DogOnPorch Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 How about a plane that will be ready in time and doesn't have the myriad problems that the F-35 seems to have? That would be a good start. Maybe an open tender process? You know... openness and transparency. The Conservative rallying cry. At least around election time. Like? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
cybercoma Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Like? Do my posts give you any indication that I'm a military weapons specialist? One thing is clear. The F-35 has too many problems and even then it won't be ready in time. So our government needs to get it's s*** together and find something else. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Ahh, but you implied it was grounded……. I implied it might as well be grounded if pilots are refusing to fly them. But we do not know how extensive that is, because the US Air Force is not releasing that information. Chances are if they don't want to release that info is because they have a bigger problem than they want to admit. What good is a 200 million dollar aircraft (and all the support that goes with it) if some pilots refuse to fly them? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Do my posts give you any indication that I'm a military weapons specialist? One thing is clear. The F-35 has too many problems and even then it won't be ready in time. So our government needs to get it's s*** together and find something else. Seeing you're no specialist, perhaps you are misjudging the F-35. Many aircraft have had teething problems over the decades. One of the greatest (and most expensive) fighter aircraft of WW2 started out as a dud, dropping like flies to Japanese fighters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Wild Bill Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Do my posts give you any indication that I'm a military weapons specialist? One thing is clear. The F-35 has too many problems and even then it won't be ready in time. So our government needs to get it's s*** together and find something else. CC, you are dodging the man's question! Anybody with hair in their ears can say "I think this is no good!". Without a viable alternative, that can't get you anywhere. You end up with no choice at all. It takes far more brains and effort to come up with something better. If you want to admit that you really don't want us to have anything then just say so! If you want to just shoot down an option and leave it to SOMEONE ELSE to come up with something that meets your approval then you really aren't offering anything positive at all. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
cybercoma Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Today, I don't expect our government to roll the dice on a multibillion dollar procurement. If the Conservatives are going to be gambling with taxpayers money, then they better stop proclaiming their fiscal prudence and economic leadership. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) I implied it might as well be grounded if pilots are refusing to fly them. But we do not know how extensive that is, because the US Air Force is not releasing that information. Chances are if they don't want to release that info is because they have a bigger problem than they want to admit. What good is a 200 million dollar aircraft (and all the support that goes with it) if some pilots refuse to fly them? You're right. Have you emailed the US Air Force yet telling them to scap the F-22? Why haven't they listened to you? Edited June 29, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Today, I don't expect our government to roll the dice on a multibillion dollar procurement. If the Conservatives are going to be gambling with taxpayers money, then they better stop proclaiming their fiscal prudence and economic leadership. Seeing you're not a specialist, how would you know if the Government of Canada is gambling with taxpayers money or not re: the F-35? I think you're letting your hatred of 'necons', or whatever you call them, get in the way of Canada's military purchases. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
cybercoma Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Seeing you're not a specialist, how would you know if the Government of Canada is gambling with taxpayers money or not re: the F-35? I think you're letting your hatred of 'necons', or whatever you call them, get in the way of Canada's military purchases. And I suppose when you read the news, that makes you an expert in those areas too? I could make suggestions for another jet, but that's not the point. The point is that the process was botched from the beginning and experts have been stating repeatedly that this program is turning out to be a huge problem. So why are you committed to it when the Conservatives themselves have backed away from it already? If anyone is letting bias get in the way of their reasoning, might I suggest that it is you considering you're no longer level with the official party line. Quote
waldo Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Lockheed is diversified to more then just the F-35 thanks scoop! But really, c'mon... are you truly saying that, within that overall 'diversification', all that LockMart layoff posturing isolates any/all impact to the JSFail F-35? Even in speculation you can't bring yourself to even contemplate any... any... impact to your favoured toy? Really? Again, you know not of what you speak……..Said “A2/AD strategy” is being countered with a reemphasis on such bases as Anderson AFB & Kadena AFB, ironically enough, said real estate both bases are on was obtained by the United States nearly 70 years ago after the Empire of Japan’s failed attempt at a “A2/AD” strategy. like I said, you're entrenched in a WWII mindset! You clearly haven't a clue about A2/AD... that really shines through when you speak of 'domestic' in an AD context. Man, you are a lightweight! Quote
waldo Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 again, you've had your words, your correlation, re-quoted for you... several times now. Your same continued repeat bleat is most telling - a true testament to your trollish actions... you know, your troll actions being pointed out to you by other MLW members! Now, about that U.S. GAO extract quote you keep running/hiding from - just respond to it! Sure you can, hey? Still a no on providing said quote eh? Are you attempting an “A2/AD” strategy with this…….Surely if you had such quote, you’d provided dressed in one of your fancy replies with multiple indents & colors and all the associated trimmings again, you can continue to ignore the quotes played back to you, repeatedly. Your continuing troll act was astutely pointed out for you by another MLW member... I suggested you take that to heart; instead you carry on with your clown act. about that U.S. GAO quote you keep running/hiding from: As before, as always, you could end this with a simple straight-forward explanation of what you interpret the offered U.S. GAO quote extract to mean, particularly in the context of your testing puffery ... you know, that quote extract repeatedly presented to you... the one you've been repeatedly challenged to comment on... the one you won't touch with the proverbial '10 foot pole'. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 And I suppose when you read the news, that makes you an expert in those areas too? I could make suggestions for another jet, but that's not the point. Sure it is. Can you even name another aircraft? The point is that the process was botched from the beginning and experts have been stating repeatedly that this program is turning out to be a huge problem. So why are you committed to it when the Conservatives themselves have backed away from it already? If anyone is letting bias get in the way of their reasoning, might I suggest that it is you considering you're no longer level with the official party line. It would seem my link to the Lockheed P-38 Lightning* was ignored. PS: I'm not a CPC supporter. *If you wondered where the Lightning 1 was, wonder no more. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Can you help said member Moonbox out with a link to all the F-35’s technical and performance data? After doing so, perhaps we could also forward it to the South Korean Government …… you better send something to the South Korean Government - they really don't like being suckered by LockMart offering up "simulators" for evaluation! Is there a problem? Apparently, there were no air-worthy jets available... particularly any that can actually show results. Do you know... are the South Koreans willing to wait until 2017... 2018... 2019...???, before they can (promises, promises, promises) actually get their hands on a "representative jet"? You know... something beyond the vapourware you and the PorchDog are so enthralled with! Quote
GostHacked Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 You're right. Have you emailed the US Air Force yet telling them to scap the F-22? Why haven't they listened to you? Typical doggy drivel. Quote
Moonbox Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) Don't suppose you have a source other then a blogger? For what part? The Pentagon downgraded the F-35 from "very low observable" to "low observable" years ago. Google that. It's easy to find, so the fact remains that the Russians will have had 20+ years to refine their radar and infra-red to be able to see stealthier aircraft than the F-35. As for manoeuverability, the wing-loading and weight/thrust ratios on the F-35 are lousy and those numbers are also easy to find, as are comparisons to existing aircraft. I'm not making this crap up, so unless the F-35 is complete paradigm shift in terms of aerodynamics etc, this thing is going to rely on aging stealth characteristics and BVR combat, which has never really been proven effective. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1177440--f-35-the-jet-that-ate-the-pentagon Edited June 29, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
DogOnPorch Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Typical doggy drivel. Well, have you? waldo: You clearly haven't a clue about A2/AD A meaningless acronym. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 A meaningless acronym. oh... that's right... you're still wrapped up in that cold war bubble, right? That, as you say, 'acronym' is as relevant as the earlier references you pay homage to... like 'gun boat diplomacy', 'force projection', 'AirSea battle'. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Well, have you? What would be the purpose Porch Dog? If the Air Force wont even listen to it's own pilots, why would they listen to me? Never change Doggy. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 For what part? The Pentagon downgraded the F-35 from "very low observable" to "low observable" years ago. Google that. It's easy to find, so the fact remains that the Russians will have had 20+ years to refine their radar and infra-red to be able to see stealthier aircraft than the F-35. As for manoeuverability, the wing-loading and weight/thrust ratios on the F-35 are lousy and those numbers are also easy to find, as are comparisons to existing aircraft. I'm not making this crap up, so unless the F-35 is complete paradigm shift in terms of aerodynamics etc, this thing is going to rely on aging stealth characteristics and BVR combat, which has never really been proven effective. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1177440--f-35-the-jet-that-ate-the-pentagon Perhaps America should choose the old Russian way of doing things: quantity over quality. That way many cheaper jets could be built. Similar to the MiG-21, Freedom Fighter...only newer. There are certain limits to that sort of design, but it might be a fair trade-off. What do you think? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 What would be the purpose Porch Dog? If the Air Force wont even listen to it's own pilots, why would they listen to me? Never change Doggy. Let see. We're not sure how many, if any, pilots are actually dumping their Air Force careers to make a statement. Yet, the F-35 is still a go. Perhaps the Air Force knows something about the F-35 that you do not. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 oh... that's right... you're still wrapped up in that cold war bubble, right? That, as you say, 'acronym' is as relevant as the earlier references you pay homage to... like 'gun boat diplomacy', 'force projection', 'AirSea battle'. It is. Just say 'area denial'. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Perhaps America should choose the old Russian way of doing things: quantity over quality. That way many cheaper jets could be built. Similar to the MiG-21, Freedom Fighter...only newer. There are certain limits to that sort of design, but it might be a fair trade-off. What do you think? That worked for the Allies in WWII in the form of the Sherman Tank. The sheer number of Shermans overwhelmed the more superior Panzers. What do you think? Quote
Wild Bill Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 That worked for the Allies in WWII in the form of the Sherman Tank. The sheer number of Shermans overwhelmed the more superior Panzers. What do you think? I think that sort of argument is limited by the actual technological difference between the two weapons in question. How about vast numbers of Spitfires against F-35s? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
DogOnPorch Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 That worked for the Allies in WWII in the form of the Sherman Tank. The sheer number of Shermans overwhelmed the more superior Panzers. What do you think? The survivability of the Panther over the Sherman led to a lot of dead Sherman crews. The Shermans had to get behind the Panther to have a chance. This led to several Shermans keeping it busy up front while a few got around back...hedgerows allowing. The Sherman was formost an infantry support tank. Not a killer. The M-10 was the US tank hunter. No armor, though. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Moonbox Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) Perhaps America should choose the old Russian way of doing things: quantity over quality. That way many cheaper jets could be built. Similar to the MiG-21, Freedom Fighter...only newer. There are certain limits to that sort of design, but it might be a fair trade-off. What do you think? The F-35, however, WAS supposed to be a quantity over quality design. Like the budget F-16, it was originally planned to be built in the several thousands. The thing they got wrong is that quantity over quality usually suggests you're building something cheap, like the Sherman and the F-16 or Mig-21, and not something prohibitively expensive. Edited June 29, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.