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

[segnosaur]

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.

I believe you're talking about the F35s that were doing vertical landings and takeoffs.

Given the fact that the alternatives often suggested as alternatives (F18, etc.) can't DO vertical takeoffs/landings, then its not really a valid comparison/criticism.

The lack of those two abilities [i assume you mean accelleration/maneuverability] mentioned are why it would have to be escorted in and out of a bomb run...

Except of course that the F35 does not have a problem with its speed or maneuvarability. According to test pilots (and those who actually know something about air planes), its performance in a combat situation is on par or greater than that of current '4th generation' fighters.

But then, why would you let facts get in the way of your arguments?

And the US has already admitted the Chinese have "hacked" enough to offset it's stealth capability.

No, they didn't.

Even if hackers have managed to obtain information related to the F35 stealth capabilities, that does not necessarily mean that they would automaticlaly be able to counteract those abilities. And even if they did find a way to eliminate stealth, it would still take years or decades for whatever technologies they came up with to be made available.

China has only produced a very small number of stealth aircraft (and from the references I posted earlier, some of their work is fairly poor.) They are much further behind technically than the western world. It will probably be decades before they are able to 1) produce a decent plane, 2) find export markets, and 3) sell enough to our potential adversaries to make it a significant risk. In that time, the U.S. and other F35 users will enjoy a decade or 2 of unopposed "stealthiness".

[Smallc]

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

Do you have information to the contrary? You're not usually the conspiracy type.

[segnosaur]

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.

Ah yes.... whenever your little fantasy world is debunked, jump in and accuse the people who have debunked you of being "sheep".

Do you honestly believe that drag will somehow be unaffected if you add external items to an airplane?

[On Guard for Thee]

Ah yes.... whenever your little fantasy world is debunked, jump in and accuse the people who have debunked you of being "sheep".

Do you honestly believe that drag will somehow be unaffected if you add external items to an airplane?

The ink dried on my commercial license over 40 years ago, I think I know a bit about drag.

[Argus]

Do you have information to the contrary? You're not usually the conspiracy type.

I'm the cynical type, though. And I loved The Pentagon Wars.

[On Guard for Thee]

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/

Try reading this, it may help you.

[segnosaur]

The ink dried on my commercial license over 40 years ago, I think I know a bit about drag.

First of all, I probably believe that as much as I believe in the claims that you served in the military.

Secondly, you still didn't answer the question... does adding external items to the outside of a plane affect the drag.

[On Guard for Thee]

First of all, I probably believe that as much as I believe in the claims that you served in the military.

Secondly, you still didn't answer the question... does adding external items to the outside of a plane affect the drag.

I never claimed I served in the military. I did contract for the military. Slight difference. As to the drag question, you should clarify what kind of drag you're referring to. Everything on a plane causes drag. Even the wings.

[segnosaur]

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/

Try reading this, it may help you.

A yes, a fine source of information...

With references to:

- Counterpunch (a source that is pretty much universally seen as left wing. What does it say when you jump all over any suggestion that we're gullibly following Lochheed Martin, but your references rely quite heavily on left-leaning sources?)

- A RAND study that even the RAND organization has stated: RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraftp. (See: http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25.html)

So, not exactly a totally reliable source for information.

As for the "can't run, can't turn" quote, the link provided goes to a dead page, so I have no idea where they got their information from. (But from the questionable information provided elsewhere in the document, I don't hold out a lot of hope.)

[segnosaur]

As to the drag question, you should clarify what kind of drag you're referring to. Everything on a plane causes drag. Even the wings.

I still see you are doing your best to sidestep the question and avoid illustrating just how full of bunk you are.

While things like wings cause drag, the question was: does adding external items to the outside of a plane affect drag..

Notice the term 'adding'? A wing isn't an "added" item to a plane... by definition its going to be there. Pretty obvious that when I specified "adding" I was referring to items like bombs, communications pods, fuel tanks.

My question was pretty clearn. Your attempts to avoid and obfuscate are even more clear.

[On Guard for Thee]

I still see you are doing your best to sidestep the question and avoid illustrating just how full of bunk you are.

While things like wings cause drag, the question was: does adding external items to the outside of a plane affect drag..

Notice the term 'adding'? A wing isn't an "added" item to a plane... by definition its going to be there. Pretty obvious that when I specified "adding" I was referring to items like bombs, communications pods, fuel tanks.

My question was pretty clearn. Your attempts to avoid and obfuscate are even more clear.

It's called parasite drag.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

No, as mentioned, during the trials aboard the USS Nimitz, the F-35C produced less heat on take-off then both the Hornet and Super Hornet......you're confusing the trials of the F-35B aboard the older LHD (not aircraft carrier) the USS Wasp, which had heat plates installed for not only the F-35B, but the far hotter V-22. Of course its a moot point, as all LHD/As (from USS America on) were designed around the physical attributes of both the F-35B and V-22.

There was no burnt holes through the flight decks.

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.

You mean like any other aircraft partaking in a strike package?

And the US has already admitted the Chinese have "hacked" enough to offset it's stealth capability.

No they didn't, you said that and its not true........

[Derek 2.0]

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

NAVAIR has stringent protocols for all aircraft (fixed and rotary) prior to allowing them anywhere near a ship (be it a carrier, LHD, destroyer or a barge) at sea......The United States Navy has no motivation in operating a sub-par aircraft and rejects substandard equipment from contractors all the time.

[On Guard for Thee]

http://news.usni.org/2014/01/15/sna-2014-heat-f-35-mv-22-continue-plague-big-deck-amphibs

There are also various reports about the radar but this has all been gone through before. If you're sold on the F 35, I suggest not looking up those reports, it may unsettle you.

[Derek 2.0]

http://news.usni.org/2014/01/15/sna-2014-heat-f-35-mv-22-continue-plague-big-deck-amphibs

There are also various reports about the radar but this has all been gone through before. If you're sold on the F 35, I suggest not looking up those reports, it may unsettle you.

Read the link:

But Mercer did note the strategy in place for the America will not be necessary for the next two of the LHAs in the class.

USS Tripoli (LHA-7) and the yet-unnamed LHA-8, “will be able to carry out “complete unrestricted operations” with the F-35 and MV-22, Mercer said.

We did go over the "radar issues" several months ago in this thread, as it was then explained to you why it doesn't unsettle not only myself, but every military envisioning operating a stealth aircraft:

Keep searching until you find one that demonstrates how the Russians/Chinese have defied natural physics, allowing a long wavelength radar beam the ability to provide the required resolution in terms of both angle and range to act as a fire control radar.........Also, if they do develop an AESA radar in the VHF/UHF bands, how such an active radar won't be vulnerable to not only conventional kinetic weapons, but electromagnetic attack from the much more flexible (in terms of frequency jumping) short-wavelength AESA radar found within the F-35.......this of course precludes the F-35's DRFM countermeasures, which allow the F-35 the ability to manipulate a threat radar signal, altering return values in terms of the targeted F-35's RCS, range, angle and speed.

As pointed out in one of your links, the Americans have also been developing VHF/UHF band radars for decades, with the prime contractor and developer being Lockheed........a pioneer in all things stealth.............Ask yourself this, if the Americans feared developments in UHF/VHF radar, why will in a decade+ ~70% of their combat aircraft inventory be stealth aircraft........Why would all the various partner nations be on the stealth bus? And why would the Chinese and Russians be developing their own stealth aircraft if stealth can be defeated as easily as you suggest?

[Derek 2.0]

What this will also do, is end the speculation from the peanut gallery on mythical purchases of Super Hornets, Rafales and Typhoons, for a OSD of 2025 for our Hornet fleet will signal a purchase of new aircraft in the ~2020 timeframe………..long after the branded about “alternatives” have gone out of production, and in the timeframe the current users will start retiring their own fleets of “alternatives”, discounting even a purchase of used “4.5 generation” aircraft……….Thusly a future Canadian Government, in the 2019 timeframe, will be able to hold a competition between nothing and the F-35.

like I was saying above:

U.S. aerospace giant Boeing Co. is frustrated by Canada’s decision to extend the life of its aging fleet of fighter jets, a move that will delay a decision on buying replacements, a company official said on Wednesday.

Of course they are:

Canada said in September that it would extend the life of its fighters to 2025 from the previous 2020 end-date. That could be bad news for Boeing, which is seeking orders to keep its F/A-18 production line running past 2017.

“We’re disappointed with the extension of the existing Hornets. We think that pushes the decision (on a replacement) off a little bit,” said Dan Gillian, Boeing’s vice-president in charge of the F/A-18.

“If you don’t replace your aging fighters, they get more expensive and they get to be a challenge to maintain, and they become less relevant,” he told Reuters.

Boeing now should focus its (marketing) efforts on selling Canada their remaining "white tailed" C-17s, the V-22 for our FWSAR program and start looking towards the eventual replacement of our CP-140s and CC-150s with their P-8 and KC-46......

[bush_cheney2004]

The UK is in for more F-35s....

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has signed for its first four operational Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft as part of the Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP 8) production lot, it was announced on 21 November.

[Derek 2.0]

The UK is in for more F-35s....

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has signed for its first four operational Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft as part of the Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP 8) production lot, it was announced on 21 November.

And I'd expect an additional ~10-12 aircraft to be bought in LRIP 9 to allow the initial joint RAF/RN FAA squadron to be stood up, likewise further personal from each service to be seconded to the USMC/USN to (re)gain carrier experience, so as to seamlessly (re)introduce carrier strike with the entrance into service of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales...

[bush_cheney2004]

It has been speculated that the first deployed F-35B squadron for HMS Queen Elizabeth with be USMC because of the scheduled aircraft deliveries. I expect it will actually be a blended/joint effort. Good looking bird farm:

http://www.bbc.com/news/the-reporters-30229988

[Derek 2.0]

It has been speculated that the first deployed F-35B squadron for HMS Queen Elizabeth with be USMC because of the scheduled aircraft deliveries. I expect it will actually be a blended/joint effort. Good looking bird farm:

http://www.bbc.com/news/the-reporters-30229988

I've too read that, and don't doubt that the USMC would benefit from several extra full size decks, on a design more optimized for STOVL usage and cyclic fixed winged ops. Like USN carriers, the Royal Navies can operate a largish air wing, but in practice found a smaller wing on a large deck was more efficient........Also, with the British, their carriers will act as a large deck LHA.......suffice to say, the QEs will have interesting air wings going forward....

[Derek 2.0]

Now that HMAS Canberra has been commissioned, the "discussion" encompassing the RAAF/RAN FAA purchasing additional F-35s, in this case the "B" STOVL variant, to operate off of her is heating up:

Maritime nations have repeatedly used sea-based aircraft to support land-based aircraft or to provide air power where land-based aircraft couldn’t. Some nations have achieved this more than others—every aircraft shot down by the UK since 1945 has fallen to embarked aircraft. Given the maritime geography of SE Asia and the South Pacific, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) can’t afford to ignore those lessons. A mixed fleet of 100 A and B F-35 variants, with F-35Bs able to operate from both land and sea, would give the ADF a much-enhanced capability to bring decisive air power to bear quickly as, where and when required. An LHD/F-35B capability would also fall neatly within the aims of Plan Jericho, providing the ADF with an opportunity to integrate and exploit the advanced information-gathering and distribution systems of the F-35 and the RAN surface fleet and RAAF Wedgetails and Poseidons.

From conversation with a retired RAN FAA Skyhawk driver, in my shared opinion, at some point, the RAN's LHDs will embark F-35Bs with Kangaroo roundels......even in such a limited capacity, organic fixed-winged maritime air brings tremendous capabilities to a medium sized navy such as the RAN.......or the RCN.....

Of interest, the first commanding officer of HMAS Canberra is a Canadian by birth........

[PIK]

And there is another Canadian captian there also. They are also going to drop 30 bil on their military as in ships, subs and more planer. they make us look bad. I wish we had someone at the helm that would just go and buy what we need and to hell with the people that whine no matter what you do. We need to keep up with what is going on in this wrld. And IMO trudeau will do what liberals do and gut her again.

[Smallc]

And there is another Canadian captian there also. They are also going to drop 30 bil on their military as in ships, subs and more planer. they make us look bad.

They're also running a massive deficit, comparatively. Who makes who look bad?

[PIK]

We can do a lot more without going into massives debt. But leaving us unprotected because of debt is quite dumb. Maybe if chretien did not gut it by 30% ,we would not be so far behind. But that was the plan wasn't it, to destroy the military enough ,that it would cost to much to rebuild.

[Smallc]

Harper has gutted it by pretty much as much as Chrétien did.