Moonbox

Going after leadership was more symbolic and psychological than anything. It perhaps contributed to an earlier surrender, but given the near-imperviousness of western air and ground forces, it was hardly critical. Why are you asking this, when you've already stated it and I agreed with you. I ask again, what does this have to do with an Abrams vs Leo 2 comparison, specifically. West Germany. No idea why I said that. It's a rhetorical question to which your floundering sense of logic has erroneously attributed critical importance. What's especially funny about this comment is that despite it's rhetorical nature I have answered the question, multiple times. I've also explained why it does little to support your point. Hilariously, however, you continue to repeat yourself like a broken record. Is this a slogan for you now? Sure, no argument there, but that's a question of ammunition choice, not of individual tank characteristics. Regardless, the Leopard 2A6 with its longer L55 gun is advertised with an effective penetrating range of 4000m on just its tungsten round, something that the Abrams never managed with its L44 and DU "Silver Bullet" round fighting push-over Iraqis. Nothing is stopping the Leopard 2 from firing DU rounds aside from their operators' refusal to employ toxic weapons that potentially poison the areas in which they're used. Don't know, but at 2km it's about 720mm, which is about 5% less than the newest DU penetrators the M1A2 uses, without having to actually use DU. Again, we're only talking about ammunition here, and nothing is stopping the Leopard 2 operators from producing or buying their own DU ammunition other than the political considerations behind firing poisonous rounds. Where could it be suggested that I even implied such an idea Derek? Your pathetic attempts at misdirection are getting tedious. My post that you quote here explains that Leopard 2 operators chose not to use depleted uranium for political reasons, mainly their potential violations of chemical weapons treaties (ie human rights abuses). I made no mention whatsoever of its penetrating power. That's really sad. It's not a said "better gun", it's factually a much better gun. It uses better materials, is less than half the weight of the Abrams gun, and it achieves much higher muzzle velocity. While the Americans may indeed upgrade their tanks to the L55, when is another question altogether. They've had about 20 years to do it and haven't yet. Details on the M1A3 have been near-mythical. Hey, we're finally getting somewhere here. If you agree that the Leopard 2 would have met equal success to the Abrams in the Gulf War, then your argument about Iraqi experience being a contributing factor to the Abrams superiority gets pretty flimsy! I did say APC's, because the Egyptians are building their own. Even Canada does that. Ending up under Rommel's command. Until he took over they were getting manhandled. After he took over and integrated them with the Afrika Corps, they acquitted themselves well. Their fates thereon were intertwined. Yes, they lost. No disputing that. Why they lost was obvious. They were fighting a losing battle from the start, but impressively still almost pulled out a win. It wasn't due to incompetence like you're directly implying. Norman Schwarzkopf, who you've no doubt heard of, is quoted as saying "Rommel had a feel for the battlefield like no other man." Now that your mockery of undeniable German military effectiveness has been dealt with, what will your response be? There we go! There's that repetition again! Keep it up Derek! Your reasoning and argumentation skills are really on display with that sort of post!

The head of an already-helpless chicken. Command and control facilities don't have much effect when they have no tactical capabilities. It's great that Iraqi anti-air brigades lost communication etc with their leadership, but whether or not that happened they still would have been nailed every time they activated their radar. No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Leopard 2 vs the Abrams, especially considering both the Leo 2 and the Abrams were designed with East German tank battles vs Soviet models in mind. It's yet another misguided red herring steering the conversation off course that you've somehow decided was relevant. How, in any way whatsoever, does this contribute to a comparison between the Leo 2 and M1? Repetition does not make this worthless comment any less foolish with subsequent uses. Another useless side-topic that does nothing to distinguish the actual tanks from one another. Seeing as though both tanks are using the same L/44 120mm gun, whether or not you choose to stock DU ammunition doesn't change the individual tanks' characteristics. In the case of the 2A6 and later models, which use the longer barreled L/55, the effective range is +4000m, whereas the Abrams modified L/44, as far as I know, doesn't have that range even with the "Silver Bullet" DU round (no kills scored in Iraq beyond 4000m, which even the British Challenger managed). Regardless, stocking DU ammunition is a matter of choice. The Germans and like-minded countries choose not to use it because it's disputed to violate chemical weapons treaties, among others. It has nasty side-effects and various UN and other agencies have been arguing to ban it on those grounds. You knew that, however, but tried to pretend anyways that the Leopard 2 somehow couldn't field a similar round if its operators wanted to. Incremental upgrades are made to any tank, regardless of whether or not it gets plinked by a few ineffective Iraqi legacy guns. While the M1A1 was being upgraded to the M1A2, the Germans were busy upgrading their design with similar systems and installing a better gun. Okay, well how about we say that based on its armor package and design, it's virtually certain that the Iraqi muppet tanks the Abrams faced would have had equal difficulty damaging the Leopard 2, and that just like the Abrams, the Leopard 2 would have been firing with impunity from stand-off range and pulverizing the same Soviet garbage. With all of your dissimulation, it's hard to figure out what you're actually trying to say. Do you disagree, and if so, why? There's a difference between importing hundeds/thousands of high-ticket items like MBT's and Fighter planes, and awarding relatively puny contracts to trainer planes or rifles. Certain types of equipment are also not cost-prohibitive to develop yourself, or in partnership. Spending billions on MBT's, however, is something altogether different. The Afrika Korps, consisting of mostly Italian troops, supported and commanded by Germans, fought impressively and outnumbered by 50-100% against the British for ~3 years, despite British naval blockade and supply-line nightmares. Despite the enormous logistical, technical and numerical advantages the British enjoyed, they still nearly lost, and with it the Suez canal. It took nearly 2:1 numerical superiority for the British to manage their first real victory, and despite the loss Rommel is still regarded as one of the best generals of the whole war. What were the circumstances and outcome of the Yom Kippur war? Oh yeah, Egypt and Syria getting embarrassed by their tiny neighbour.

Anti-radar missiles. So hidey-holes in Baghdad. Got it. Yes, good job. I've already said that to you, multiple times, in this thread. Too bad it's costing the Americans so much more than it should have. Again, so what? What on earth does that add to the discussion Derek? This is fast becoming one of the most pointless discussions I've ever had on this board. This question you're asking here is a pathetic logical fallacy that I've debunked numerous times, in numerous ways, yet you continue to parrot it over and over. Yes, yes, we've heard about your esteemed relatives before. Your brother is a former tank commander. Your brother-in-law is a defense expert/engineer and knows everything about cruise missiles etc. Your father is Ares, God of War. Good for you. If you knew that 2A6 and later models carried a more powerful gun, you would have said as much rather than tell me I'm talking out of my ass. Numerous as in a handful, and the improvements made directly as a result of those hits were unlikely to be substantial. Please, try and tell me that the Leopard 2 wouldn't have torn crappy Soviet tanks apart in Iraq. I'm getting a really good gauge of what sort of person I'm arguing with here. Sure we do, just like we knew before the Gulf War how the M1 would fare against them. Was it any surprise that the Abrams, with a 30-50% effective range advantage on its gun, and an armor package designed to withstand hits far greater than the opposing Iraqi tanks could deliver at even short range, proved successful? It was a foregone conclusion then, just as it would have been with the Leopard 2. Yeah, like trainer aircraft and APC's. If you think that Egypt's decision to purchase/build 1100 Abrams had nothing to do with the fact that the US was footing 1/4 of the bill for them, there's nothing else for me to say. Your grasp of history is as impressive as your grasp of logic.

I've no doubt it's a good, perhaps even great, aircraft. I simply don't believe that it's heavenly perfection like it's being advertised, as you clearly do. Okay, sure, but considering how both coalition land and air forces in Iraq operated with virtual impunity, underground bunkers were hardly the critical targets they were made out to be. 75% of what targets, specifically? It wasn't 75% of all targets in the Gulf War. We're going in circles now. We've already discussed this. The partner nations aren't on the hook for the 60% over-budget development program. Whether the plane ends up being $98M, or $130M, it's still the best option available, and starting a new 15+ year fighter program isn't going to do anything to address current and near term needs. You knew that, however, so it was a pointless remark. What does the early 80's East Germany have to do with this discussion? The Gulf War happened in 1990-1991. Regardless, Soviet tank regiments in 1987 had over 2250 T-80 tanks operating there, and even the T-80 wasn't a match its German and American contemporaries in the Leopard 2 and Abrams, nor was it ever designed to be. Soviet doctrine at the time was to attack in overwhelming numbers, with the shock regiments in the front, and the cheaper, older models swarming in through breakthroughs and flanks. Iraq didn't have numerical superiority like the Soviets did, they were pinned down by airstrikes, and they weren't even running the newer versions of Soviet tanks. Essentially, they were helpless. It's no surprise that a $9M modern AFV would best a $1.2M, especially when the $9M model has numerical superiority and complete operational freedom, while the $1.2M faced certain death from above if it tried moving anywhere. What an amazing achievement! Silly, selective logic. The M1A2 has peers to compare it against, but you've excluded them for lack of combat experience. I didn't need to specify it. The 2A6 is the most recent production model, and you clearly knew nothing about it. Are you trying to say the small handful of T-72's that were even given the chance to fire on the M1 offered some sort of huge technical insight? As far as I know, only 1 M1 was ever taken out of action by enemy fire in the Gulf War, and that was to fix external damage. It was never actually knocked out. Stop acting like having a couple of rounds plink off your armor somehow gave engineers the data they needed to make the M1 into a vastly better tank. It didn't. So you're saying that the M1A2 was able to deflect/absorb crappy 125mm T-72 shells, as it was laboratory-designed to do? Seems a pretty strong case for the reliability of laboratory data. Those sorts of things can, and do, get tested prior to service. The Challenger I and II both bested those same tanks, and the Leopard II would have certainly done so as well. This is a really lame argument to be making Derek. Yes, that's why I asked what your question was meant to prove. Could you please explain? Does the fact that the M1A2 slapped around a bunch of helplessly inferior legacy Soviet models somehow prove that the Leopard II couldn't have done the same thing? Nice deflection! I'll ask you straight then, so you can't slither around this time. Do you actually believe that shopping around for foreign tanks was an option for the Egyptians when the Americans were subsidizing 1/4 of their military budget, thus 1/4 of the price of said tanks? It wasn't, but I'd like to see if you actually have so little integrity that you'd suggest otherwise. As for recent experience in armored warfare, the Egyptians don't have anything to draw on but incompetence.

All still flight testing the F-35, which isn't yet operational. None of those folk are able to speak freely about the plane. Well only 40% of "strategic" targets were hit by F-117's. Are you saying none of those could have been hit by cruise missiles? They were plenty accurate enough to hit missile launchers, presidential palaces, hydro stations and bridges etc... A trite remark with no bearing on the conversation, or in reality for that matter. Good work. Not tanks designed in the 1940's, like the Iraqis did. About 55% of Iraqi tanks were T-54's and Type 59/69's, Soviet and Chinese versions of the same tank, designed in 1945. Another 27% of them were T-62's, which were a late 1950's design. The only thing that was even remotely useful in a tank v tank engagement was the T-72, which comprised about 18% of Iraq's armour. Even that, however, was at least 10 years less modern than the Abrams, and its gun had only 60% of the range of the Abrams. Add to this the fact that the Iraqi tank crews had terrible aim, little/no night vision equipment, and were unable to maneuver due to allied air superiority. The Abrams' service record is only impressive if you consider it impressive that a $9 million tank entering service in the 80's was able to slap around 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's Soviet tanks costing at most 1/8th as much. but wait...how do we know that? "It's never seen combat" Except they don't. The Leopard 2A6 has an upgraded, longer barrel gun, with greater range and muzzle velocity than the Abrams. Combine crap logic with crap facts now. Good work. You don't need helpless Iraqi's to fire crap weapons at your tank to judge its protection. That can be done by simple physics. When a tank is designed, engineers can pretty much tell you what it will take, from which angles, to penetrate a tank's armor. Maybe you're suggesting that tank designers don't test these things? That they just sort of slap a bunch of armor on and hope for the best?? Even so, I probably go too far saying the Leopard 2 is better protected. Overall the Abrams might slightly edge it out, as the newer Leopard 2's focused on better turret armor for hull-down, and the Abrams is more well-rounded. If one is better than the other that way, however, it's marginal. and the Abrams has never met anything but muppet tanks. You can judge a tank by what it's capable of, and those capabilities are extensively tested. From that, numerous third party (and even American defense consultants at that), have since 1990 rated the Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 as superior to the M1A2. The edge was slight, but should be magnified by how much cheaper it is to buy and operate. Where would you suggest I get this information, and what does it prove? You might say that, but only if you're incredibly biased and/or naive. Considering the USA subsidies nearly 30% of Egypt's military budget, and thus are essentially paying 30% of the cost of each tank purchased, buying non-US tanks was an option! I did get a bit of a chuckle from that statement. Thanks.

What operators? The first operational delivery isn't scheduled until 2015. Are you talking about the test pilots, who are under gag? No, they've used them, they haven't relied on them heavily. There were too few of them to rely heavily on them. With or without the F-117, the air campaign against Saddam would have been equally successful. Coalition anti-radar weapons were so effective that Iraqi air defense was neutered from the start, and most of what the F-117 did could have been done by cruise missiles. The current and future operators don't have a choice at this point. The F-35 is the only plane in the pipeline. That doesn't somehow mean that it was a successfully conceived and managed program. That just means once the project derailed, went way over budget and behind schedule, there was no Plan B. Trial by fire for the Abrams has gone no further than fighting old Soviet garbage. Yeah, incremental improvements can be made, but a good design is a good design. Not having combat experience doesn't take that away. The Soviet T-34 was a way better tank than anything the Germans had in 1941, despite the fact that it had no combat experience, and the Germans had years of heavy fighting experience to draw upon. Also, it's interesting that you ignored my point of the F-22. You and I would agree that it's the king of the skies, right? It has no combat record. Acceleration is one important factor among many. Protection and Firepower are even more important. The Leopard 2 is better protected (particularly when in the favored hull-down position) and has a more powerful and longer range gun. The M1's acceleration advantage owes to the fact that it runs off a jet engine, which brings its own host of problems with it, namely limiting its range and requiring a fleet of fuel trucks to keep it running. Oh yeah, it's also way more expensive. Did I mention that? Red herring much? How many Challenger 1-2's or Leopard 2's have been? None as far as I know! Three times the production scale, and still far more expensive yet not more effective. As for their exports, they still sold them. You brought up exports as a measure of success, not me. Yes, but not having a jet engine also means that you don't have to refuel nearly as much and your engine is far more serviceable. Sure, but nobody has the clout that the US does. Any competitor is operating at a distinct disadvantage outside of Europe. Considering all of the aid they get, was there ever any question where Egypt would get its tanks from?

No, I'm suggesting that the issue has become extremely political. As with virtually every politically sensitive issue, both sides are dissimulating. Your implication that Lockheed spokespeople are a more reliable source simply because they have access to all of the classified data ignores the fact that they stand to make an enormous amount of money off its sale. Simply put, it's inconceivable that they would do anything but praise the plane as an invincible Jesus-protected super machine. What on Earth do you mean by forefront?? Again, I fail to see your point. Having a big military budget doesn't excuse waste. It doesn't matter that it doesn't have as long a combat record. It's still fully capable of high intensity conflicts and the later models are designed for it. That sort of crap logic can be upended simply by looking at the F-22 which, despite boasting no combat record, is still viewed as the pinnacle of air superiority platforms. The Challenger II engaged old Soviet tanks in 2003 with no losses. Regardless, the Challenger 1 DID participate in Operation Granby and destroyed over 300 Iraqi vehicles with no losses. Seeing as though the Challenger 2 is essentially an extensive upgrade of the Challenger 1, I don't think your point has much merit. If we're talking exports as a measure of success, then the Leopard 2 has fared better than the Abrams, as it has larger export numbers and more widespread adoption, despite much smaller production scale and far less political clout behind it. As for the Challenger 2, the rifled barrel (and lack of ammo production) is indeed a problem with its export prospects (zero now), but that doesn't mean it's not an extremely well-protected and capable tank. The Challenger 1 has the longest recorded kill range in combat history, and the Challenger 2's gun is reputed to be both more accurate and longer ranged than the Abrams/Leo's smoothbore gun, although it doesn't have as powerful a penetrating round. So...what you're saying is that the F-35's ballooning costs were a result of political interference???

You're really missing the point here. Neither Lockheed nor Pentagon spokespeople are likely to be giving us an honest account of the aircraft's capabilities, as this has become an extremely public and politically sensitive program. We see what they want us to see, and nothing more or less. As for the people critiquing the plane from outside the program, some of them are indeed talking out of their asses. Others, however, are speaking based on their considerable expertise, and while their information is limited, they can still make educated guesses, much like western experts have done with the PAK FA. You asked for a comparison of stealth vs non-stealth casualties. I gave you one. The F-117 may have undertaken more dangerous deep strike missions than the F-18's, but they also ran FAR less of them over a far shorter period of time. Yes. I know they spend about as much as the next 9-10 closest countries combined. That doesn't mean they have infinite money, nor does it mean that Americans are going to accept tax increases to give the Pentagon carte blanche on their spending programs. Sure it can. The fact that it's seen more limited deployment, and thus combat experience, doesn't make it any less effective. No Leopard 2's have been lost in combat in Afghanistan (some damaged by IED's like the Abrams), so it's been proven equally as safe so far. For another comparison, look at the Challenger 2, which saw deployment and tank v tank warfare in Iraq. It was just as effective there as the Abrams. By many accounts, it's an even better tank. Interestingly, with only ~400 built, it still comes out at around the same cost as the Abrams, with 9000 built. Something happened from the original conception of the program, through design and development and now to production. Either the program as it was laid out was unrealistic from the start, or between LM and the Pentagon it was mismanaged. Are you suggesting that a program now ~70% over budget didn't suffer from at least some combination of the above?

Canada spending serious money on military R&D would be a waste of resources. You know it, I know it, the Canadian and American governments know it. The US makes a point to ensure all of its equipment is home-grown. Even if Canada DID design and build a superior platform for a particular niche, it's not like the Americans would import it. They'd still insist on buying their own, which leaves Canada at a disadvantage from the start. The fact that the US military operates at a scale greater than 30:1 compared to Canada, combined with the afore-mentioned homegrown protectionism, means there's little reason for Canada to start investing heavily into their own programs. Yeah, I know, you guys are so bad ass. Just because you CAN afford to waste billions doesn't mean you should, but I forget my place. I'm Canadian, so whatever comment I have to make on the subject can be summarily dismissed with another of your "lolCanada" witticisms, regardless of whether or not millions of Americans are saying the same thing. Interesting logic coming from an American trolling a Canadian political forum!

My criticism of the F-35 isn't even based on Canadian requirements. It's an outsider's view on a program that, according to Bogden, "ran off the rails" and went way over budget. Despite what you might think, you don't need to be American do know that projects like the B2 Spirit were an enormous waste of resources. It's funny that you think that, and your continued mockery of Canadian defence procurement is noted, but it doesn't change the fact that those planes are going to end up costing American taxpayers nearly $170M/unit when they were originally intended as the cheaper workhorse cousin to the F-22. I await your "lolCanada" reply.

The people with firsthand knowledge of the program, as far as I know, are limited to Lockheed Martin and Pentagon officials, with perhaps a smattering of British military aviators, none of whom are permitted to speak freely. It was also essentially an experimental design. Regardless, you were making a comparison between stealth and non-stealth aircraft casualties, and rather than compare the F-117 to Vietnam era aircraft like you were, I gave it a contemporary comparison. That's categorically false. The only way that would be true would be if you had infinite money and infinite resources, which nobody does. Cost efficiencies have to be taken into account, and compromises have to be made based on that. Putting more money into a specific platform usually increases overall performance, but eventually there are diminishing returns. A $20M upgraded Abrams tank would likely prove more effective in combat than the standard design, but would it prove twice as effective? Unlikely. The Abrams is a fantastic tank. In the Gulf War the armor on it proved so strong that when one got stuck in the mud and had to be abandoned, it turned out that even another Abrams couldn't penetrate its REAR armor, and it thus it couldn't actually be abandoned. The Leopard 2, however, is just as good of a tank and less expensive as well, albeit designed for for a somewhat different purpose. Despite the fact that I started this thread, I mostly agree with this. The F-35 is the best and only realistic option for Canada moving forward. As an overall program, however, it was poorly managed and for the amount of money they spent, the Americans could have likely done better. Obviously, this matters relatively little to Canada.

There it is again, the nitpicking of pronouns. My use of "we" never in any way suggested that Canada was an equal partner in the F-35 program. For most practical purposes, we're barely involved. Right, so again, as far as you're concerned my criticism of the F-35 program is insulting silly because I'm Canadian. Good to know what sort of logic we're dealing with.

So essentially what you're saying is that you find it insulting as an American that a Canadian would be criticizing US procurement programs, right? My use of the word "we" is hardly the crux of the matter. Perhaps it was a typo. Perhaps I meant it as collective NATO "we". It has nothing to do with whether the F-35 was a well-run program. You're upset/annoyed that Canadians are criticizing? Good to know...

If you think that's a personal attack, please feel free to report me. Your question was both mocking and rhetorical. Providing an answer would serve no purpose. Rather than nitpick me on my usage of the word "we", maybe you could actually respond sincerely to something I've said like Derek has been. It's hard to see how a post like yours could be anything BUT a bait/troll.

No direct aviation experience? Are you serious? Are you going to categorically claim that there aren't any pilots/aviation experts voicing concern about this plane? Really? The media is reporting on the information people are coming out with. Some of it might be reliable, some of it less so, but I don't think you're stupid enough to suggest that we should swallow all of a government contractor's talking points as fact. Similarly, the administration that's thrown their lot in with this contractor for hundreds of billions of public dollars might not be the most trustworthy source of information either. Probably not. If we're going to actually put it into perspective, let's first put some perspective on your perspective. Only 59 F-117's were ever built for service. One of them was shot down. Another one was apparently damaged beyond repair in the same conflict. Basically between 1.5 - 3.0% of all F-117 stealth aircraft were knocked out by a second-rate military using obsolete equipment. As far as I know, only two F-18's have been lost to enemy fire, (8 more damaged but subsequently repaired), and there were 1500 of them built for the US and they saw far more use and service per plane than the F-117 ever did. I referenced Wheeler's brief synopsis of the Pentagon and Lockheed's funny math. As for defence programs, the US has a history of disasters mixed in with their successes. The F-22 is a prime example of failure. For a program that cost $62B, they netted themselves 195 fighter jets. That works out to be about $318M per plane. Good job. The B2 is another great example. $44 billion to build 21 strategic bombers. Good job. Even the M1 tank wasn't the most brilliant program, despite over 9000 units being built. With enormous economy of scale advantages, they managed to produce a much more expensive, but not more effective, tank than the Leopard 2A6. Nobody can say that the Abrams is a bad tank, but you could certainly argue that there were some failures along the way in managing costs relative to performance. When program costs balloon and order quantities remain the same, the only possible solution is an increase in unit cost.Regardless of whether or not the production learning curve yields significant cost reductions, the fact remains that the program ran over $160B over budget and is now estimated at $400B for the Pentagon to purchase 2400 planes. I know you're good enough at math to see how that doesn't equate to a unit cost of <$100M for US taxpayers.

I was wondering how long it would take for you to inevitably poke your head out. As usual, you have nothing useful to add other than your standard "haha Canada!" drive-by troll. How many times have you made some variation of this exact comment in this thread by now? 20, 30, 50 times maybe? Glad you're still with us bud.

They might not be part of the program or have access to classified data, but they're still aviation experts and know a thing or two about aircraft design and/or air combat. They can make educated guesses based on what people DO know. It's kind of similar to your dismissal about future Chinese and Russian threats. Do you or the Pentagon have access to Sukhoi or Russian Defense Ministry technical data on the PAK FA? No, you don't, but it's possible to make educated guesses on the PAK FA's performance and how stealthy it will be based on shape etc. The F-22 was cancelled because of a combination of high costs (both in purchase price and per hour flown) and because of a lack of perceived threat. In any case, even if Russian and Chinese designs end up being able to blow the F-35 out of the air 1v1, they're still going to be able to 'handle' future opposition simply due to numerical and logistical superiority. Nobody can project force like the USA, and the USA isn't likely to initiate large scale operations in Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe, which is essentially where Russia/China are confined to for the foreseeable future. You make a few interesting points, but the fact is that the F-117 was detected by a second-rate military's ancient (albeit upgraded) and improvised radar/SAM system. I don't see how whether the missile was radar or IR guided makes any difference. The plane was spotted by radar in the first place, and if it needed IR guidance to hit home then who cares? The fact that NATO strike missions were becoming predictable certainly amounts to something, but so should the fact that they were fighting a relatively pipsqueak enemy with already outdated equipment. Winslow Wheeler is no less biased a source than Lockheed Martin and Pentagon spokespeople parroting PR lines. In this case, he's not even talking about the F-35's performance in the air. He's merely pulling numbers from the Office of the Under Secretary and his breakdown of cost in those charts was a simple calculation of annual procurement costs vs authorized production. If you have problems with those numbers, let's hear them, but that's pretty simple math and it shows a pretty simple trend. Regardless, we've been having this same argument for years. You seem willing/eager to believe Lockheed Martin figures and Pentagon dissimulation. The outside media (and myself) however, have trouble with the basic math being presented. When you're way late and way over budget, something has to give. You can't continue to pretend that per unit costs don't rise relative to a ballooning budget and painfully lengthened schedules. I'm not concerned with Russia and China flooding the markets with cheap and inferior fighters. I'm more concerned with Russia and China making enough advances in radar and IR tech to diminish stealth advantages while at the same time placing more emphasis on air-superiority platforms than the US. Conceivably, they could end up producing enough PAK FA's or whatever to overwhelm the USA's F-22's, leaving the F-35 in a tricky place. Thankfully, the Russians don't appear to have the economy for it and the Chinese are far enough behind in technical expertise (apparently) that this shouldn't be the case. You and the Pentagon are probably right and the F-22 is probably not necessary. Even so, the logistical and economic advantages of single-sourcing most of your air force are being badly eroded by a disastrous procurement program and it starts to make you wonder if it wouldn't have been wiser to run multiple programs with differing roles instead. No, I'm not suggesting we go back to the 1960's and 70's where it was hard to keep track of what the hell flew on a carrier flight deck, but it appears we've gone from one extreme to the other this time.

I believe that various aviation experts around the world might know a thing or two. Sorry, you'll have to clarify what you mean. I have no idea what you're saying here. First, the F-117 was detected when it opened its bomb bay doors by Serbian RADAR. Second, where IR reduction techniques have improved ince the 1970's, I'm sure you're equally aware that IR detection techniques have progressed as well. At any rate, the F-117's RCS has been compared to that of the F-35, so it's conceivable that Russian/Chinese radar techniques have progressed significantly since the early 1980's when the Nighthawk was first operational. Well they've built a hundred of them so far, they're building over a hundred this year, and it's been the cost per plane that's been rising, not Lockheed's production efficiency. They've been building these things for 6 years now, and the costs have been RISING, when you'd expect them to be falling as they gain experience and scale. The $188M is the Pentagon's own numbers for the 2014 fiscal year. The price in 2011 was $172M. Take a look at these articles if you like. They're pretty interesting. There's actually 5 of them altogether. http://nation.time.com/2013/06/06/different-planes-common-problems/ http://nation.time.com/2013/06/07/on-final-approach-to-fighter-fiscal-sanity/ Yes, but production cost of each plane were they to do this at this point would come out at something ridiculous like $240/unit, so it's so impractical that it might as well be discarded as a suggestion, barring a huge emergency. Prior to the 80's I'd perhaps give you that point, but even by the early 1980's the Soviets knew that they were outmatched and that the situation would continue to deteriorate. That's why, like I said earlier, they placed significantly more resources into mobile SAM. Regardless, at this point I don't even know what we're arguing about. We both know the F-35 is the best and only real option for Canada moving forward. I don't believe the plane will be as good as you seem to, nor do I think they're going to manage cost per plane as well as you seem to think, but I still think it's the best overall option. At this point we should just consider it a fait accompli.

I started a thread in the provincial politics section if you want to take a look at that. I think we summed things up pretty well in there.

It's smart to spend on health, education and infrastructure, yes. It's not smart, however, to allow the bureaucracy to balloon, or to overpay unionized public sector employees. Both of these things eventually contribute to either deficits and/or declined quality of service. Similarly, it's also wasteful to spend billions on pointless pet projects, like the green energy subsidies, which did little aside from shuffle taxpayer money to companies like Samsung. A carbon tax would have been a better idea, since at least that would have kept the proceeds of the energy bills hike in the government's wallet, instead of in South Korea.

I never suggested otherwise, nor did I suggest that advances in materials, electronics and designs wouldn't make newer planes more effective than legacy ones. I merely stated that the simple shape and weight of the plane are less than ideal for maneuvering, and there's been very little to read that says otherwise (excluding Lockheed Martin or Pentagon cheerleaders). Well the US would have managed equally impressive air dominance with F4's given their enormous advantages in scale, logistics and training. They've done little but play wack-a-mole since Vietnam. Either way, you're right, but the cancellation of the F-22 was based on budget and the lack of perceived threats, not on the F-35's performance as an air superiority fighter. Okay, guilty of being subjective. The published difference, IIRC, is that of a golf ball compared to a baseball, in which case you're essentially looking at an RCS 5-6x bigger than the F-22, or equal to the Nighthawk, which Serbians were able to detect on radar and shoot down in the 90's. Fast forward 30 years, and let's hope that Russian and Chinese radar don't mitigate the F-35's stealth advantages, because it's operating at simple and distinct disadvantages if it's detected too early. 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 F-22 price is inflation adjusted already. Years ago while under production I recall them being listed at $128M/copy. Now the final batch is saying about $150M. Regardless, it's only been 5 years since they completed production, and inflation has been negligible ever since. At any rate, the estimate of a $98M/unit F-35A seems to be pure fantasy, as the 2014 production models are costing $188Meach according to the Pentagon's chief financial officer, and strangely the cost has been INCREASING over the last two years. Lockheed Martin says all sorts of things like the unit costs are going down, or that by 2018 they'll be down to the affordable <$100M price, but the facts speak otherwise. It's unlikely that costs are going to drop 52% in the next 3-4 years, especially when we're seeing the opposite happen. and that's why, despite our disagreements on the F-35's abilities and costs, we end up at pretty much the same place. There's no point in buying older aircraft that'll be obsolete 10-15 years from now, and the only craft in NATO's arsenal that is/was equipped to handle emerging Russian/Chinese threats has no production program anymore, and would be nearly impossible to restart. The Soviets always knew they were outclassed in the air. That's why they placed significantly more emphasis on their ground forces and on mobile SAMs. While the Soviets may have had overall numerical superiority in planes (I've never read that but can believe it if you're counting MiG-21's and MiG 23's), NATO had an enormous numerical advantage in modern air power. There was never, and was never going to be, enough MiG 29's or Su-27s to compete with even just their American counterparts, let alone the European designed planes that were out there.

but the Future European Fighter program didn't even begin until ~1983. Understanding of the requirement maybe began before that, but then the same thing would be true of any plane. Of course, the F-22 was essentially the successor of the F-15 - the big, expensive, balls-to-the-walls air-superiority monster. They were/are both meant to provide unmatched air-dominance capabilities. and we'll see if it works. There's certainly a lot of logistical/tactical advantages to having one plane being able to complete multiple mission types, the 'logical extension' in this case appears to be rather extreme, especially considering it was originally intended to operate in consort with large complements of F-22's, which are so few in number now that they can't be relied upon. but again, the F-35 was never intended to be the air-superiority weapon of choice. They were meant to be the natural evolution/combination of the F-16's and F-18's, operating in large numbers and as the workhorse of the fleet with the F-22 ensuring overall air-superiority. As for design compromises, you're likely aware that the F-35 has a radar signature many times larger than it's older and larger cousin the F-22. This has a lot to do with the materials used, as the F-22's stealth coating apparently costs a fortune to maintain between flights and a more economical stealth design was required. This required a larger focus on shape and angles to deflect radar, and frankly I have trouble understanding how forcing radar-deflecting shapes aren't going to impact flight performance. Regardless, when you have a plane that most estimates are pegging it at $120M/unit and by virtually all estimates will get blown out of the skies (as in no contest) by the older F-22 costing $150M/unit, I don't know how you can say that design compromises weren't made for it to fulfill its wide variety of role requirements. From its conception, the F-35 was meant to operate in conjunction with the F-22. I'm going to assume you know why the F-22 was cancelled, but the worrying thing for me is what happens if Russian and Chinese next-gen designs proliferate at greater rates than the US DoD anticipated?

The Eurofighter program started only maybe 8-10 years before the F-35, and it was built from the start with air-superiority in mind. You wouldn't, for example, suggest that the F-18 was better than the F-15 at air superiority, would you, despite the fact that the F-15 was designed and built years earlier than the Hornet? Similarly, you'd not suggest that the original Hornets were better fleet defense fighters than the Tomcat, despite being 10 years newer, right? Again, I'm not an engineer, so you have me there, but from a purely practical standpoint I find it hard to believe that the wide array of stealth and multi-role requirements placed on the F-35's design did not force compromises in certain areas.

Well no, the F4 was a flying brick and was designed in the 1950's. I understand that wing-loading isn't everything, but it's certainly one, among many, factors. I highly doubt that the F-35 is going to perform tight maneuvers like the Eurofighter or Flanker.

Thrust to weight and wing loading have nothing to do with the F-35's advantage in drag. The maneuverability maps for various planes, as far as I know, are not things that are readily public from my research, so when we really have to go on what little information we have and what the pilots are saying. Aside from disingenuous LM spokespeople, I've read nothing that suggests the F-35's internal weapons bays and fuel pods are going to make enough of a difference in terms of drag to make up for its severe wing-loading and thrust/weight ratios. It's not a matter of outrunning a missile. It's a matter of launching your own missiles at greater height and speed (thus longer range) than your opponent. If you can turn, climb and fly faster than your opponent, that allows you to launch your weapon at longer range than him, and then turn quickly away and gain as much speed and altitude as possible. If you fire first outside your opponent's range, and then turn and fly faster than him, you ideally keep yourself out of his weapon range, or give yourself the space needed for the evasive maneuvers that will eventually burn his missile out. Of course if you can't see you opponent in time, this doesn't work, and that's what the F-35 is counting on. I'm not an engineer, but from what I know basic aerodynamics dictate that the lower the wing load, the tighter the sustained turn. As you continue your turn, you bleed speed and require more lift to continue the turn. A plane that generates more lift for less thrust is naturally suited for this. Higher wing loading tends to allow faster instantaneous turns with lower bleed, but they have trouble sustaining the turn. That's why you see interceptors like the Starfighter with such high wing loading. They weren't meant for turn fights, but flying fast and straight. Wing-loading is weight relative to wing surface from what I understand. Those are the figures we see, and whether your fuel and weapons are loaded inside or outside doesn't change that basic math. Internal weapons/fuel reduce drag certainly, but I've read nothing to indicate that it'll be enough to make up for the F-35's large disadvantage in fundamental wing-loading math.