bush_cheney2004 Posted July 11, 2014 Report Posted July 11, 2014 ....Right, so again, as far as you're concerned my criticism of the F-35 program is insulting silly because I'm Canadian. Good to know what sort of logic we're dealing with. Yes, because the merits and missteps of the JSF program are not best evaluated based on Canadian requirements, limited budget, and inexperience in such things. It's a damn shame that the UK/US didn't blow their billions developing the perfect Goldilocks "jet" for Canada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonbox Posted July 11, 2014 Author Report Posted July 11, 2014 Yes, because the merits and missteps of the JSF program are not best evaluated based on Canadian requirements, limited budget, and inexperience in such things. My criticism of the F-35 isn't even based on Canadian requirements. It's an outsider's view on a program that, according to Bogden, "ran off the rails" and went way over budget. Despite what you might think, you don't need to be American do know that projects like the B2 Spirit were an enormous waste of resources. It's funny that you think that, and your continued mockery of Canadian defence procurement is noted, but it doesn't change the fact that those planes are going to end up costing American taxpayers nearly $170M/unit when they were originally intended as the cheaper workhorse cousin to the F-22. I await your "lolCanada" reply. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 11, 2014 Report Posted July 11, 2014 Despite what you might think, you don't need to be American do know that projects like the B2 Spirit were an enormous waste of resources. It's funny that you think that, and your continued mockery of Canadian defence procurement is noted,...... Canada mocks it's own defense procurement fiascos far better than I ever could, not to mention the real impact on readiness and mission risks to Canadian Forces...they get to pay with their lives and limbs (e.g. VW Type 183 Iltis) . U.S. development and procurements do not have to be run on the cheap as in Canada...we can "waste" billions on aircraft that may never even fly. So go ahead....shop around....kick the tires....maybe consider used or leasing....do anything but actually spend some serious money on R&D. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonbox Posted July 11, 2014 Author Report Posted July 11, 2014 Canada mocks it's own defense procurement fiascos far better than I ever could, not to mention the real impact on readiness and mission risks to Canadian Forces...they get to pay with their lives and limbs (e.g. VW Type 183 Iltis) .... So go ahead....shop around....kick the tires....maybe consider used or leasing....do anything but actually spend some serious money on R&D. Canada spending serious money on military R&D would be a waste of resources. You know it, I know it, the Canadian and American governments know it. The US makes a point to ensure all of its equipment is home-grown. Even if Canada DID design and build a superior platform for a particular niche, it's not like the Americans would import it. They'd still insist on buying their own, which leaves Canada at a disadvantage from the start. The fact that the US military operates at a scale greater than 30:1 compared to Canada, combined with the afore-mentioned homegrown protectionism, means there's little reason for Canada to start investing heavily into their own programs. U.S. development and procurements do not have to be run on the cheap as in Canada...we can "waste" billions on aircraft that may never even fly. Yeah, I know, you guys are so bad ass. Just because you CAN afford to waste billions doesn't mean you should, but I forget my place. I'm Canadian, so whatever comment I have to make on the subject can be summarily dismissed with another of your "lolCanada" witticisms, regardless of whether or not millions of Americans are saying the same thing. Interesting logic coming from an American trolling a Canadian political forum! Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
On Guard for Thee Posted July 11, 2014 Report Posted July 11, 2014 I hear Chris Bogdan is attending the RIAT airshow. Must be a little embarrasing to not have a plane to show off. Damned engine fires! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 11, 2014 Report Posted July 11, 2014 Canada spending serious money on military R&D would be a waste of resources. You know it, I know it, the Canadian and American governments know it. The US makes a point to ensure all of its equipment is home-grown. Even if Canada DID design and build a superior platform for a particular niche, it's not like the Americans would import it. All of the U.S. "equipment" is not home-grown...some of it is foreign development and/or production. Other nations have made the investment to compete and win such contracts or licensing to manufacture in the U.S. Canada still has nightmares over the CF-105, a "home-grown" interceptor that it would never buy, and nobody else would either. The Americans and some other nations don't have such flashbacks. They'd still insist on buying their own, which leaves Canada at a disadvantage from the start. The fact that the US military operates at a scale greater than 30:1 compared to Canada, combined with the afore-mentioned homegrown protectionism, means there's little reason for Canada to start investing heavily into their own programs. Agreed...it leaves a lot more time to complain and bitch about "special" Canadian requirements that can't be met by foreign designs and all the money they wasted doing it. Canada is so unique ! Just because you CAN afford to waste billions doesn't mean you should, but I forget my place. I'm Canadian, so whatever comment I have to make on the subject can be summarily dismissed with another of your "lolCanada" witticisms, regardless of whether or not millions of Americans are saying the same thing. Interesting logic coming from an American trolling a Canadian political forum! That's the funniest part.....you and others critics are just parroting reports and data from U.S. sources anyway. It's gotten so silly that even Canada's DND quotes American flight hour costs for F/A-18 assets for comparison purposes. Is there any part of this topic that is genuine Canadian content ? As for me "trolling" in Canada...even this forum is hosted in the United States. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 So you're saying even American's are beginning to understand how ineffective and costly this program has become. "That's the funniest part.....you and others critics are just parroting reports and data from U.S. sources anyway." Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 The people with firsthand knowledge of the program, as far as I know, are limited to Lockheed Martin and Pentagon officials, with perhaps a smattering of British military aviators, none of whom are permitted to speak freely. Exactly, hence why those that critique the technical merits of the aircraft are talking out of their ass. It was also essentially an experimental design. Regardless, you were making a comparison between stealth and non-stealth aircraft casualties, and rather than compare the F-117 to Vietnam era aircraft like you were, I gave it a contemporary comparison. F-15s, Falcons and Hornets didn't fly the same mission profile as the F-117 during the first Persian Excursion for a reason........ That's categorically false. The only way that would be true would be if you had infinite money and infinite resources, which nobody does. Cost efficiencies have to be taken into account, and compromises have to be made based on that. Putting more money into a specific platform usually increases overall performance, but eventually there are diminishing returns. A $20M upgraded Abrams tank would likely prove more effective in combat than the standard design, but would it prove twice as effective? Unlikely. Do you know what the Americans spend on defense? The Abrams is a fantastic tank. In the Gulf War the armor on it proved so strong that when one got stuck in the mud and had to be abandoned, it turned out that even another Abrams couldn't penetrate its REAR armor, and it thus it couldn't actually be abandoned. The Leopard 2, however, is just as good of a tank and less expensive as well, albeit designed for for a somewhat different purpose. The Leo II has never been used in it’s intended role, as such, it can’t be deemed as just as good as an Abrams……The Abrams has been in said intended role, and one has yet to be destroyed by another tank. Despite the fact that I started this thread, I mostly agree with this. The F-35 is the best and only realistic option for Canada moving forward. As an overall program, however, it was poorly managed and for the amount of money they spent, the Americans could have likely done better. Obviously, this matters relatively little to Canada. How would they have done better for less or equal money? Are you suggesting the X-32 should have been selected? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 Despite what you might think, you don't need to be American do know that projects like the B2 Spirit were an enormous waste of resources. How was the B-2 program a waste? If you take off your accountant hat, in terms of capability, the B-2 Spirit gives the Americans the ability to penetrate any nation on this planets airspace and deliver both smart conventional weapons and nukes….The ability to surgically decapitate a nation state is nothing to scoff at. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 Any bets on whether or not they get an F 35 cleared to head to Farnborough to try and save a little PR face? I'd hate to be the poor drivers who are ordered to head across the pond wondering when that "single" engine is going to burn again. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 12, 2014 Report Posted July 12, 2014 Canada mocks it's own defense procurement fiascos far better than I ever could, not to mention the real impact on readiness and mission risks to Canadian Forces...they get to pay with their lives and limbs (e.g. VW Type 183 Iltis) . U.S. development and procurements do not have to be run on the cheap as in Canada...we can "waste" billions on aircraft that may never even fly. Exactly, Canada’s defence procurement has been largely broken, outside of ~1948-1963 and several urgent sole sourced contracts under this current Government (C-17, C-130J, Chinooks new and used, MRAPs, 155mm guns and the Leo II), since we’ve had an armed forces…….Even during the Boer War, our contribution (Lord Strathcona‘s Horse) was stood up by a Baron with his own money….. Quote
Moonbox Posted July 12, 2014 Author Report Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) Exactly, hence why those that critique the technical merits of the aircraft are talking out of their ass. You're really missing the point here. Neither Lockheed nor Pentagon spokespeople are likely to be giving us an honest account of the aircraft's capabilities, as this has become an extremely public and politically sensitive program. We see what they want us to see, and nothing more or less. As for the people critiquing the plane from outside the program, some of them are indeed talking out of their asses. Others, however, are speaking based on their considerable expertise, and while their information is limited, they can still make educated guesses, much like western experts have done with the PAK FA. F-15s, Falcons and Hornets didn't fly the same mission profile as the F-117 during the first Persian Excursion for a reason........ You asked for a comparison of stealth vs non-stealth casualties. I gave you one. The F-117 may have undertaken more dangerous deep strike missions than the F-18's, but they also ran FAR less of them over a far shorter period of time. Do you know what the Americans spend on defense. Yes. I know they spend about as much as the next 9-10 closest countries combined. That doesn't mean they have infinite money, nor does it mean that Americans are going to accept tax increases to give the Pentagon carte blanche on their spending programs. The Leo II has never been used in it’s intended role, as such, it can’t be deemed as just as good as an Abrams……The Abrams has been in said intended role, and one has yet to be destroyed by another tank. Sure it can. The fact that it's seen more limited deployment, and thus combat experience, doesn't make it any less effective. No Leopard 2's have been lost in combat in Afghanistan (some damaged by IED's like the Abrams), so it's been proven equally as safe so far. For another comparison, look at the Challenger 2, which saw deployment and tank v tank warfare in Iraq. It was just as effective there as the Abrams. By many accounts, it's an even better tank. Interestingly, with only ~400 built, it still comes out at around the same cost as the Abrams, with 9000 built. How would they have done better for less or equal money? Are you suggesting the X-32 should have been selected? Something happened from the original conception of the program, through design and development and now to production. Either the program as it was laid out was unrealistic from the start, or between LM and the Pentagon it was mismanaged. Are you suggesting that a program now ~70% over budget didn't suffer from at least some combination of the above? Edited July 12, 2014 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 You're really missing the point here. Neither Lockheed nor Pentagon spokespeople are likely to be giving us an honest account of the aircraft's capabilities, as this has become an extremely public and politically sensitive program. We see what they want us to see, and nothing more or less. As for the people critiquing the plane from outside the program, some of them are indeed talking out of their asses. Others, however, are speaking based on their considerable expertise, and while their information is limited, they can still make educated guesses, much like western experts have done with the PAK FA. So you're suggesting both are lying, even though nobody outside of them, could actually prove it...... You asked for a comparison of stealth vs non-stealth casualties. I gave you one. The F-117 may have undertaken more dangerous deep strike missions than the F-18's, but they also ran FAR less of them over a far shorter period of time. What aircraft have been at the forefront of allied air campaigns since the First Gulf War? Yes. I know they spend about as much as the next 9-10 closest countries combined. That doesn't mean they have infinite money, nor does it mean that Americans are going to accept tax increases to give the Pentagon carte blanche on their spending programs. Nobody said that they do……..but the Americans certainly don’t do war on the cheap when contrasted with most……..For them, unlike the peanut gallery in Canada, the selection of legacy types going forward into the decades ahead isn’t a consideration. Sure it can. The fact that it's seen more limited deployment, and thus combat experience, doesn't make it any less effective. No Leopard 2's have been lost in combat in Afghanistan (some damaged by IED's like the Abrams), so it's been proven equally as safe so far. For another comparison, look at the Challenger 2, which saw deployment and tank v tank warfare in Iraq. It was just as effective there as the Abrams. By many accounts, it's an even better tank. Interestingly, with only ~400 built, it still comes out at around the same cost as the Abrams, with 9000 built. No, it can't.......as I've said, the Leopard II hasn't been used in high intensity modern manoeuvre, armoured warfare………Grapeholing Afghani mud-huts wasn’t a true test…….. Also, the Challenger II did not participate in Operation Granby…In 2003, the only tank engagement I know of involved another Challenger II…….There is a reason both incarnations have seen little to no export success, namely electrical issues and excessive ware on it’s rifled barrel……also, due to the nature of it’s rifled design, it’s been severely limited and costly in the development of ammunition…….The British haven’t made a quality tank since the Centurion. Something happened from the original conception of the program, through design and development and now to production. Either the program as it was laid out was unrealistic from the start, or between LM and the Pentagon it was mismanaged. Are you suggesting that a program now ~70% over budget didn't suffer from at least some combination of the above? The very nature of defense related “inflation” is common among all programs, for all nations, and is squared by the level of political interference involved in a given program….. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 (edited) What aircraft have been at the forefront of allied air campaigns since the First Gulf War? Good question, because during the First Gulf War, it was the sub-sonic Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk that successfully attacked 35-40% of defended strategic targets with 80% success rate while only being about 3% of all aircraft in theatre (15 % of all attack aircraft). A US Navy F/A-18 was lost (with LCDR Scott Speicher) on the first night to a MiG-25....not a single F-117 was lost during the entire war. Edited July 13, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 Good question, because during the First Gulf War, it was the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk that successfully attacked 35-40% of defended strategic targets with 80% success rate while only being about 3% of all aircraft in theatre (15 % of all attack aircraft). Does that total also include Tomahawks or just aircraft? Fore both were the only ones capable of operating over Baghdad in '91.......likewise, with the B-2, during the second go around. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 According to the latest from the US Navy, they still don't even know why the engine self destructed and then burned. I guess Farnborough is gonig to be a bit boring as was RIAT. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 (edited) Only includes manned aircraft.....the Tomahawks had a lower success rate during the Gulf War (~ 50%), even after downward F-117 revisions after the war. Edited July 13, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 Only includes manned aircraft.....the Tomahawks had a lower success rate during the Gulf War (~ 50%), even after downward revisions after the war. That is a quite the impressive record then……..In effect, the F-117 cut off the head of Powell’s proverbial chicken. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 That is a quite the impressive record then……..In effect, the F-117 cut off the head of Powell’s proverbial chicken. Right...all the way to downtown Baghdad. The main point is that the now retired F-117 Nighthawk outperformed other platforms in the strike mission role using stealth, exactly what it was designed to do. The F-35 is expected to be far more capable than the F-117. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 Right...all the way to downtown Baghdad. The main point is that the now retired F-117 Nighthawk outperformed other platforms in the strike mission role using stealth, exactly what it was designed to do. The F-35 is expected to be far more capable than the F-117. Exactly…….The F-117 was an effective bastard fleet that filled an early niche role…….the F-35 will normalize said role. Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 and I've been told we need to take cover? Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Derek 2.0 Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 and I've been told we need to take cover? Not sure what you mean? I thought you left.....glad to see you've returned. Quote
Rue Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 ..meanwhile the F35B and C's are still grounded....lol.....no problem right Derek? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 ..meanwhile the F35B and C's are still grounded....lol.....no problem right Derek? Nothing systemic "We don't see at this point what I call a systemic problem," said Frank Kendall, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 13, 2014 Report Posted July 13, 2014 Not having seen it doesn't mean it's not there, which is of course why they are still grounded. A third stage wheel coming apart hard enough to blow a hole through the airframe is serious I'd say. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.