F-35 Purchase

[Peter F]

Aircraft wear out. Like eyeglasses. But, when they wear out, folks die.

Folks die in new ones too

[GostHacked]

Folks die in new ones too

Breathing apparently is 'optional' ....

[DogOnPorch]

Folks die in new ones too

You're smart enough to know that high G forces play hell on anything flying since the 1980s. I hope.

[Guest Derek L]

I have searched for the history of what must have been an equivalent procurement circle jerk, but it just isn't the same as today with internet forum comedy. I assume that there would be less resistance if the aircraft were built under license in Canada, eh?

I can remember, I guess about 1980, PBS had a documentary on the F-16 called “deal of the century” or something to that effect documenting the sales efforts of General Dynamics competing and winning the fighter competitions of the initial European purchasers of the F-16.………I’d love to get a copy and contrast with their doc on the JSF program…..

As to the Hornet itself, due to the Canadian procurement BS, the then CEO of McDonnell Douglas, James McDonnell threatened to pull the Hornet from the competition……….He then died only a couple of months after we ended up selecting it………..The more things change…..

For online sources, a good starting point is here:

Bureaucratic politics and the new fighter aircraft decisions

The similarities between then and now are laughable.........Then, as I've said, there's always the Arrow and Sea King sagas

[DogOnPorch]

Breathing apparently is 'optional' ....

Above 12,000' it is!

[dre]

But, you wouldn't wait. Or would you?

Well... I dont wait for things like eyeglasses now, but I have had to delay those kinds of expenses especially when I was younger. Lots of people have to delay things like dental care for budgetary reasons. If you just keep using credit for all these kinds of things you can get yourself in a lot of trouble.

But heres the thing... you arent just talking about eye-glasses here, you are talking about the most expensive eyeglasses that have ever been made. They might be the best ones ever made too, but those are the kind of eyeglasses that you should only buy if you are filthy rich, not if youre in a situation where you have to borrow money to pay the guy that mows your lawn.

[DogOnPorch]

Thank goodness for the Spitfire. Oh...and the Hurri

History says by not upgrading timely, bad sheet happens. Especially when the other guy is upgrading timely. Even if he isn't yet 'the other guy'. If we're not going to be part of NATO with its requirements, then fine. Let's leave and be the Swiss. But, we'll still need the ass-kickinest interceptor ever built...either bought, I hope from our/my American friends, or homebuilt....(cough Arrow II burp).

The which aircraft problem is compounded by the fact that nobody will know if the F-35 or any aircraft is a 'winner' until the thing actually sees combat. This has happened time and time again over the history of flight. The best you can do is use the LATEST tecnology to improve the odds and train those pilots hardcore. Going with the "Sopwith Camel*", no matter how proven it is, is inviting disaster.

To boot...the Spitfire and the Hurricane, while effective vs the Luftwaffe, sucked the giant kahoona vs the Japanese with their A6M2s and Ki-43s. Good pilots or not........

*It's a metaphor..lol. .

Edited June 26, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

Thank goodness for the Spitfire. Oh...and the Hurri

History says by not upgrading timely, bad sheet happens. Especially when the other guy is upgrading timely. Even if he isn't yet 'the other guy'. If we're not going to be part of NATO with its requirements, then fine.

There is no Nato requirement to buy the F35.

[DogOnPorch]

There is no Nato requirement to buy the F35.

That's one for the Sopwith Camel. How about two?

[bush_cheney2004]

I can remember, I guess about 1980, PBS had a documentary on the F-16 called “deal of the century” or something to that effect documenting the sales efforts of General Dynamics competing and winning the fighter competitions of the initial European purchasers of the F-16.………I’d love to get a copy and contrast with their doc on the JSF program…..

I remember that....Inside Europe, F-16: The Arms Sale of the Century (1979?), but it is not easy to find, even for a PBS program. But you are right...what is old is new again when it comes to these kind of procurements. Canada specifically thought its needs were "special", and ended up with the losing design > YF-17 (F/A-18). Meanwhile, over 4,000 F-16's have been produced.

[dre]

That's one for the Sopwith Camel. How about two?

You can vomit up retarded hypbole all day if you want to. At the end of the day the constantly parroted assertion that we need to buy this plane because of Nato obligations is just not true.

[DogOnPorch]

You can vomit up retarded hypbole all day if you want to. At the end of the day the constantly parroted assertion that we need to buy this plane because of Nato obligations is just not true.

I know you'd rather another nation do the Article 5 crisis management operations. T'is your nature. So let's be the Swiss.

As Cheech and Chong said: That way we don't offend nobody...

[DogOnPorch]

I remember that....Inside Europe, F-16: The Arms Sale of the Century (1979?), but it is not easy to find, even for a PBS program. But you are right...what is old is new again when it comes to these kind of procurements. Canada specifically thought its needs were "special", and ended up with the losing design > YF-17 (F/A-18). Meanwhile, over 4,000 F-16's have been produced.

72-0 Win Loss. Not too shabby at all, I'd say.

[Guest Derek L]

I remember that....Inside Europe, F-16: The Arms Sale of the Century (1979?), but it is not easy to find, even for a PBS program. But you are right...what is old is new again when it comes to these kind of procurements. Canada specifically thought its needs were "special", and ended up with the losing design > YF-17 (F/A-18). Meanwhile, over 4,000 F-16's have been produced.

As much as the media likes to speculate and opine about twin engines, what ultimately garnered the Hornet the win, was it’s incorporation of the Sparrow missile and it‘s requirement for NORAD………Have no doubt about it, if the earlier F-16s had this ability, we’d have went with the cheaper Falcons………

[Guest Derek L]

72-0 Win Loss. Not too shabby at all, I'd say.

With no doubt about, Air Command’s first choice was the Eagle……..

[DogOnPorch]

F-15? That's the 'good stuff'; like the F-22. Are we special enough?

[Guest Derek L]

F-15? That's the 'good stuff'; like the F-22. Are we special enough?

Certainly would have fulfilled both our NORAD and NATO commitments to both Germany and Norway, ever more so then the Hornets and Freedom Fighters…….

[bush_cheney2004]

Certainly would have fulfilled both our NORAD and NATO commitments to both Germany and Norway, ever more so then the Hornets and Freedom Fighters…….

Right...remember folks, the original F/A-18 was derived from the loser in the USA's Lightweight Fighter Program. Eagles and Tomcats were the expensive air superiority upgrade.

[waldo]

guys, guys... you seem to have forgotten - your jingo-porn thread is over... here:

[waldo]

...You wish to speak to precedent, but precedent (and the results of current flight testing) and schedules is clearly in Lockheed’s court

no - the U.S. GAO reports are not opinion... they are factual based. Unfortunately, for you, the U.S. military branches themselves don't share your blind 'still lining up' allegiance... "Since 2002, the total quantity through 2017 has been reduced by three-fourths, from 1,591 to 365". Oh my... is there a problem? JSFail is said to have completed ~ 20% of testing... with the most difficult and comprehensive testing ahead; again, per the latest weeks old U.S. GAO report: "Development of critical mission systems providing core combat capabilities remains behind schedule and risky. To date, only 4 percent of the mission systems required for full capability have been verified." Clearly, in your imaginary reality, as you say, "testing & schedules is clearly in Lockheed's court"!

You wish to speak to precedent, but precedent (and the results of current flight testing) and schedules is clearly in Lockheed’s court………

June 5, 2012 --- F-35 production quality worries Senate panel

further to your most ridiculous assertion that, "testing & schedules is clearly in Lockheed's court"... again, from the latest, just weeks old, U.S. GAO report:

- Even with the progress in 2011, most development flight testing, including the most challenging, still lies ahead. Through 2011, the flight test program had completed 21 percent of the nearly 60,000 planned flight test points estimated for the entire program.

- According to JSF test officials, the more complex testing such as low altitude flight operations, weapons and mission systems integration, and high angle of attack has yet to be done for any variant and may result in new discoveries of aircraft deficiencies.

- Initial development flight tests of a fully integrated, capable JSF aircraft to demonstrate full mission systems capabilities, weapons delivery, and autonomic logistics is not expected until 2015 at the earliest. This will be critical for verifying that the JSF aircraft will work as intended and for demonstrating that the design is not likely to need costly changes.

- Initial dedicated operational testing of a fully integrated and capable JSF is scheduled to begin in 2017.

- The JSF operational test team assessed system readiness for initial operational testing and identified several outstanding risk items. The test team’s operational assessment concluded that the JSF is not on track to meet operational effectiveness or operational suitability requirements.

- Flight training efforts were delayed because of immature aircraft.

- Durability testing identified structural modifications needed for production aircraft to meet service life and operational requirements. Analysis of the bulkhead crack problem revealed numerous other life-limited parts on all three variants.

[DogOnPorch]

The Freedom Fighter does make a fine "MiG-28". It would probably make a fine private plane, too, ala John Travolta, Michael Dorn, etc.

[waldo]

So what's your alternative?

thanks for contributing

[DogOnPorch]

thanks for contributing

That's two for the Sopwith Camel.

[waldo]

What does this prove though Derek? An equally revealing question would be which nations have locked themselves into contracts and/or received any planes so far? Answer that please.

He addressed the question for what it was - completely irrelevant and a pretty lame attempt to misdirect the discussion from the very real problems the JSF program is facing.

Well then why are you asking dumb rhetorical questions and then insisting that the obvious answer somehow disproves waldo's point, when in fact it means absolutely nothing?

yes, clearly... another insightful MLW member who recognizes 'Derek L' irrelevant, rhetorical distractions!

[Guest Derek L]

Right...remember folks, the original F/A-18 was derived from the loser in the USA's Lightweight Fighter Program. Eagles and Tomcats were the expensive air superiority upgrade.

Indeed………~30 Canadian Eagles based in Northern Norway (Bodo) would have made a more valuable commitment to NATO’s Northern Flank and the defence of the Atlantic (In concert with USAF Eagles in Iceland) then 60 Canadian Hornets or Falcons based in Germany……….Quite simply, such a deployment would have forced the Red Banner fleet’s Bear’s, Badgers and Backfires to take a more northerly route prior to entering the Atlantic, thus decreasing both range and armament, well drastically reducing the risk to the Derek L’s escorting the REFORGER convoys

Make it 60 Eagles, half dozen E-3s, a prepositioned Mech brigade group coupled with the CAR and the ability to self-deploy within 72 hours, and we could have skated on a permanent deployment to Germany, well making a valuable (yet cheaper) contribution to NATO’s collective defence……