Moonbox Posted December 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2014 What's sad is we've been talking about it for two years and still have no decision. The decision has, for all intents and purposes, been made. Nobody has a realistic alternative to the F-35. The plane remains, despite its flaws, as the best option overall. I think the program was a mistake from conception but that doesn't really matter now. We're going to have to spend billions on planes in the near future so we might as well spend it on the plane that's going to stay relevant the longest. I was thinking about it earlier and what I find really funny is how people of various political slants can rail against relatively reasonable military spending programs, yet give a free-pass to billions wasted on nothing for scandals like Orange and gas-plant cancellations in Ontario. On the one hand we spend $5-10 billion extra nationally on the best fighter available over 30 years, ensuring our air force remains as capable as it can be for as long as possible. On the other hand we have incompetent provincial governments flushing billions down the toilet for absolutely nothing and getting re-elected. That's thread-drift I guess, but it's worth considering for context and comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
militaryonly Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 The F-35 is on its death spiral too many can not do. Can't Climb , can't turn ,too little armament, too fragile.... John McCain will be chairman of the armed services commitee in January. He stated that the f-35 is the most embarassing thing the US has put forth. He's gonna push to cancel it. In a press release in defense aerospace the Dutch parliament calculates that the hourly operating cos is $44,000 per hour the Hornet costs 10.000 per hour. You have to have Logheed techies to work on them. They are only useful two missions a day. The Navy F-18 run 8 per day. The Canadian requirement for Dual engines (flameouts and bird strikes The Hornets had 205 of the them, wait we never had that many planes to begin with, we would have run out in 1996 ) Short runways the f-35 needs lots of runway the Hornet lands fine without droges, The f-35 has a tendency to have fuselage cracks probably because it already overweight and you can't have stealth and strenght. Now this funny ,naw not really, those northern runways are rough icy shaking your bones as you land. The carrier F-18 was chosen back in the 80 was because they are structurally so tough they withstand thousands of carrier landing. check out youtube f-18 carrier landing. There are only two planes designed for a carrier The Super Hornet and the Rafale. GUESS WHAT VERSION OF F35 LOGHEED QUOTED US , YES THE F_35 A a conventional landing and take off we will have to base them at our International airports , Go up north, no way can't land on a short runway, too rough, my landing gear will colapse, crack my fuselage. Pentagon puts an A model F-35 at $185 million the vsol B at about 220 million and the C at 256 million. You can buy a F-18 E/F Superhornet for about 60 million ,or buy the just released ADvance for about 80 million. You can also buy a Rafale at about 146 million which is another overpriced monster. WHAT WAS OUR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT THINKING WHEN THEY OKAYED AN A MODEL . YOU WANT TO MURDER OUR PILOTS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted December 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 Work on your punctuation, paragraphing and spelling. Nobody is going to even bother reading that past the first 2 sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 I could care less about the punctuation, the facts pointed out are what's really important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 I could care less about the punctuation, the facts pointed out are what's really important. Of which there are few, if any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 Of which there are few, if any. Only if you only buy LockMart's version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 Only if you only buy LockMart's version. No, I'm sorry, but that isn't correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 No, I'm sorry, but that isn't correct. The latest is they now are having to paint the fuel trucks white so hot fuel won't cause the engine to shut down. Of course that makes them targets out in the desert. I guess we just stay away from desert wars with that aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 The latest is they now are having to paint the fuel trucks white so hot fuel won't cause the engine to shut down. Of course that makes them targets out in the desert. I guess we just stay away from desert wars with that aircraft. That's already been explained to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 The latest is they now are having to paint the fuel trucks white so hot fuel won't cause the engine to shut down. Of course that makes them targets out in the desert. I guess we just stay away from desert wars with that aircraft. http://www.bloomberg.com/video/f-35-stealth-fighter-jet-s-new-woes-q4rY7d~qR6yCfd3JkdJqKw.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 The current military purchasing process has not been fit for purpose for at least twenty years. We just get completely bogged down in political point-scoring. Somehow, we need to remove it from the political arena after determining the budget limits and let the military choose what it needs. With that said, from my man in the street's perspective, the F-35 seems awfully expensive at a time when drones are rapidly expanding their capabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 Drones don't have even close to the capabilities of proper fighter aircraft. Drones are bomb trucks as the F-35 has been wrongly described here. The F-35 is a proper multirole fighter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted December 20, 2014 Report Share Posted December 20, 2014 Drones don't have even close to the capabilities of proper fighter aircraft. Drones are bomb trucks as the F-35 has been wrongly described here. The F-35 is a proper multirole fighter. Fair enough. That is true right now but in five years time, drones will be dramatically more versatile. I would favour a lower cost plane now to fill in for the next 5 to 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 Lockheed Martin completed all 2014 deliveries of F-35 aircraft.... The Department of Defense accepted its final F-35 Lightning II aircraft delivery for 2014 today meeting the program production goal of 36 aircraft. With the last delivery for this year, the government, Lockheed Martin and industry team has delivered 109 operational aircraft to the U.S. and partner nations since the program's inception. The 36th delivery, known as CF-19, was the first F-35C carrier variant delivered to the Marine Corps. Good job Lock-Mart...good job Canadian sub contractors !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 Not sure if this has been posted here, but a piece in The Atlantic touches on the F35: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Not sure if this has been posted here, but a piece in The Atlantic touches on the F35: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/ Might have been a good idea to post an excerpt to help us along. That article goes on forever - had to give up looking for the F35 relevance....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Might have been a good idea to post an excerpt to help us along. That article goes on forever - had to give up looking for the F35 relevance....... About two thirds down, but is typical Pierre Sprey (The guy that said the F-15 Eagle, M1 Abrams tank and AH-64 Apache etc would also be failures) inspired rant, implying in a round about way, that the United States's future requirements could be met by an A-10 warthog....... Namely though its a piece revisiting the atypical "swords to ploughshares crowds" warnings of the Military-industrial complex inspired boogeymen, behind every closed door with envelopes of cash, found within the capital cities of the Western World........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 ....Namely though its a piece revisiting the atypical "swords to ploughshares crowds" warnings of the Military-industrial complex inspired boogeymen, behind every closed door with envelopes of cash, found within the capital cities of the Western World........ Yes, and at the end he goes bi-polar and slams the current young generation of hipsters and slackers for not giving a damn about military service. The editor must have been on vacation when the article was submitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Yes, and at the end he goes bi-polar and slams the current young generation of hipsters and slackers for not giving a damn about military service. The editor must have been on vacation when the article was submitted. Truth be told, I too didn't finish the article.....on going to do so, saw mention that the author was President Carter's speechwriter.......what was telling near the end more so for myself, was his criticism of President Obama for not fixing the "problems" beholden over the Pentagon......clearly the transdimensional, illuminati controlled lizards from within the military-industrial complex have President Obama on the take I hear the black choppers, so best to get into my anti-FEMA/UN/NAU bunker now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Truth be told, I too didn't finish the article.....on going to do so, saw mention that the author was President Carter's speechwriter.......what was telling near the end more so for myself, was his criticism of President Obama for not fixing the "problems" beholden over the Pentagon...... Further, the Pentagon's budget as a percentage of GDP is at post WW2 lows: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Further, the Pentagon's budget as a percentage of GDP is at post WW2 lows: Hey, no need to bring facts into a good rant!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Further, the Pentagon's budget as a percentage of GDP is at post WW2 lows: Nice! Now they've fallen more in line with notable progressives like Pakistan, Russia, Mauritania and Yemen! Hey, no need to bring facts into a good rant!!! or context, right Derek? Facts indicate that US defense spending amounts to over 36% of the world's total, while their economy only represents around 22%. The facts also show us that the Pentagon's budget is larger than the next 9 largest military budgets worldwide, making the British Empire's old two-power-standard look pretty lame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 So how come the US can't win the wars it starts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 or context, right Derek? The context relates to the referenced Atlantic hit piece.....U.S. defense spending is slated to shrink even more as a percentage of GDP because of budget cuts. Ike would be so proud....doing more...with less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 So how come the US can't win the wars it starts? Because it doesn't have to...Canada will save the day with warm blankets from PM Trudeau. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.