F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

waldo · July 3, 2014

As said, sources have already be given.........But another:

that's right, we've become quite accustomed to your LockMart propaganda sources! And now you throw up the former F-35 Chief Test Pilot - well done. And here I thought you might being forward some time of actual matrix accounting of testing target vs. result thingee. You know, that kind of GAO, OT&E, etc., summation that you quite regularly wouldn't acknowledge; i.e., would outright ignore.

.

Rue · July 3, 2014

Saying the F35 exceeds the F16 in dog fighter ability is silly its never been in a dogfight.

More to the point we do not need a dog fighter. Talk about outmoded concepts. Dog fighting is a world war two concept.Spitfires, Hurricanes used to engage in dog fights with Messerschmidts Dog fights?

Get real. In Vietnam there were no dog fights. Korea? Korea was not an air battle. The Migs were picked off like a joke. Dog fights in the Middle East? Of course not. Since WW2 there have been no protracted dogfight air wars.

No one is going to send a multi-billion dollar piece of equipment up in the air to be shot out of the air anymore. Too expensive for anyone. There is not a fighter craft in the air today that is better than an F16 or what would be the F22. All an F35 is, is an F-16 with stealth technology plus hype. Nothing else.

Spin it all you want its just an F16 with stealth a technology we do not need. We are not in need of an air craft that needs to evade missiles being shot at it from the ground. We do not need a low ground attack craft/bomber.

Now Moonbox asked so I will answer.Go find out what an F35 actually is. Its meant to attack troops on the ground or deliver bombing runs or both. Its trying to be a warthog and F16 at the same time.

You can hype it as an interceptor but it is not. Never was.

This b.s. it can take on the multiple roles of all US air fighters is a crock. The US will build F22 Raptors and the fact it will shoul tell you the F35 is not the be all end all aircraft.

No it can not do the same job as a warthog or for that matter a Harrier, but yes it can replace an F16 or 15 and probably the F18 yes. The US can force it into roles its not suitable for.

Its hyped as a multi-role plane but that is an absolute fabrication. If you want a stealth craft you can't have it engage in other roles that Canada needs.

I repeat again the Royal Canadian Air Force is not involved in the kind of roles that require low level strafing attacks on ground troops or bombing missions. Crap and more crap. We need a patrol jet. NATO does not require us to provide a low level attack craft or bomber. That is a crock. NATO did not ask us to bomb Libya. We did that on our own initiative. Our role in Afghanistan was based on our own initiative. We send aircraft to Europe on our own initiative. NATO is not some power that orders us. They can ask but they don't order and the bottom line is they take what we can offer.

More to the point NATO is the most outmoded agency in the world. Its left over from the Cold war. No we can not attack Russia or China. Nonsense. If that was the case the EU and Obama wouldn't be the toothless tigers they are today.

We are not the Americans or Israelis. Its not our role or mission to protect the world or face the threat Israel does. Our mission is to patrol our large air corridor and coasts. That does not require stealth craft at all.

Now you want to talk about comparability with NATO requirements, I stated already, Grypens can use any existing NATO technology the F35 can not.

NATO would do just fine with Canada and Grypens. It does not require Canada being an F35 contributor.

NATO has never stated that.

The manufacturers of the F35 spin this fantasy that all of Europe should have the same aircraft. That is their spin. Its already not happening. The Grypen is already used byt he Cezchs, Swedes and Hungarians.

The Rafale and Typhoon are going to be used by France, Spain and Britain and if you think NATO will mind that think again.

The entire argument that an F35 is superior is based on one presumption-that if it can't be seen it has an advantage in dog fights. Uh hello, we want our aircraft seen. We want them visible. The very point is for them to be able to move quickly over long distances and be detectable. We need a patrol intercepter not a ground attack craft that wants to avoid being shot down from ground missiles.

As I stated earlier to adapt the F35 to become a long range interceptor which is not what it was designed for, it will lose the very stealth technology some of you are so hyped up about.

Also for those of you hyped on the F35 go figure out where the money comes to equip it with its required missile system that we have no budget for. Good luck on that. Also good luck modifying it to be able to get filled mid-air. Those 2 factors alone will make it so expense we won't be able to fly them.

Now whoever said the very point we need an aircraft is not to intercept Russian in coming craft is nuts. That is the whole point. We are not worried about the US. We are only worried about Russia and maybe China. Both might want to fly in our air space to try push claims to the North.

Other then that? Give me a break. Who are we fighting with? Denmark? France? Britain? Denmark has concerns about us invading Greenland?. The French I suppose have concerns about St.Pierre and Miquelon being invaded by Canada? Are we going to be attacked by those nasty Icelanders?

Can we get real. The whole notion of getting an F35 is based on imitating the US and joining along with them on overseas missions.

That is ridiculous. We are not a superpower. In fact we should spend more time patrolling our air defences and the Grypen could do that just fine and we would have more jets to do that, relieving the US Air Force of some of its obligations that would in turn free it up for other missions other than with Norad.

We need to be using our craft to detect drug smugglers coming in, illegal refugee ships coming in, illegal fishing vessels, people penetrating our North. We need to get to remote spaces quickly and show our flag and maybe have to intercept terrorist controlled aircraft-dogfights? Oh bull.

We need to pull our weight in North America which we are not doing. Pretending we are a superpower that needs a jet to go bomb Iran or Libya is a crock. What else. You think we can send F35's to attack Russia? Nonsense.

The reality is whether we purchase an F35, a Typhoon, Rafale or Superhornet, we are not engaging in any dogfights. We are not buying aircraft for dogfights.

That is just fiction pure fiction.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Rue

Rue · July 3, 2014

The Russian aircraft SU-35 is far too expensive for u s....right now its probably cheaper than a Typhoon though. Russia has sold a whole bunch to the Chinese.

Its the equivalent of the F35. Why buy it then. Jut by the F35. Why by the Russian version of it. Why give Putin any business.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Rue

GostHacked · July 3, 2014

I have no idea what this picture is trying to represent. As to the heat business, it's what causes blades to have to be coated by ceramic, which can crack, resulting in engine failure. Not to mention the intense inspection sked to try and prevent that.

That is a pic of the AV-8B. The second generation of Harrier. Technical issues were worked out and a basically a brand new aircraft was designed. So maybe Derek is supporting a second generation F-35.

The Harrier I and the Harrier II are very different aircraft.

On Guard for Thee · July 3, 2014

^{Well at least it had the decency to burn on the runway and not mid Atlantic.}

^{http://defensetech.org/2014/06/24/air-force-pilot-escapes-f-35-fire-during-takeoff/}

http://defensetech.org/2014/06/24/air-force-pilot-escapes-f-35-fire-during-takeoff/

On Guard for Thee · July 3, 2014

Not sure I want ONE of these pushing me along over Ellesmenre Island when it's minus 50 and dark.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/142927/the-long-history-of-f_35-engine-problems.html#

Wilber · July 3, 2014

The guy that is seen first invariably loses whether it is in air to air or air to ground. "Beware the Hun in the sun" is as valid today as it was in 1918 and the survival rate of stealth vs non stealth in ground attack speaks for itself. If there is a case where we want a stealthy aircraft to be seen, that is easily done by electronic means.

Derek 2.0 · July 3, 2014

I'm kinda favouring the 'Advanced Super Hornet... Growler' mix... you know, at "half the price"!!!

you do have me curious about your "new engine claim":

GE on the F414: "With more than 1 million flight-hours, the F414 engine continues to exceed USN goals for reliability and time on wing. F414-powered F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers have continued to expand their presence in the USN fleet, with 25 active squadrons. To date, more than 1,000 F414 engines have been delivered, supporting more than 415 aircraft in the fleet. "

New engine claim? Hardly:

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/f18_growler.htm

Although derived from an existing aircraft, the F/A-18E/F suffered noteworthy developmental challenges. In 1996, flight testing was suspended when problems with the Super Hornet's engines caused the aircraft to be grounded. The Super Hornet fleet was grounded a second time in 1998 when engine problems resurfaced.

In December 1997, the F/A-18E/F's persistent performance problems in highspeed maneuvers led the Navy to delay FY1998 funding for the program, pending solution of these problems. First experienced in March 1996, the aircraft's "wingdrop" problem may occur during turns at speeds of .6 to .9 Mach (speed of sound), when the wing loses lift and the plane rolls unexpectedly to the left or right, preventing the pilot from tracking a target. Since this anomaly was apparently related to the wing's leading edge, some feared the wing might have to be redesigned; others thought the problem could be resolved by modifications of the wing, such as adding a "porous wing fairing." After successful flight testing of this modification, Secretary of Defense Cohen approved FY1998 funding for procurement of another 20 aircraft on April 3, 1998.

The Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) of May 19, 1997, recommended reducing procurement of F/A-18E/Fs from 1,000 aircraft to 548, with the possibility of buying up to 785 if the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program were delayed or if the aircraft were too expensive compared to the F/A-18E/F. Defense Secretary William Cohen stated that he hoped this change in the program would set up "creative tension" between the contractors producing the JSF and the F/A-18E/F. The QDR also recommended reducing the maximum annual production rate to 48 aircraft. These recommendations were reflected in the FY1999 budget's procurement projections.

Clearly if the same metric applied to the F-35 today was applied to the Super Hornet nearly 20 years ago, the Waldo (and friends) would be calling the Super Hornet a waste……..yet today, they’re all in…..irony at it’s finest

Derek 2.0 · July 3, 2014

that's right, we've become quite accustomed to your LockMart propaganda sources! And now you throw up the former F-35 Chief Test Pilot - well done. And here I thought you might being forward some time of actual matrix accounting of testing target vs. result thingee. You know, that kind of GAO, OT&E, etc., summation that you quite regularly wouldn't acknowledge; i.e., would outright ignore.

.

You call one of the cornerstones of the fundamentals of aerodynamics “propaganda”…….and I thought you were a science guy.. :lol:

Derek 2.0 · July 3, 2014

That is a pic of the AV-8B. The second generation of Harrier. Technical issues were worked out and a basically a brand new aircraft was designed. So maybe Derek is supporting a second generation F-35.

The Harrier I and the Harrier II are very different aircraft.

Actually no......it's the Spanish version of the AV-8A......or "Harrier I"

Derek 2.0 · July 3, 2014

The guy that is seen first invariably loses whether it is in air to air or air to ground. "Beware the Hun in the sun" is as valid today as it was in 1918 and the survival rate of stealth vs non stealth in ground attack speaks for itself. If there is a case where we want a stealthy aircraft to be seen, that is easily done by electronic means.

The arguments used in the Stealth versus non stealth “debate” are akin to past ones like supersonic versus subsonic, or swept wing versus straight….or jet versus prop……inline versus radial…all metal construction versus wood and fabric……monoplane versus biplane etc……..with the result, one will either evolve or die, simple as that.

waldo · July 3, 2014

New engine claim? Hardly:

nothing you put forward supports your claim that a distinctly separate replacement engine was required/introduced for the Super Hornet - again, citation request!

.

waldo · July 3, 2014

Actually no......it's the Spanish version of the AV-8A......or "Harrier I"

speaking of the Spanish, didja read the Spanish bailed on the F-35B and will instead be upgrading their current Harrier jets?

waldo · July 3, 2014

You call one of the cornerstones of the fundamentals of aerodynamics “propaganda”…….and I thought you were a science guy..

I appreciate labeling your LockMart sources as propaganda is a bit of burn! Like I said, I was anticipating you might reach for more independent/less biased sources like GAO, OT&E, etc.... guess you still insist in going with your strengths! (aka LockMart propaganda).

Derek 2.0 · July 3, 2014

nothing you put forward supports your claim that a distinctly separate replacement engine was required/introduced for the Super Hornet - again, citation request!

.

I never said distinctly separate......No comment I take it though on your selection of the Super Hornet "lemon" though I take it

Derek 2.0 · July 3, 2014

speaking of the Spanish, didja read the Spanish bailed on the F-35B and will instead be upgrading their current Harrier jets?

I never read that....

waldo · July 3, 2014

I never said distinctly separate......No comment I take it though on your selection of the Super Hornet "lemon" though I take it

if you insist in playing your standard games, this is your exact quote... and, again, nothing you put forward supports this claim concerning a replacement engine... "getting a new engine", as you said:

As I said, On it’s entry into service, the fleet was grounded twice due to engine issues, which resulted in the aircraft getting a new engine…….let me know when the F135 is replaced!!!

Derek 2.0 · July 3, 2014

I appreciate labeling your LockMart sources as propaganda is a bit of burn! Like I said, I was anticipating you might reach for more independent/less biased sources like GAO, OT&E, etc.... guess you still insist in going with your strengths! (aka LockMart propaganda).

Propaganda

Derek 2.0 · July 3, 2014

if you insist in playing your standard games, this is your exact quote... and, again, nothing you put forward supports this claim concerning a replacement engine... "getting a new engine", as you said:

Are you suggesting the Super Hornet, your championed aircraft, is still operating the same engines that caused two fleet wide groundings and resulted in a production decrease by nearly half, are still in use? Shocking I say!!!

waldo · July 3, 2014

I never read that....

what would you call it, if not "bailed"? The Spanish have opted not to pursue the failed B variant and will, again, be opting to upgrade their existing Harrier planes. And, of course, the British are getting very antsy - not a good sign when the much publicized 'fly-over' at the Brit airshow had to be cancelled... cause they couldn't trust flying the F-35Bs over the Atlantic. You know, that engine fire that's just grounded the entire F-35 complement of "prototypes".

waldo · July 3, 2014

Are you suggesting the Super Hornet, your championed aircraft, is still operating the same engines that caused two fleet wide groundings and resulted in a production decrease by nearly half, are still in use? Shocking I say!!!

weasel words! You said a new engine - the GE F414 engine was not replaced. If you're talking about revisions to the same engine, what do you call the changes to the F-35 F135 engine? When is your "replacement"... not a replacement? :lol:

As I said, On it’s entry into service, the fleet was grounded twice due to engine issues, which resulted in the aircraft getting a new engine…….let me know when the F135 is replaced!!!

Derek 2.0 · July 3, 2014

what would you call it, if not "bailed"? The Spanish have opted not to pursue the failed B variant and will, again, be opting to upgrade their existing Harrier planes. And, of course, the British are getting very antsy - not a good sign when the much publicized 'fly-over' at the Brit airshow had to be cancelled... cause they couldn't trust flying the F-35Bs over the Atlantic. You know, that engine fire that's just grounded the entire F-35 complement of "prototypes".

The Spanish didn't though:

A government statement said the investment was necessary because funds were not available to buy replacement aircraft to operate from the service's sole flat top, the 27,000 tonne Juan Carlos I .

I'd imagine for much the same reasons the Spanish retired their aircraft carrier early......they're broke right now, but of course:

Speaking at a press briefing in January, Adm Muñoz-Delgado said the only possible replacement for the Harrier was the F-35.

As to the British, again, resort your "facts"........The F-35B fleet is still going on the airshow tour, but the sole British F-35B will be several days late for the naming of HMS Queen Elizabeth.......

Derek 2.0 · July 3, 2014

weasel words! You said a new engine - the GE F414 engine was not replaced. If you're talking about revisions to the same engine, what do you call the changes to the F-35 F135 engine? When is your "replacement"... not a replacement?

Are you now suggesting the Super Hornet has a revised engine? Has this solved the issue that caused two fleet groundings of your championed aircraft?

waldo · July 3, 2014

Are you suggesting the Super Hornet, your championed aircraft, is still operating the same engines that caused two fleet wide groundings and resulted in a production decrease by nearly half, are still in use? Shocking I say!!!

again with this "championed" nonsense! You know I've said many times, attention should be put toward upgrading the Coast Guard, Search & Rescue, surveilance capability (as in drones baby, drones)! It's only when youse guys kept pleading for the waldo to "pick one, any one", I said... if you're going to spend the money, anything but the F-35. Which is when I started to speak to the Super Hornet variants, particularly the Advanced & Growler... principally because of price (and capability). Speaking of, don't forget to respond to the most appropos post from MLW member 'Rue'... you know, in line with the many times I emphasized Canada does not need an interceptor/strike fighter. Don't ignore that post, hey!

waldo · July 3, 2014

Are you now suggesting the Super Hornet has a revised engine? Has this solved the issue that caused two fleet groundings of your championed aircraft?

you're a waste of time. You made a statement/claim - you can't back it up. You made a comparison to the F-35 F135 engine in regards "replacement". Again, why are you so self-serving and selective in how you apply your use of the word "replacement"?