waldo Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 Lockheed never offered the F-35 for sale to India, since the Pentagon has yet to allow the technology transfer and secured transfer of program information, they did offer the Indianans to join the program. Lockheed offered the F-16 and Boeing the Super Hornet………….The Indian competition came down to aircraft that could be used by both their Air Force and Navy, which eliminated the F-16, and all but eliminated the Eurofighter and Saab which only have a proposed carrier version. This left the Super Hornet and Rafale……..Boeing wouldn’t offer the same offsets and percentage of local production as the publicly subsidized Dassault……..Rafale won by default……expect similar results with the Brazilians. not the version I've been reading... India was offered details of the F-35, only available to JSF partners, without any requirement to join the JSF. Most definitely, the Eurofighter and Rafale were the two aircraft left in a head-to-head competition... a 'big stink' was raised in Britain when the Eurofighter was eliminated to leave only the Rafale. As for Brazil, yes, expect the same results because India and Brazil, apparently, have entered into some form a 'military accord' under the influence of BRIC... which follows up on an uncompleted 2002 venture between Brazil and India to jointly build a plane together. Quote
waldo Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 Aside from the French Air Force and Navy, and now India, the Rafale has lost every competition it has been apart of…….For good reason. and the long-standing opponents of the F-35... Air Power Australia? They're certainly no advocates for what they call the "Eurocanard (Typoon/Rafale)", but why are they so down on the F-35? Your thoughts on their recent presentation to the Australian Parliament showcasing the 'Rand involved war games' that, apparently, has the F-35 heavily trounced? Quote
waldo Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 Laurie Hawn: not that there was much doubt on your objectivity, but really... quoting from Laurie Hawn certainly removes any lingering thoughts that you might actually be looking at this openly/thoughtfully. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) not that there was much doubt on your objectivity, but really... quoting from Laurie Hawn certainly removes any lingering thoughts that you might actually be looking at this openly/thoughtfully. What? A pilot's opinion isn't thoughtful?...an F-18 pilot at that...or is it that his political thoughts aren't agreeable enough for you? Edited April 13, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 not that there was much doubt on your objectivity, but really... quoting from Laurie Hawn certainly removes any lingering thoughts that you might actually be looking at this openly/thoughtfully. I've seen it elsewhere, not just from Hawn. It was simply the one I could find right now. DND used data from allies to compare the F - 35A, Grippen, Typhoon, Rafale, and F/A - 18 E/F. The Rafale and Grippen were seen as being of no benefit over a regular F/A - 18 C/D Quote
Smallc Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 Most definitely, the Eurofighter and Rafale were the two aircraft left in a head-to-head competition And you think that somehow the only western 5th generation fighter couldn't stack up? Quote
waldo Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 And you think that somehow the only western 5th generation fighter couldn't stack up? lol yourself away, hey? You're truly deluded... just what the hell does Canada need a so-called "first-strike" plane for? For patrolling the North? For bombing Libya? For what? For some presumptive Pax Pacific Americana BS that China might be a Pacific threat in... 30 years? For what? Just lay it out... for what? Quote
waldo Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 What? A pilot's opinion isn't thoughtful?...an F-18 pilot at that...or is it that his political thoughts aren't agreeable enough for you? ya, ya... the "broken record" cheerleader - the guy who now has the nerve to state the Auditor General doesn't have his cost figures correct! All along Hawn has been pumping that $75 million a plane nonsense, even after ever increasing costs come forward... all along Hawn kept saying Canada's position ensured it's costs wouldn't rise... all along Hawn was the principal guy who left impressions that a "contract" existed ensuring that $75 million/plane figure wouldn't rise. Ya, that Laurie "fighter jet" Hawn! Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 ya, ya... the "broken record" cheerleader - the guy who now has the nerve to state the Auditor General doesn't have his cost figures correct! All along Hawn has been pumping that $75 million a plane nonsense, even after ever increasing costs come forward... all along Hawn kept saying Canada's position ensured it's costs wouldn't rise... all along Hawn was the principal guy who left impressions that a "contract" existed ensuring that $75 million/plane figure wouldn't rise. Ya, that Laurie "fighter jet" Hawn! What former Soviet aircraft do you have in mind, comrade? Or is it zee Franch with zare old Rif Raf zat impresses you so? You're not flying them...so, a jet is a jet is a jet is a jet. I hear the F-86 Sabre has an excellent track record if you ever decide to try/buy American. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 lol yourself away, hey? You're truly deluded... just what the hell does Canada need a so-called "first-strike" plane for? For patrolling the North? For bombing Libya? For what? For some presumptive Pax Pacific Americana BS that China might be a Pacific threat in... 30 years? For what? Just lay it out... for what? We need this particular plane because we're going to be flying it for at least 36 years - well into the 2050s. We need a plane that we buy attrition aircraft for, and we need a plane that at least stands a chance at still being relevant (which this should be, given that the US plans to buy them in two phases and use them for 50 years). We don't know what the future will hold. The reality is, in any role but self defence, we don't have enough planes (and in some ways, we don't have enough for that). We need to at least have the edge of technology, which the F-35 gives us over other competitors). Also, this plane can go farther on internal fuel than any of the other's out there. Don't you find that the least bit important for a country this large? Quote
Smallc Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 All along Hawn has been pumping that $75 million a plane nonsense, even after ever increasing costs come forward.. We don't know that the plane won't cost that, and even if it does (that's a price assured to us by LM) cost more, we have overages built into the budget. Quote
waldo Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 What former Soviet aircraft do you have in mind, comrade? Or is it zee Franch with zare old Rif Raf zat impresses you so? You're not flying them...so, a jet is a jet is a jet is a jet. I hear the F-86 Sabre has an excellent track record if you ever decide to try/buy American. comrade? FOAH Quote
Wild Bill Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 because they were competing with 6 other nations trying to under cut them for billion dollar prize duh. So they will sell at a loss and try to make it up on volume? This is not business! This is just more corporate welfare at the expense of French taxpayers! But then again, we are talking about the French! When it comes to such subsidies, what else is new? 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 April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 comrade? FOAH The F-86 is a very fine aircraft, sir. Excellent choice and thank-you for buying 'North American'. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
eyeball Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 lol yourself away, hey? You're truly deluded... just what the hell does Canada need a so-called "first-strike" plane for? For patrolling the North? For bombing Libya? For what? For some presumptive Pax Pacific Americana BS that China might be a Pacific threat in... 30 years? For what? Just lay it out... for what? If China really is the threat the government is planning for then I'd like to know why Harper isn't being charged with treason. Why on Earth are we letting China have so many of our resources and corporations? I wonder how China will feel about lending us the money we need to defend ourselves from them. By the way are we still sending aid to China? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
waldo Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 We need this particular plane... the question was about 'first-strike' requirements? Again, why does Canada need that capability? In the last 30+ years, what circumstances required... or would have required... Canada to have this capability? If you can't answer this particular question, don't bother replying. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 By the way are we still sending aid to China? Because folks such as yourself insist they are our friends. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 Because folks such as yourself insist they are our friends. best you speak to the Harper hand... the one out forging alliances/relationships with the Chineeeese! Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 best you speak to the Harper hand... the one out forging alliances/relationships with the Chineeeese! Harper did Hong Kong 1999? Amazing. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 Harper did Hong Kong 1999? Amazing. are you saying the Harper on today's world stage is still living the 'one country - two systems' la vida loca? Quote
Smallc Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 the question was about 'first-strike' requirements? It's nice that you want to arbitrarily limit the scope, but that's not all these planes are for. That's not all the F - 35 is designed for. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 are you saying the Harper on today's world stage is still living the 'one country - two systems' la vida loca? Mr Harper...like yourself, can KMA. When the gate dropped, bozos out there went *DING*, gosh...let's trade with the Red Chinese! There's money to be made. No matter we're selling out future generations. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 Interrating China into the world market is a way to keep them placated. In the next few years, their population will begin to fall, and their influence will start to wain anyway. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 Interrating China into the world market is a way to keep them placated. In the next few years, their population will begin to fall, and their influence will start to wain anyway. Or they'll get edgy. It is unlikely Red China will get back in the bottle. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest Derek L Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 not the version I've been reading... India was offered details of the F-35, only available to JSF partners, without any requirement to join the JSF. Most definitely, the Eurofighter and Rafale were the two aircraft left in a head-to-head competition... a 'big stink' was raised in Britain when the Eurofighter was eliminated to leave only the Rafale. As for Brazil, yes, expect the same results because India and Brazil, apparently, have entered into some form a 'military accord' under the influence of BRIC... which follows up on an uncompleted 2002 venture between Brazil and India to jointly build a plane together. Without the Pentagon’s green light, American manufactures are limited in what information they can exchange with a non-partner nation, despite Lockheed’s best lobbying efforts…….With the exception made to many longstanding US allies……The Indians, though now beginning to see the light, have a long standing defence partnership with the Russians and French, and will replace their earlier MIGs (Russian) and Mirages (French) with the Rafale. As for Brazil, they received several years ago from the French a gifted, retired MN aircraft carrier… Apparently cheaper to give away, then have broken up on a (Asbestos and all) beach in India or laid up in a British port (like her sister) waiting for numerous court challenges to cease prior to breaking up……..The now Brazilian aircraft carrier, for what it’s worth, well in French service, conducted the initial sea trials of the Rafale…… Another deciding factor for both nations, was/is acquiring an aircraft able to operate off said nations current and proposed carriers………Going forward, the Americans are not willing to share with even the French, their future aircraft carrier catapult and arrestor gear technology and have only recently (within last few years) have made an exception with the British , thus allowing them to acquire said technology for their future QE class (Which as also allowed the British F-35 requirement to be shifted from the “B” version to the more capable “C” version) With all that said, even if the F-35 was allowed top compete in both the Brazilian and Indian competitions, it would have never been selected due to the nature of it’s international production, as opposed to local production. Quote
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.