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

[Derek 2.0]

but the Future European Fighter program didn't even begin until ~1983. Understanding of the requirement maybe began before that, but then the same thing would be true of any plane.

Of course, the F-22 was essentially the successor of the F-15 - the big, expensive, balls-to-the-walls air-superiority monster. They were/are both meant to provide unmatched air-dominance capabilities.

Indeed, but reverting back to the point……..the F-4 Phantom was/is not a superior aircraft to the F-16, despite what the “stats” indicate…….That of course is attributed to advancements in aerospace technology.

and we'll see if it works. There's certainly a lot of logistical/tactical advantages to having one plane being able to complete multiple mission types, the 'logical extension' in this case appears to be rather extreme, especially considering it was originally intended to operate in consort with large complements of F-22's, which are so few in number now that they can't be relied upon.

The logistic advantages are not better illustrated then looking at a carrier deck in the 80s:

Contrasted with what one will look like next decade with two primary types aboard (Super Hornet and

F-35C)

As to the complimentary nature of the F-22 (and the eventual replacement of the Super Hornet) if one looks no further then conflicts post-1991 Gulf War, air dominance was achieved with little to no effort. There of course is no reason to believe, outside a direct conflict with Russia/China, in the decades ahead the same won’t be true.

but again, the F-35 was never intended to be the air-superiority weapon of choice. They were meant to be the natural evolution/combination of the F-16's and F-18's, operating in large numbers and as the workhorse of the fleet with the F-22 ensuring overall air-superiority.

I never said different.

As for design compromises, you're likely aware that the F-35 has a radar signature many times larger than it's older and larger cousin the F-22. This has a lot to do with the materials used, as the F-22's stealth coating apparently costs a fortune to maintain between flights and a more economical stealth design was required. This required a larger focus on shape and angles to deflect radar, and frankly I have trouble understanding how forcing radar-deflecting shapes aren't going to impact flight performance. Regardless, when you have a plane that most estimates are pegging it at $120M/unit and by virtually all estimates will get blown out of the skies (as in no contest) by the older F-22 costing $150M/unit, I don't know how you can say that design compromises weren't made for it to fulfill its wide variety of role requirements.

“Many times” is clearly subjective…….from what has been released publicly, the difference is described as that between a marble and a golf ball………For contrast, the RCS of a typical legacy aircraft is what?

As to price, as has been said for years, the F-35A is no under 100 million per copy (your figure is based on the price of the LRIP block purchase to cycles ago)……..As to the F-22, it’s price should be adjusted for inflation once the F-35 enters full production…..there is a major difference.

From its conception, the F-35 was meant to operate in conjunction with the F-22. I'm going to assume you know why the F-22 was cancelled, but the worrying thing for me is what happens if Russian and Chinese next-gen designs proliferate at greater rates than the US DoD anticipated?

The current Russian and Chinese developments, at best, are equivalent to where the F-22 was in the late 1990s (development and testing) and that of course is being generous……Of course by the time they began to enter full scale production and service, the replacement for the Super Hornet, Strike Eagle and F-22 will be in development…………None the less, the problem of proliferation of next generation Russian and Chinese aircraft is best not solved by the further purchase of legacy aircraft that are already outmatched.

With all that being said, in terms of numeric advantage, the Soviets and Warsaw Pact had it in the 80s over NATO, yet NATO forces never questioned their superior ability to both implement and succeed at air dominance when faced with greater numbers.

[Derek 2.0]

Derek you engaged in an absolute falsehood stating Israel sells the technology the US gives it to anyone and that is why there is a dispute between Israel and the US.

Right:

The C.I.A. says China has been acquiring advanced military technology from Israel for more than a decade on programs for jet fighters, air-to-air missiles and tanks. The agency said the sale of Israeli military technology to China "may be several billion dollars."

The US wants to force Israel to buy their system. If Israel used its own, the US subcontractors would not make any money,

How much annual defence aide does Israel receive from the United States? How much does Israel receive discounted via FMS for DoD?

Simply put, if not for the generosity of the United States that see‘s Israel as a bastion of Freedom in the Middle East, the population of Israel would have been air pollution decades ago.

[waldo]

while skimming the last few pages I note one particular member making rather bold pronouncements... (typically) unsubstantiated, while at the same time repeatedly asking others to provide source/cite for everything/anything. This same member repeatedly projects a position that there are no problems with the F-35... which truly begs the question on why the JSFail isn't in full (real) production yet... and why so few have actually been 'bought & paid' for? What's the hold-up... after a decade plus now? Over budget, over schedule, over hype!

as for the same member asserting that no 'pullback' on procurement numbers exists... outside of that associated with overall military budget cutbacks... does one need to look any further than the U.S. Navy... where the USN cuts its 5 year F-35 procurement number while at the same (relative) time securing the purchase of 22 of the Super Hornet 'Growler' variant? Cause those 22 Growlers came in via the non-budgeted, unfunded priority request route.

as for the continued emphasis on 'F-35 dogfighting' capability... or 'air superiority' positioning relative to the F-22... I've missed just where the F-35 has been fighting any dogs (other than itself, that is), and truly remain puzzled as to what superiority countries without the F-22 can claim. Again, just what is the rationale for Canada having/needing the F-35? Perhaps before this thread reaches 200 pages, at least one of its cheerleaders can provide a short summary accounting of what role/need the F-35 satisfies for Canada, particularly relative to what the Hornets have done this past decade+. We've heard a lot in the past about satisfying NORAD/NATO commitments, but as has also been stated in the past, aren't there 'other ways' for Canada to meet those claimed commitments? Can it all be done... at the same time? Can Canada upgrade it's Navy, Coast Guard, Search & Rescue, Air Force and Army... at the same time? Priorities anyone... anyone... anyone?

[Derek 2.0]

while skimming the last few pages I note one particular member making rather bold pronouncements... (typically) unsubstantiated, while at the same time repeatedly asking others to provide source/cite for everything/anything. This same member repeatedly projects a position that there are no problems with the F-35... which truly begs the question on why the JSFail isn't in full (real) production yet... and why so few have actually been 'bought & paid' for? What's the hold-up... after a decade plus now? Over budget, over schedule, over hype!

Said member has never projected that claim, but does believe based on the precedent of other defence programs, said issues will be solved.

as for the same member asserting that no 'pullback' on procurement numbers exists... outside of that associated with overall military budget cutbacks... does one need to look any further than the U.S. Navy... where the USN cuts its 5 year F-35 procurement number while at the same (relative) time securing the purchase of 22 of the Super Hornet 'Growler' variant? Cause those 22 Growlers came in via the non-budgeted, unfunded priority request route.

Again false.......The F-35C was never intended to replace the Growler, are fulfill it’s role well in USN service.

Again, just what is the rationale for Canada having/needing the F-35? Perhaps before this thread reaches 200 pages, at least one of its cheerleaders can provide a short summary accounting of what role/need the F-35 satisfies for Canada, particularly relative to what the Hornets have done this past decade+. We've heard a lot in the past about satisfying NORAD/NATO commitments, but as has also been stated in the past, aren't there 'other ways' for Canada to meet those claimed commitments?

The natural replacement of our current Hornet fleet……..I fail to see how you expect Canada, a sovereign nation, to maintain it’s sovereignty without NORAD and a modern fighter fleet.

Can it all be done... at the same time? Can Canada upgrade it's Navy, Coast Guard, Search & Rescue, Air Force and Army... at the same time? Priorities anyone... anyone... anyone?

Certainly it can be done………the overall effectiveness will of course be determined by funding.

[waldo]

Said member has never projected that claim, but does believe based on the precedent of other defence programs, said issues will be solved.

your statement seems at odds with your incessant challenges to others (for source/cite) relative to identified problems

Again false.......The F-35C was never intended to replace the Growler, are fulfill it’s role well in USN service.

didn't say it was... did say, the USN opted to cut F-35 procurement numbers while at the same (relative) time moving to secure funding for 22 Super Hornet 'Growlers'

The natural replacement of our current Hornet fleet……..I fail to see how you expect Canada, a sovereign nation, to maintain it’s sovereignty without NORAD and a modern fighter fleet.

that's quite a short list. Sovereignty? You mean like Peter McKay photo-ops of the 'bear' not in "Canadian air space"? Like that? Why, I understand those wascally Ruskies quit doing that... until just recently after Harper started his Ukraine swagger act! Now it seems Putin has a renewed and heightened attention to the Arctic. Go figure. Perhaps you could speak to exactly what Harper Conservatives have done in regards their much publicized interest in "maintaining Arctic sovereignty"... that kind of went no where, hey? And the F-35 in the Arctic??? Really? In any case, the thrust of my comment was in relation to need relative to how the Hornet's had been used this past decade+... you know, as 'bomb trucks'! And, of course, there's always the guy around here who maintains the NATO commitment could be met with a transport emphasis, rather than the F-35... is that why you only mention NORAD? By the by, once again, just how does Mexico manage its sovereignty again?

Certainly it can be done………the overall effectiveness will of course be determined by funding.

determined by funding... alone? You mean you're not prepared to speak to prioritization? Just more money... that's your determining factor?

I thought you would bite at the 'fighting dogs' comment... since that was your assertion that the F-35 can... fight dogs! And you skipped right over that air superiority reference - go figure.

[Rue]

Derek:

1-the article you provided does not prove or even claim Israel sells US technology to China;

2-the article you provided in fact repudiates that very fact;

3-your attempt to suggest Israel unfairly enjoys a one sided relationship with the US is a crock.

In regards to 1 and 2, please finish what you started and prove Israel sells US technology let alone fighter technology from the US to China. What an irresponsible thing to even suggest. The treaties between Israel and the US would not allow it nor would Israel do it because it will not sell anything that jeopardizes US or Israeli military tactical advantage for obvious reasons.

An article directly on that point can be found at The Middle East Quarterly, spring of 2006, pages 37-44,Volume X111,No.2.

Interesting Derek how you argue my criticisms are too old but you went back to 2006 to base this latest allegation.

Its past absurd to suggest either Israel or the US would sell off vital technology that gives it a competitive edge.

Now let us be clear on your latest retreated argument that Israel enhoys one sided military benefits from the US.

That crock of an argument has been repudiated numerous times on this forum.

The reality is, the military industrial network involved with Israel from the US receives mutual reciprocity otherwise it would not be entered into.

The technology that Israel exchanges in return for its alliance with the US industrial technology network is two way. The very reason Israel will receive 19 F35's is to test them to try get the kinks out. The F35's they will receive will not even have most of their equipment which will not be ready for 2015. They are being given in effect their shells to work out serious flaws with manouvering, cracks in the engine, jet engine issues, structuralintegrity issues, cockpit lack of visability, speed and range issues. In fact Israel test pilots will now put their life on the line testing these craft so that the Americans will then be able to turn around and sell them to others.

Give it a rest with your false allegations to try detract from your epic failure to defend the F35's flaws.

Once you are at it explain how placing an Israeli electronic system in the F35 is being done to sell it to China. Go on prove it. You make a lot of comments Derek but never back them up.

If that article is the best you have it exposes yet another flaw-lol, this one though is in your arguments not the F35.

By the way Derek had you researched further you would have found there was a miniature cooling system used in missiles that Israel sold to European nations for their missiles that were then passed on by those nations to China. Israel did not give them to China directly and the miniature cooling system was not secret technology at all The Americans who had worked on the project rightfully felt their patent was infringed on. Israel in fact apologized and fired the person who sold the system to the European countries.

It had nothing to do with fighter technology, or even the missiles used on the F35 or F16 or F15 or any other US craft. It was a system China could make if it wanted.

There was no top secret technology exchanged.

But hey why let that stop Derek from making his allegations.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Rue

[Derek 2.0]

your statement seems at odds with your incessant challenges to others (for source/cite) relative to identified problems

Identified problems that have since been resolved is of course a different mater.

didn't say it was... did say, the USN opted to cut F-35 procurement numbers while at the same (relative) time moving to secure funding for 22 Super Hornet 'Growlers'

And the relevance? The United States Navy has also secured funding for additional Virginia class attack submarines, as such, does that make the F-35C a poor submarine?

Sovereignty? You mean like Peter McKay photo-ops of the 'bear' not in "Canadian air space"? Like that? Why, I understand those wascally Ruskies quit doing that... until just recently after Harper started his Ukraine swagger act! Now it seems Putin has a renewed and heightened attention to the Arctic. Go figure.

Yes, you did mention NORAD did you not?

the thrust of my comment was in relation to need relative to how the Hornet's had been used this past decade+... you know, as 'bomb trucks'!

IOW what we’ve used our Hornets for operationally since they’ve entered service…….going forward the F-35 will enable Canada to continue with these sorts of contributions.

And, of course, there's always the guy around here who maintains the NATO commitment could be met with a transport emphasis, rather than the F-35... is that why you only mention NORAD? By the by, once again, just how does Mexico manage its sovereignty again?

Has their been calls for Canada to forgo a fighter contribution?

And the Mexicans ability to police their sovereignty…….surely you jest

determined by funding... alone? You mean you're not prepared to speak to prioritization? Just more money... that's your determining factor?

It depends on said priorities……..As to funding, if we wish to maintain both our current funding envelope and piss poor procurement system, then I fail to see how priorities won’t come into play a t some point.

[waldo]

Identified problems that have since been resolved is of course a different mater.

says the guy who, without substantiation (typically), claims resolution.

And the relevance? The United States Navy has also secured funding for additional Virginia class attack submarines, as such, does that make the F-35C a poor submarine?

relevance... says the guy 'comparing' submarine funding to aircraft funding? I thought the F-35 had "electronic warfare" capability - why would the USN want/need an additional 22 Growlers in the face of all that presumed F-35 capability?

IOW what weve used our Hornets for operationally since theyve entered service.going forward the F-35 will enable Canada to continue with these sorts of contributions.

cause nothing says more about Canadian sovereignty than bombing 3rd world countries, hey! That there F-35 you keep hyping... that's a pretty costly 'bomb truck', hey?

Has their been calls for Canada to forgo a fighter contribution?

huh! The point was, again, that so-called commitment could be met in other ways - yes?

And the Mexicans ability to police their sovereignty.surely you jest

no - really. How is Mexico different from a sovereignty aspect? And, by the by, just who are you expecting to invade Canada? But again, with the Arctic sovereignty focus, how does that project in terms of the military... say... versus securing international recognition of ownership rights? You know, the thing Russians took seriously, while Harper Conservatives didn't (or were late to the party). But again, with the Arctic focus, just what will F-35s bring to the sovereignty table?

It depends on said priorities..As to funding, if we wish to maintain both our current funding envelope and piss poor procurement system, then I fail to see how priorities wont come into play a t some point.

oh, so you are willing to accept prioritization... at some time. Just not now when you're asked/challenged to set those priorities. C'mon, you project yourself as the MLW militaryMan... set those priorities - now? Given the obvious cut-backs Harper Conservatives are actively imposing on Canada's military branches, there is limited funding. In that regard, are you unwilling to offer your 'expertise' to suggest a prioritization need/agenda?... a specific one?

[Derek 2.0]

says the guy who, without substantiation (typically), claims resolution.

Again, the laundry list of failings being regurgitated is a media report from 2013, which relays GAO findings from the Summer of 2011.………for instance, the claim today that the F-35 is unable to fly at night is absurd, when clearly that has not been the case since 2012.…….

relevance... says the guy 'comparing' submarine funding to aircraft funding? I thought the F-35 had "electronic warfare" capability - why would the USN want/need an additional 22 Growlers in the face of all that presumed F-35 capability?

The Growler (or Super Hornet itself) was not intended to be replaced (at this time) by the F-35C in USN service.......as to the EW capabilities, it is the USMC that will not replace it's current Prowlers with a dedicated type (Growler) and is choosing to retain a all F-35B/C fleet.

cause nothing says more about Canadian sovereignty than bombing 3rd world countries, hey! That there F-35 you keep hyping... that's a pretty costly 'bomb truck', hey?

The use of the Hornets, like the eventual use of the F-35s, will be a political question. As historic, the Progressive Conservatives, Liberals and Conservatives have all saw fit to leverage this form of diplomacy……I fail to see that changing going forward with a Conservative or eventual Liberal government in Ottawa.

huh! The point was, again, that so-called commitment could be met in other ways - yes?

Huh? I’ll repeat my question, have their been calls for Canada to replace one current capability with another? I appreciate this is a point that you’ve opined on your own, but it has no ground in actual reality under the current framework of both NATO or NORAD.

no - really. How is Mexico different from a sovereignty aspect? And, by the by, just who are you expecting to invade Canada? But again, with the Arctic sovereignty focus, how does that project in terms of the military... say... versus securing international recognition of ownership rights? You know, the thing Russians took seriously, while Harper Conservatives didn't (or were late to the party). But again, with the Arctic focus, just what will F-35s bring to the sovereignty table?

I’m not a prophet, I’d never imagined Canada fighting in Libya or redeploying fighters to Europe five years ago, but I acknowledge the prospects of a physical invasion to be slim, but Russian encroachment does occur.

As to our direct sovereignty, a fighter force is a perquisite for NORAD……without one, the Americans will defend their sovereignty and approaches to, devoid of Canadian participation, the best ways they see fit……One needs only look at a Map.

oh, so you are willing to accept prioritization... at some time. Just not now when you're asked/challenged to set those priorities. C'mon, you project yourself as the MLW militaryMan... set those priorities - now? Given the obvious cut-backs Harper Conservatives are actively imposing on Canada's military branches, there is limited funding. In that regard, are you unwilling to offer your 'expertise' to suggest a prioritization need/agenda?... a specific one?

I have in numerous related threads…….Simply put, the greatest cost faced by DND is not the sustainment and purchase of equipment, but personal. By natural deduction, of the three elements (Army, Navy and Air Force), the army is the most reliant on “manpower” and when contrasted with the requirements of the Navy and Air Force, the technical requirements placed upon the members of the army can be maintained (and regenerated if required in time of national crisis) with reduced levels, or certain aspects by a properly funded militia/reserve force.

Also, as I’ve stated before, from a political focal point, foreign deployments of the navy and air force often go unnoticed, where as the army’s decade plus in Afghanistan become quite contentious to say the least…..Simply put, I doubt for generations to come, any future Canadian Government will introduce another deployment of the same nature as Afghanistan……relying more so on the diplomatic effect of naval and air deployments.

As such, I feel the priorities of the Canadian Forces, within the current funding envelope, should focus on both the navy and air forces inherent abilities as both an expeditionary and domestic force, followed by a reduced regular army, compensated for by investment into the reserve land force.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[WWWTT]

while skimming the last few pages I note one particular member making rather bold pronouncements... (typically) unsubstantiated, while at the same time repeatedly asking others to provide source/cite for everything/anything.

Are you talking about that same member who wanted their membershib revoked? And then they came crawling back.

Keep that in mind when you are debating that member.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

cause nothing says more about Canadian sovereignty than bombing 3rd world countries, hey!

no - really. How is Mexico different from a sovereignty aspect? And, by the by, just who are you expecting to invade Canada? But again, with the Arctic sovereignty focus, how does that project in terms of the military... say... versus securing international recognition of ownership rights? You know, the thing Russians took seriously, while Harper Conservatives didn't (or were late to the party). But again, with the Arctic focus, just what will F-35s bring to the sovereignty table?

No country has ever invaded Canada, unles in the case of Germeny and Japan, where Canada FIRST DECLARED WAR on them! If Canada doesn't want any countries invading us, guess what? Don't freekin declare war on them first!

F-35=war pig toys!

WWWTT

[waldo]

Are you talking about that same member who wanted their membershib revoked? And then they came crawling back.

Keep that in mind when you are debating that member.

WWWTT

so what... and I seriously doubt your 'crawling' claim. For what it's worth, I'd sooner have member 2.0's commentary (most of which I don't agree with) than your most derogatory comments concerning the Canadian military. I suggest you get over the member's decision to leave... and return - stuff happens.

[Derek 2.0]

so what... and I seriously doubt your 'crawling' claim. For what it's worth, I'd sooner have member 2.0's commentary (most of which I don't agree with) than your most derogatory comments concerning the Canadian military. I suggest you get over the member's decision to leave... and return - stuff happens.

Thank you sir.

[WWWTT]

so what... and I seriously doubt your 'crawling' claim. For what it's worth, I'd sooner have member 2.0's commentary (most of which I don't agree with) than your most derogatory comments concerning the Canadian military. I suggest you get over the member's decision to leave... and return - stuff happens.

You have a funny way of saying yes it is the same commentator that came crawling back

Either way, enjoy your debate in this "war pig magnet" thread!

WWWTT

[waldo]

Either way, enjoy your debate in this "war pig magnet" thread!

if all you're intending to do in this thread is repeat your most derogatory and oft repeated 'war pig' like comments concerning the Canadian military, I suggest you ply your nonsense/idiocy elsewhere. Apparently, you're unable to distinguish between supporting the military and supporting the military missions you may disagree with (those dictated by the ruling government of the day).

[WWWTT]

if all you're intending to do in this thread is repeat your most derogatory and oft repeated 'war pig' like comments concerning the Canadian military, I suggest you ply your nonsense/idiocy elsewhere. Apparently, you're unable to distinguish between supporting the military and supporting the military missions you may disagree with (those dictated by the ruling government of the day).

Not my job to seperate.

But anyways waldo, you were doing a good job ripping into that bridge burner, and now you're kissing his butt!

Man you really fell apart there buddy.

WWWTT

[waldo]

But anyways waldo, you were doing a good job ripping into that bridge burner, and now you're kissing his butt!

Man you really fell apart there buddy.

you're adding nothing to this thread - go away!

[On Guard for Thee]

How would you like to be the pilot who gets to fly the 35 over the chuck to the Farnborough airshow if , if they do clear it to fly after the latest engine fire? I think I'd go north and try to island hop as much as possible.

[On Guard for Thee]

Mind you, you wouldn't be over worked looking at guages. You know, one oil pressure guage, one n1 guage, one torque pressure guage, one turbine temp guage, sitting somewhere up near the redline. well other than that all's well.

[Moonbox]

Indeed, but reverting back to the point……..the F-4 Phantom was/is not a superior aircraft to the F-16, despite what the “stats” indicate…….That of course is attributed to advancements in aerospace technology.

I never suggested otherwise, nor did I suggest that advances in materials, electronics and designs wouldn't make newer planes more effective than legacy ones. I merely stated that the simple shape and weight of the plane are less than ideal for maneuvering, and there's been very little to read that says otherwise (excluding Lockheed Martin or Pentagon cheerleaders).

As to the complimentary nature of the F-22 (and the eventual replacement of the Super Hornet) if one looks no further then conflicts post-1991 Gulf War, air dominance was achieved with little to no effort. There of course is no reason to believe, outside a direct conflict with Russia/China, in the decades ahead the same won’t be true.

Well the US would have managed equally impressive air dominance with F4's given their enormous advantages in scale, logistics and training. They've done little but play wack-a-mole since Vietnam. Either way, you're right, but the cancellation of the F-22 was based on budget and the lack of perceived threats, not on the F-35's performance as an air superiority fighter.

“Many times” is clearly subjective…….from what has been released publicly, the difference is described as that between a marble and a golf ball………For contrast, the RCS of a typical legacy aircraft is what?

Okay, guilty of being subjective. The published difference, IIRC, is that of a golf ball compared to a baseball, in which case you're essentially looking at an RCS 5-6x bigger than the F-22, or equal to the Nighthawk, which Serbians were able to detect on radar and shoot down in the 90's. Fast forward 30 years, and let's hope that Russian and Chinese radar don't mitigate the F-35's stealth advantages, because it's operating at simple and distinct disadvantages if it's detected too early.

As to price, as has been said for years, the F-35A is no under 100 million per copy (your figure is based on the price of the LRIP block purchase to cycles ago)……..As to the F-22, it’s price should be adjusted for inflation once the F-35 enters full production…..there is a major difference.

The F-22 price is inflation adjusted already. Years ago while under production I recall them being listed at $128M/copy. Now the final batch is saying about $150M. Regardless, it's only been 5 years since they completed production, and inflation has been negligible ever since.

At any rate, the estimate of a $98M/unit F-35A seems to be pure fantasy, as the 2014 production models are costing $188Meach according to the Pentagon's chief financial officer, and strangely the cost has been INCREASING over the last two years. Lockheed Martin says all sorts of things like the unit costs are going down, or that by 2018 they'll be down to the affordable <$100M price, but the facts speak otherwise. It's unlikely that costs are going to drop 52% in the next 3-4 years, especially when we're seeing the opposite happen.

The current Russian and Chinese developments, at best, are equivalent to where the F-22 was in the late 1990s (development and testing) and that of course is being generous……Of course by the time they began to enter full scale production and service, the replacement for the Super Hornet, Strike Eagle and F-22 will be in development…………None the less, the problem of proliferation of next generation Russian and Chinese aircraft is best not solved by the further purchase of legacy aircraft that are already outmatched.

and that's why, despite our disagreements on the F-35's abilities and costs, we end up at pretty much the same place. There's no point in buying older aircraft that'll be obsolete 10-15 years from now, and the only craft in NATO's arsenal that is/was equipped to handle emerging Russian/Chinese threats has no production program anymore, and would be nearly impossible to restart.

With all that being said, in terms of numeric advantage, the Soviets and Warsaw Pact had it in the 80s over NATO, yet NATO forces never questioned their superior ability to both implement and succeed at air dominance when faced with greater numbers.

The Soviets always knew they were outclassed in the air. That's why they placed significantly more emphasis on their ground forces and on mobile SAMs. While the Soviets may have had overall numerical superiority in planes (I've never read that but can believe it if you're counting MiG-21's and MiG 23's), NATO had an enormous numerical advantage in modern air power. There was never, and was never going to be, enough MiG 29's or Su-27s to compete with even just their American counterparts, let alone the European designed planes that were out there.

[On Guard for Thee]

Her Majesty will not be impressed.

http://defensetech.org/2014/07/07/f-35-grounding-puts-first-international-flight-at-risk/

[Derek 2.0]

Her Majesty will not be impressed.

http://defensetech.org/2014/07/07/f-35-grounding-puts-first-international-flight-at-risk/

Right:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN0FD00H20140708

If officials allow flights to resume, the British jet could fly to Maryland on Tuesday, and the group of F-35Bs could depart for England on Wednesday, according to two sources.

The aircraft must leave by Wednesday to be ready for flights at the Royal International Air Tattoo on Friday. But the jets could still make it to Britain for the big Farnborough show next week, officials said.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[waldo]

Right: http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN0FD00H20140708

other than a flyover photo-op just what can those current F-35Bs actually do? They should just photoshop the planes in and call it a day!

[Derek 2.0]

I never suggested otherwise, nor did I suggest that advances in materials, electronics and designs wouldn't make newer planes more effective than legacy ones. I merely stated that the simple shape and weight of the plane are less than ideal for maneuvering, and there's been very little to read that says otherwise (excluding Lockheed Martin or Pentagon cheerleaders).

Do you believe, outside Pentagon or Lockheed “cheerleaders” (and armed forces of the partners), anyone actual knows the performance of the F-35?

Well the US would have managed equally impressive air dominance with F4's given their enormous advantages in scale, logistics and training. They've done little but play wack-a-mole since Vietnam. Either way, you're right, but the cancellation of the F-22 was based on budget and the lack of perceived threats, not on the F-35's performance as an air superiority fighter.

That’s a contradiction though…….perceived threats that couldn’t be handled by the F-35, in concert with the F-22 force.

Okay, guilty of being subjective. The published difference, IIRC, is that of a golf ball compared to a baseball, in which case you're essentially looking at an RCS 5-6x bigger than the F-22, or equal to the Nighthawk, which Serbians were able to detect on radar and shoot down in the 90's. Fast forward 30 years, and let's hope that Russian and Chinese radar don't mitigate the F-35's stealth advantages, because it's operating at simple and distinct disadvantages if it's detected too early.

The Serbs were able to shoot down an F-117 for two reasons…….First and foremost, the USAF operationally grew complacent using only a handful of transit corridors for their outbound and return F-117 strike packages…….Second, the Serbs shot down the F-117 with a Soviet designed SAM with a IR seeker head, not a radar guided one……IR reduction techniques have been improved since the 1970s.

The F-22 price is inflation adjusted already. Years ago while under production I recall them being listed at $128M/copy. Now the final batch is saying about $150M. Regardless, it's only been 5 years since they completed production, and inflation has been negligible ever since.

It’s not adjusted for the several years out when the F-35 enters full rate production………

At any rate, the estimate of a $98M/unit F-35A seems to be pure fantasy, as the 2014 production models are costing $188Meach according to the Pentagon's chief financial officer, and strangely the cost has been INCREASING over the last two years. Lockheed Martin says all sorts of things like the unit costs are going down, or that by 2018 they'll be down to the affordable <$100M price, but the facts speak otherwise. It's unlikely that costs are going to drop 52% in the next 3-4 years, especially when we're seeing the opposite happen.

What was the unit price for LRIP block 8 aircraft........We'll be able to compare once LRIP 9 is signed in the weeks ahead.

and that's why, despite our disagreements on the F-35's abilities and costs, we end up at pretty much the same place. There's no point in buying older aircraft that'll be obsolete 10-15 years from now, and the only craft in NATO's arsenal that is/was equipped to handle emerging Russian/Chinese threats has no production program anymore, and would be nearly impossible to restart.

The F-22 tooling has been retained by Lockheed and the USAF………If Romney had of won in 2012, continued production of the F-22, under the guise of FB-22 (likely replacement/complement to the Strike Eagles) would likely have come to fruition.

The Soviets always knew they were outclassed in the air. That's why they placed significantly more emphasis on their ground forces and on mobile SAMs. While the Soviets may have had overall numerical superiority in planes (I've never read that but can believe it if you're counting MiG-21's and MiG 23's), NATO had an enormous numerical advantage in modern air power. There was never, and was never going to be, enough MiG 29's or Su-27s to compete with even just their American counterparts, let alone the European designed planes that were out there.

That’s because the Cold War ended before full production ramped up……The Soviet and Warsaw pact forces did outnumber NATO substantially in Europe, and remember, though the bulk of their forces were made up of Mig-21/23s/25s/27s and Su-7s/17s/24s, until the mid 80s, the bulk of the NATO forces were made up of first generation F-16s(no medium range missile), Phantoms and Mirages……

[On Guard for Thee]

other than a flyover photo-op just what can those current F-35Bs actually do? They should just photoshop the planes in and call it a day!

Well it might be quite impressive to show the fly by engine fire followed by a (fingers crossed) demo of the ejection seat. Of course it would all have to be done in good weather in daytime so the pilot can see where he's going. But that's all fine, we wouldn't want to stress the airframe too much.