F-35 Purchase

[DogOnPorch]

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.

American aircraft have never been about quantity over quality. The F-35 has the misfortune of being a multirole aircraft. There are trade-offs to such a design. But, it was never meant to be America's MiG-21...a pure interceptor. You want the best w/l and t to w? You must design for it.

[DogOnPorch]

The F-5 Freedom Fighter was America's 'MiG-21'...but it was a pure fighter...not interceptor. As the name implies, it was mainly for export to friendly countries.

[Moonbox]

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?

Cost vs Cost, the Spitfire would win by attrition lol. You could probably build 1000-2000 of them for the cost of 1 F-35, and each missile fired would cost more than the Spitfire it downed. There's a reason that the Boneyard in Arizone exists, and that's because if there ever was a full scale war again against a modern professional opponent, modern air assets would last, at best, a couple of months, and nobody could afford to replace them quickly. The F4 would be making a serious comeback.

[Moonbox]

American aircraft have never been about quantity over quality.

The F-16 was, to an extent, a sacrifice of quality in favor of quantity, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The F-4, for example, was superior to the Mig-21, but it was also at least 3x more expensive to build and wasn't 3x as effective in Vietnam (probably the only time that it faced decently trained pilots), despite massive logistical advantages.

The F-35 has the misfortune of being a multirole aircraft. There are trade-offs to such a design. But, it was never meant to be America's MiG-21...a pure interceptor. You want the best w/l and t to w? You must design for it.

A misfortune indeed. In hindsight it would have been better to maintain numerous and more specialized platforms. It gets to the point eventually where making something more complex and expensive is subject to diminishing returns.

[Wild Bill]

Cost vs Cost, the Spitfire would win by attrition lol. You could probably build 1000-2000 of them for the cost of 1 F-35, and each missile fired would cost more than the Spitfire it downed. There's a reason that the Boneyard in Arizone exists, and that's because if there ever was a full scale war again against a modern professional opponent, modern air assets would last, at best, a couple of months, and nobody could afford to replace them quickly. The F4 would be making a serious comeback.

Yet a prolonged full scale modern war will likely never again happen,MB!

Today's wars are "come as you are" affairs. They tend to be over in weeks, if not days. If you don't have superior forces, you lose, period and end of story.

You don't get a couple of years to build up, like Canada did in 1939. It's "shock and awe" quickly followed by "oh crap!".

It's just old style thinking, my friend!

[waldo]

Yet a prolonged full scale modern war will likely never again happen,MB!

Today's wars are "come as you are" affairs. They tend to be over in weeks, if not days. If you don't have superior forces, you lose, period and end of story.

You don't get a couple of years to build up, like Canada did in 1939. It's "shock and awe" quickly followed by "oh crap!".

It's just old style thinking, my friend!

today's "wars"... name em.

[DogOnPorch]

The F-16 was, to an extent, a sacrifice of quality in favor of quantity, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The F-4, for example, was superior to the Mig-21, but it was also at least 3x more expensive to build and wasn't 3x as effective in Vietnam (probably the only time that it faced decently trained pilots), despite massive logistical advantages.

Still, the NV/Russians lost the air war over Viet-Nam. Up until America's departure, that is...

A misfortune indeed. In hindsight it would have been better to maintain numerous and more specialized platforms. It gets to the point eventually where making something more complex and expensive is subject to diminishing returns.

Now we're onto something. I've already stated somewhere in this thread my like of the Super Tucano for light ground attack, some sort of 4 engine sub hunter plus a pure interceptor. We could also invest heavily in transports for NATOs (and our) needs. But, I think my opponents of the time were too busy calling me names.

[waldo]

We could also invest heavily in transports for NATOs (and our) needs.

yes, already agreed to... several times over. Canada could do exactly that - for all those so keen to keep bringing forward, "NATO commitments", Canada could become the champion for NATO transport... or it could continue down the road of, every decade or so, offering up a token few jets for "bombs away" excursions. Right?

[DogOnPorch]

yes, already agreed to... several times over. Canada could do exactly that - for all those so keen to keep bringing forward, "NATO commitments", Canada could become the champion for NATO transport... or it could continue down the road of, every decade or so, offering up a token few jets for "bombs away" excursions. Right?

I don't think our CF-18s are useful enough to be on a modern battlefield. But, I think they could still be useful at airshows. I kind of wish the CAF could have kept one of their P-80/T-33s in top condition...perhaps doing it up in USAF Korean War colours. Those were some pretty aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-80_Shooting_Star

[Wild Bill]

today's "wars"... name em.

Well, both Saddam wars, for a start. How long did the Kosovo thing last? Or Libya?

True, America has enjoyed a huge technological advantage but then again, that is their protection, is it not?

The Saddam wars were a good illustration of the folly of using vast numbers of cheaper units. Look at how many tanks Saddam's Elite Guard had in place, yet they were simply blown away like so much chaff by a smaller but far more technologically advanced American force.

Somehow, equipping Canada with lots of obsolescent planes seems just about as dumb to me!

[DogOnPorch]

Re: token bombing.

The Tucano could do that...and it is very cheap. Less vulnerable to HS missiles like SAM-7s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strela_2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano

Edited June 29, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

WB: Somehow, equipping Canada with lots of obsolescent planes seems just about as dumb to me!

Yes, it is very foolish. History proves your scenario over and over.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Saddam wars were a good illustration of the folly of using vast numbers of cheaper units. Look at how many tanks Saddam's Elite Guard had in place, yet they were simply blown away like so much chaff by a smaller but far more technologically advanced American force.

Agreed...it was a lopsided slaughter, with the American tank crews enjoying a huge standoff and fire control accuracy advantage. Something about cheap Chinese stadimeters vs. laser range finders and smart munitions. A-10 pilots laid waste to artillery and armour at an alarming rate (if you were fighting for Saddam). Smart Iraqi soldiers surrendered in droves.

The Great Basra Road Turkey Shoot became better known as the Highway of Death.

American/NATO strategies always have dominant air power as a given. America builds war planes, and it intends to use them.

Edited June 29, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

A-10 pilots laid waste to artillery and armour at an alarming rate (if you were fighting for Saddam). Smart Iraqi soldiers surrendered in droves.

With all that DU littering Iraq, expect cancer rates to jump in that country.

[DogOnPorch]

The Great Basra Road Turkey Shoot became better known as the Highway of Death.

That was grim work. A similar event took place in the Sinai in 1967 vs Nasser's retreating Soviet made horde. Napalm was the catalyst that time.

[Moonbox]

Well, both Saddam wars, for a start. How long did the Kosovo thing last? Or Libya?

None of these were wars. You're talking about tiny, third world shit holes being crapped on by the world's greatest superpower.

True, America has enjoyed a huge technological advantage but then again, that is their protection, is it not?

Only to an extent.

The Saddam wars were a good illustration of the folly of using vast numbers of cheaper units. Look at how many tanks Saddam's Elite Guard had in place, yet they were simply blown away like so much chaff by a smaller but far more technologically advanced American force.

The Saddam wars were a good illustration of what happens when the world's biggest economy comes to bear against a crap box country like Iraq. We're not comparing equal $$$ spent here. The Americans had the advantage in virtually all aspects. Technology, arms mix, training, logistics and reconnaisance, cooperation from neighbouring countries, desert terrain and an unbelievably large discrepancy in available resources all contributed to the USA's complete victory.

Somehow, equipping Canada with lots of obsolescent planes seems just about as dumb to me!

Sure, but not really any more dumb that a hugely overpriced pos that's likely to be outclassed by upcoming future threats 5-10 years after it enters production.

[DogOnPorch]

With all that DU littering Iraq, expect cancer rates to jump in that country.

Are folks going around licking tanks?

[waldo]

Well, both Saddam wars, for a start. How long did the Kosovo thing last? Or Libya?

The Saddam wars were a good illustration of the folly of using vast numbers of cheaper units. Look at how many tanks Saddam's Elite Guard had in place, yet they were simply blown away like so much chaff by a smaller but far more technologically advanced American force.

say what? Your qualifier was, "Today's wars are "come as you are" affairs. They tend to be over in weeks, if not days."

Libya? A "war"... Kosovo? A "war"... huh! EyeRac? You must be one of those Cheney/Rumsfeld type idolizers, hey? (Darth: "I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . [in] weeks rather than months." // Rummy: "Five days or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last longer.") In any case, I see you have no problem with goal posts (moving them). Tanks? I thought the emphasis here was on aircraft? Hey, did you know - Canada never went to the EyeRac (no matter how much the BC2004 types want to push the fallacy over a few supporting Gulf ships and/or a few 'transfer' soldiers.)

[waldo]

Somehow, equipping Canada with lots of obsolescent planes seems just about as dumb to me!

Yes, it is very foolish. History proves your scenario over and over.

I knew you guys would come around... I just knew it! So - 2 more guys for the 'Sopwith Camel' (you know, the Dog's metaphor for 'anything but')

Edited June 29, 2012 by waldo

[GostHacked]

Are folks going around licking tanks?

Not one of your most idiotic lines, but pretty damn close.

[DogOnPorch]

Not one of your most idiotic lines, but pretty damn close.

Well, you listen to Alex Jones...who is nutz...so anything is possible. No doubt DU = Co-60 (for example) in yours and his books.

[Moonbox]

Are folks going around licking tanks?

HAhahahaa

Not one of your most idiotic lines, but pretty damn close.

It was pretty funny and pretty clever actually.

[DogOnPorch]

Thank you, sir. I try.

[DogOnPorch]

Cost vs Cost, the Spitfire would win by attrition lol. You could probably build 1000-2000 of them for the cost of 1 F-35, and each missile fired would cost more than the Spitfire it downed. There's a reason that the Boneyard in Arizone exists, and that's because if there ever was a full scale war again against a modern professional opponent, modern air assets would last, at best, a couple of months, and nobody could afford to replace them quickly. The F4 would be making a serious comeback.

Yes, I have a friend who works there. They are either chopping them up to make new ones (in full view of the Russians/Chinese) or shrink wrapping them for future use. The ones that get chopped have everything down to the last wire removed if possible.

[cybercoma]

Sure it is. Can you even name another aircraft?

I don't need to name another aircraft to make my point. That should be clear. Your silly attempt to get into a pissing match about jet specs is moot when it comes to ever more apparent inability of Lockhead Martin to deliver on the F-35.