Trump keeps delivering BEFORE taking office! - F-35 cost to be "aggressively reduced"

a reply to: Vector99

It literally can. There's a reason INS is still put on aircraft. And radio capable of reaching Australia from Hawaii without the use of satellite. And laser guided weapons still.

The technical aspect everyone is overlooking, is just that, the TECHNOLOGICAL aspect of it.

It would make more sense to make F-35 satellites rather than planes.

The TRUE determination should be the coding involved. You can have the most advanced piece of equipment ever, but if you cannot keep your adversaries from retrieving said data, you might as well try to walk on water.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vector99

It literally can. There's a reason INS is still put on aircraft. And radio capable of reaching Australia from Hawaii without the use of satellite. And laser guided weapons still.

Russians are the pro's at LRF. It's easy to detect.

originally posted by: Vector99
The technical aspect everyone is overlooking, is just that, the TECHNOLOGICAL aspect of it.

It would make more sense to make F-35 satellites rather than planes.

The TRUE determination should be the coding involved. You can have the most advanced piece of equipment ever, but if you cannot keep your adversaries from retrieving said data, you might as well try to walk on water.

In a way you're both right.

1) We need to advance our tech (Zaphod)

2) It shouldn't be on jets. (Vector)

3) The best question neither of you are thinking of is what jet should we EXPORT.

We're saving the really cool tech for the drones. Trust me.

a reply to: Vector99

I get that you think satellites are great, but they can't do everything you think they can. They're also far more vulnerable than the F-35 will be for decades to come.

So, you think that somehow they're going to pick up the MADL, which is LPI to begin with, and have their own receiver capable of decoding the signal? They're not getting anything from either the F-22 or F-35 information wise.

a reply to: Vector99

That's why MADL and IFDL are LPI and they don't use Link-16.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Satellites do not require a ground transmission point Zaph, they require a singular data source. This can be located literally anywhere the earth won't get in the way, and honestly I really think we will get to the point soon enough that an ULF wave can be sent through the earth itself. Would be the most energetic wave we ever sent anywhere, but I think we really are close to it.

Don't underestimate satellites, every bit of tech we have militarized to counter the air pressure of earth, we have found works a lot better in space with a solar powered heater.

a reply to: seagull

The way I understand it the systems negate the necessity of satellites, the Achilles heel since they are pretty easy to take out these days.

It's integration with the AEGIS system is what sold it to me, it's going to be extremely difficult to overwhelm a fleet or ground based assets with F-35s in the sky.

It's smart as hell, a game changer.

a reply to: Vector99

To transmit to an aircraft, they do too. The ground station has to pull some of the data out and send it back to the aircraft.

But that still doesn't address the point of how incredibly vulnerable they are, or that they can't do just about anything the F-35 does beyond ISR and recon.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vector99

I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.

Anything an airplane can be programmed to do a satellite can be programmed to do better. It has less operational costs, and is capable of the same technological aspects any aircraft could ever contain.

Granted, satellites do need heaters which are short circuits to function, that does not take away from their data transmitting capabilities, and the difference between a satellite relayed data packet and an f-35 relayed data packet might favor the f-35 for data transmission. but it isn't something that would make a cognitive difference in a human reaction. the data deliverance literally would be the same from our perspective.

So, If you are for the f-35 being an unmanned automated aircraft, I can see your point.

a reply to: Zaphod58

To transmit to an aircraft, they do too.

No, the satellite can directly communicate with anything it's told to.

The ground station has to pull some of the data out and send it back to the aircraft.

The ground station could literally be a balloon anywhere in the atmosphere.

But that still doesn't address the point of how incredibly vulnerable they are, or that they can't do just about anything the F-35 does beyond ISR and recon.

I think you are right on this, it would probably be harder to shoot down a f-35 than a satellite, but with the technology in place the f-35 will never ever be superior to a satellite programmed for the same purpose.

a reply to: Vector99

Drones and satellites can be hacked I assume, so could a F-35 I suppose but not a pilot.

Computers cannot replace the pilot yet and the debate on whether they should is still happening, plus a sattelite isn't as accurate in controlling a missile from hundreds of miles away compared to a plane 60 miles away.

A sattelite can complement antimissile defences but it's not that good at commanding said defences, whereas a fleet of F-35s and AEGIS capable ships could potentially control hundreds of countermeasures, a satellite or group of satellites couldn't do that.

Plus satellites are becoming more and more vulnerable.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: Vector99

Drones and satellites can be hacked I assume, so could a F-35 I suppose but not a pilot.

That makes it worse. We have data replication technology that can literally make a pilot think they have received an order to fire.

On the other hand, a UAV can be hacked the same way, just takes a lot more effort.

originally posted by: Tempter
Per CNN Money

Lockheed Martin's CEO gave President-elect Donald Trump her "personal commitment" to cut the cost of the stealthy F-35 fighter jet.
Marillyn Hewson said she had a "very good conversation" with Trump Friday, the day after he tweeted that he was considering replacing the costly F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with a modified version of a cheaper jet.
"I've heard his message loud and clear about reducing the cost of the F-35," Hewson said in a statement. "I gave him my personal commitment to drive the cost down aggressively."
She added, "We're ready to deliver."

Can the President-Elect make you any happier? One friggin Tweet and this guy makes shockwaves. He'll be the the ultimate modern President. He'll CONNECT with the people at the same time as driving an agenda. His power will be great.

"Progressives" will not like hearing this.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Tempter

Holy crap, a CNN source.

It might be pro-Trump though?

Just a FYI, Liberal heads might seriously explode.

CNN has seen its views take a nose dive. They are now probably moving in to start supporting trump instead to win over the actual citizens of this country.

Hell they might even throw in a few stories that are true to gain back some credibility.

a reply to: Vector99

Satellites don't have the capability to do radar imaging of aircraft in flight, or to datalink to an aircraft. They can transmit signals to, such as SATCOM that include datalinks, but they can not transmit their data directly to an aircraft. You can claim otherwise all you want, but they aren't nearly as capable as an aircraft for an aircraft mission.

In addition to being vulnerable, unless you're going to park one at geosynchronous orbit, you're going to have huge gaps in your coverage you don't with an aircraft. And parking them makes them more vulnerable.

a reply to: Vector99

Which is where encryption comes in.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Satellites don't have the capability to do radar imaging of aircraft in flight, or to datalink to an aircraft.

Zaph, they are both big hunks of metal that have computing capabilities.

Yes, anything an f35 can do, a satellite can do, and better due to elevation (further transmission rates without relay)

a reply to: Vector99

No, they can't. I feel like I'm hitting a brick wall. Satellites don't have radar systems that can see airborne targets for the big thing. The F-35 is seeing airborne targets before they leave their parking spot, as soon as the systems power up.

Without a significant change they can't datalink to aircraft. These are all the same arguments used when the SR-71 was retired, and they ended up bringing them back because there was a huge hole in our capabilities.

a reply to: Vector99

Encryption, when in doubt look about. A pilot is and will be indispensable for a long time yet.

A drone or machine cannot replace s pilot when it comes to close ground support or air to air combat like dog fights.

Don't get me wrong, drones will slowly become a big player in combat roles but the satellite is very limited and so is the drone for now.

Fully autonomous warfare hasn't been achieved yet, the F-35 actually makes strides towards that affect but nobody on any side is replacing the human element... They'd all love to, but we ain't there yet.