F-35 Purchase

[bush_cheney2004]

Too much music and not enough gun audio:

Yet, it is said, that you will be dead, before hearing the GAU-8 report.

[waldo]

Hey, I’ve provided a quote from the manufacture and the US military

are you saying you doubt the words/quote of the USAF Chief of Staff?

by the by, let me reacquaint you with your quote from the JSF site: "U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22"

... in what world do you equate "Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground)" as singularly related to the A variant... to the exclusion of the B variant? Which self-serving Derek L world is that to be found in?

like I said, are your pitting your googly prowess up against the actual words of the USAF Chief of Staff?

[waldo]

Too much music and not enough gun audio:

you have a dedicated thread for your jingo porn - use it

[Guest Derek L]

Yet, it is said, that you will be dead, before hearing the GAU-8 report.

Indeed, that whole speed of sound versus the speed a which a bullet travels defiantly takes away from the movies………The coalition forces loved the A-10 over in the dirt box.

[Guest Derek L]

are you saying you doubt the words/quote of the USAF Chief of Staff?

by the by, let me reacquaint you with your quote from the JSF site: "U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22"

... in what world do you equate "Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground)" as singularly related to the A variant... to the exclusion of the B variant? Which self-serving Derek L world is that to be found in?

like I said, are your pitting your googly prowess up against the actual words of the USAF Chief of Staff?

Hey, like I`ve said, Lockheed and DoD versus?

[Guest Derek L]

Your link?

USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10

The F-35B is an interesting aircraft, Schwartz says. But while the USAF had at one time considered the variant as a potential replacement for the A-10, given the fiscal constraints the services faces and the need to generate more sorties, the USAF will not buy the F-35B, he says.

What time was that?

While USAF will not consider buying the F-35B, the service is fully committed to buying its own conventional take-off F-35A variant. Fighters like the stealthy F-35 are not in any danger of being replaced by unmanned combat aircraft anytime in the near future because those machines are not yet capable of flying in airspace protected by advanced integrated air defence systems.

"The reality is, is that at least in the current [generation], a remotely piloted aircraft cannot survive in contested airspace," Schwartz says.

So I'll trust no more reference to UCAVs?

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed, that whole speed of sound versus the speed a which a bullet travels defiantly takes away from the movies………The coalition forces loved the A-10 over in the dirt box.

Hence..."The Hand of God" remark. God flies an A-10 Warthog.

[waldo]

What time was that?

ya, wow! You can take a quote and use googly to find the source!

does this mean you'll now accept the actual words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff... as for your, "what time was that"... the statement emanates from a days old Brookings Institute discussion.

are you going to double-down and continue to dispute the quoted words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff?

[Guest Derek L]

Hence..."The Hand of God" remark. God flies an A-10 Warthog.

Exactly.....I'm still waiting for Waldo to reference the "when" though......Off topic, but do you remember the ASTOVL and Harrier III proposals from the 80s?

[Guest Derek L]

ya, wow! You can take a quote and use googly to find the source!

does this mean you'll now accept the actual words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff... as for your, "what time was that"... the statement emanates from a days old Brookings Institute discussion.

are you going to double-down and continue to dispute the quoted words/statement of the USAF Chief of Staff?

So when did the USAF consider a STOVL aircraft?

[waldo]

So when did the USAF consider a STOVL aircraft?

here... see if you can get a message to the USAF Chief of Staff: ask him to explain himself, hey?

USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz: But while the USAF had at one time considered the variant as a potential replacement for the A-10, given the fiscal constraints the services faces and the need to generate more sorties, the USAF will not buy the F-35B, he says.

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly.....I'm still waiting for Waldo to reference the "when" though......Off topic, but do you remember the ASTOVL and Harrier III proposals from the 80s?

I only remember the typical USAF/Navy/USMC bickering over design requirements. The US/UK let the idea quietly die. Lift fan development continued however...which continued to today's F-35 variant. A great debt is owed to Hawker Siddeley.

[Guest Derek L]

here... see if you can get a message to the USAF Chief of Staff: ask him to explain himself, hey?

Nice dodge......Care to explain the references to the Lockheed and DoD sites though?

[Guest Derek L]

I only remember the typical USAF/Navy/USMC bickering over design requirements. The US/UK let the idea quietly die. Lift fan development continued however...which continued to today's F-35 variant. A great debt is owed to Hawker Siddeley.

Post Falklands and during the 600 ship fleet build-up, the “Harrier III” was considered for filling the decks of all those mothballed Essex boats that were lying around not pulling their weight……..they (and even us and the Australians ) even looked at a mini Harrier carrier based off the Sprucans for a short while………As for the USAF, I’d imagine they looked at the idea under the same guise as the RAF in Germany during the 70s and 80s……..Waldo’s mention of the “B” was the first time I’ve ever heard of it being procured by the USAF…….I’d love to hear the context in which the General spoke………A “B” for the USAF kinda sounds like a solution looking for a problem…….

None the less, as stated, Canada has no need to replace our A-10s with a F-35B

[waldo]

Nice dodge......Care to explain the references to the Lockheed and DoD sites though?

no dodge - coming straight at you. The real dodge is you avoiding the USAF Chief of Staff's own words. As for your links, again... somehow, you dodged right past the following:

by the by, let me reacquaint you with your quote from the JSF site: "

U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22

"

... in what world do you equate "Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground)" as singularly related to the A variant... to the exclusion of the B variant? Which self-serving Derek L world is that to be found in?

[waldo]

None the less, as stated, Canada has no need to replace our A-10s with a F-35B

yuk, yuk... again, as stated, the point of the reference was to highlight another downplay in the overall procurement numbers... in this case, the USAF has decided not to replace its A-10s with the JSFail F-35-B variant.

[Guest Derek L]

no dodge - coming straight at you. The real dodge is you avoiding the USAF Chief of Staff's own words. As for your links, again... somehow, you dodged right past the following:

And the line under your quoted passage?

U.S. Marine Corps STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18 as their only strike fighter

No mention of STOVL in the USAF reference eh?

[Guest Derek L]

yuk, yuk... again, as stated, the point of the reference was to highlight another downplay in the overall procurement numbers... in this case, the USAF has decided not to replace its A-10s with the JSFail F-35-B variant.

How many "B"s had the USAF intended to purchase?

[Guest Derek L]

And if they intended to purchase the "B" to replace the A-10, now that they've decided this per your link:

While USAF will not consider buying the F-35B, the service is fully committed to buying its own conventional take-off F-35A variant. Fighters like the stealthy F-35 are not in any danger of being replaced by unmanned combat aircraft anytime in the near future because those machines are not yet capable of flying in airspace protected by advanced integrated air defence systems.

Isn't that good news for Canada, since as per you, the USAF will now replace their A-10s with the same version we're purchasing?

[waldo]

And the line under your quoted passage?

No mention of STOVL in the USAF reference eh?

ya! Do you get it yet? There's also no mention of CTOL either... is there? No, as I stated, the reference purposely excludes variant breakout reference. Instead, it relies upon a generic reference to "Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground)"... which includes both CTOL and STOVL. Which implies the USAF had designs on both the A and B variants! How does it feel to be schooled, hey?

by the by, let me reacquaint you with your quote from the JSF site: "

U.S. Air Force

Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground)

to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22

"

... in what world do you equate "Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground)" as singularly related to the A variant... to the exclusion of the B variant? Which self-serving Derek L world is that to be found in?

Edited May 20, 2012 by waldo

[waldo]

How many "B"s had the USAF intended to purchase?

ask the USAF Chief of Staff:

here... see if you can get a message to the USAF Chief of Staff: ask him to explain himself, hey?

USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz: But while the USAF had at one time considered the variant as a potential replacement for the A-10, given the fiscal constraints the services faces and the need to generate more sorties, the USAF will not buy the F-35B, he says.

[Guest Derek L]

ya! Do you get it yet? There's also no mention of COTL either... is there? No, as I stated, the reference purposely excludes variant breakout reference. Instead, it relies upon a generic reference to "Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground)"... which includes both COTL and STOVL. Which implies the USAF had designs on both the A and B variants! How does it feel to be schooled, hey?

It's CTOL.........

Then why the STOVL reference to both the USMC and RAF?

[Guest Derek L]

ask the USAF Chief of Staff:

Another Dodge?

[waldo]

Then why the STOVL reference to both the USMC and RAF?

rolleyes! Really?

tell me Mr. Wizard... what STOVL version of the F-35 are the U.S. Marines and UK RAF proposing to procure? Why... that would be the B variant! So, I guess the JSF reference is correct in being explicit in that regard (the following regard), hey:

- U.S. Marine Corps STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18 as their only strike fighter

- United Kingdom Royal Navy & Royal Air Force STOVL aircraft to replace Sea Harriers & GR.7s as a supersonic strike fighter

would you like more/further schooling?

[Guest Derek L]

rolleyes! Really?

tell me Mr. Wizard... what STOVL version of the F-35 are the U.S. Marines and UK RAF proposing to procure? Why... that would be the B variant! So, I guess the JSF reference is correct in being explicit in that regard (the following regard), hey:

would you like more/further schooling?

And how many “B” versions was Canada considering? Also, with the USAF “total commitment” to the “A” version, what effect will this have on our purchase of the “A”?

If anything, wouldn’t this signal a reduction in procurement costs for the F-35A?