F-35 Purchase

[cybercoma]

ya, ya... all these guys have an agenda... a vendetta! Certainly, anyone critical of the F-35 can't stand up to your fanboy credentials!

It's funny how Derek can see that all of these people may have conflict of interest, biases, or agendas, but can't see how taking the word of a single seller on their competitors' products would be biased or conflicted. What utter and complete intellectual dishonesty.

[Guest Derek L]

ya, ya... all these guys have an agenda... a vendetta! Certainly, anyone critical of the F-35 can't stand up to your fanboy credentials!

why wouldn't there be any comment forthcoming from the Government, DND/DoD or LockMart? Why would they be unwilling to respond to investigative inquiry? What would they be afraid of? What do they have to hide? Why wouldn't they do everything they could to attempt to present 'their side' of the situation/issue? Why wouldn't they be attempting to ensure a more representative accounting? Oh, right... carry on!

But all of the guest, except Mr Williams and the retired General, have had no direct exposure to the JSF program and have demonstrated in the past that their comments towards defence programs are nothing more than a biased wild ass guess………As for the General and Mr Williams (And as suggested by the General, on his stance not to comment on developments with the program after he left office), both left office in ‘06, hence no longer being purvey to any JSF developments beyond that time.

As for lack of involvement in the making of the program by the Government/Lockheed/DND etc, clearly contributing to such a farce gives it creditability………..

[Guest Derek L]

Yeah. I'm sure if you ask the Ford dealer to tell you about GM's products, they would share their sufficient corporate knowledge with you as a buyer.

Seriously, Derek. What a stupid thing to say.

Uh-huh……….Lockheed’s JSF British partner, BAE makes the Eurofighter and Gripen…………And ahh……..The United States Navy, they’re kinda involved with the Joint Strike Fighter office, kinda operates the Super Hornet………..See where I’m going?

Seriously Cybercoma. What a stupid thing to say.

[waldo]

... both left office in ‘06, hence no longer being purvey to any JSF developments beyond that time.

so... if only they were embedded within JSFail/LockMart - then they would get with the program! Oh wait, what about those inconvenient U.S. Government Accountability Office reports... you know, the audit reports that are written with the (forced) cooperation of JSFail, that are signed off by JSFail? If you like, I could link you a few zinger extracts I've posted from those reports, hey? Or perhaps some of the scathing reports from the Pentagon itself... would you like some of those replayed for you, hey?

As for lack of involvement in the making of the program by the Government/Lockheed/DND etc, clearly contributing to such a farce gives it creditability………..

a farce? Oh my! Then it shouldn't be long before we see a bullet list of counter-points presented to identify just what/where the Fifth Estate, "got it wrong". Or is there one already? Hasn't JSFail been quick to respond? No? Yes? Maybe So?

[Guest Derek L]

It's funny how Derek can see that all of these people may have conflict of interest, biases, or agendas, but can't see how taking the word of a single seller on their competitors' products would be biased or conflicted. What utter and complete intellectual dishonesty.

Or why not look at it from another perspective……….The critics from the show have no involvement with the various JSF member armed forces or JSF producers……Why hasn‘t there been a “whistleblower” to shed light on such a scandal? ….Contrast with the F-35 member states, of which no one has left the program and in fact, the Israelis and Japanese have joined on……….Why is that? Does that record repair man or Steve Staples really know something that all these other folks don’t? How did they obtain their information?

Oh, and like the Oilsands, when will the NDP reverse course?

[Guest Derek L]

so... if only they were embedded within JSFail/LockMart - then they would get with the program! Oh wait, what about those inconvenient U.S. Government Accountability Office reports... you know, the audit reports that are written with the (forced) cooperation of JSFail, that are signed off by JSFail? If you like, I could link you a few zinger extracts I've posted from those reports, hey? Or perhaps some of the scathing reports from the Pentagon itself... would you like some of those replayed for you, hey?

a farce? Oh my! Then it shouldn't be long before we see a bullet list of counter-points presented to identify just what/where the Fifth Estate, "got it wrong". Or is there one already? Hasn't JSFail been quick to respond? No? Yes? Maybe So?

Fill your boots...........Despite the GAO “reports”, why hasn’t the program been cancelled?

[waldo]

Fill your boots...........Despite the GAO “reports”, why hasn’t the program been cancelled?

that's always your eventual go-to! Shorter Derek L: "in spite of a decade+ of failed promises/delivery, failed scheduling, failed testing, price increases, cost overruns, delayed procurements, cut procurements... how bad can it really be... why hasn't it been cancelled?"

[dre]

Fill your boots...........Despite the GAO “reports”, why hasn’t the program been cancelled?

Because people are pot committed.

[Guest Derek L]

that's always your eventual go-to! Shorter Derek L: "in spite of a decade+ of failed promises/delivery, failed scheduling, failed testing, price increases, cost overruns, delayed procurements, cut procurements... how bad can it really be... why hasn't it been cancelled?"

You tell me

[Guest Derek L]

Because people are pot committed.

But are they? As all the critics continually espouse there are “cheaper alternatives”, thusly a “competitive competition” should be held…………….The competition was already held a decade ago and Boeing lost, thusly no evidence to suggest that they would have “done better” in terms of costs control nor delays……….The one key difference between the JSF and the F-22/F-23 competitions was the United States Government decided the JSF program would be “winner takes all”, in that unlike the F-22 program, Boeing (and their newly acquired acquisition of McDonnell Douglas) were shut-out of the program………..Boeing has a very good lobbyist and media arm, as demonstrated by the overshadowed USAF aerial tanker program, in which EADS (European company) and Northrop (Lockheed’s JSF partner) won the original competition…………Boeing was able to have their lobby arm within the US Congress to have the USAF rewrite the program requirements (tailored to the Boeing entry) and have a “do over” in which the European led team was sure to lose…………The lesson, Boeing doesn’t like to lose to Airbus/EADS and Lockheed.

[Guest Derek L]

Here’s on of the most concise papers (of recent times) chronicling what’s Good, Bad and Ugly with the F-35.

Obviously it takes into account the “wherefore and the why” of certain issues not explained within the mainstream media and what‘s going right (again not reported generally by the media)…………..Coupled with the fact that it’s published by the Air Force Association, an independent (non-profit) group representing the (United States) air force (We have the same sort of group up here too) who’s self described mandate is to help educate & promote an understanding on what the publics tax dollars spent on modern airpower do.

Concurrency—producing aircraft meant for operations while flight tests are under way, requiring rework when problems are discovered in tests—is a transient issue, Venlet said, and "will lessen over time." The two years of extra time and additional funding built into the revised schedule was necessary, he said; however, he doesn’t think further extensions will be needed.

Neither did Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, then Air Force Chief of Staff. Asked in June if he thinks the F-35 program has had enough time to address concurrency issues, Schwartz answered, "Yes, for the A model," the conventional takeoff and landing version to be used by USAF.

"There’s always going to be some retrofit," Schwartz added. He pointed out this would be true of any combat aircraft. Schwartz acknowledged the issues with the STOVL and carrier models, but said the F-35A is generally meeting the Air Force’s expectations for this stage of the program. The launch of local area operations at Eglin shows the program’s progress, he said, and "we have a good sense of how it’s going."

In his confirmation hearing to be Schwartz’s successor, Gen. Mark A. Welsh III said the head of Air Combat Command will decide later this year what criteria will constitute initial operational capability with the F-35 for the Air Force. The IOC declaration is an indication that a new asset is ready to go to war.

As stated numerous times, the F-35A is the version Canada will be purchasing.

There are three major blocks of software associated with the F-35. The Block 2 software, flying now, allows for safe operation of the jet to the edges of the test envelope. The Block 2A software will include basic weapons capability—what Venlet called "initial warfighting" capacity. The full-up software is called Block 3 and will include "full capability" of weapons and electronic warfare, he said. Block 3 "will finish development testing in 2016 and be released to the fleet in 2017." A Block 4 version, which will include both software and hardware changes to improve the aircraft’s performance, will constitute the first major upgrade for the F-35. The content of that upgrade is classified, but will likely include increased internal carriage of AIM-120 AMRAAM radar guided missiles, among other changes.

Now as it’/s often claimed, when we finally get our F-35s, they won’t be “combat capable“ and we‘ll have to wait for “software upgrades”………….The above passage indicates the varying levels of “capability”……..Current aircraft, that will be used in the initial training role………As I posted a few pages back, the first operational squadron (Based in Luke AFB in Arizona) flying the F-35A Block 2A will be stood up maybe later this year, but more likely in the first couple months of 2013, said squadron, as indicated above, will have “initial war fighting capability”, or on par with the other fighter squadrons (F-16s) at Luke AFB…….

The Block 3 F-35As, as said above, will be in service by 2017.……..These are the initial aircraft that we’ll operate, with the first dozen or so aircraft that we’ll receive being Block 3, again aircraft that will be fully combat capable (And vast improvements over our current Hornets) and if required, be used operationally, but due to the small initial numbers will be used by our air force to transition pilots from the Hornet to the F-35 and develop tactics………The remainder of our order, received in the early 2020s, will be the Block 4 version………At such a time, we’ll either keep our Block 3 aircraft as is initially, upgrade them to Block 4, or leave them as is and wait till the eventual (and undetermined as of yet) “Block 5” aircraft………Now from what I’ve heard, and I’d place this slightly above an informed rumour, is that later Block’s (Possibly 5 or 6) will include directed energy weapons……….I’d question the utility of lasers as a weapon on a supersonic platform and/’or at a lower altitude, but “above” the clouds and flying subsonic, they could have a viable use as an anti-missile device, be it part of a networked Ballistic Missile defence plan or a defensive countermeasure for the aircraft itself like chaff or flares……….We shall see, but I believe the USAF has cut funding for their airborne laser testbed……..

Using the government’s own models, he said Lockheed Martin estimates the F-35 will be "about seven percent more expensive to operate than an F-16." That shouldn’t be surprising, he said; the F-35 is larger and "we know we burn more fuel" with the F135 engine. That cost also "doesn’t reflect the cost of a targeting pod, … a jammer, or any other number of capabilities that are manifest in an F-35 that are not inherent on an F-16." The fact that there is so much "more content" in an F-35 than an F-16 or F-18 creates "confusion" over comparative cost, Lawson said.

This is very true……….I’ve yet seen a knowledgeable, like for like operational cost comparison between the F-35 and other combat aircraft………As mentioned, the F-16 or F/A-18 Hornet pricing isn’t including the “add on’s” that the F-35 comes with “standard” (Integral to the aircraft)………Also, what the media is often remiss in mentioning, is that up into last years war in Libya, the Eurofighter and Rafale still required another aircraft (Or Special Forces on the ground) to designate targets on the ground to use precision (laser guided) munitions………….To say nothing of the fact, that outside of the American B-2 (And though not used in the conflict, the F-22) all current modern aircraft require escorting electronic warfare aircraft, if they wish to fly (safely) in contested airspace, to suppress (Even the antiquated Libyan air defence networks) enemy air defence radars and fire control systems for surface to air missiles………..The F-35 won’t require EW escorts.

A number of fixes are being considered for the F-35 helmet. A new short-range night vision camera will be installed, Lawson said. The existing one was "the very best camera that was available at the time the helmet was designed and built," but the improved version should eliminate some of the concerns. The program office and Lockheed are discussing whether to retrofit existing helmets or build new ones.

Software fixes may resolve problems with jitter, in which data displays on the inside of the faceplate are not as rock-solid as pilots would like. There’s also some lag in displaying night imagery from cameras all around the aircraft, as the pilot’s head traverses the field of view of one camera to another. That latency will require another software fix.

"We’ve had over 2,000 flights" on the F-35, "and every one of those flights has been with this helmet." There’s no concern that it’s a safety issue, he asserted.

As I posted here, months prior to the mainstream media and critics mentioning, the “fabled helmet issues”, though inconvenient, haven’t hampered any of the flight testing and will eventually be solved.

The fact that the flight-test program is proceeding ahead of schedule for the second year in a row is a good sign that other problems are small and well on their way to being corrected, Lawson said. By the end of 2012, "45 percent of the flight science testing will be complete on the A variant. … That’s a good indicator of progress."

In 2012, there will be nine major milestones for the F-35, according to Stephen O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin VP for F-35 business development. These are flight testing the Block 2A software; completion of the A model’s first "life" of durability testing; modification and testing of the new tailhook; the first weapons drops; high angle of attack testing; the commencement of training at Eglin; first deliveries of F-35As to Air Combat Command; standup of Navy and Marine Corps squadrons at Eglin; and first deliveries to international customers Britain and the Netherlands.

Again, the media seems to not pay the same level of attention this sort of F-35 news……..

Lawson said the benefits of having a common aircraft for the armed services accrue from having a busy production line and diminish when the line is moving slowly.

The production rate is "really the most powerful thing you can do to reduce cost," Lawson asserted. "The good news," he said, is that government cost models "show we’re moving to an affordable airplane. But the point of lowest cost is achieved at maximum rate."

Like the Chevy Volt?

Lawson said the Air Force has kept its word about not meddling with requirements on the F-35, which on other programs has led to requirements "creep" that has added cost and put timetables in jeopardy.

"There’s certainly a lot of attention to what the Block 4 configuration is," he noted. "The government leads those [discussions]." He said what’s considered for the improvement program follows "a threat-driven approach." There are "a number of modifications that we can make to the airplane to address future threats," he added, but because the mold line must remain more or less unchanged, these changes have to do with internal equipment.

There are some systems "where you may want to add an additional card to an existing suite," he observed, and the F-35 will likely be fitted for new weapons, as they come along, and other means to defeat the anti-access capabilities of adversaries.

As mentioned “system creep”, or changing requirements of the customer (Government) is what blows schedules and pricing out of the water, not only for the F-35 or other military programs, but any modern product from household electronics, a remodelling or renovation of your home, to a fancy dinner………..Don’t believe me, next time you go for dinner, after ordering your meal, wait ten minutes, then change your order…………Or look at the problems associated with the Sea King replacement………We wanted an underpowered helicopter (The Cyclone) to do the same missions tasks (and cheaper) then a helicopter designed from the start to perform our requirements(and those of the Royal Navy and Italians) that we ordered and later cancelled (EH-101)…….Mission creep.

[Guest Derek L]

http://www.reuters.c...echnologySector

He said the program, restructured three times in recent years to slow production and work out lingering technical challenges, had completed nearly 1,000 test flights in total. Test flights were 25 percent ahead of plan as of September.

"This program is making great progress and it really has a lot of momentum," Kubasik told reporters on Wednesday during a discussion about Lockheed's third-quarter earnings.

He said labor costs were coming down faster on the F-35 program than any previous fighter jet program in over 40 years. Lockheed is on track to hit its target unit "flyaway" cost, excluding development, of $67 million in fiscal 2012 dollars by 2018, he added.

Bueller...... Bueller.......Bueller?

Edited October 26, 2012 by Derek L

[login]

The F-35 won't require EW escorts.

Why not?

*because detection technology doesn't advance?

Edited October 26, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

Why not?

*because detection technology doesn't advance?

The same reason the F-117 didn’t and the B-2 doesn’t………An escort making electronic noise defeats the purpose of the low observable technology, or stealth (hence “surprise”), as such, what’s the point?

As to technological advancements for the defender against “stealth”, any eventual “silver bullet” will eventually rely upon detecting said stealth aircraft in the infrared spectrum……….A long way to go until that becomes a viable means of detection………..The whole humidity thing in the Earth’s atmosphere will constrain said technology to a handful of kilometres at best……..

[login]

The same reason the F-117 didn’t and the B-2 doesn’t………An escort making electronic noise defeats the purpose of the low observable technology, or stealth (hence “surprise”), as such, what’s the point?

As to technological advancements for the defender against “stealth”, any eventual “silver bullet” will eventually rely upon detecting said stealth aircraft in the infrared spectrum……….A long way to go until that becomes a viable means of detection………..The whole humidity thing in the Earth’s atmosphere will constrain said technology to a handful of kilometres at best……..

F35 stealth is just a reduced signature though, how many birds fly at above the speed of sound?

I'm not sure it is undetectable, from what I've read it is, just "less detectable"

It is also visible no need for infared detection when it is in the visible light band.

Your claim it doesn't need support of electronic counter measures is patently false.

stealth bombers are detectable by cell phone mast arrays..

the flying suites arn't "perfect", only third world countries have problems with the stuff.

This from like 4 years ago for instance... and 4 years is a long time in technology...

http://www.electroni...s/Military/1230

There are many ways to detect it, but I must say "radar" is not the end all of "stealth"

If you take a close look at the f35 you should realize it is not the size of a golf ball, nor does it weight as much as a golf ball in mass. Its like putting a bunch of mirrors on an elephant, there is still an elephant under those mirrors.

Is a clan member any less homo sapiens because he is wearing a table cloth?

The same analogy can be applied to your so called "invisible stealth multi purpose strike aircraft"

They are big, and don't look like a bird. If you have seen one then you know.

I read about the stuff in "British Team Claims to Detect Stealth Aircraft?" well before 2008 and in terms of China not the UK.

China as an example has probably the largest cell phone industry in the world.

While these things may be useful for bombing third world nations, they are not "invincible" nor are their current configurations opitmal, nor will they defend against 1st world technology currently available and existing, that would be a threat to the US.

This is from the same bin of nonsense as, US cannot even defend against commercial airliners... bs.

This is just the tip of the f35

http://www.theregist...tem_disappears/

circa 2001

Say what happens with?

http://en.wikipedia....l-wave_detector

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.2377.pdf

This is not to say the plane is useless, it is rather to say that your idea that the plane being invisible is wrong, and these things should not be seen as more than a tool for bombing third world nations and performing duties under NORAD, up to perhaps 2025 with any reliability.

Edited October 27, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

F35 stealth is just a reduced signature though, how many birds fly at above the speed of sound?

“Stealth” is a reduction in returns from radar, not “signature”………As to supersonic “birds”, how many supersonic birds fly below the “radar horizon”? Remember, a radar placed ~50-100 feet above sea level (A ship’s mast) will have an effective radar horizon out to about ~10-14 miles……As such, said radar will detect said supersonic bird, also flying ~100 ft above sea level, out to about ~12 miles………..How long does it take said supersonic bird to travel 12 miles?

I'm not sure it is undetectable, from what I've read it is, just "less detectable"

That’s relative………..The radar return "signatures" from a F-117 contrasted with say an F-15, are a stark contrast.

It is also visible.

Not at night, bad weather, fog, or if you’re standing at sea level, and said aircraft is flying near 100 feet above sea level, will you see said aircraft out beyond ~6-7 miles……How long does it take said aircraft to travel 7 miles well moving at supersonic speeds?

Edited October 27, 2012 by Derek L

[login]

“Stealth” is a reduction in returns from radar, not “signature”………As to supersonic “birds”, how many supersonic birds fly below the “radar horizon”? Remember, a radar placed ~50-100 feet above sea level (A ship’s mast) will have an effective radar horizon out to about ~10-14 miles……As such, said radar will detect said supersonic bird, also flying ~100 ft above sea level, out to about ~12 miles………..How long does it take said supersonic bird to travel 12 miles?

Radar is like a 100 year old technology.

Not at night, bad weather, fog, or if you’re standing at sea level, and said aircraft is flying near 100 feet above sea level, will you see said aircraft out beyond ~6-7 miles……How long does it take said aircraft to travel 7 miles well moving at supersonic speeds?

Yeah cause that's what I want to be flying in.

If you are flying at 100ft you got more to worry about than being seen.

Your post almost comes off as desperation.

(just a note observation is not always horizontal....)

Sometimes it goes like \

Edited October 27, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

Radar is like a 100 year old technology.

Yup, and the associated mathematics is thousands of years old. Your point?

Yeah cause that's what I want to be flying in.

If you are flying at 100ft you got more to worry about than being seen.

And such flying has been done for decades……………It’s telling that aircraft such as the Buccaneer, Intruder and Aardvark etc were designed to fly at such heights, at high speeds………..

Your post almost comes off as desperation.

(just a note observation is not always horizontal....)

Sometimes it goes like \

And your post comes across as ignorant.

As for going like this “\”, when using radar from higher elevations, though the radar horizon is considerably greater, said radars can also pick up returns from such objects as actual birds, ocean waves and cars on a hi-way etc, hence the term “radar clutter”………..As such, airborne radar processors will filter out the return from objects the size of birds………….Now if said stealth aircraft generates a radar return the size of a seagull or baseball………….

Edited October 27, 2012 by Derek L

[Wilber]

Doppler radars screen based on the speed of an object. An operator can dial in whatever speed range they want. He could eliminate all objects traveling less than 100 kts for example which would eliminate about anything that wasn't man made.

So far stealth aircraft have only been used in conflicts where there was complete air superiority and they have only had to contend with ground based radars that have been extensively degraded by aircraft using HARM's. I'm wondering how stealthy some of these aircraft would be from above and behind. Would they be as vulnerable as any other if confronted with opposition that had an altitude advantage and look down, shoot down capability?

[Guest Derek L]

Doppler radars screen based on the speed of an object. An operator can dial in whatever speed range they want. He could eliminate all objects traveling less than 100 kts for example which would eliminate about anything that wasn't man made.

But the “Doppler effect” (From a “conventional” radar) can be mitigated by traveling orthogonally from the source radar……….hence the modern usage of active (and passive) phased arrays in military applications…………To say nothing of the fact that an emitting radar will make it’s presence known to a potential “target” (Stealth or not) long prior to said radar having a possibility of a return from said target…………Then it simply becomes an exercise in geometry for said “target” to “defeat” even a modern AESA radar.

So far stealth aircraft have only been used in conflicts where there was complete air superiority and they have only had to contend with ground based radars that have been extensively degraded by aircraft using HARM's. I'm wondering how stealthy some of these aircraft would be from above and behind. Would they be as vulnerable as any other if confronted with opposition that had an altitude advantage and look down, shoot down capability?

I’ll grant you that being the case over the FRY and the second Iraq war, but during the first Iraq war, the Iraqis had the most modern air defence network defending greater Baghdad, outside of the Soviets, using much the same equipment as the Soviets (granted to not the same efficiency due to poorer training) as this was demonstrated by only the F-117 (And Tomahawks) going “downtown” during the conflict……….Even the opening stages of the Second Persian Excursion saw the B-2’s used during the initial “shock and awe” phase of the air war………..

As to the degradation of an enemies air defence network first, well that’s kind of the point……….And unlike the F-117, the F-35 will carry internally the JSOW (and eventually AGM-88E) and externally the HARM for that very purpose……….Hence the term, first day of war fighter……….

As to the effectiveness of a Stealth versus AWACS, it’s all relative, just a different geometric equation in relation to the radar horizon………………I’ll borrow from a previous example I used to describe the limitations of radar in an earlier thread (For those that don’t understand the concept):

If you stood in the middle of a field on a dark night with a powerful flashlight, and my goal is to sneak past you, I’ll see your light illuminating long before the benefits of said flashlight enable you to detect me…….As such, I can avoid you………The difference between ``Stealth`` and not stealthily, is the difference between myself wearing a flat coloured camouflage outfit versus conventional clothing…….The net benefit? The less distance required between me and you………

[login]

I’ll grant you that being the case over the FRY and the second Iraq war, but during the first Iraq war, the Iraqis had the most modern air defence network defending greater Baghdad, outside of the Soviets, using much the same equipment as the Soviets (granted to not the same efficiency due to poorer training) as this was demonstrated by only the F-117 (And Tomahawks) going “downtown” during the conflict

US used apaches and SOF to take out the air defence network before putting the jets in in the first gulf war.

Edited October 28, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

US used apaches and SOF to take out the air defence network before putting the jets in in the first gulf war.

Yes, I know……..And do you know what effect the rotors of a low flying helicopter play on Doppler radar?

As to the initial first night of the Gulf War, after said initial attack by the Apaches, USAF EF-111s, EC-130s, B-52s and Navy/Marine Prowlers, coupled with USAF F-4Gs “Wild Weasels” attacked the outlying portion of the national Iraqi air defence network, both radars and communication sites, in concert with the cruise missiles and F-117’s attacking the air defence command and control sites in Baghdad proper…..After the near destruction of their major facilities within the first night, individual sites were forced to illuminate their own radars, as such opening them up to attacks with HARM missiles from conventional fighters…..Almost like the Coalition had a plan to knock out one of the most extensive air defence networks in history eh? But during the entire conflict, the Stealth Fighters were the only ones to strike (key) targets over Baghdad.

Now with all that, in the near future, said scenario won’t require hundreds of aircraft, of dozens of types, to conduct such a goal……..All that will be needed will be F-35s, B-2s, stealth cruise missiles and if the technology matures, stealth UCAVs……….

Now what was your point?

[login]

Now what was your point?

f35's will only be useful in attacking 3rd world countries by 2025.

I don't like the all eggs in one basket approach.

While I think that a few flights of these will be complimentary (to be purchased perhaps 7 a year up until 2020 (perhaps 35-42, I think a much more ambitious plan needs to exist for defence aquisition for Canada.) The price is way too high though on these things. I can't beleive that the costs are as high as they are, it doesn't make sense in my mind that companies should be profiting off these things due to the bloat. Price has like doubled, that is massive. The price should be lower not higher, there are no shortages it is just gouging.

They are just way beyond Canada's needs for defence. I don't see why Canada should be projecting as an invader and destroyer, when its old image was peace keeper. It doesn't have the weight for that role.

http://en.wikipedia....File:AFwing.png

That is basically what the f35 will be in Canada. But it isn't sufficient for defence, it isn't designed for defence.

While wing 1 may be f35's wing 2 should be another type of jet for homeland defence.

Like f35 being able to be used for counteroffensives while wing 2 a lower cost perhaps even gen 4 model(not saying cf-18's) primarily for other roles within Canada even onemade in Canada and completely owned and modifiable in Canada.

Something like the Rafael may be a better choice for wing 2.

http://en.wikipedia....Dassault_Rafale

Cutting 10-15 F35's off the block you could put together about 20-30 rafaels. Or perhaps some sort of f-18 rafael hybrid that maintains the rafael's benefits such as fuel savings on supercruise.

Edited October 29, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

f35's will only be useful in attacking 3rd world countries by 2025.

Bullshit.

I don't like the all eggs in one basket approach.

It's done us well since the early 80s

While I think that a few flights of these will be complimentary (to be purchased perhaps 7 a year up until 2020 (perhaps 35-42, I think a much more ambitious plan needs to exist for defence aquisition for Canada.) The price is way too high though on these things. I can't beleive that the costs are as high as they are, it doesn't make sense in my mind that companies should be profiting off these things due to the bloat. Price has like doubled, that is massive. The price should be lower not higher, there are no shortages it is just gouging.

They are just way beyond Canada's needs for defence. I don't see why Canada should be projecting as an invader and destroyer, when its old image was peace keeper. It doesn't have the weight for that role.

Then what are Canada's "needs for defence"? You suggest the Rafale, but they perform the same intended role as our current Hornet, as both aircraft's current role will be fulfilled by the F-35.…But better……As for your BS regarding Canada’s role as a “peacekeeper”, well the Hornets were purchased to fulfill our commitments to not only NORAD, but also NATO strike in Western Europe…………..And every instance of our Hornets actually performing in combat, in a strike/interdiction role would also counter your false “peacekeeper” meme.

That is basically what the f35 will be in Canada. But it isn't sufficient for defence, it isn't designed for defence.

Why?

Like f35 being able to be used for counteroffensives while wing 2 a lower cost perhaps even gen 4 model(not saying cf-18's) primarily for other roles within Canada even onemade in Canada and completely owned and modifiable in Canada.

Something like the Rafael may be a better choice for wing 2.

The procurement and support cost of operating a current fighter type out into the 2040-2050 timeframe would be formidable………….To say nothing of the extensive added costs of operating a two aircraft type fleet.

A F-35 will be able to perform any task that current types can, but current types won’t be able to perform all the tasks the F-35 will.

[login]

Bullshit.

They wanted to do a stampede running of the bulls on Baystreet.

$500 friendly bet?

It's done us well since the early 80s

for attacking third world countries.

Then what are Canada's "needs for defence"?

It needs a cheap fighter that it can modify and replace parts on at will. Ideally something that will be low cost to maintain, and will be able to fly in arctic conditions or at bear minimum Canadian subarctic winters.

You suggest the Rafale, but they perform the same intended role as our current Hornet.

Its newer, and new ones will still be able to fly after 2018, and they will perhaps be more available than the f35 since the program is run out of the US.

The f35 isn't tested and loosing one is a bigger deal than loosing one rafale

The procurement and support cost of operating a current fighter type out into the 2040-2050 timeframe would be formidable………….To say nothing of the extensive added costs of operating a two aircraft type fleet.

That really is a problem because these things will be yesterdays plane by 2025. The project lifespan is way too long. It is buying too much on tommorrows money. they don't have the money now they shouldn't be buying now.

A F-35 will be able to perform any task that current types can, but current types won’t be able to perform all the tasks the F-35 will.

We don't need all the tasks for every role. Keeping flight hours down will be important that is why having a mixed fleet with a lower cost jet to fly is a better deal for the tax payers. Why drive a porsche or bugatti when a toyota will do the job?

Edited October 29, 2012 by login