On Guard for Thee Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Ahh no, they are going to purchase the final ~28 F-35s, but have yet to fully determine if they will be F-35As or F-35Bs...........And no, the Super Hornets they purchased, replaced F-111s.......No RAAF legacy Hornets have been, or will be, replaced by Super Hornets, as their legacy force, in full, will be replaced by F-35s........ They have options for the other 28, no commitment. The F 18s were bought to fill operational shortfalls caused by the 35 continious delays. I know its your baby but it continues to fall short of LMs advertisements, so they just keep lowering the specs. One wonders how low can they go. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) They have options for the other 28, no commitment. The F 18s were bought to fill operational shortfalls caused by the 35 continious delays. I know its your baby but it continues to fall short of LMs advertisements, so they just keep lowering the specs. One wonders how low can they go. No, again, you don't have a clue what you're talking about: Australia has committed to 72 F-35A aircraft for three operational squadrons at RAAF Base Williamtown and RAAF Base Tindal, and a training squadron at RAAF Base Williamtown. In the future, a fourth operational squadron will be considered for RAAF Base Amberley, for a total of 100 F-35As. Now why is it being "considered"? The spokesman told IHS Jane's that acquisition of the F-35B "would be considered within the construct of the Defence White Paper", which is due in the second quarter of 2015. The spokesman was responding to media reports that Prime Minister Tony Abbott has instructed planners working on the White Paper to examine the possibility of buying F-35Bs to operate from the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN's) two Canberra-class landing helicopter dock (LHD) amphibious ships. The final outcome, to be released within several months will be one of: -purchase a fourth F-35A squadron for the RAAF to replace the Super Hornets -purchase a fourth F-35A squadron for the RAAF to replace the Super Hornets, in addition to a squadron of F-35Bs for the RAN FAA -purchase a fourth squadron of F-35Bs to be jointly owned by the RAAF/RAN FAA and retire the Super Hornets -purchase a reduced squadron of F-35Bs for the RAN FAA and keep the Super Hornets in service out to the early 2030s, to be replaced by either additional F-35s or a sixth generation aircraft. One of these will be the result of the soon to be released White Paper.......zero Super Hornets will replace current legacy Hornets, as they have already committed to the 72 F-35As And no, the Super Hornet weren't bought to make up for F-35 shortfalls, but as I said, to replace the F-111 that were no longer supportable...... Edited February 22, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Argus Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 What is the relevance of the last 10 pages of discussion regarding the weight and type of bombs that were dropped by Lancasters onto German cities during WWII? To the topic of this thread? None whatsoever. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) Ahh no, Australia didn't scale back their order, as they still plan to purchase 100 F-35s in three phases, with the last ~20 likely to be F-35B to utilize on the Canberra class LHDs....... Interesting that the Australians plan to purchase 100 new planes while Canada, a third again larger, is looking at a total of 65, which is less than half as many planes as we bought last time around when we picked up the F18. But then, Pierre Trudeau had more commitment to defense than Stephan Harper, I guess... Edited February 22, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Interesting that the Australians plan to purchase 100 new planes while Canada, a third again larger, is looking at a total of 65, which is about half as many planes as we bought last time around when we picked up the F18. Not really, as Australia, unlike Canada, doesn't live next to World's only remaining Superpower, instead potentially dangerous neighbors. Likewise, Australia's psyche is different, the nation collectively remembers being "hung out to dry" by the British, and then nearly again by the Americans, against the Empire of Japan... Quote
Argus Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Not really, as Australia, unlike Canada, doesn't live next to World's only remaining Superpower, instead potentially dangerous neighbors. Likewise, Australia's psyche is different, the nation collectively remembers being "hung out to dry" by the British, and then nearly again by the Americans, against the Empire of Japan... Explaining the mentality doesn't EXCUSE the mentality. A country is sovereign only insofar as it can exercise sovereignty over its territory. Relying on a neighbour is a stupid move. 65 aircraft are not enough for a nation the size of Canada, especially when you take into account training needs, downtime for repairs and the inevitable losses due to crashes over the years. We'll wind up being left with three squadrons. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Explaining the mentality doesn't EXCUSE the mentality. A country is sovereign only insofar as it can exercise sovereignty over its territory. Relying on a neighbour is a stupid move. 65 aircraft are not enough for a nation the size of Canada, especially when you take into account training needs, downtime for repairs and the inevitable losses due to crashes over the years. We'll wind up being left with three squadrons. 65 is the bare minimum that allows us to meet our first priority, the defense of Canada via NORAD, well also allowing us to contribute to NATO. Australia doesn’t have that option (a NORAD or NATO), hence greater self-reliance….. Numbers wise, we’ve had 48 aircraft in operational squadrons since the Cold War drawdown in the early 90s, with the remaining aircraft being allocated to training, depot level maintenance and a large attrition reserve (afforded by the disbandment of squadrons in Germany no longer needed). With the F-35, we’ll have 48 aircraft in operational squadrons, with the remainder being allocated to conversion training and deep maintenance, with the option to purchase additional aircraft as attrition replacements if/when needed……. Quote
Argus Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Numbers wise, we’ve had 48 aircraft in operational squadrons since the Cold War drawdown in the early 90s, with the remaining aircraft being allocated to training, depot level maintenance and a large attrition reserve (afforded by the disbandment of squadrons in Germany no longer needed). With the F-35, we’ll have 48 aircraft in operational squadrons, with the remainder being allocated to conversion training and deep maintenance, with the option to purchase additional aircraft as attrition replacements if/when needed……. Canada never DESERVED a 'cold war drawdown' since we were never pulling our weight DURING the cold war, at least, not after Trudeau was elected. And you might have noticed that the cold war is back... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Moonbox Posted February 22, 2015 Author Report Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) I never made such a claim, in fact, I stated North Korean artillery would be less accurate than Western Artillery.....not World War II area bombing...... You've made a great many (100% unsubstantiated) claims about the effectiveness of North Korean artillery and its accuracy. You, in fact, compared what it could accomplish with what the RAF and USAF managed in WW2 against Japan/Germany. I'm contesting that it can't. Your demand for proof of this is a ridiculous flaw of logic. You're essentially saying that "X is true because there's no proof that X isn't true." That's so dumb it hurts. No, you suggested a certain level of industrial ability applied against a whole nation based on one documented ~25% failure ratio example........rather simplistic. Sure. This is one example (among a great many others) that are all suggesting the same thing: North Korea's manufacturing capabilities are piss-poor. Your claims on North Korea's positive capabilities are, as usual, based on nothing. So, the North Koreans could have had an isolated case of bad explosives? Certainly. The problem with your train of thought is that I never presented this one case, all by itself, as definitive proof of North Korea's shoddy capabilities. Keep trying. No you didn't. Another profoundly thought-provoking post. I never stated or implied that. You specifically said they don't need to account for weather conditions for their ~35-50km firing solutions. Unless they've developed some sort of artillery that's not affected by weather, I don't know wtf you would say that. Because you stated the North Koreans ability to predict weather 50kms away (point of impact) is in doubt........... No I didn't. You really need to read more carefully. You're so eager to show off your fake expertise and correct people that you can't even make sense of what you're reading. "Winds aloft"? It does better, it accounts for "winds-aloft" over the projected azimuth of the bullet from it's firing point.......likewise, there is no requirement to determine weather conditions 1-2 km (or 30-50kms) away, as the ballistic calculation is determined by an equation taken from a constant (known) firing table to that of the determined conditions of the firing point. More chest-thumping gobbledygook. Your commercial range-finder is a pointless addition to the debate and served as nothing more than an opportunity for you to natter uselessly. Comparing a 2km rifle shot over a flat trajectory with an arcing 50km artillery shot is moronic. Good, so we're in agreement with the DoD that North Korean artillery poses a threat to Seoul. We always have been. Unfortunately your claim was that: The North Koreans already have the ability to flatten Seoul, from behind the DMZ, with conventional tube and rocket artillery and this is something you've 100% failed to substantiate....as usual. An argument that is still ongoing.......could you have exaggerated the ability of the South Koreans to defend themselves against the North? No. Go back and read our previous (month-old) exchange if you need to rehash. Edited February 22, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Canada never DESERVED a 'cold war drawdown' since we were never pulling our weight DURING the cold war, at least, not after Trudeau was elected. And you might have noticed that the cold war is back... I’m certain if given the choice, Air Command wouldn’t have seen its fighter strength cut in half by the Chrétien Government, but then again, during that timeframe (early 90s) it was hard to justify the additional ~1 billion a year to maintain the Hornet squadrons from Germany and the remaining Freedom Fighter squadron with no perceived threat…….. As to a Cold War redux, until the Russians are able to threaten North America with streams of bomber regiments again, there is no requirement to expand our current NORAD commitment, as our current force structure committed to NORAD hasn’t changed since the early 1960s……. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 You've made a great many (100% unsubstantiated) claims about the effectiveness of North Korean artillery and its accuracy. You, in fact, compared what it could accomplish with what the RAF and USAF managed in WW2 against Japan/Germany. I'm contesting that it can't. Your demand for proof of this is a ridiculous flaw of logic. You're essentially saying that "X is true because there's no proof that X isn't true." That's so dumb it hurts. Who stated North Korean artillery was less accurate then World War II area bombing? Sure. This is one example (among a great many others) that are all suggesting the same thing: North Korea's manufacturing capabilities are piss-poor. Your claims on North Korea's positive capabilities are, as usual, based on nothing. Certainly. The problem with your train of thought is that I never presented this one case, all by itself, as definitive proof of North Korea's shoddy capabilities. Keep trying. Priceless You specifically said they don't need to account for weather conditions for their ~35-50km firing solutions. Unless they've developed some sort of artillery that's not affected by weather, I don't know wtf you would say that. Uhh, no I didn't...... No I didn't. You really need to read more carefully. You're so eager to show off your fake expertise and correct people that you can't even make sense of what you're reading. I'll provide the quote if you like? More chest-thumping gobbledygook. Your commercial range-finder is a pointless addition to the debate and served as nothing more than an opportunity for you to natter uselessly. Comparing a 2km rifle shot over a flat trajectory with an arcing 50km artillery shot is moronic. Ballistic science is ballistic science.......and no, there is no such thing as 2km flat trajectory rifle shot No. Go back and read our previous (month-old) exchange if you need to rehash. You're now claiming you never stated the South Koreans didn't need the Americans to help fend off the North? I'll gladly provide the quote if you like.... Quote
Moonbox Posted February 23, 2015 Author Report Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Who stated North Korean artillery was less accurate then World War II area bombing? What reason do we have to believe it would be Derek? You've shown us nothing. We're six weeks into this thread and you've still provided literally nothing to support these claims. Seeing you petulantly demand citations is beyond ridiculous considering you've provided virtually none throughout the entire thread, and when you have they haven't even supported what you're saying. Priceless Your persistent, desperate attempts to misrepresent what I'm saying (by selectively bolding )? Yeah. Definitely priceless. Uhh, no I didn't...... but you did, sorry. My quote: I highly doubt, however, that you could make the proper mathematical adjustments for pressure, humidity, wind etc over a 50km arcing flight. The North Koreans probably aren't good at it either. Your response, quoting the above: They don't need to!!!! Again, well done! I'll provide the quote if you like? Go for it. What was actually written differed greatly from what your grasping imagination decided was written. Ballistic science is ballistic science.......and no, there is no such thing as 2km flat trajectory rifle shot More of your petty semantics. If I'd have said relatively flat, or flatter, what would your response have been? No doubt you'd give us another 5-10 line paragraph uselessly paraphrasing wikipedia science, but the central point remains. You're trying to compare direct line-of-sight rifle fire at ranges <2km with indirect artillery fire over 50km. That's ridiculous. You're now claiming you never stated the South Koreans didn't need the Americans to help fend off the North? I'll gladly provide the quote if you like.... I'm not claiming that at all. I'm baffled by how you came to that conclusion. You really do have reading/comprehension problems. Either that or (as I suspect) you're deliberately misrepresenting my posts. If you can't read properly, or if you refuse to demonstrate even a small amount of intellectual integrity, there's no point in continuing the discussion with you. Edited February 23, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 What reason do we have to believe it would be Derek? You've shown us nothing. We're six weeks into this thread and you've still provided literally nothing to support these claims. Seeing you petulantly demand citations is beyond ridiculous considering you've provided virtually none throughout the entire thread, and when you have they haven't even supported what you're saying. Because ballistic science allows man to determine the flight path and point of impact of a projectile within yards, not miles (like WW II area bombing). Even assuming the North Koreans are piss poor at calculations, there presumptive points of impact would be measured in tens or even hundreds of yards, not miles, like area bombing. Now, you say my point is unsupported, but you're the one claiming their artillery fire, a science that has been known worldwide since the first world war, is less accurate than said bombings.........prove it.....I provided a link showing the accuracy of British area bombing, you've yet to provide anything to support you claim. Your persistent, desperate attempts to misrepresent what I'm saying (by selectively bolding )? Yeah. Definitely priceless. I have zero control if your posts contradict one another......... Your response, quoting the above: Again, well done! And that point still stands (as I explained in the following passage in the post that you quoted)..........The North Koreans, like anyone else, don't need to determine environmental effects throughout the ballistic arc of their projectile.......as such effects are determined from the firing point, be it a deer rifle or 16" naval gun. More of your petty semantics. If I'd have said relatively flat, or flatter, what would your response have been? No doubt you'd give us another 5-10 line paragraph uselessly paraphrasing wikipedia science, but the central point remains. You're trying to compare direct line-of-sight rifle fire at ranges <2km with indirect artillery fire over 50km. That's ridiculous. Its not a semantic, but scientific fact, a principle that even a child with a pellet gun would clearly have more of an understanding of then yourself.......the only one using wikipedia (and piss poorly I might add) is yourself. Clearly if the North Koreans have the ability to develop (and export) ballistic missiles, with ranges in the hundreds and thousands of miles, they then have an understanding of parabola and ballistic arc/trajectory, they then understand the lessened complexities of artillery fire…….something you clearly don’t even have a rudimentary understanding of………perhaps instead of regurgitating Wikipedia, you might achieve better results by going down to Canadian Tire and picking up a $50 pellet gun, and then, with the help of an 8 year, you can put your failed theories to work. I'm not claiming that at all. I'm baffled by how you came to that conclusion. You really do have reading/comprehension problems. Either that or (as I suspect) you're deliberately misrepresenting my posts. If you can't read properly, or if you refuse to demonstrate even a small amount of intellectual integrity, there's no point in continuing the discussion with you. How did I misread or misrepresent your claim that the South Koreans, absent the help of the Americans, could defeat the nuclear armed North? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 26, 2015 Report Posted February 26, 2015 It appears Singapore will be the next nation to select the F-35.... Singapore is moving closer to ordering the Lockheed Martin F-35 joint strike fighter, according to program head US Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan. Bogdan also noted increased activity from potential foreign military sales (FMS) customers for the F-35, including Israel, which recently committed to a further 14 aircraft. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 The Netherlands orders eight more F-35A joint strike fighters....just like they said they would: The Netherlands Ministry of Defence (MoD) has placed an order for initial batch of F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter (JSF) aircraft. A total of eight F-35 fighters will be supplied by Lockheed Martin to the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) by 2019. The RNLAF intends to acquire at least 37 new F-35 fighters for replacement of RNLAF's ageing fleet of F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft. Dutch Defence Minister Janine Hennis-Plasschaert said: "It is good that after 12 years of political debate there is now clarity about the successor to the F-16. http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsnetherlands-places-order-for-first-batch-of-f-35-lightning-ii-aircraft-4542737 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Je suis Omar Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 What good are F35s or F350s gonna do anyone when nuclear armed missiles are flying back and forth across the world? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 What good are F35s or F350s gonna do anyone when nuclear armed missiles are flying back and forth across the world? They are good for more Canadian war crimes to protect human rights in sovereign nations. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted April 9, 2015 Report Posted April 9, 2015 The Netherlands orders eight more F-35A joint strike fighters....just like they said they would: The Netherlands Ministry of Defence (MoD) has placed an order for initial batch of F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter (JSF) aircraft. A total of eight F-35 fighters will be supplied by Lockheed Martin to the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) by 2019. The RNLAF intends to acquire at least 37 new F-35 fighters for replacement of RNLAF's ageing fleet of F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft. Dutch Defence Minister Janine Hennis-Plasschaert said: "It is good that after 12 years of political debate there is now clarity about the successor to the F-16. And I thought all along they'd bail on the program Quote
Mighty AC Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Deleted Edited July 1, 2015 by Mighty AC Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 Seems the F-35 isn't performing very well. "Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement." In an interview with the CBC's The Fifth Estate in November of 2014, F-16 co-designer Pierre Sprey berated the F-35 "inherently a terrible plane, because it's built based on a dumb idea"—a multirole, multi-service aircraft. "You've compromised the aircraft horribly for three different missions, and then you've compromised it again for three different services." He said the aircraft was "astonishingly unmaneuverable" because of its ratio of wing surface to weight. "In dogfighting, it's hopeless. "While much of what Sprey said in that interview has been rebutted at length elsewhere, the F-35 test pilot report seems to offer the same conclusion. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/06/report-in-test-dogfight-f-35-gets-waxed-by-f-16/ Oh, the report from the unnamed pilot, conducting an unknown (To the USAF or Lockheed) test...........I heard Elvis was flying the Viper so it seems legit Quote
Mighty AC Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 Oh, the report from the unnamed pilot, conducting an unknown (To the USAF or Lockheed) test...........I heard Elvis was flying the Viper so it seems legit Sorry I moved it to the other F-35 thread...unfortunately after you responded. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Derek 2.0 Posted August 1, 2015 Report Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) Of note: The Marine Fighter Attack Squadron-121, based in Yuma, Arizona, "is the first squadron in military history to become operational with an F-35 variant" and stands "ready for worldwide deployment" with 10 of the aircraft, according to the statement. I think if one dug into this thread, we could find cited experts stating the F-35B was stillborn and would be dropped..... Furthermore: Marine Attack Squadron-211, a Harrier squadron also based in Yuma, will transition to the new fighter in fiscal 2016 and Marine Fighter Attack Squadron-122, a Hornet squadron base in Beaufort, South Carolina, will do the same in 2018, according to the statement. Edited August 1, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 1, 2015 Report Posted August 1, 2015 Might be time to invest in Boeing stock. http://fortune.com/2015/03/18/f35-joint-strike-fighter/ Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 Trudeau steps in it again: In its place, the Liberals said they would launch an "open and transparent competition" to buy more affordable planes to replace Canada's aging CF-18 jets. Trudeau said the money saved by scrapping the F-35 procurement would go primarily to increasing spending on the Royal Canadian Navy. The primary mission of our fighter aircraft, Trudeau said, is the defence of North America. Two points, first Trudeau states he would hold a "open and transparent competition" but that it would exclude the F-35. Second he states our primary mission for our fighter aircraft is in the defense of North America. To the first point, how is the exclusion of the F-35 in the spirit of an open and transparent competition? The F-35 is already cheaper than the two European contenders, and has been apart of nearly every other Western nations similar competitions, of which, it has yet to loose. Second point, he speaks to our role in NORAD, but fails to (understand?) mention, the largest contributor, the USAF and various Air National Guard units, will also be using the F-35 in the defense of North America into the middle of this century. The Tories position I feel is a given, but what surprised me: NDP Leader Tom Mulcair called Trudeau's move to exclude an option in the midst of a procurement process "one of the most surprising things" he has heard the Liberal leader say so far in the campaign. He said the move showed a "total lack of experience." "How can he decide the result in advance of the process? You can't do that. The basic rule of public administration is you define what you need, then you go to a public tender process and the lowest conforming bidder gets the contract," he said. Mulcair said both his opponents have it wrong. While the Liberals are ruling out an option without having all the facts, Harper has practised "decision-based fact making" by pursuing the F-35 at all costs. The NDP, in contrast, would embark on an open procurement process to get the right fighter jets in the air quickly, he said. I guess it doesn't hurt the F-35 that it has sub contractors in industry, already producing various portions of the aircraft, in NDP ridings......... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 To add, the current and projected cost comparisons between the F-35A and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (what is mentioned in the Liberal's platform) The current price in 2015 FY USD, for a pre-production F-35A: The unit cost of the F-35A is $112.50 million (recurring cost) or $129.06 million including non-recurring (flyaway cost) in FY 2015. The airframe costs $74.41 million, the F135-PW-100 engine costs $13.75 million, the avionics cost $22.14 million, while non-recurring and other costs make up the remaining $18.76 million. Of course, Canada wouldn't be purchasing the F-35 until it was in full production, at which point, per Lockheed, the aircraft will cost: An F-35A purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will be $85 million, which is the equivalent of $75 million in today’s dollars. Now the Super Hornet, which is winding down production, per the most recent contract to the Kuwaiti air force: Kuwait plans to order 28 Super Hornet advanced fighter jets worth $3 billion from Boeing, a person close to the deal told AFP Thursday. $3 billion / 28 aircraft = ~$107 million per aircraft..............$107 million price for aircraft that will not be used by the USAF and Air National Guard in the defense of North American airspace via NORAD out to the 2050-60 time frame, likewise $107 million price tag for aircraft that the USN and RAAF will start retiring in the later 2020s-2030s. Trudeau is an idiot for disallowing the F-35 in a Hornet replacement program..........Harper's position I agree with (no surprise) and I'm forced to give Mulcair credit, if he was to hold a fair competition for the Hornet replacement, that I do feel is a waste of time, it will find the F-35 the winner on both capability and price-point.......as its doing with other Western nations. 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.