States government have given Marines not only a license, but a mission to kill the enemy overseas in brutal combat. You can’t simultaneously praise the legal killing of other human beings and then be angered when you see the reality of it. When it’s all said and done, what difference does it actually make? The Marine Corps isn’t upset that these Marines relieved themselves on a dead enemy, they’re upset they got caught.
I guess I look at it the same way I look at why I don’t give a shit about eating free-range chickens and grass-fed cows. These animals are being raised to be slaughtered and eaten, regardless of how good or bad their lives are. In the end, does it really make you feel better if the animal had a good life and then found its way onto your plate?
If there is a line, it is a line of ethereal and subjective principle, not fact.
I’m not saying it’s in any way right, or that I would have done it myself; but to condemn these Marines for this is somewhat of a moot point considering the reality of it.
"We're purchasing the F-35," Barth Eide said. "Hopefully, we'll get it."and then this part about a weak NATO...
Norway made a "complex set of simulations" which showed that while conventional non-stealthy aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, and next generation Saab Gripen are perfectly adequate for wars like Afghanistan where there is a permissive threat environment, only the F-35 was suitable to fight a high-end adversary. Barth Eide, without mentioning a country by name, said that such a high-end threat existed in Norway's vicinity.
"There was only one aircraft that would do," he said.
Norway has made a "decision in principle" to buy four initial aircraft, and plans a fleet of 48.
"I think we're getting worse at it because of the many cuts happening in a lot of European countries," the minister said. "If we're not smart, [defense cuts] may lead to a further weakening of the core ability to defend ourselves."Wow.
If NATO's core ability to defend itself is weakened, the alliance's ability to conduct out-of-area operations like Afghanistan will also wither away, Barth Eide said.
NATO has to strongly reassert Article 5 of the treaty and the decline of conventional capabilities has to stop, he said. The focus needs to shift away from large armies conducting stability operations to the air and sea, he added.