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

[Derek 2.0]

Here we go again...Canada wants to butt in line and take USAF F-35A production slots. Did the same thing for CC-177 Globemaster IIIs.

How rude !

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-purchase-by-canada-suggested-in-pentagon-briefing-1.2827672

I'm shocked!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the peanut gallery was just getting fired up on extending the life of our current Hornets......We should know by the middle of the month more.........

Edited November 7, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Moonbox]

The initial age of a given aircraft type.........

Why not just use the usual 4th gen vs 5th gen commentary?

[On Guard for Thee]

Here we go again...Canada wants to butt in line and take USAF F-35A production slots. Did the same thing for CC-177 Globemaster IIIs.

How rude !

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-purchase-by-canada-suggested-in-pentagon-briefing-1.2827672

Are you still trying to flog that bomb truck piece of crap? Any engines blow up lately?

[Derek 2.0]

Why not just use the usual 4th gen vs 5th gen commentary?

6 of one......

[Smallc]

Why not just use the usual 4th gen vs 5th gen commentary?

I wasn't the one who started the comparison, I merely finished it.

[Big Guy]

Is Chinese J-31 the same, worse or better than f-35?

[Derek 2.0]

Is Chinese J-31 the same, worse or better than f-35?

Much of what is known of it in the West is based on speculation or Chinese claims, but with that said, the Chinese are suppose to be using a domestic copy of a Russian engine that traces it origins back to the early 1970s (and was used in the Mig 29) and is equivalent roughly to the engines the Americans used in the F-4 Phantom in the 1960s..........The Chinese have yet to manage building their own military turbofans.

To answer your question though, and without knowing what the Chinese are buying/pirating in terms of radars and avionics, the J-31 will likely share or improve on performance with that of current 4th generation aircraft (ie Hornets, F-16s, Mig 29s, Su-27s, Mirage 2000s etc) and will be a great improvement over the majority of the aircraft currently used by the Chinese air force.........better then the F-35, or F-22, or even the Russian T-50....not a chance.

[PIK]

I see one has landed on a air craft carrier. But some reason I can not put the link up.

[Derek 2.0]

I see one has landed on a air craft carrier. But some reason I can not put the link up.

Actually two aircraft have conducted over 100 cats (take-offs) and traps (landing), including night ops...........so far, the F-35C's are proving to be very capable in trapping the three wire (Ideal carrier landing) and have only committed several bolters (Missing the arresting wire)........To add, the F-35C's shorter length (when compared to the Super Hornet) makes deck/hanger parking and moving easier...........up next, armed flight tests......

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually two aircraft have conducted over 100 cats (take-offs) and traps (landing), including night ops.......

Lots of touch and goes too ! Highway to the danger zone.....

[Derek 2.0]

Lots of touch and goes too ! Highway to the danger zone.....

Yes indeed.......The F-35C, with the latest testing, is now slightly ahead of schedule, with the overall program expected to meet its year end targets despite this Summer's delays....Also, though slightly superficial in the scheme of things, on take-off (thanks to the F135) there was a drastic reduction in ambient temperature from the jet blast, coupled with no net increase in measured noise when both measures are contrasted with legacy types.........This reminds me of the "experts" that predicted the F-35B would warp the deck plates on the LHDs because of increased heat, yet it never did.....Oh well

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes indeed.......The F-35C, with the latest testing, is now slightly ahead of schedule, with the overall program expected to meet its year end targets despite this Summer's delays....Also, though slightly superficial in the scheme of things, on take-off (thanks to the F135) there was a drastic reduction in ambient temperature from the jet blast, coupled with no net increase in measured noise when both measures are contrasted with legacy types.........This reminds me of the "experts" that predicted the F-35B would warp the deck plates on the LHDs because of increased heat, yet it never did.....Oh well

Now that's got to be the biggest stretch I've heard of late...the f 35 bomb truck ahead of schedule. Yuk yuk yuk. What's next, it's under budget too?

[Derek 2.0]

Now that's got to be the biggest stretch I've heard of late...the f 35 bomb truck ahead of schedule. Yuk yuk yuk. What's next, it's under budget too?

No aircraft in recent NAVAIR history has completed its initial CARQUALS in just over a week:

The U.S. Navy version of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet met 100 percent of the threshold requirements set for a first round of sea-based testing aboard the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier, Navy and Pentagon officials said on Monday.

The carrier variant of the new warplane completed 124 catapult takeoffs, 124 arrested landings, and 222 planned "touch and go" landings off the coast of San Diego, California, according to data compiled by Navy testers.

Two landings were "bolters," when a jet fails to catch the heavy duty cables used for arrested landings, forcing it to circle around again. But those events were planned for testing purposes, officials said.

Altogether, two F-35 jets used for the tests completed 32 flights and achieved 458 unique test points, according to the Navy data.

10 days to complete what took months for the Hornets, Tomcats, Corsairs (I & II), Phantoms, Skyhawks and Banshees.........I doubt, even during the war, the Hellcats, Avengers and Bearcats did much better.

[On Guard for Thee]

No aircraft in recent NAVAIR history has completed its initial CARQUALS in just over a week:

10 days to complete what took months for the Hornets, Tomcats, Corsairs (I & II), Phantoms, Skyhawks and Banshees.........I doubt, even during the war, the Hellcats, Avengers and Bearcats did much better.

Of course new airplanes like most other mechanical devices have had teething pains. the F 35 unfortunately is just way out in left field with it's continuing problems. I'm sure they will produce it because they are already so far down the road (money pit) with this turkey and they have already acknowledged it will have to be "babysat" because of it's shortcomings. Oh well. open your wallet.

[Derek 2.0]

Of course new airplanes like most other mechanical devices have had teething pains. the F 35 unfortunately is just way out in left field with it's continuing problems. I'm sure they will produce it because they are already so far down the road (money pit) with this turkey and they have already acknowledged it will have to be "babysat" because of it's shortcomings. Oh well. open your wallet.

You speak of continuing problems, the same day the F-35C completed its initial carrier trials in 10 days......the Hornets and Super Hornets required months.......And what acknowledgment are you suggesting indicates the F-35C will require a "sitter"?

[On Guard for Thee]

You speak of continuing problems, the same day the F-35C completed its initial carrier trials in 10 days......the Hornets and Super Hornets required months.......And what acknowledgment are you suggesting indicates the F-35C will require a "sitter"?

Yeah except it burnt a hole in the carrier deck. It's lack of acceleration and maneuverability require it to be accompanied by something like an F22 so it doesn't get it's ass shot off. And of course the Chinese J31 already has it's "address" . So much for stealth. So what's left with this overpriced jalopy that gives us any advantage?

[Derek 2.0]

Yeah except it burnt a hole in the carrier deck. It's lack of acceleration and maneuverability require it to be accompanied by something like an F22 so it doesn't get it's ass shot off.

The F-35C "burnt a hole in the carrier deck"?

Lack of acceleration and maneuverability? Care to explain that one?

And of course the Chinese J31 already has it's "address" .

Says who?

So much for stealth.

You've suggested prior that the F-35's "stealth was broken", when asked to explain, you suggested the Chinese will one day bypass natural physics and develop a radar that can defeat it, since (your words) the Chinese were able to "crack the F-35's stealth code" (Whatever that is)........My question, are you going back down this rabbit hole?

[segnosaur]

Yeah except it burnt a hole in the carrier deck.

Please explain.

It's lack of acceleration and maneuverability require it to be accompanied by something like an F22 so it doesn't get it's ass shot off.

Errr... not really.

You see, the problem is that many of the people who are judging the F35 are idiots who don't understand even the basics of aviation.

The F35 is capable of flying missions using internal fuel and weapons stored in the internal weapons bay. Doing so will reduce drag (giving it a decent range, speed, and maneuverability.) Now, compare that to (for example) an F16 or F18... When people suggest that the F35 is slower/less maneuverable than those planes, they are often comparing the planes in an unloaded configuration... no weapons, no external communications pods, no external drop tanks, etc. The problem is, for the F16/F18 to be useful they will have to carry weapons, possibly external fuel tanks, communications pods, etc. All this increases drag, slowing the planes down.

An F35 in a "mission ready" state (i.e. carrying missles/bombs, with enough fuel to reach its target) can often do so without putting anything external on the plane. This means it can be faster, more maneuverable, and have a longer range than an F16/F18 with weapons, targeting pods, and external drop tanks contributing to drag.

See: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/why-the-f-35-is-essential-for-canada-part-1

Oh, and from that article:

One test pilot, Billie Flynn, mentioned that if one “were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35′s, It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there.”

And of course the Chinese J31 already has it's "address".

Is this the same Chinese J31 that's had one prototype built, and isn't anywhere close to being in production?

Is this the same Chinese J31 that, during a display, showed: "poor aerodynamic efficiency. The aircraft bleeds too much energy and the pilot had hard time keeping the nose up during turns and other maneuvers. He also had to engage afterburners far too often to maintain a proper energy utilization curve...An aircraft configured for a real mission and fitted with weapons would be even heavier and would have an even more dismal flight performance"

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2014-11-17/chinas-fc-31-fighter-disappoints-first-display

So much for stealth.

Here's a quiestion... if you think stealth is useless, then why exactly are the makers of military jets actually taking action to reduce the radar cross section of their planes?

Stealth may not be the only quality needed by a military plane, and the F35s stealth characteristics may not be perfect... however, they are better than planes like the F18.

So what's left with this overpriced jalopy that gives us any advantage?

You mean other than the use of internal weapons bays and electronics, which can give improved range/maneuverability during actual missions (as compared to, lets say, the F18, which can only fly missions with weapons hanging off, increasing drag and reducing speed.)

You mean other than the possibility of purchasing a plane that is more viable long term (and which will be built for decades to come) than buying something like the Super Hornet, which is likely ending produciton within the next few years, making spare parts harder (and more expensive) to come by? (Which might make the overall costs of the F35 cheaper than the F18.)

You mean other than having an air frame in common with several NATO partrners as well as other military allies, allowing any future development costs to be split among many countries?

You mean other than buying a plane which, due to it still being in the early production stage, has a greater chance at local industrial spinnoffs?

You mean other than having perhaps the most sophisticated combination of sensors and communications currently available?

[Derek 2.0]

Errr... not really.

You see, the problem is that many of the people who are judging the F35 are idiots who don't understand even the basics of aviation.

The F35 is capable of flying missions using internal fuel and weapons stored in the internal weapons bay. Doing so will reduce drag (giving it a decent range, speed, and maneuverability.) Now, compare that to (for example) an F16 or F18... When people suggest that the F35 is slower/less maneuverable than those planes, they are often comparing the planes in an unloaded configuration... no weapons, no external communications pods, no external drop tanks, etc. The problem is, for the F16/F18 to be useful they will have to carry weapons, possibly external fuel tanks, communications pods, etc. All this increases drag, slowing the planes down.

An F35 in a "mission ready" state (i.e. carrying missles/bombs, with enough fuel to reach its target) can often do so without putting anything external on the plane. This means it can be faster, more maneuverable, and have a longer range than an F16/F18 with weapons, targeting pods, and external drop tanks contributing to drag.

Exactly, current aircraft (ie Hornet, Falcon, Mirage, Mig-29 etc) will carry on a typical strike mission several AAM (like a sidewinder), two drop tanks, a targeting pod and several 2000 lbs smart bombs, all externally. With such stores carried externally both the drag and in turn fuel efficiency coefficient goes to the left, so much so performance figures are drastically reduced.......a typical cruising speed for such legacy aircraft is ~500 knots, the F-35 with the same load carried internally will be mach 1.1.

Is this the same Chinese J31 that, during a display, showed: "poor aerodynamic efficiency. The aircraft bleeds too much energy and the pilot had hard time keeping the nose up during turns and other maneuvers. He also had to engage afterburners far too often to maintain a proper energy utilization curve...An aircraft configured for a real mission and fitted with weapons would be even heavier and would have an even more dismal flight performance"

I never heard that, but I'm not surprised, it is after all using a warmed over Mig-29 engines, on a much larger aircraft......

[Smallc]

It's also worst mentioning that none of the aircraft we are considering, saver perhaps the Typhoon, are designed as air superiority fighters. They are all designed as 'bomb trucks' just as is the F-35.

[segnosaur]

It's also worst mentioning that none of the aircraft we are considering, saver perhaps the Typhoon, are designed as air superiority fighters. They are all designed as 'bomb trucks' just as is the F-35.

I don't really think any combat plane is a 'pure' fighter or a 'pure' bomber (or bomb truck, as you put it.)

The F22 (and probably the Typhoon) are stronger in the roll of air to air combat, but both are certainly capable of attacking targets on the ground.

On the other hand, the F35 has a larger weapons bay (allowing it to carry bigger bombs for air-to-ground operations compared to the F22), and I believe it has better electronics for handling ground offensives. But, it certainly can carry a wide array of missles.

Canada does need a fighter for handling basic air patrols over its own territory (for handling situations like wayward civilian planes, or for handling occasional incursions by Russian planes). But, I doubt we will see any significant air-to-air combat over our territory. So, the abilities of the F35 should be adequate domestically. The other missions we do need our planes for (e.g. our engagements in Libya or Syria) do favor a plane that is stronger in the ground attack role, where the F35 is stronger.

[On Guard for Thee]

The F-35C "burnt a hole in the carrier deck"?

Lack of acceleration and maneuverability? Care to explain that one?

Says who?

You've suggested prior that the F-35's "stealth was broken", when asked to explain, you suggested the Chinese will one day bypass natural physics and develop a radar that can defeat it, since (your words) the Chinese were able to "crack the F-35's stealth code" (Whatever that is)........My question, are you going back down this rabbit hole?

I was kiddin' about the burnt hole, but if you've followed the progress you'll know the decks had to be reinforced due the excessive heat. The lack of those two abilities mentioned are why it would have to be escorted in and out of a bomb run so it doesn't get it's tail shot off. And the US has already admitted the Chinese have "hacked" enough to offset it's stealth capability.

[Smallc]

What I was getting at is that planes like the F-14, F-15, F-22, and Typhoon are more geared to air too air roles. Criticizing the F-35 for being designed in the same multi role vein as the current hornets that we fly is far from a valid criticism.

[Argus]

You speak of continuing problems, the same day the F-35C completed its initial carrier trials in 10 days......the Hornets and Super Hornets required months...

What information do we have that the tests were done with equal thoroughness?

[On Guard for Thee]

Please explain.

Errr... not really.

You see, the problem is that many of the people who are judging the F35 are idiots who don't understand even the basics of aviation.

The F35 is capable of flying missions using internal fuel and weapons stored in the internal weapons bay. Doing so will reduce drag (giving it a decent range, speed, and maneuverability.) Now, compare that to (for example) an F16 or F18... When people suggest that the F35 is slower/less maneuverable than those planes, they are often comparing the planes in an unloaded configuration... no weapons, no external communications pods, no external drop tanks, etc. The problem is, for the F16/F18 to be useful they will have to carry weapons, possibly external fuel tanks, communications pods, etc. All this increases drag, slowing the planes down.

An F35 in a "mission ready" state (i.e. carrying missles/bombs, with enough fuel to reach its target) can often do so without putting anything external on the plane. This means it can be faster, more maneuverable, and have a longer range than an F16/F18 with weapons, targeting pods, and external drop tanks contributing to drag.

See: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/why-the-f-35-is-essential-for-canada-part-1

Oh, and from that article:

One test pilot, Billie Flynn, mentioned that if one “were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35′s, It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there.”

Is this the same Chinese J31 that's had one prototype built, and isn't anywhere close to being in production?

Is this the same Chinese J31 that, during a display, showed: "poor aerodynamic efficiency. The aircraft bleeds too much energy and the pilot had hard time keeping the nose up during turns and other maneuvers. He also had to engage afterburners far too often to maintain a proper energy utilization curve...An aircraft configured for a real mission and fitted with weapons would be even heavier and would have an even more dismal flight performance"

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2014-11-17/chinas-fc-31-fighter-disappoints-first-display

Here's a quiestion... if you think stealth is useless, then why exactly are the makers of military jets actually taking action to reduce the radar cross section of their planes?

Stealth may not be the only quality needed by a military plane, and the F35s stealth characteristics may not be perfect... however, they are better than planes like the F18.

You mean other than the use of internal weapons bays and electronics, which can give improved range/maneuverability during actual missions (as compared to, lets say, the F18, which can only fly missions with weapons hanging off, increasing drag and reducing speed.)

You mean other than the possibility of purchasing a plane that is more viable long term (and which will be built for decades to come) than buying something like the Super Hornet, which is likely ending produciton within the next few years, making spare parts harder (and more expensive) to come by? (Which might make the overall costs of the F35 cheaper than the F18.)

You mean other than having an air frame in common with several NATO partrners as well as other military allies, allowing any future development costs to be split among many countries?

You mean other than buying a plane which, due to it still being in the early production stage, has a greater chance at local industrial spinnoffs?

You mean other than having perhaps the most sophisticated combination of sensors and communications currently available?

And a lot of people who think the F 35 is so capable is because they are willing to believe everything Lock Mart tells them whether they understand anything about aviation or not, which tends to make them idiots.