Skip to comments.New Pictures Of The F-35 With Its Weapons Bay Doors Wide Open (Very Impressive Pictures)
Posted on 03/17/2012 7:18:22 PM PDT by lbryce
Maybe it's the sleek lines and the state-of-the-art design, or maybe it's the almost underdog status the $382 billion program has adopted since it began testing, either way new pictures of the F-35's baby steps keep popping up online.
These were taken March 1, and posted to the Aviationist by David Cenciotti. They show the STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) model with its weapon bays open and a couple of dummy 2,000 pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) smart bombs.
One more picture left to view.due to excerpt rule
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Bombing for effect rather than bombing just because you want to?
You want to take out a weapon system or person the most efficient way possible because that means less resources needed by you to achieve significant results. For example, why expend dozens of sorties and hundreds of weapons to take down a division of tanks when you can simply drop a couple of bridges and isolate then from the battlefield? Or, drop one bomb in one precise location and you take out a power station rather than totally destroy it by dropping hundreds of weapons.
Safer to fly fewer sorties, achieve greater battlefield/tactical and strategic effect, and frankly, less costly.
Identifying Centers of Gravity or “decisive points” are key to decimating an enemies ability to wage war.
These nodes are hard to identify, even more so during insurgency operations, but nonetheless, are the best way to win. From strategic air campaigns to silent special ops troops with a Kbar, it all depends on what you identify and target, not level of destruction.
I seem to live under the flight path between a Marine Air station and a base out in the desert. All sorts of aircraft fly overhead and I love being able to hear them!
"That's the sound of freedom, baby!"
I'd rather not leave an enemy with 90% of their ability to wage war.
Since they nixed the alternate engine supplier, you can bet that over the next 10-15 years the engine prices will go up and power improvements will be small.
Oh come on, our dummy bombs are smart because they KNOW they are dummy bombs.
How many dummy bombs do you know that know that they are dummy bombs???
The last time AJ Foyt put his Indy car into the hay bales, someone asked, "Brake fade?"
AJ replied, "Naw -- brain fade..."
I was four when the raid occurred -- so, I plead 70 years of brain fade! '-)
BTW, It just hit me that we are exactly one month shy of the 70th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid!
FY 2012 Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System:
Page: I-7 ($6,644M for 32 aircraft = $207.6M
The military is under the control of Obama. Think about that when you look at these pictures.
The military is under the control of Obama - as is the F-35... and ‘the press’ ...
High casualties certainly aren’t something that gets popular support. But what I had in mind is the change in technology. You could drop the same tonnage with far fewer planes after WWII. A number that gets reduced even further with the use of ballistic missiles, drones, cruise missiles. No need for enough airplanes to fill the sky.
USAF numbers are as I reported.
USMC and Navy numbers higher, thereby giving higher average cost. . .but not due to USAF costs. If anything, the USAF costs are keeping it much lower than a basic Navy/USMC buy.
I say let the USAF buy their own and let the Navy and USMC fight over their version.
Would like to see the Navy/USMC budget docs, as they would provide transparency and detail. . .like the USAF docs.
USN variant has some major issues with landing gear and the tailhook for carrier landings. We’ll see where that leads.