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

[On Guard for Thee]

But since I’ve got both the resident Super Hornet champions here, based on the precedent of the Super Hornets two incidents that led to fleet wide groundings prior to being fully operational, could it be surmised that maybe, just maybe any issues with other aircraft undergoing development could also be resolved?

The basic problem with the F 35, as has been pointed out before here, is that it is an attempt to make one airplane that can do multiple roles. Let's look at basics, a high speed high altitude wing is thin, a low level low speed wing is thick. Camber equals lift. Aerodynamics isn't listening to Lockmart. I can't blame them for trying. It just isn't working.

[Derek 2.0]

The basic problem with the F 35, as has been pointed out before here, is that it is an attempt to make one airplane that can do multiple roles. Let's look at basics, a high speed high altitude wing is thin, a low level low speed wing is thick. Camber equals lift. Aerodynamics isn't listening to Lockmart. I can't blame them for trying. It just isn't working.

By all means, expand on the F-35's wing thickness/camber when contrasted with your favored Super Hornet......I'm all ears.

[On Guard for Thee]

By all means, expand on the F-35's wing thickness/camber when contrasted with your favored Super Hornet......I'm all ears.

I don't know how much you know about aerodynamics, but take a look at the difference between, say, a Beaver and a Ted Smith Aerostar and then see the specific roles they are meant to play. Quite different shapes, quite different roles. And so far never the twian shall meet.

[Moonbox]

I rephrase:

Look at the wing loading of the F-4 and F-16.……..Do you think the F-4 would fly circles around the F-16?

Well no, the F4 was a flying brick and was designed in the 1950's. I understand that wing-loading isn't everything, but it's certainly one, among many, factors. I highly doubt that the F-35 is going to perform tight maneuvers like the Eurofighter or Flanker.

[Derek 2.0]

I don't know how much you know about aerodynamics, but take a look at the difference between, say, a Beaver and a Ted Smith Aerostar and then see the specific roles they are meant to play. Quite different shapes, quite different roles. And so far never the twian shall meet.

Oh a fair bit......enough to have made a comfortable living off it since the early 80s...try me..........Now I appreciate your attempt, but let’s go back to what you find at fault with the F-35’s aerodynamics, in particular the wing shape, when contrasted with another modern fighter, say for the sake of argument, the Super Hornet.

[Derek 2.0]

Well no, the F4 was a flying brick and was designed in the 1950's. I understand that wing-loading isn't everything, but it's certainly one, among many, factors. I highly doubt that the F-35 is going to perform tight maneuvers like the Eurofighter or Flanker.

Isn't that what I said? Now take your Typhoon or Flanker designed in the late 70s and early 80s and let's also expand on several decades of know-how and apply it to the F-35.........

To paraphrase one of LockMart’s test pilots:

Do you really think the people that designed the F-22 in the late 80s, couldn’t expand on their knowledge with the F-35?

[bush_cheney2004]

....To paraphrase one of LockMart’s test pilots:

Do you really think the people that designed the F-22 in the late 80s, couldn’t expand on their knowledge with the F-35?

No way...people using Google who have never designed and built high performance aircraft must be smarter than Lockheed Martin !

[Derek 2.0]

No way...people using Google who have never designed and built high performance aircraft must be smarter than Lockheed Martin !

Well aided by bloggers with the knowledge of the cellphone industry or tuning pianos

[On Guard for Thee]

No way...people using Google who have never designed and built high performance aircraft must be smarter than Lockheed Martin !

No, just Google is a place that reports on F 35 failures. Maybe LOckMart should buy Google and stop the negative reportage. Wouldn't that be the "American Way"?

[On Guard for Thee]

Well aided by bloggers with the knowledge of the cellphone industry or tuning pianos

You and BC should carry on from here. You can tune your own pianos.

[Rue]

Lol I have no insights. O.k.

Here is an article from the Israeli press on the F35 flaws;

www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4354353,00.html or better still just type in flaws with F-35 on yahoo or google and presto.

I am sure Waldo and On Guard will find this article interesting: Israel Defence:

www.israeldefence.com/?CategoryID=472&ArticleID=2498

The Inspector General of the Department of Defense found 700 issues/flaws regarding the F35. Does he lack insights? Lol.

The 25 the IAF will now test will never pass the IAF test..

Israel is in a tight fix. They have poured all of their research into it and committed it to replacing the F16. However the IAF will not endanger its pilots no matter how tied into the F35 development their country is in.

There is no way the IAF is going to commit to this aircraft unless they can work out all the flaws. The cockpit flaw alone is a huge issue.

Israeli pilots insist on full visibility. They will not fly planes with compromised visibility or lack of sufficient weapons. At this point the F35 can not carry sufficient weapons without losing its stealth advantage the whole point of buying it. That is the biggest flaw Derek never addressed because he can't and if the IAF can not fix that, they won't commit to huge numbers of it.

By the way can someone please document an air war with dog fights since Korea? I would love to know just one. Please.

This notion they these craft are to be used in dog fights is a joke.

They are meant to kill troops on the ground or bomb.

The continuing attempts to ignore the flaws of the F35 are fun.

In fact Derek has convinced me the Grypen or Superhornet are the better choices.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

How many Grypens or Super Hornets has Israel purchased to date ?

[GostHacked]

How many F-35s is Canada currently flying? None? Why not? What's the hold up? Such an incredible aircraft should be in service all over the place, why are costs going up while many countries are reducing the number they want to purchase. Mainly due to the escalating costs of this plane that still has to prove itself in any kind of service.

Should have let the US suck up the RnD costs themselves and when the plane is a proven piece of kit, then other countries will be more willing to purchase some and use them in their airforces. But this was like crowd sourcing on the national global scale.

These people at Lockheed are laughing, as the money will be rolling in no matter what happens to the plane.

When you consider the costs incurred to Canada so far without even having a single plane in the inventory is scam in of itself. And more money will be spent before the first one is delivered. You really think the money spent so far will mean a severe reduction in future payments? No.

Imagine if that money was dumped into the aging infrastructure in some of our major cities. Or improving our country on the whole.

Waste of money, time, energy and resources.

[Wilber]

By the way can someone please document an air war with dog fights since Korea? I would love to know just one. Please.

This notion they these craft are to be used in dog fights is a joke.

Here ya go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Vietnam_War_flying_aces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_flying_aces

[segnosaur]

I am sure Waldo and On Guard will find this article interesting: Israel Defence:

www.israeldefence.com/?CategoryID=472&ArticleID=2498

Why, because the information there is outdated and they thrive on such bad information?

From your reference: In its response, Lockheed also stated that "the report is based on data from more than 16 months ago, and most of the findings it brought up that required a solution have been corrected."

Just out of curiousity, do you ever read complete articles or do you just stop when you get to the part that supports your assertions?

By the way can someone please document an air war with dog fights since Korea? I would love to know just one. Please.

About 2 seconds of googling will find you a wikipeda page which points out air-to-air conflicts in the Arab-Israel wars, the Iran-Iraq war, the Falklands, Gulf War 1, and the Balkans. So yes, there have been air-to-air conflicts (many involving NATO forces) as recently as 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfight

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/27/world/conflict-balkans-air-war-nighttime-training-awacs-capitalize-mig-s-weak-spots.html

They are meant to kill troops on the ground or bomb.

Actually they are multi-role planes, meant to serve in both an air-to-air and air-to-ground capacity.

The continuing attempts to ignore the flaws of the F35 are fun.

Actually, we tend to ignore flaws once they've been fixed.

There are currently problems with the F35. I'm sure they will uncover problems in the future. The thing is, its common with advanced aircraft for problems to appear. Even the SuperHornet that gives Waldo orgasms has had significant flaws that needed to be corrected.

The risk of having to deal with such flaws must be weighed against the benefits that the plane brings with it. The F35 had/has many flaws, but it brings features that its competitors do not. The F18E/F also has flaws; perhaps fewer, but then it doesn't bring the same features.

[On Guard for Thee]

Hard to ignore "flaws" when they just keep on keepi' on. The LATEST cracked turbine blade causing engine fire wasn't 16 months ago, it was less than two weeks ago.

[Rue]

A dog fight is a close range air battle. Doesn't happen anymore.

With due respect take a look at what the Israeli pilots shot down and when-inferior aircraft.

Likewise the British in Falklands.

Those are really what are called turkey shoots. There is no protracted battle between equal parties like the Hurricane or Spitfire and Messershmidt.

Don't forget the aces you list shot down helicopters and inferior moving aircraft and have them counted as victories.

Take a look at the aces lists, see what they shot down and when.

Now to set the record straight the last three dog fights were as follows:

2006 - 2 Greek and 2 Turkish F-16s engaged in a mock dogfight, resulting from the interception of a Turkish RF-4 recce jet. F-16s from both sides collided and were destroyed: the Greek pilot was killed while ejecting while the Turkish pilot survived. This was one of many confrontations over the disputed Aegean Sea between the NATO members.

2000 - During a war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, there were fights between Russian built (and Su-27s and Mig-29s and the pilots were most likely Russian mercenaries.

1999 -The Kosovo conflict did involved NATO F-16s shooting down Serbian Mig-29s while enforcing a No-Fly zone but they were turkey shoots. The MIG 29 never had a chance.

The arguement I am making can be found for example at;

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/just-what-we-need-a-16-billion-fighter-jet/article1388996/

Fighter jets today and in particular the F16 and F15 and F18 use their standoff weapons such as Air-to-Air Missiles to engage targets.

In fact its the F-15C that is strictly designed for air to air fighting close in and that is why it has a 20mm cannon that is canted 15-20% up off the nose to allow it to shoot targets easier while trying to get on their tail.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

...Since the Israelis have had the F16 or F15 they have not been in any air wars. Probably the deterrent factor is at work. Arab nations have nothing to take them down with.

Actually, Israel did not get or engage in air combat with the F-15 Eagle until the late 1970's, beginning the F-15's unbeaten kill record over 100 opposing aircraft (more than half by Israel). Canada rejected the expensive F-15 Eagle, an excellent air superiority "dog fighter".

[Rue]

Why, because the information there is outdated and they thrive on such bad information?

There are currently problems with the F35.

So you want to deny the F35 has flaws then admit they have flaws. Which one is it?

The report on flaws with the F35 contrary to what you say are not old that is absolutely false:

http://rt.com/usa/pentagon-us-defense-lockheed-martin-129/r

http://defensetech.org/2014/01/29/report-f-35-cracks-in-tests-isnt-reliable/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/06/f-35-design-problems-make-night-flying-impossible-increase-risk-of-being-shot-down-u-s-pilots-warn/

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5

http://www.defenseone.com/management/2014/01/pentagon-f-35-software-remains-seriously-flawed/77903/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/27/grounded-more-f-35-problems-delay-new-jet/

http://contraryperspective.com/2014/02/18/the-f-35-fighter-program-america-going-down-in-flames/

http://www.news.com.au/technology/the-1-trillion-f35-tries-to-be-all-things-but-succeeds-at-few-say-critics-but-is-australias-new-weapon-now-too-big-to-fail/story-e6frfrnr-1226950254330

Now you can ignore the flaws and pretend they are just part of its development and do what Derek does and claim I have no insight and ignore me, but the point is this has nothing to do with me or insight or old reports-it has to do with where we are at right now with the F35.

Here is something you probably do not want to read or acknowledge, certainly Derek does not and has not:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/why-the-f-35-is-the-wrong-choice-for-canada-part-3

So let's summarize the flaws shall we and stop denying them:

1-the alleged stealth advantage is highly questionable and would likely offer little advantagem while stealth offers reduced detection, not invisibility and the pont is even the F-22, an air-to-air fighter far superior to the F-35 was been shot down in exercises by non-stealthy aircraft, specifically the Typhoon, Rafale, and F-18G “Growler” Electronic Warfare fighter

2-The F-35 itself is not even particularly stealthy by stealth standards, receiving a Low Observable designation instead of the Very Low Observable Designation of its superior cousin , the F-22.

3-The F-35′s limited stealth is further compromised by advances in detection technolog; stealth aircraft are much more easily detected when scanning in other wavelengths.; Russia has already integrated this into the T-50, which comes equipped with L-band and X-band radar.Thus, the F-35′s already questionable stealth advantage is constantly being eroded. As stealth becomes more common, so too will the advances in counter-stealth detection systems specifically designed to hunt them down, such as SMART-L Radar.

4-The F-35 is also incredibly loud, much more so than the F-15. This sharp increase in noise makes the F-35 more susceptible to detection through auditory means. To make matters worse, passive radar threatens to render stealth aircraft entirely obsolete.

5- the software problems with the U.S. Marines F-35B have raised the possibility of more delays of the Block 2B software; many of its systems are standard on other aircraft already in production and have been proven to work properly, i.e. both the Gripen and Rafale both boast AESA radar and the Typhoon will receive AESA radar in Tranche 3. All three have helmet mounted display systems and Electro-Optical Targeting Systems (EOTS); the helmet mounted display system in the F35 does not work and has been cancelled and what they are up to, to fix its flaws remains a mystery;

6-the F-35′s sensor suite, it is not so significant an improvement over existing and working sensor systems already deployed on other fighters to make a serious difference on the battle field.

7-The F-35 has operatews under a protective testing bubble specifically designed not to push the aircraft to its limits. Its failed its original operational requirements. Instead of designing the fighter to operational requirement, the USAF’s solution to that problem was to lower the operational requirements according to the F-35′s limitations.

Despite being seven years overdue, the F-35, as of March 6, 2013, had yet to (go on find new informations ince that date to deny the following list you can not....)

-Descend at rates more than 6,000ft per minute

-achieve airspeed above Mach 0.9 (supposed to achieve Mach 1.6)

-Angle-of-attack beyond -5 and +18 degrees (supposed to achieve +50)

-Fly at night

-Fly in weather

-Use simulated weapons

-Use real weapons

-Use rapid stick or rudder movements

-Perform air-to-air tracking manoeuvres

-Perform air-to-ground tracking manoeuvres

-Perform mid-air refuelling

-Fly within 25 miles of lightening

-Use electronic countermeasures

-Use anti-jamming systems

-Use secure communication systems

-Use datalink systems

-Use electro-optical targeting system

-Use distributed aperture system to detect targets or threats

-Use Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system

-Use helmet mounted display as pilot’s primary reference

-Use air-to-air or air-to-ground radar for Electronic Attack Mode, Sea Search Mode, Ground Moving Targets Mode, or Close-In Air Combat Mode

8-The cost of a fighter is absurd. RAND has reported that the F-35′s costs are so high that it would have been less expensive to build three separate planes; each tailored to the user’s specific needs defeating the reason why the F-35 was developed to begin with; to have a low-cost and effective fighter.

9-the operating cost per flight hour continues to sky rocket from its original estimates which were when compared to other fighters:

-F22: $61, 000

-F-35A: $21, 000

-Gripen E: below $5000

-Typhoon: $18, 000

-Rafale C: $16, 500

-F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: $11, 000

10. Here is the flaw none of the F35 groupies have addressed and can't which is a fatal flaw:

..the fatal flaw lies in the shoehorning of STOVL capability into the F-35B model for the U.S. Marines. The original X-35 design had serious potential to be the fighter the F-35 claims yet completely fails to be. The F-35B is to take off on short runways and land vertically (STOVL). While building a “universal” fighter to meet all needs is incredibly difficult, the addition of the STOVL requirement added even more unreasonable expectations of one design and crippled the F-35.

In order to incorporate STOVL capability onto the F-35 design while still maintaining stealth, internal weapons bays, and supersonic flight, severe design compromises had to be made.

The area behind the pilot was reserved for a lift-fan to work in conjunction with a downward-swivelling rear thrust nozzle. In order to incorporate this system, the airframe had to be very wide; much wider than the “area rule,” which dictates that a narrow fuselage delivers the best aerodynamics, would deem desirable.

This unusual width makes the F-35 experience higher than normal drag which negatively impacts, acceleration, speed, fuel efficiency, and range. To make matters worse, the lift-fan means that the pilot is unable to see behind the aircraft, a severe disadvantage when engaging enemy aircraft and a fatal flaw that can and will get pilots killed.

The F-35 attempts to compensate for this lack of visibility by incorporating a helmet mounted display system that allows the pilot see a virtual image of what is around the aircraft. However, this is inadequate as it is much lower resolution than the human eye and generally inadequate for detecting distant or low-contrast objects. To make matters worse, this helmet mounted display system, as inadequate as it is, is far from being ready for testing, let alone being fully functional and combat-ready.

The lift-fan area takes up so much space that it meant that the plane could only have a single engine, decreasing maximum thrust and therefore speed and payload capacity, which would not necessarily cripple the plane were the F-35 not so overly heavy.

The STOVL requirement also necessitated the F-35 have smaller wings that provide less lift and negatively impact the performance of the aircraft. Worse yet, these elements of the F-35 cannot be altered because it would decrease the commonality among the three variants and thus drive costs even higher.

The F-35A and F-35C cannot make use of the lift-fan space for more/bigger internal weapons bays or another engine; it is used simply as a fuel tank.

However, further compromises had to be made in order to incorporate the STOVL ability desired so much by the U.S. Marines. To keep the aircraft light enough to achieve STOVL, safety equipment was removed and parts of the fuselage were made thinner and less durable, making all three variants much more dangerous to fly. According to the Pentagon, “elimination of 11 pounds’ worth of valves and fuses made the [F-35] 25-percent more likely to be destroyed when struck by enemy fire.”

The decreased durability of the airframe also means that the lifespan of the aircraft will likely be much shorter than its predecessors and contemporaries, which, in the end, may turn out to be ironically desirable.

All of the above has not been addressed by any of the F35 chear leaders. Why?

The F-35 is going to be 8 years and counting behind schedule

Stop trying to poo poo the above away.

[Wilber]

For those who think we are just a short step from unmanned fighters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/23/stop-saying-uh-oh-while-youre-flying-drone-crash-pilot-quotes-unveiled/

[Derek 2.0]

So you want to deny the F35 has flaws then admit they have flaws. Which one is it?

Here is something you probably do not want to read or acknowledge, certainly Derek does not and has not:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/why-the-f-35-is-the-wrong-choice-for-canada-part-3

All those concerns have been addressed by myself, numerous times in this thread:

1-the alleged stealth advantage is highly questionable and would likely offer little advantagem while stealth offers reduced detection, not invisibility and the pont is even the F-22, an air-to-air fighter far superior to the F-35 was been shot down in exercises by non-stealthy aircraft, specifically the Typhoon, Rafale, and F-18G “Growler” Electronic Warfare fighter

Nobody that understands stealth would say it offers invisibility…….it is camouflage across three spectrums.

2-The F-35 itself is not even particularly stealthy by stealth standards, receiving a Low Observable designation instead of the Very Low Observable Designation of its superior cousin , the F-22.

Says who? You realize the same people that built the F-22 a decade prior, also designed the F-35 right?

3-The F-35′s limited stealth is further compromised by advances in detection technolog; stealth aircraft are much more easily detected when scanning in other wavelengths.; Russia has already integrated this into the T-50, which comes equipped with L-band and X-band radar.Thus, the F-35′s already questionable stealth advantage is constantly being eroded. As stealth becomes more common, so too will the advances in counter-stealth detection systems specifically designed to hunt them down, such as SMART-L Radar.

You're on the wrong wavelength.......What you're reaching for is UHF and VHF radars, such radars have been in use since the 50s, and jammed in the skies over Vietnam in the 60s and 70s.

4-The F-35 is also incredibly loud, much more so than the F-15. This sharp increase in noise makes the F-35 more susceptible to detection through auditory means. To make matters worse, passive radar threatens to render stealth aircraft entirely obsolete.

At what range?

5- the software problems with the U.S. Marines F-35B have raised the possibility of more delays of the Block 2B software; many of its systems are standard on other aircraft already in production and have been proven to work properly, i.e. both the Gripen and Rafale both boast AESA radar and the Typhoon will receive AESA radar in Tranche 3. All three have helmet mounted display systems and Electro-Optical Targeting Systems (EOTS); the helmet mounted display system in the F35 does not work and has been cancelled and what they are up to, to fix its flaws remains a mystery;

The Gripen NG and Rafale are only starting to test their AESA........none the less, the F-35's radar has been one of the facets of the program that has worked as planned will little to no hiccups, so much so that it’s been integrated smoothly for nearly four years.

6-the F-35′s sensor suite, it is not so significant an improvement over existing and working sensor systems already deployed on other fighters to make a serious difference on the battle field.

How so? Are you suggesting other aircraft have the same capabilities as the F-35’s DAS? For instance, the ability to track ballistic missiles and launch at targets behind the aircraft?

And like the radar, the DAS portion of the program has been near flawless (aside from delays with the helmet that have since been resolved).

7-The F-35 has operatews under a protective testing bubble specifically designed not to push the aircraft to its limits. Its failed its original operational requirements. Instead of designing the fighter to operational requirement, the USAF’s solution to that problem was to lower the operational requirements according to the F-35′s limitations.

All modern aircraft under development are placed under said bubble.

Despite being seven years overdue, the F-35, as of March 6, 2013, had yet to (go on find new informations ince that date to deny the following list you can not....)

Your information is dated several years......

8-The cost of a fighter is absurd. RAND has reported that the F-35′s costs are so high that it would have been less expensive to build three separate planes; each tailored to the user’s specific needs defeating the reason why the F-35 was developed to begin with; to have a low-cost and effective fighter.

As Waldo and I debated this already, I'd be more than pleased if you could provide RAND's methodology on what separate programs would cost.

9-the operating cost per flight hour continues to sky rocket from its original estimates which were when compared to other fighters:

Actually no, said average is reduced by each aircraft that enters service........simple math.

10. Here is the flaw none of the F35 groupies have addressed and can't which is a fatal flaw:

..the fatal flaw lies in the shoehorning of STOVL capability into the F-35B model for the U.S. Marines. The original X-35 design had serious potential to be the fighter the F-35 claims yet completely fails to be. The F-35B is to take off on short runways and land vertically (STOVL). While building a “universal” fighter to meet all needs is incredibly difficult, the addition of the STOVL requirement added even more unreasonable expectations of one design and crippled the F-35.

I have addressed that, in great depth in this thread.

The area behind the pilot was reserved for a lift-fan to work in conjunction with a downward-swivelling rear thrust nozzle. In order to incorporate this system, the airframe had to be very wide; much wider than the “area rule,” which dictates that a narrow fuselage delivers the best aerodynamics, would deem desirable.

How wide, contrasted with the F-22 for example? As top aerodynamics, do you understand the concept of generating lift through the shaping of the fuselage, as was done with both the F-22 and F35?

This unusual width makes the F-35 experience higher than normal drag which negatively impacts, acceleration, speed, fuel efficiency, and range. To make matters worse, the lift-fan means that the pilot is unable to see behind the aircraft, a severe disadvantage when engaging enemy aircraft and a fatal flaw that can and will get pilots killed.

No it doesn't........Do you understand what occurs to say the Gripen or Super Hornet’s drag coefficient when they are carrying external stores (ala combat configuration?)

The F-35 attempts to compensate for this lack of visibility by incorporating a helmet mounted display system that allows the pilot see a virtual image of what is around the aircraft. However, this is inadequate as it is much lower resolution than the human eye and generally inadequate for detecting distant or low-contrast objects. To make matters worse, this helmet mounted display system, as inadequate as it is, is far from being ready for testing, let alone being fully functional and combat-ready.

The DAS and helmet system are working.........As to the human eye nonsense, how well does it work at night, in a cloud or bad weather?

The lift-fan area takes up so much space that it meant that the plane could only have a single engine, decreasing maximum thrust and therefore speed and payload capacity, which would not necessarily cripple the plane were the F-35 not so overly heavy.

The F135 is one of the most powerful afterburning turbofans ever developed.

The STOVL requirement also necessitated the F-35 have smaller wings that provide less lift and negatively impact the performance of the aircraft. Worse yet, these elements of the F-35 cannot be altered because it would decrease the commonality among the three variants and thus drive costs even higher.

What is the lift coefficient of the F-35 compared to other aircraft?

The F-35A and F-35C cannot make use of the lift-fan space for more/bigger internal weapons bays or another engine; it is used simply as a fuel tank.

Wrong, both the A and C have larger weapons bays.

However, further compromises had to be made in order to incorporate the STOVL ability desired so much by the U.S. Marines. To keep the aircraft light enough to achieve STOVL, safety equipment was removed and parts of the fuselage were made thinner and less durable, making all three variants much more dangerous to fly. According to the Pentagon, “elimination of 11 pounds’ worth of valves and fuses made the [F-35] 25-percent more likely to be destroyed when struck by enemy fire.”

What safety equipment? What parts of the fuselage were made less durable?

All of the above has not been addressed by any of the F35 chear leaders. Why?

Actually most of your failed points have been addressed in this thread, and several like it, over the last several years.

Please try and keep up.

[Derek 2.0]

For those who think we are just a short step from unmanned fighters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/23/stop-saying-uh-oh-while-youre-flying-drone-crash-pilot-quotes-unveiled/

This passage is perhaps the most telling:

“Holy shit! We got hit by a UAV! Hit by a UAV!”

Unidentified Air Force navigator of a C-130 Hercules transport plane that collided in midair with an Army RQ-7B Shadow drone in Afghanistan on Aug. 15, 2011.

“There’s a big frickin’ hole in the airplane.”

Unidentified pilot of the Hercules, moments later.

And similar incidents of near misses, namely with helicopters, lead DoD to conduct a review on the usage of remotely piloted vehicles in the same vicinity as manned aircraft…….IIRC, the report was something to the affect of “Blue Sky”………

A Chinook with 30+ passengers in the back would have it’s days ruined pretty quick in a collision with a Predator…

[Rue]

Derek the tactic of asking questions to avoid responding to the flaws is not working.

The flaws I have reported on this forum are reported by others not me. You keep addressing these flaws as if I created them. I did not.

In fact your responses would have us presume everyone is wrong but you.

Derek there are just too many flaws at this point for you to just simply deny them then try change the subject with questions that do not provide a response to the flaws, just avoid dealing with those flaws.

Derek instead of trying to ask me questions about thrust, its time you question those 700 flaws the US Defence secretary auditor found and ask have they been fixed. No they have not and so you can keep saying the info I have provided is a year or two years old but the fact is its up to date, those flaws have not been fixed.

Also before you say the helmet is fine go find out why it was pulled and is still not functioning properly.

Also while you are at it take a look at the fuel dump system and tell me how it was fixed.

Please.Provide the report that says the fuel dump system was fixed, the helmet issues were fixed, the problems with the Block 2B software were fixed, the cracks in the engine were fixed. Please since you are the eF35 exper and everyone else is wrong actually go through the flaws and show they have been fixed.

With due respect Derek you can not.

Simply denying them or making the illogical argument that so what the F35 is still better does not make them go away.

By the way your answer to the maintenance cost of the plane going down as its flown more was absurd.

So was the attempt to avoid the noise of the aircraft by asking me at what range...Derek that question is a direct evasion of the noise issue. The range does not matter, the damage it will do to the Northern environment is the issue. Did you really miss that point?

You have all the answers Derek then please provide them.....go through the flaws and explain how they were fixed. You have not.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Rue

[Rue]

The most likely scenario now will be the RCAF having to purchase the Superhornet, some designed for training, some for overseas operations and the remainder for long range patrol interception. Australia is headed that way and Canada will have no choice either. The Superhornet is more expensive than the Grypen but worth the extra money. Its also the easiest transition.

The F35 has so many flaws it will never get cleared in time to be able to replace our existing hornets and I doubt the 25 Israel has purchased for testing will pass any of their tests. The lack of visability in the cock pit alone will be panned by IAF pilots. Its no F16.

Also when you are 8 years into development and your engine is still developing cracks and your supposed magical helmet don't work that is a joke.

That kind of hype might work on armchair pilots but the actual test pilots who have flown the F35 have called it crap and so Lockhead can spin all they want but once a test pilot pans a jet, its game over.

Both the F22 Raptor and F35 are too expensive. They tried to do too much all in one craft

The US and Israel are just too hooked into certain military industrial networks today that are compromising their judgement on th F35 but the fact is the Israeli Air Force has stubborn pilots who will not settle for a flawed craft. I predict they will push the Americans back to the production table with a different craft before this is over.

[bush_cheney2004]

Like Canada, Israel could have already chosen the Super Hornet...it did not. The US Navy and Australia already have them in operational squadrons. As in any other Canadian military procurement fiasco, this has become more talk than walk.