Derek 2.0

Said member has never projected that claim, but does believe based on the precedent of other defence programs, said issues will be solved. Again false.......The F-35C was never intended to replace the Growler, are fulfill it’s role well in USN service. The natural replacement of our current Hornet fleet……..I fail to see how you expect Canada, a sovereign nation, to maintain it’s sovereignty without NORAD and a modern fighter fleet. Certainly it can be done………the overall effectiveness will of course be determined by funding.

Right: How much annual defence aide does Israel receive from the United States? How much does Israel receive discounted via FMS for DoD? Simply put, if not for the generosity of the United States that see‘s Israel as a bastion of Freedom in the Middle East, the population of Israel would have been air pollution decades ago.

Indeed, but reverting back to the point……..the F-4 Phantom was/is not a superior aircraft to the F-16, despite what the “stats” indicate…….That of course is attributed to advancements in aerospace technology. The logistic advantages are not better illustrated then looking at a carrier deck in the 80s: Contrasted with what one will look like next decade with two primary types aboard (Super Hornet and F-35C) As to the complimentary nature of the F-22 (and the eventual replacement of the Super Hornet) if one looks no further then conflicts post-1991 Gulf War, air dominance was achieved with little to no effort. There of course is no reason to believe, outside a direct conflict with Russia/China, in the decades ahead the same won’t be true. I never said different. “Many times” is clearly subjective…….from what has been released publicly, the difference is described as that between a marble and a golf ball………For contrast, the RCS of a typical legacy aircraft is what? As to price, as has been said for years, the F-35A is no under 100 million per copy (your figure is based on the price of the LRIP block purchase to cycles ago)……..As to the F-22, it’s price should be adjusted for inflation once the F-35 enters full production…..there is a major difference. The current Russian and Chinese developments, at best, are equivalent to where the F-22 was in the late 1990s (development and testing) and that of course is being generous……Of course by the time they began to enter full scale production and service, the replacement for the Super Hornet, Strike Eagle and F-22 will be in development…………None the less, the problem of proliferation of next generation Russian and Chinese aircraft is best not solved by the further purchase of legacy aircraft that are already outmatched. With all that being said, in terms of numeric advantage, the Soviets and Warsaw Pact had it in the 80s over NATO, yet NATO forces never questioned their superior ability to both implement and succeed at air dominance when faced with greater numbers.

Why the personal attack on the member? That was uncalled for and clearly against forum rules.

Are you suggesting that much power could never be generated from a single source? I find that hard to believe..... Source for the weight gain......in your view, what is the ideal weight? Source? I don't suppose you have a source? How much more noise is generated?

Bingo Well very true, the F-35 of course can dogfight..... Agreed.

Source? You mean this? What about it? Source? Oh yeah, like the Super Hornet.....

What's too much power for one engine in your opinion? And what other "crap" doesn't work?

Well I agree that the F-35 isn't "suyperwrsonic". it is most defiantly supersonic.......How is it dangerous at night or low level? Why can't you see out of it? And how many of those in service have caught fire?

Yet aircraft like these: Disprove your baseless claim.

Actually, both the Eurofighter and Rafale were born from the same requirement in the 1970s………none the less, no, I wouldn’t suggest Hornet is a better purebred fighter then the F-15.…likewise the Tomcat....But by the same token, the F-15 is wanting when compared to the F-22.…. Of course, the Hornet (or the Falcon) were not intended to be a pre-eminent air superiority aircraft, but multirole types to conduct various tasks, well replacing various aircraft types…….The F-35 is the next logical extension of that meme. Unlikely. “Stealth” is merely camouflage (as I’ve said numerous times) and was sought from the onset by the services of both the United States and the United Kingdom……..The multirole nature of the aircraft is only an improved extension of it’s predecessors. Now if you mean the STOVL requirement added complexity, time and money to the program as a whole….certainly, I agree 100% and have been saying that for years……Where I diverge is the complexities of the STOVL requiring design compromises to the conventional (and carrier) version…..from the onset in the developmental stage, these were both separate aircraft that shared similarities and systems. If there were no synergies, the STOVL requirement for the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and the USMC would likely never have been funded as a standalone variant …..As is likely the case for the USN’s carrier version…..If these services didn’t board the bus they would be likely operating, at best, improved variants of legacy aircraft until the middle of this century……This of course was not acceptable to these end users.

Yes, but as I already said to you, those nations that have reduced their orders, or postponed them, have also been making wholesale cuts to other branches of their armed forces and Government as a whole…….this is not a reflection upon the F-35, but a given nations finances, as clearly if it were associated with the F-35, said nations would select a “cheaper alternative”…….. As to the Super Hornet orders, neither the USN or RAAF have replaced legacy Hornets with Super Hornet instead of the F-35. That is simply not true.

How have each of those nations backed away from the program?

The F-35 isn’t trying to be a Warthog though……..As to SS flight, you understand incorrectly then….And what countries are backing away like dominoes?

Are you now suggesting, unlike the fabled Super Hornet, the F-35 will never be sorted and work as required? Quite the bold statement if true, what qualifies your opinion over that of all the militaries that are apart or have joined the program? The concept of a multirole aircraft is hardly new…..

Are suggesting no other aircraft was beset with developmental issues and was able to overcome them? So what was that cumulative number associated with the development of the Hornet, Falcon and Harrier again? Well no, it's not.........The F-35 was a clean slate.

Exactly…..which indicates the engineers were able to resolve the aircraft’s initial problems.

Nope.......do you have any of the Super Hornets when they were grounded twice due to engine issues?

Exactly...........Well we’re on the subject, from my understanding, the problem is actually the hollow blades, which P&W first discovered back in December (during the noted test bed failure) and have already sorted a work-around that can be retrofitted in the field……..as is currently underway for the aircraft in Maryland awaiting the hop across the pond.

Well I sure hope the Russians have dropped the program!?!?!?!?!?! I wonder how the Chinese are doing? They have trouble copying Russian turbofans from the 70s....

As is obvious, domestic politics always trumps the needs of the military in Canada……..All started with the Ross Rifle

What’s at issue is not you relaying reports by others, but you relaying both dated and incorrect reports(that have been addressed in this very thread) that are no longer relevant. As for who’s right……well history will decide, but based on precedent, I’ll go with the multinational F35 partnership, instead bloggers and the shrill critics found within the media. I have no inclination to do that for you, as I said, those points have been addressed within the several F-35 related threads on this site over the last several years. Already have. How is average hourly cost calculated? Jet aircraft are loud.......big surprise. Well I have........Nearly all the points you bring up have been discussed and debated already on this forum……As I’ve said, I have no desire to redress them for you…….. The Gripen is more expensive then the Super Hornet........And there are no training variants of the Super Hornet. A bold claim.....care to back that up? And what percent of said purchase are actually paid for by Israel, as opposed to the Americans? Do you understand why that is? The Israelis require the F-35 integrated within their nuclear deterrent…….The Americans reluctance to give them access to the source code is due to their habit of selling technology to anybody for a Shekel…… Source? The F-35 exceeds the IAF's F-16s range. But will the Americans pay to develop them for Israel? I find it rich that you suggest the Israelis are actually even purchasing them, since we all know that the Americans underwrite their defence………beggars can’t be too choosy.

This passage is perhaps the most telling: And similar incidents of near misses, namely with helicopters, lead DoD to conduct a review on the usage of remotely piloted vehicles in the same vicinity as manned aircraft…….IIRC, the report was something to the affect of “Blue Sky”……… A Chinook with 30+ passengers in the back would have it’s days ruined pretty quick in a collision with a Predator…

All those concerns have been addressed by myself, numerous times in this thread: Nobody that understands stealth would say it offers invisibility…….it is camouflage across three spectrums. Says who? You realize the same people that built the F-22 a decade prior, also designed the F-35 right? You're on the wrong wavelength.......What you're reaching for is UHF and VHF radars, such radars have been in use since the 50s, and jammed in the skies over Vietnam in the 60s and 70s. At what range? The Gripen NG and Rafale are only starting to test their AESA........none the less, the F-35's radar has been one of the facets of the program that has worked as planned will little to no hiccups, so much so that it’s been integrated smoothly for nearly four years. How so? Are you suggesting other aircraft have the same capabilities as the F-35’s DAS? For instance, the ability to track ballistic missiles and launch at targets behind the aircraft? And like the radar, the DAS portion of the program has been near flawless (aside from delays with the helmet that have since been resolved). All modern aircraft under development are placed under said bubble. Your information is dated several years...... As Waldo and I debated this already, I'd be more than pleased if you could provide RAND's methodology on what separate programs would cost. Actually no, said average is reduced by each aircraft that enters service........simple math. I have addressed that, in great depth in this thread. How wide, contrasted with the F-22 for example? As top aerodynamics, do you understand the concept of generating lift through the shaping of the fuselage, as was done with both the F-22 and F35? No it doesn't........Do you understand what occurs to say the Gripen or Super Hornet’s drag coefficient when they are carrying external stores (ala combat configuration?) The DAS and helmet system are working.........As to the human eye nonsense, how well does it work at night, in a cloud or bad weather? The F135 is one of the most powerful afterburning turbofans ever developed. What is the lift coefficient of the F-35 compared to other aircraft? Wrong, both the A and C have larger weapons bays. What safety equipment? What parts of the fuselage were made less durable? Actually most of your failed points have been addressed in this thread, and several like it, over the last several years. Please try and keep up.

Well aided by bloggers with the knowledge of the cellphone industry or tuning pianos