Derek 2.0 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 The reality is the F 35 is a decade behind sked, billions over budget, and the people who know it (outside of Lockmart drones) call it a bomb truck. The thing to be sorry about is if Harper proceeds to throw more good money after bad on this project. People that actually know, know that it will be no more, or no less a "bomb truck" then the aircraft it will replace....... You would rather throw money after the Super Hornet and operate until the ~2050s, decades past the retirement date set by the USN and RAAF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 We know how it is...some guys just can't let go of their old bomb trucks. Wife says buy a new one ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 Yeah so good that the F-18 is the kit being used to bomb ISIS. Why no F-22 or F-35s? Hmmm? The F-22 isn't carrier based, and the F-35C's IOC isn't until ~2018. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 We know how it is...some guys just can't let go of their old bomb trucks. Wife says buy a new one ! Exactly........and some can't gain an actual understanding by gleaming knowledge from Wikipedia, the MSM and blogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 The F-22 isn't carrier based, and the F-35C's IOC isn't until ~2018. I guess sometimes one still needs to explain the obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 I guess sometimes one still needs to explain the obvious. So it seems.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 So it seems.... Now boys, don't pout because they call your paper toy a "bomb truck" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 Now boys, don't pout because they call your paper toy a "bomb truck" Why would we/I? The F-35 will be a far better "bomb truck" then our current Hornet fleet, or your Super Hornet, for decades to come......... You appear hesitant on explaining why you feel the Super Hornet would be a suitable "bomb truck" for the RCAF through to the middle of this century, decades past it's retirement by it's current operators...........why is that? Why do you want the RCAF to operate a substandard and obsolete (post ~2030) "bomb truck"? Do you place no value on the lives of the men and women in the RCAF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 Why would we/I? The F-35 will be a far better "bomb truck" then our current Hornet fleet, or your Super Hornet, for decades to come......... You appear hesitant on explaining why you feel the Super Hornet would be a suitable "bomb truck" for the RCAF through to the middle of this century, decades past it's retirement by it's current operators...........why is that? Why do you want the RCAF to operate a substandard and obsolete (post ~2030) "bomb truck"? Do you place no value on the lives of the men and women in the RCAF? Well just look at how many billions over budget and nearing a decade behind schedule and still so many problems. It lacks stealth, it lacks maneuverability, it lacks range, it has ongoing software glitches, and even after an engine redesign 6 years ago to get rid of "thermal creep" and cracked turbine blades, it still has those same problems. we've all seen the pics of the one that blew up a few weeks ago in Florida and caused the latest grounding of the fleet which caused it to miss it's big marketing exposes at 2 UK airshows. And of course currently you can only run the engine 3 hours before internal inspections must be carried out. It runs hot and it's noisy. And if you're gonna put a questionable engine in an aircraft with the lives of those military people you speak of, you should at least put two of them to enable them to get home and not have to eject and have to walk home while 160 (current) million dollar airframe plunges into the arctic tundra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 Well just look at how many billions over budget and nearing a decade behind schedule and still so many problems. It lacks stealth, it lacks maneuverability, it lacks range, it has ongoing software glitches, and even after an engine redesign 6 years ago to get rid of "thermal creep" and cracked turbine blades, it still has those same problems. we've all seen the pics of the one that blew up a few weeks ago in Florida and caused the latest grounding of the fleet which caused it to miss it's big marketing exposes at 2 UK airshows. And of course currently you can only run the engine 3 hours before internal inspections must be carried out. It runs hot and it's noisy. And if you're gonna put a questionable engine in an aircraft with the lives of those military people you speak of, you should at least put two of them to enable them to get home and not have to eject and have to walk home while 160 (current) million dollar airframe plunges into the arctic tundra. So despite these concerns you hold, the JSF partners are sticking with the F-35.............Why do you suppose they don't simply purchase Super Hornets like you suggest? Why do you want Canada to operate Super Hornets out to the 2050s, decades past the retirement of the aircraft by the USN and RAAF? Why don't you value the lives of the men and women of the RCAF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 So despite these concerns you hold, the JSF partners are sticking with the F-35.............Why do you suppose they don't simply purchase Super Hornets like you suggest? Why do you want Canada to operate Super Hornets out to the 2050s, decades past the retirement of the aircraft by the USN and RAAF? Why don't you value the lives of the men and women of the RCAF? They are sticking with the F 35 because of politics. So much money spread so far and wide has become the driving force that won't let this project die regardless of the outcome of the quality of the actual product. They have no choice but to build it, it just won't be the "do everything" it was originally touted to be. It will have to be budied up with some other type while it does it's "bomb truck" duties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) It's funny how ones claims can be proven false time and again and yet they persist with them. Edited August 8, 2014 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 They are sticking with the F 35 because of politics. So much money spread so far and wide has become the driving force that won't let this project die regardless of the outcome of the quality of the actual product. They have no choice but to build it, it just won't be the "do everything" it was originally touted to be. It will have to be budied up with some other type while it does it's "bomb truck" duties. The F-35 program has spanned both left and right leaning governments of the partner nations since it's inception..........As to your claim of having to be "budied up", the majority of the user of the F-35 will operate it as their sole type in their inventory. So why would you put the men and women of the RCAF into the Super Hornet, and have them operate it long past it's retirement by it's current users...........Why do you refuse to answer this very simple question? Why do you desire the RCAF to operate the Super Hornet, designed in the 1990s, based off a design from the 1970s, out to the 2050s........At that point, the base design of the Hornet will be ~75 years old........that would be akin to operating aircraft today that had their roots in World War two era technology.........Why do you want the RCAF to be at a distinct disadvantage against potential enemies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 It's funny hoe ones claims can be proven false time and again and yet they persist with them. But not ha-ha funny........more like this milk smells funny Why would anyone want to operate the Super Hornet far past it's best before date? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 It's funny how ones claims can be proven false time and again and yet they persist with them. Not my claims, but I'll stop persisting if and when they get proven wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 The range issue has been proven wrong time and again, as had the bomb truck label (in comparison to like fighters). We could start there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 We could start there start there? How about instead... you start with something other than your paper aspirations? Just what actual testing/performance metrics are you using/referring to in order to support your incessant chirping? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 F-35B IOC with the Marines is next year.......the F-35A the following year....and the F-35C with the Navy several years after that..........You're on the wrong side of reality..........sorry what reality are you speaking of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Take a look at the actual developments in technology involved in the Super Hornet "vis a vis" the F-35 and ask yourself why the Super Hornet line is closing and the two sole operators will start retiring their fleets at the end of the next decade........and you want the RCAF to operate a "bomb truck" like the Super Hornet into the 2040-50s timeframe? Why is that? Why does no other military share your ignorant view that the Super Hornet "bomb truck" will be viable towards the middle of this century? you keep chirping about the "Super Hornet"... somehow you choose not to speak to the "Advanced Super Hornet" - go figure. There is little likelihood that Boeing shutters the line given the existing support it has/receives within the U.S. Congress... and the USN - support that, if nothing else, is predicated upon concern over the failure of the F-35... concern over placing all reliance on a single plane/single manufacturer, F-35/LockMart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 what reality are you speaking of? You disagree with the notion that the services that will operate the aircraft, will also declare when they are considered operational... Who do you feel would make a better assessment of the planes operational abilities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Both tier membership commitments and recent contracts have already been referenced and discussed………As I’ve said before, I feel no obligation to revisit several hundred pages of posts to retrieve citations from conversations that we’ve already had. "commitments" mean diddly... we've seen those "commitment" numbers drastically cut by several partner nations. But do tell... what contracts, what actual contracts are you speaking of? Contracts... with actual money paid/exchanged? Contracts... with actual "commitment" numbers put into a schedule/delivery framework? Do tell! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 You disagree with the notion that the services that will operate the aircraft, will also declare when they are considered operational... Who do you feel would make a better assessment of the planes operational abilities? like I pointed out... the head of the actual JSFail program speaking to his own uncertainty as to why the U.S. Marines would presume to declare IOC before actual Operational Testing. Perhaps you could speak to that reality, hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 you keep chirping about the "Super Hornet"... somehow you choose not to speak to the "Advanced Super Hornet" - go figure. There is little likelihood that Boeing shutters the line given the existing support it has/receives within the U.S. Congress... and the USN - support that, if nothing else, is predicated upon concern over the failure of the F-35... concern over placing all reliance on a single plane/single manufacturer, F-35/LockMart. Has the claimed support translated into funding for a Super-Duper-Hornet? Also, the what exactly is supported? You suggest additional aircraft, or is it actually retrofitting of current aircraft to keep them relevant until they retire in the 2030s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 like I pointed out... the head of the actual JSFail program speaking to his own uncertainty as to why the U.S. Marines would presume to declare IOC before actual Operational Testing. Perhaps you could speak to that reality, hey? Reread the quoted passage........his views seems rather clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 "commitments" mean diddly... we've seen those "commitment" numbers drastically cut by several partner nations. But do tell... what contracts, what actual contracts are you speaking of? Contracts... with actual money paid/exchanged? Contracts... with actual "commitment" numbers put into a schedule/delivery framework? Do tell! Commitments to purchase the aircraft once it has entered FRP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.