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

eyeball · January 6, 2015

That whole quote was an analysis Derek. Holy crap.

Neither war would be sustained. The US would roll over Iran much like they did in Iraq. North Korea, with it's woefully antiquated equipment and inadequate economy, would be even less equipped to fight a sustained war. They'd lose a conventional war against South Korea, let alone the United States.

Where are you getting all this confidence from? The US has barely won a war on its own since their War of Independence and even then it was the French navy that probably made all the difference.

bush_cheney2004 · January 6, 2015

The U.S. doesn't have to win any wars.....Canada's Liberal Party will always save the day by whipping out some warm blankets.

Argus · January 6, 2015

Add them ALL up and they don't even spend half of what the US does, nor do they have meaningful blue-water or force-projection capabilities.

That's really not a fair analysis. By far the biggest expenditures under defense are the salaries and benefits of the servicemen and women. Such expenditures are vastly greater than what the Russians, Chinese or North Koreans pay their soldiers, sailors and airmen. So much greater you could probably fund five to ten times as many soldiers, sailors or airmen in Russia or China with the same amount of spending. If the US only spent what Russia, did, say, they'd wind up with a military a fifth as big as the Russians.

Moonbox · January 6, 2015

How does one define the scale and scope of a war, fought against an unknown enemy, some time in the future? Vague enough?

You're the one telling us that fighting Iran (with a military budget that's less than 3% of the USA's) would qualify as a major war for the Americans. It appears the terminology and expected capabilities of the US, as you defined them, are therefore pretty meaningless. The idea of the US being unable to handle two Irans (which would have a combined defence budget totalling ~5.5% of the USA's) is beyond ridiculous.

I assume you still feel said ROK-US force is there to defend against Chinese "influence"......and not the nut in the North

While it's funny that you think that this blurb actually provides any meaningful insight, what's even funnier is how blatantly you dodged my question. Again, why don't you tell us how North Korea would beat South Korea with equipment that's already been proven helpless against the type of hardware South Korea fields.

Derek 2.0 · January 6, 2015

That's really not a fair analysis. By far the biggest expenditures under defense are the salaries and benefits of the servicemen and women. Such expenditures are vastly greater than what the Russians, Chinese or North Koreans pay their soldiers, sailors and airmen. So much greater you could probably fund five to ten times as many soldiers, sailors or airmen in Russia or China with the same amount of spending. If the US only spent what Russia, did, say, they'd wind up with a military a fifth as big as the Russians.

That's a very astute point......With Canada, currently ~60-65% of the defense budget goes towards personal, as its a safe assumption, other Western professional forces spend a similar percentage point on personal.

Moonbox · January 6, 2015

The DPRK can inflict significant damage on South Korea's largest city with cheap and plentiful artillery and rockets already staged near the border. Geography makes Seoul a sitting duck.

Very true, but that doesn't win a war. How long would that artillery last, with virtually guaranteed South Korean air superiority, and similar technical superiority on the ground? What's the life expectancy of a T-62 in range of a K1?

Derek 2.0 · January 6, 2015

You're the one telling us that fighting Iran (with a military budget that's less than 3% of the USA's) would qualify as a major war for the Americans. It appears the terminology and expected capabilities of the US, as you defined them, are therefore pretty meaningless. The idea of the US being unable to handle two Irans (which would have a combined defence budget totalling ~5.5% of the USA's) is beyond ridiculous.

And that is demonstration of your total failure to understand the subject..........

Currently the United States navy, as mentioned, would be hard pressed to contend with a war with Iran, let alone two Irans. This is made obvious by the force wide reductions in both readiness and actual ships, which translates into the USN barely being able to replicate a Operation Earnest Will/Praying Mantis without pooling resources from all of its sub unit commands, to say nothing of fighting an actual war with Iran.........and you feel they could simply fight two Irans well maintaining its other commitments?

You're out to lunch.....

While it's funny that you think that this blurb actually provides any meaningful insight, what's even funnier is how blatantly you dodged my question. Again, why don't you tell us how North Korea would beat South Korea with equipment that's already been proven helpless against the type of hardware South Korea fields.

The North Koreans already have the ability to flatten Seoul, from behind the DMZ, with conventional tube and rocket artillery secured in bunkers and tunnels.....then of course the North has the NBC option. The South does not.

bush_cheney2004 · January 6, 2015

Very true, but that doesn't win a war. How long would that artillery last, with virtually guaranteed South Korean air superiority, and similar technical superiority on the ground? What's the life expectancy of a T-62 in range of a K1?

It does from the DPRK perspective....South Korea would sue for peace and grant more concessions.

Getting back on topic, I will note that South Korea has chosen...the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter.

Derek 2.0 · January 6, 2015

Very true, but that doesn't win a war. How long would that artillery last, with virtually guaranteed South Korean air superiority, and similar technical superiority on the ground? What's the life expectancy of a T-62 in range of a K1?

The artillery is based in bunkers and tunnels that the United States would be hard-pressed to contend against, likewise an air defense network that would make the ROKAF irrelevant.........

Derek 2.0 · January 6, 2015

It does from the DPRK perspective....South Korea would sue for peace and grant more concessions.

Getting back on topic, I will note that South Korea has chosen...the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter.

Indeed, and its selection is made more pronounced by its inherent force multiplying attributes.......all areas the ROKAF currently does not have.

Moonbox · January 6, 2015

That's really not a fair analysis. By far the biggest expenditures under defense are the salaries and benefits of the servicemen and women.

Except that's not at all true for the US. They spend almost as much on R&D as the Russians do on their entire military, and only ~25% on military personnel. Regardless, Desert Storm taught us very clearly that the number of soldiers aren't really effective measures of strength. The 650,000-strong Iraqi army managed to kill less than 250 coalition soldiers while being systematically torn apart.

That's a very astute point......With Canada, currently ~60-65% of the defense budget goes towards personal, as its a safe assumption, other Western professional forces spend a similar percentage point on personal.

but with no comparisons to Russian or Chinese spending statistics, you're conclusions are wild assumptions. You're also ignoring how the vast majority of the US military budget is actually spent on research, procurement and operations/maintenance, all of it dwarfing Russian/Chinese spending combined.

Derek 2.0 · January 6, 2015

but with no comparisons to Russian or Chinese spending statistics, you're conclusions are wild assumptions. You're also ignoring how the vast majority of the US military budget is actually spent on research, procurement and operations/maintenance, all of it dwarfing Russian/Chinese spending combined.

Aside from the reliability of said statistics, it ignores the fact that Chinese defense industries (like the Soviets) are state owned and operated by the military.........likewise, such areas as research and development.....

Centralized economy says it all.........

Moonbox · January 6, 2015

And that is demonstration of your total failure to understand the subject...

Not like our resident make-believe expert, right!?

Currently the United States navy, as mentioned, would be hard pressed to contend with a war with Iran, let alone two Irans. This is made obvious by the force wide reductions in both readiness and actual ships, which translates into the USN barely being able to replicate a Operation Earnest Will/Praying Mantis without pooling resources from all of its sub unit commands, to say nothing of fighting an actual war with Iran.........and you feel they could simply fight two Irans well maintaining its other commitments?

That's a bunch of armchair-general gobbledygook, little more than deluded bluster about how much of an expert you think you are. /yawn

The North Koreans already have the ability to flatten Seoul, from behind the DMZ, with conventional tube and rocket artillery secured in bunkers and tunnels.....then of course the North has the NBC option. The South does not.

With nukes, yes, but that would be the end of them. With their artillery? Only if you listen to North Korean bluster. A city doesn't just crumble into dust the minute it starts getting hit with artillery, especially not one as big as Seoul and when the bombardment is blind-fire from 35+ miles away. The idea of Seoul being 'flattened' by North Korea is scary hyperbole, vastly underestimating the amount of shelling required to reach the sort of densities you're talking about. I would have expected an expert like you to know better.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Moonbox

Derek 2.0 · January 7, 2015

Not like our resident make-believe expert, right!?

That's a bunch of armchair-general gobbledygook, little more than deluded bluster about how much of an expert you think you are. /yawn

And like in the other thread(s), there is a direct correlation between your lack of understanding of a given topic and your rate of insults hurled at those that do........

With nukes, yes, but that would be the end of them. With their artillery? Only if you listen to North Korean bluster. A city doesn't just crumble into dust the minute it starts getting hit with artillery, especially not one as big as Seoul and when the bombardment is blind-fire from 35+ miles away. The idea of Seoul being 'flattened' by North Korea is scary hyperbole, vastly underestimating the amount of shelling required to reach the sort of densities you're talking about. I would have expected an expert like you to know better.

Nukes would end who? The North? You understand the South does not have the ability to launch a counter-strike right?

As to your implication that North Korean artillery isn't a threat (By all means insult me or explain how your opinion is counter to that of the South Koreans), why are all South Korean and US facilities hardened, to an extent greater then West Germany during the Cold War, or far enough South to be out of range of North Korean artillery?

edit to add for laughs:........blind firing? You think the North Koreans incapable of deploying FOO teams across the DMZ with a map case and radio? :lol:

Christ, they were doing that on M*A*S*H..........

Edited January 7, 2015 by Derek 2.0

chris-b-crunch · January 7, 2015

Of which there are few, if any.

Let me take a stab...

F-35's per unit cost is approaching nearly $300 million. It puts pilot's lives in jeopardy with the ejection seat, which has been reported by many including test pilots to be near impossible to escape from if God forbid they have to eject over water.

The rear visibility is non-existent and once again, test pilot's feel like they would be sitting ducks if any aircraft got behind them as they have no way to see.

The engine has been running into problem after problem, the most recent of which is overheating fuel. That's in addition to engine fires galore all throughout the build process.

The F-35A (our version) requires almost 7,000 feet of runway in contrast to the 3,000 feet or less the CF-18 requires and 10,000 ft. for Pilots in training as a margin for error. Not to mention it needs a drag chute in many cases to aid in slowing down, which in the Arctic where crosswinds can happen, would be a very bad thing for obvious reasons.

It only has one engine... I don't know about anyone here, but given we have so much open space in the Arctic where many patrols are flown and responses to Russian airspace breaches happen most frequently, having one engine would be a very bad thing. What happens when it fails? And more than that, what happens to the pilot who has to eject and be exposed to the elements for an extended period?

Maneuverability... Many experts in the Pentagon and even test Pilots who have spoken of the program have raised concerns about it's maneuverability. People speak of Radar and Long distance kills making this unnecessary, but unless the Rules of Engagement have changed, beyond visual range combat is the exception, not the rule.

Stealth, according to a great many experts, some of which were involved in the process is not as great as they sell it to be. You have to remember, Lockheed-Martin has so much on the line and they have their hooks so deep in the U.S. Government that they will lie and do all they can to pawn this $300 million piece of scrap metal off as a viable next gen fighter.

That is assuming the next administration doesn't drop the ax on the whole project, as in light of the Pentagon reports and the rising concern over the projected $1 trillion+ cost to maintain the POS until 2050, pressure to cancel is growing by the day. Our CF-18's can still last for the time being. We would be better to pull out and eat the $300 million or so penalty.

Do a proper competition between the Rafale, the Super Hornet (Boeing has stealth mods in the works) and maybe the Gripen, though being a single engine aircraft, I'm not kicky on it.

The Super Hornet has a fully upgraded, modern avionics suite, with advanced helmet projected targeting system and better maneuverability as well as extended range over our CF-18's presently. It would also cost much less as the conversion would be very simple and it is still a carrier capable aircraft (unike the F-35A) Boeing's current upgrade package set to be released in 2018 would see the radar cross section reduced farther, range extended and maneuverability improved.

Haven't done enough research on the Rafale to really argue it's case yet, but from what I've seen, it has some serious maneuverability and from what I've read thus far, very advanced systems.

Both the Super Hornet and the Rafale are based off of proven airframe's as well. And with a fly away cost of about $75 million per unit for the Super Hornet with Boeing's upgrades, and $60 million as is (last I checked), my vote is for the airframe we know, the engines we know, the aircraft our pilot's know and the most combat proven. The fact that you can buy 4 1/2 for the cost of 1 F-35 (assuming no more spikes in price which is unlikely) alone makes it the smartest choice in my eyes.

F-35A should be cut out entirely and never mentioned again. Waste on every level.

On Guard for Thee · January 7, 2015

Let me take a stab...

F-35's per unit cost is approaching nearly $300 million. It puts pilot's lives in jeopardy with the ejection seat, which has been reported by many including test pilots to be near impossible to escape from if God forbid they have to eject over water.

The rear visibility is non-existent and once again, test pilot's feel like they would be sitting ducks if any aircraft got behind them as they have no way to see.

The engine has been running into problem after problem, the most recent of which is overheating fuel. That's in addition to engine fires galore all throughout the build process.

The F-35A (our version) requires almost 7,000 feet of runway in contrast to the 3,000 feet or less the CF-18 requires and 10,000 ft. for Pilots in training as a margin for error. Not to mention it needs a drag chute in many cases to aid in slowing down, which in the Arctic where crosswinds can happen, would be a very bad thing for obvious reasons.

It only has one engine... I don't know about anyone here, but given we have so much open space in the Arctic where many patrols are flown and responses to Russian airspace breaches happen most frequently, having one engine would be a very bad thing. What happens when it fails? And more than that, what happens to the pilot who has to eject and be exposed to the elements for an extended period?

Maneuverability... Many experts in the Pentagon and even test Pilots who have spoken of the program have raised concerns about it's maneuverability. People speak of Radar and Long distance kills making this unnecessary, but unless the Rules of Engagement have changed, beyond visual range combat is the exception, not the rule.

Stealth, according to a great many experts, some of which were involved in the process is not as great as they sell it to be. You have to remember, Lockheed-Martin has so much on the line and they have their hooks so deep in the U.S. Government that they will lie and do all they can to pawn this $300 million piece of scrap metal off as a viable next gen fighter.

That is assuming the next administration doesn't drop the ax on the whole project, as in light of the Pentagon reports and the rising concern over the projected $1 trillion+ cost to maintain the POS until 2050, pressure to cancel is growing by the day. Our CF-18's can still last for the time being. We would be better to pull out and eat the $300 million or so penalty.

Do a proper competition between the Rafale, the Super Hornet (Boeing has stealth mods in the works) and maybe the Gripen, though being a single engine aircraft, I'm not kicky on it.

The Super Hornet has a fully upgraded, modern avionics suite, with advanced helmet projected targeting system and better maneuverability as well as extended range over our CF-18's presently. It would also cost much less as the conversion would be very simple and it is still a carrier capable aircraft (unike the F-35A) Boeing's current upgrade package set to be released in 2018 would see the radar cross section reduced farther, range extended and maneuverability improved.

Haven't done enough research on the Rafale to really argue it's case yet, but from what I've seen, it has some serious maneuverability and from what I've read thus far, very advanced systems.

Both the Super Hornet and the Rafale are based off of proven airframe's as well. And with a fly away cost of about $75 million per unit for the Super Hornet with Boeing's upgrades, and $60 million as is (last I checked), my vote is for the airframe we know, the engines we know, the aircraft our pilot's know and the most combat proven. The fact that you can buy 4 1/2 for the cost of 1 F-35 (assuming no more spikes in price which is unlikely) alone makes it the smartest choice in my eyes.

F-35A should be cut out entirely and never mentioned again. Waste on every level.

Bingo. Well done.

chris-b-crunch · January 7, 2015

Bingo. Well done.

Thank you good sir.

Smallc · January 7, 2015

Again, that post is full of stuff that has already been debunked in the many many pages here.

Derek 2.0 · January 7, 2015

Let me take a stab...

F-35's per unit cost is approaching nearly $300 million. It puts pilot's lives in jeopardy with the ejection seat, which has been reported by many including test pilots to be near impossible to escape from if God forbid they have to eject over water.

The latest LRIP contract signed several months ago saw the per plane contract price under $100 million......

The rear visibility is non-existent and once again, test pilot's feel like they would be sitting ducks if any aircraft got behind them as they have no way to see.

Not any test pilot that has flown it........and with the aircraft's DAS, the F-35 has greater visibility then any current fighter...

The engine has been running into problem after problem, the most recent of which is overheating fuel. That's in addition to engine fires galore all throughout the build process.

The engine issue were resolved at the end of last Summer.......likewise, your cited fuel issue, isn't an issue with the aircraft's engines, as the F-35 uses the fuel itself as a heat sink to reduce the aircraft's IR return......of course said issue was "solved" by painting the airfield bowsers with thermal paint......

The F-35A (our version) requires almost 7,000 feet of runway in contrast to the 3,000 feet or less the CF-18 requires and 10,000 ft. for Pilots in training as a margin for error. Not to mention it needs a drag chute in many cases to aid in slowing down, which in the Arctic where crosswinds can happen, would be a very bad thing for obvious reasons.

And you're wrong here too.......the F-35A, like our Hornets, has both a drag chute and arresting gear..

It only has one engine... I don't know about anyone here, but given we have so much open space in the Arctic where many patrols are flown and responses to Russian airspace breaches happen most frequently, having one engine would be a very bad thing. What happens when it fails? And more than that, what happens to the pilot who has to eject and be exposed to the elements for an extended period?

The Americans, Norwegians and Danes have been operating single engine F-16s in the Arctic since the 70s....to be replaced by single engine F-35s.......

Maneuverability... Many experts in the Pentagon and even test Pilots who have spoken of the program have raised concerns about it's maneuverability. People speak of Radar and Long distance kills making this unnecessary, but unless the Rules of Engagement have changed, beyond visual range combat is the exception, not the rule.

Not pilots that have flown it, of which (of what they can release) have made it clear that the F-35 is the equal or better then both the Hornet and Falcon in terms of maneuverability........

Stealth, according to a great many experts, some of which were involved in the process is not as great as they sell it to be. You have to remember, Lockheed-Martin has so much on the line and they have their hooks so deep in the U.S. Government that they will lie and do all they can to pawn this $300 million piece of scrap metal off as a viable next gen fighter.

You're talking out of your arse.....any "experts" with actual knowledge of the aircraft's stealth performance that spoke openly about the F-35 would be in a United States Federal Prison.....

That is assuming the next administration doesn't drop the ax on the whole project, as in light of the Pentagon reports and the rising concern over the projected $1 trillion+ cost to maintain the POS until 2050, pressure to cancel is growing by the day. Our CF-18's can still last for the time being. We would be better to pull out and eat the $300 million or so penalty.

The program has bipartisan support......

Do a proper competition between the Rafale, the Super Hornet (Boeing has stealth mods in the works) and maybe the Gripen, though being a single engine aircraft, I'm not kicky on it.

The Super Hornet has a fully upgraded, modern avionics suite, with advanced helmet projected targeting system and better maneuverability as well as extended range over our CF-18's presently. It would also cost much less as the conversion would be very simple and it is still a carrier capable aircraft (unike the F-35A) Boeing's current upgrade package set to be released in 2018 would see the radar cross section reduced farther, range extended and maneuverability improved.

The "Super-duper Hornet" has not been funded by DoD and will cease production in several years, and then start being retired by both the USN and RAAF in the early 2030s.......

Haven't done enough research on the Rafale to really argue it's case yet, but from what I've seen, it has some serious maneuverability and from what I've read thus far, very advanced systems.

Don't bother......its been past upon by other nations for a reason....

Both the Super Hornet and the Rafale are based off of proven airframe's as well. And with a fly away cost of about $75 million per unit for the Super Hornet with Boeing's upgrades, and $60 million as is (last I checked), my vote is for the airframe we know, the engines we know, the aircraft our pilot's know and the most combat proven. The fact that you can buy 4 1/2 for the cost of 1 F-35 (assuming no more spikes in price which is unlikely) alone makes it the smartest choice in my eyes.

F-35A should be cut out entirely and never mentioned again. Waste on every level.

Both the Hornet/Super Hornet and Rafale faced "issues" like the F-35 well in development, and in the case of the Rafale, is still undergoing "development" to make the design relevant into the next decade........and no, we don't already know the Super Hornet, as it has a different (larger) airframe, different engines, avionics and radar as our current Hornets.......

Perhaps a tad more "research" is needed on your part, but thanks for coming out.

chris-b-crunch · January 7, 2015

Some good points, though I question many as again, facts can be skewed. And on price, I'll believe the final #'s when I see it. I'm going based off of Pentagon reports. And on visibility, again, I trust the Pentagon on this one.

Once I have more time, I'll look through those points closer I appreciate you posting them

Edited January 7, 2015 by chris-b-crunch

Smallc · January 7, 2015

Also, we haven't signed a contract, so no penalty for not buying. As well, IIRC, the SH, has worse maneuverability than the Hornet, and the Lightening was built to be as maneuverable as the Falcon, which is more maneuverable than the Hornet.

Smallc · January 7, 2015

I stand by what I said, been challenged on it many times.

Probably because it's full of holes.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Smallc

Derek 2.0 · January 7, 2015

I should add, the

I guess the test Pilots and the Pentagon know nothing about what makes an aircraft successful. Any Politician can skew facts to turn a turd into Gold to some. I've read countless facts and been an aviation enthusiast since I was all of about 3 years old. I read countless sources daily, and from too many publications to name.

I stand by what I said, been challenged on it many times. Either way, we buy this piece of crap and I'll be laughing my ass off at everyone who thought they actually knew a thing or two.

Neither test pilots, and now operational military pilots, nor the US armed services have confirmed anything that you "stand beside", which is rooted in several, baseless opinions, often repeated in the media.........stand beside it all you like, but you're wrong.

On Guard for Thee · January 7, 2015

Probably because it's full of holes.

What's "full of holes" is the ass end of the last F35 that had the engine blow up when powered up for take off in Fla. The turbine rub problem is still ongoing and hey, we don't need a plane with 1 engine that has that kind of a problem when you look at the numbers of F 18's that have had engine failure from "goose ingestion" that got home safe on the other engine. Now I may have a simpleton view of things, but I am a pilot and I bet most of "us" would agree that you can't have too many engines on a plane.