USS Billings Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship (Infographics)

PS I have a thread saved to come back to you; I haven’t forgotten girl ……

What, what problems with the F-35 ?

Before ‘Google Clean Up’, there were many articles, mentioning that they had stopped counting, major faults on with regards the $trillion, disaster, when they reached 100. Cannot find them now.

F-35 Far from Ready to Face Current or Future Threats, Testing Data Shows
Navy’s F-35 Version Not Ready for Combat… https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2019/03/f-35-far-from-ready-to-face-current-or-future-threats/

…………..

F-35 Price Drops, but Serious Technical Problems Remain
The Fiscal Times
Michael Rainey
The Fiscal TimesJune 12, 2019… https://finance.yahoo.com/news/f-35-price-drops-serious-221349386.html

…………..

Here are the problems faced by the F-35, and how some can be fixed… https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters/tv-next-episode/2019/06/17/here-are-the-problems-faced-by-the-f-35-and-how-some-can-be-fixed/

………………………

From 2016 and did laugh, at the section heading – ‘ejecting might kill you’

The Pentagon’s official F-35 bug list is terrifying
By Joel Hruska on February 3, 2016… https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/222380-the-pentagons-official-f-35-bug-list-is-terrifying

………………..

WTF-35: How the Joint Strike Fighter Got to Be Such a Mess
The story of the F-35, and what went wrong to put the Joint Strike Fighter so far over budget and behind schedule… https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21957/wtf-35/ (old news)

From the defence news link you provided, I got this – https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds-could-cause-big-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coating/

Nice links, keep them coming please.

You might like this, completely off topic, but, well, that is mois.

Just found it, whilst being nosy: Just copied snippets of the Bill, however, seriously worth reading the full works. Link attached.

THE UNITED NATION’S CONVENTION ON THE
LAW OF THE SEA (TREATY DOC. 103-39)
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SEPTEMBER 27 AND OCTOBER 4, 2007
‘…COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
BARBARA BOXER, California
BILL NELSON, Florida
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania
JIM WEBB, Virginia
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
BOB CORKER, Tennessee
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JIM DEMINT, South Carolina
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Staff Director
KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Republican Staff Director

‘… The Convention on the Law of the Sea is a product of several
decades of bipartisan effort. Negotiations begun in the 1970s, under
President Nixon, were continued under Presidents Carter and
Reagan. In 1982, President Reagan refused to sign the Convention
because of its objectionable provisions of deep seabed mining. The
following year, President Reagan proclaimed that the United States
would accept an act in accordance with the other aspects of the
Convention, relating to traditional uses of the oceans. In 1990,
under President Bush, a new effort was initiated to address the
problems identified by President Reagan with the deep seabed mining provisions. Four years later, during President Clinton’s term,
a new agreement was included that modifies the seabed mining
provisions. The Convention is now endorsed by President Bush,
who in May, urged the Senate to approve it during this session of
Congress…

…Our security is advanced by the Convention because the United
States Navy will benefit from navigational rules of passage through
territorial waters, international straits, and archipelagic sealanes.
Many strategic sealanes run through straits, such as the Strait of
Gibraltar, or in archipelagos, such as in Indonesia. These rights of
passage through straits or archipelagos are not contained in the
1958 treaties on the Law of the Sea, to which we are currently a
party.

… essential component of the telecommunications infrastructure, by establishing an international framework for deep seabed
mining in areas outside of national jurisdictions, which we have
long expected would be subject to international regulation.
Our environmental interests are advanced by the rules permitting coastal states to control the exploitation of the resources in the
zone and to address pollution from various sources in the territorial
sea…

…The case against the Convention is rooted in the opposition to it
by President Reagan, who objected only to the deep seabed mining
regime in the 1982 treaty. The 1994 agreement that modifies these
mining provisions, an agreement that is also before the committee,
should be seen as a triumph of American diplomacy.

…After rejecting the Convention, President Reagan asked our key allies to join us staying outside of it, most of them did. The large majority of our NATO partners, as well as Australia and Japan, did not ratify the
Convention until after the conclusion of the 1994 agreement…

A concerted diplomatic effort by the United States and other
major powers, produced an agreement that will protect American
technology, provide for market-based approaches to production, and
give the United States a permanent seat on the decision making
body of the Seabed Mining Authority…

… Opponents are similarly reluctant to mention the unanimous
support of affected U.S. industries. To oppose the treaty on economic grounds requires opponents to say that the oil, natural gas,
shipping, fishing, boat manufacturing, exporting, and telecommunications industries do not understand their own bottom lines…

In addition, as a nonparty, our ability to influence the decisions
of the Commission on the limits of the Continental Shelf is severely
constrained. Russia is already making excessive claims in the Arctic. Until we become a party to the Convention, we will be in a
weakened position to protect our national interests in these discussions.
Opponents seem to think that if the United States declines to
ratify the Law of the Sea, …

…nonparticipation renders the treaty virtually irrelevant or inoperable, the Law of the Sea will continue to form the basis of maritime law regardless of whether the United States is a party. International decisions related to national claims on continental shelves beyond 200 miles from our shore, resource exploitation in the open ocean, navigation rights, and other matters will be made in the context of the treaty, whether we join or not…

Consequently, the United States can not insulate itself from the
Convention merely by declining to ratify. …They want the United States to participate in the structures of the Law of the Sea to defend their interests and to make sure that other nations respect our rights and our claims.

Given the United States has been abiding by all but one provision of the treaty since President Reagan’s 1983 statement of oceans policy, and that we have been a party to a less advantageous international convention on ocean law since 1958, dire predictions about the hazards to sovereignty, of joining the Law of the Sea ring particularly hollow.

It is irresponsible for us to wait to ratify the Law of the Sea until
we feel the negative consequences of our absence from the Convention. The Senate should ratify the Law of the Sea Convention now,
in the interest of U.S. national security, U.S. economy, and the
American people…

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/092707_100407_Transcript_The%20United%20Nations%20Convention%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20the%20Sea.pdf

Part 2

Still reading through the text, of the link below, but, just seen this snippet.

‘…Recent Russian activities in the Arctic, all the way to the North
Pole, have focused attention on this aspect of the Convention. Continuing data collection by Russia and other parties to the Convention, reflect a commitment to maximizing their sovereign rights
over natural resources in that region.

The United States is at a distinct disadvantage in relation to
such parties. As a nonparty, we are not currently in a position to
maximize U.S. sovereign rights over the shelf in the Arctic or elsewhere. We have no access to the Convention procedure that would
assure the full exercise of our sovereign rights. In the absence of
such international recognition and legal certainty, U.S. companies
are unlikely to secure the necessary financing and insurance to exploit energy resources on the extended shelf…’

May 2019 – It’s Official: The U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Is a Complete Failure… It’s Official: The U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Is a Complete Failure

Honestly, I do not know whether to laugh or cry, the F-35 ship version.

But then again, when some tosser describes it as below, what can one expect:

“When the Navy in the 1990s first began shaping the LCS program, the idea was for the ships to be small, fast, inexpensive and lightly-manned “trucks” into which the sailing branch could plug a wide array of “modules” carrying equipment for specific missions including surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare and minesweeping.

Hopeless.

There was a lovely video, I used to share, but, never bookmarked, which showed the Russian weapons, stored in cargo containers. Then placed on board the ships, and opened when needed. Looked so neat and tidy and like Lego takes to the water. Nothing like the loaded cargo ships we now have, over in the merchant shipping lanes.

Laugh or cry at this one, or both, if you are ambidextrous, in the throat/tear duct department.

Village People– IN THE NAVY, OFFICIAL Music Video (1979) HD… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmGuy0jievs

That 269 document, I provided the link, in another comment, was presented between SEPTEMBER 27 AND OCTOBER 4, 2007.

Do you remember Russia took ground samples, from the arctic shelf, when she placed her flag on it. In order to send to the UN, to support her terrtorial claim, using a DNA analysis, proving links to Siberia. They tried earlier in the millenium, but, were told they had to provide evidence, to substantiate their claim.

Thu 2 Aug 2007 18.01 BST… Russia plants flag on North Pole seabed…https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/02/russia.arctic

You just cannot believe it, since the US outsourced 80% of their intelligence, to the private sector, they had no idea that Russia had the capacity to obtain ground samples from the arctic shelf. Whilst they were not even signatories, together with some of their NATO and ‘5 Eye’ mates, to the Convention of The Seas. Which also applies to the Strait of Hormuz and also Sea of Azov, around the Kerch Strait Bridge.

They then turn up late to the party, demanding full control of all the ‘freebies’.

Russia now has hypersonics, in active service, and again the US wonders why they never joined the club. They were too busy focusing on ‘First Strike Missile Defence Systems’ to go on all Russia’s borders, without even thinking, that Russia might know what to be looking for, when defending herself. Getting it into production, asap.

Part 2.

Forgot to say, the submarine that laid the Russian flag on the sea floor of the arctic shelf, and took the ground samples, was the Losharik. The one, allegedly, that lost 14 highly skilled, research scientist, submariners, whilst managing to save the lives of the rest of the crew and bring the boat home.