Derek 2.0

Exactly, the "Donald" is at it again: And I thought Cruz and Paul were going to provide the entertainment for the GOP primary

No it isn't. The author of the blog is either an idiot or intellectually dishonest, and only after numerous calls for his sources, he later posted the obtained report (on his blog). In it, as confirmed by the Pentagon clarification, is a detailed after action report from the first day (of four) calibrating the test aircraft's (AF-2) flight control system/avionics, of which, adjustments were made, where needed, to the aircraft's auto stability systems. As noted from an article from April of this year, the pilot who penned the day-1 report (and flew the F-35 in said flight), is also quoted as saying, in addition to the flight director, of the entire test as a whole: So no, not a game changer, but a part of the process of all aircraft, military or civilian.

Already refuted.......Oops!!! And confirmed, by Top Gun graduate and former Hornet pilot: Sorry, despite the bloggers best tales, its still BS

No, in the other F-35 thread, I provided the entire interview with the CNO, which adds context to the partial remarks quoted by the anti-F-35 crowd........unlike like you, that relies upon bloggers speaking and distorting his remarks. The CNO in his own words (from the ~19 minute on):

And said "blogger" is refuted by a factual report: And of course, this flight was reported on earlier this year, well naming the actual people involved.......not unnamed sources, from an unknown report, cited by a blogger: So the actual pilot of the AF-2 test is quoted.......who is the blogger's unnamed source, and what was he/she flying?

And, as already talked about, several years ago, in the other F-35 thread, said remarks are taken out of context when the entire interview is read......As CNO Greenert is speaking to the USN's reliance on stand-off technology, be it air, surface or sub-surface launched, developed in the 1960s and 70s....... And no, the USN didn't cut its requirement for the F-35 in half, its slowing its implementation of the fleet due to the realization that the USN currently doesn't have a surplus of carriers to conduct CARQUALs of the type, bringing it into service at the same rate as the Marines and Air Force......... If, as your cited "experts" suggest the USN had reservations with the F-35, they wouldn't be the deploying the first operational, USMC, squadron this Summer

Yeah, the F-35's combination of radar and DAS is the most modern combination of sensors ever put into the air in a fighter sized aircraft, by anyone, ever.........if the F-35 can't see, nothing else can.

That is probably a safe assumption, but Canada alongside allies could very well see itself doing that in some crap hole armed with then modern Chinese or Russian air defenses, defenses that would negate current 4th and 4.5 generation aircraft like the Super Hornet or Eurofighter It should be noted, all present users of the Super Hornet, likewise 2 of 4 developers of the Eurofighter (3 if you count an eventual Spanish purchase), intend to also operate the F-35......

When our current Hornets were selected over 35 years ago, with the intended purpose of intercepting waves of Soviet bombers and providing low-level strike to NATO forces on the West German FEBA against the Soviet Hordes, nobody envisioned they would one day be used to conduct fighter sweeps over the Persian Gulf, interdiction missions over the former FRY, provide air defense against hijacked airliners and conduct targeted strikes against insurgent groups over Libya and Iraq............ One can make educated guesses, by there is zero certainty over what Canada could be required to use the replacement for its Hornets for (Or against) going outwards into the 2050s.....

Its not theory but fact, if an F-35 can see an opposing aircraft before it can see it, the opposing aircraft loses............As to the Chinese (or Russian) claim to the advancement of their VHF radars, first, low band frequencies are unable to target/provide terminal guidance to missiles, in addition, low frequencies are not agile between different bands, as such, are easily jammed with countermeasures that were available during the Vietnam war, let alone a modern suite found on a Growler or F-35. As to its internal weapons carriage, yes, it is a greatly diminished load, but is offset by the fact that any other modern aircraft, outside the B-2, would be unable to go into a modern contested airspace without being savaged by modern air defenses........which is why, using Desert Storm as an example, the first stages of the air war were to destroy the Iraqi air defense grid (at the time, one of the largest and most deadly, second only to Soviet defenses defending Moscow and the Kola Peninsula), with stealth aircraft and cruise missiles.... Yes, one has to question a claim of Chinese VHF radars developments, technology developed to it fullest in the 70s and 80s by the Americans ( by Lockheed and Northrop Grumman, makers of the only serving stealth aircraft and the F-35 to boot!!!)..........whats next, are the Chinese going to develop an 8" floppy disk with a level of decryption the world has never seen? And assuming the Russian and Chinese have made stealth obsolete, why are they both developing their own stealth aircraft?

Far more nations then want the Super Hornet, Gripen, Eurofighter or Rafale..........as I said, despite the "expert opinions" and bloggers, the first operational squadron of F-35s is deploying within weeks on its first operational deployment, displacing the ARG's previous Harrier IIs, providing fast-air for United States Marines if required to do so.

What isn't funny is your poor understanding of purchase production price versus the figure (cited by you) that includes an average that factors all previously paid development costs.........

By dithering, do you mean about to sign the largest ever defense contract, a contract that would result in the F-35s obtaining a fly-away price (as predicted) of $80-85 million a piece, equal to or lower than the Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen? Or the kind of dithering that saw lead items bought for not only American orders, but also British, Dutch, Australian, Italian, Norwegian and Turkish aircraft?

No, its an operational deployment, by an operational USMC squadron, that will deploy with a USN ARG, with thousands of other Sailors and Marines, and would go into harm's way if required by the National Command Authority.

Cherry picked? Are you denying the audit, as your link states, covered a period from last year, and the prescribed changes will be finished this July, the same month that the first F-35B squadron goes on operational deployment?

Oh, the report from the unnamed pilot, conducting an unknown (To the USAF or Lockheed) test...........I heard Elvis was flying the Viper so it seems legit

Remember several years back when the experts stated the F-35B was to be cancelled and would never work as intended? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAFnhIIK7s4 Somehow, the Marines managed to deploy an entire flight aboard the Wasp a month ago and the World didn't end, nor did the flight deck melt as the experts said it would

A report released in April, covering the audit of the aircraft last year........reread your link ffs:

The first operational F-35 squadron (USMC) has already stood up, and in the next couple of weeks, will go on its first regular deployment.........then the first F-35A Squadron stands-up with the USAF next year........your talking points have gone stale and no longer sync with real life.

And Jeb just provided his tax returns for the last 33 years, the most ever for someone running for President, showing how is became wealthy........much like how he released several months back all his emails, some embarrassing, from his time as Governor of Florida.....I liked this part:

No, they didn't.......they, as I've stated (and cited) countless times to you, the RAAF replaced their F-111 fleet with the Super Hornet/Growler because they could no longer afford to maintain a bastard fleet of aircraft after the USAF retired the type, and the General Dynamics aircraft division (sold to Lockheed) no longer supported the aircraft........they will replace their Super Hornets and Growlers in the later 2020s with additional F-35s, be they F-35As (as is replacing their current Hornet fleet) or F-35Bs to operate in conjunction with the Canberra class LHDs The RAAF example should be heeded, as operating obsolete aircraft, that no longer have a support base, are unaffordable......as would happen to Canada if we selected the Super Hornet (Or your just as old "European options) and operated them into the 2050s........this is why Canada no longer operates the Sabre or Canuck.

As I said to you countless times, the RAAF selected the Super Hornet to replace their 1970s era F-111s, and are replacing their Hornets (same vintage as ours) with the F-35............your "European Options" (Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen) are as old as, if not older, than the Super Hornet, likewise have been plagued with a whole host of problems and are still, decades late, not fully mature........so you would purchase the Super Hornet interim, then replace them with "European options" that are just as old............ Your choices are: 1) F-35 2) Aircraft that will be obsolete in the later 2020s, into the 2030s, hence requiring a replacement within the next 15-20 years, or accept that the RCAF is obsolete. 3) Keep flying our current Hornets, that are approaching 35-40 years old, and will start falling from the skies 4) No longer maintain a fighter capability within the RCAF, and allow the Americans to police our airspace as they see fit (with their own F-35s) 5) A mixture of 2 and 3, and purchase the 6th generation fighter under development that will replace the Super Hornet, F-15E and F-22 in the 2030s....

No, that is still several generations away at best......first the use of drones requires bandwidth, which is limited worldwide (the Americans are constrained to operating less UAV/UCAVs at a time then you and I have fingers and toes), furthermore the reach of said bandwidth and communications is limited by the curvature of the Earth, namely in both polar regions (kind of important for us with NORAD). Second, UAV/UCAVs has severe limitations with situational awareness, which on several occasions resulted in near misses with manned aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, the use of UAV/UCAVs is limited to restricted airspace....having a UCAV unable to intercept a wayward airliner over Southern Ontario is a non-starter. With that said, technology developed for the F-35 (its Northrop Grumman developed Distributed Aperture System) will, in the future, be incorporated into future UAVs. Third, a UCAV that will fulfill the same requirements as a modern manned aircraft, will cost an equal or greater amount.......UCAVs are not cheap, and though they will supplement manned flight, they won't replace it for generations (this is no more evident then the concepts of the 6th generation fighters and next generation bomber, both of which will still have ejection seats) With all that, UAV/UCAVs (and underwater and on land) do have a place in current and near term modern armed forces, including the Canadian Forces, as a supplement to current capabilities........

The root Hornet design is from the early 1970s, with the Super Hornet taking birth in the later 1980s........you would have Canada purchase a near 30 year old design in 2015, and operate it out to the 2050s......making the Super Hornet a design over 60 years old.........that is akin to an air force operating the F-86 Sabre today

Yes