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

[shortlived]

bemused....

http://www.zdnet.com/cn/china-commercializes-3d-printing-in-aviation-7000011377/

mi hao hao

sheishei

off to learn chinese to audition for survivor.

wtf....

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/766216.shtml

Edited March 10, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

Production in Canada means service life extensions until aircraft start to fall out of the sky:

[waldo]

Pentagon Downgrades Specs for Its Premier Stealth Jet — Again

America’s latest stealth fighter just got heavier, slower and more sluggish.

For the second time in a year, the Pentagon has eased the performance requirements of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The reduced specs — including a slower acceleration and turning rate — lower the bar for the troubled trillion-dollar JSF program, allowing it to proceed toward full-rate production despite ongoing problems with the plane’s complex design. Under the old specs, the stealth fighter, due to enter service in 2018 or 2019, probably wouldn't pass its Pentagon-mandated final exams.

At the same time, newly identified safety problems could force F-35-smith Lockheed Martin to add fire-suppression gear that will only increase the plane’s weight and further decrease its maneuverability. The JSF is meant to be a jack of all trades, equally capable of dropping bombs and fighting other aircraft — the latter requiring extreme nimbleness in the air.

quick! Can an F-35 cheerleader post another of these LRIP gems!!!

[bush_cheney2004]

More Avro Arrow flashbacks as Canada struggles with yet another military procurement.

Ghost of the Avro Arrow haunts the F-35

....Much of the blame rests with Defence Minister Peter MacKay, on whose
watch the errors were made. But the seeds of the F-35 debacle were sown
way back in 1959 — when former Conservative prime minister John
Diefenbaker killed off the Avro Arrow.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2012/04/04/ghost_of_the_avro_arrow_haunts_the_f35.html

[Guest Derek L]

In other news, Pierre Sprey is critical of the combat effectiveness of the new F-35 F-15.........You see, Sprey figures the F-35 F-15 to be too expensive, too complex and too dependant on “high-risk technology”…………

[Guest Derek L]

all the rules the F-35 broke:

1. Fighters must be fast and agile

Like the F-4?

2. ‘Multi-role’ aircraft seldom are, don’t try

Oh, like the F-4, F-15, F-16, F/A-18?

3. You can’t make a fighter out of a bomber (make it a fighter first, then later develop a ground-attack version)

Oh, Like the Son of F-111......you know, the F-14.......

4. Never rely on any unproven concepts as linchpins

Yeah, things like jet engines and radar could be risky………

5. Don’t start production until the aircraft works

Like the F-4 and F-16 right?

[Guest Derek L]

The Royal Netherlands Air Force now has more F-35's than Canada, and is still laughing about the Chinooks that Canada sold them in a fit of colossal rotary wing aircraft stupidity. Meanwhile back at the ranch, the USMC likes to play with F-35B's, also rolling off the line:

But I thought the troubled "B" was to be aborted?

Edited March 10, 2013 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Pentagon Downgrades Specs for Its Premier Stealth Jet — Again

quick! Can an F-35 cheerleader post another of these LRIP gems!!!

Ooooo…Me…….Me…..Me….Me………The author failed to mention the parameters involving said reduction in sustained Gs and acceleration, well also failing to mention other aircraft to contrast………..It’s all about wing loading………

[waldo]

More Avro Arrow flashbacks as Canada struggles with yet another military procurement.

your most recent reaction to reading challenge/criticism of the F-35 is to either throw up picture-porn of not-ready-for-prime-time LRIP planes... or to attempt to 'attack' Canada directly. In terms of my personal F-35 related input, I'm pretty sure I've not been directly critical of the U.S. (country, proper)... I believe as close as I've come to even speaking of the U.S. (country, proper), is to showcase U.S. budgetary constraint affecting the F-35 program. These recent exchanges reveal another quirk in your sensitivities and how you react.

[waldo]

In other news, Pierre Sprey is critical of the combat effectiveness of the new F-35 F-15.........You see, Sprey figures the F-35 F-15 to be too expensive, too complex and too dependant on “high-risk technology”…………

[waldo]

Like the F-4? Oh, like the F-4, F-15, F-16, F/A-18? Oh, Like the Son of F-111......you know, the F-14.......Yeah, things like jet engines and radar could be risky………Like the F-4 and F-16 right?

the 'rules' were simply an easy symbolic reference to the over-riding conceptual limitation of the F-35... in attempting to design a foundation that presumes to allow the divergent needs of all military branches to be met, the F-35 won't be exceptional in meeting the needs for any of them. F-35 - "design by compromise"!

but really, your response was most selective. On occasion, the waldo tries to showcase your self-serving pick&choose approach... this time, you picked, you chose, not to acknowledge and respond to the "F-35 programs acquisition malpractice" quote from the Pentagon's big-cheese for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Too much of a burn, hey?

[waldo]

Ooooo…Me…….Me…..Me….Me………The author failed to mention the parameters involving said reduction in sustained Gs and acceleration, well also failing to mention other aircraft to contrast………..It’s all about wing loading………

uhhh... this latest article just extends upon the earlier one, you've now ignored - twice. That one does speak to the parameters... does offer a degree of contrast. It's interesting how you can manage to find 'this article', but you can't find the other one (now posted twice). This article was more general, but equally, more pointed in highlighting this is not the first time the Pentagon has lowered standards to allow the F-35 to continue/proceed. You could choose to address the other article and, in particular, why you believe lowering performance standards is 'no biggee'... you could do that, but will you?

I mean, really, c'mon... shyte happens and some of it gets worked through. But you simply refuse to accept any criticisms... even those presented to you as coming from independent sources... even those internal to the U.S. government/Pentagon, some of which are only coming forward via leaks or FOI pursuits. Who really knows how bad it is, particularly when the problems begin to get redacted in terms of classified info? Other sources like this article references: Trillion-Dollar Jet Has Thirteen Expensive New Flaws... all of which, with more to come, reinforce the significant impacts F-35 testing/development concurrency has and will continue to have going forward, farther and farther ahead. You know, the "acquisition malpractice" emphasis you refuse to acknowledge... in your bubble!

[bush_cheney2004]

your most recent reaction to reading challenge/criticism of the F-35 is to either throw up picture-porn of not-ready-for-prime-time LRIP planes... or to attempt to 'attack' Canada directly. In terms of my personal F-35 related input, I'm pretty sure I've not been directly critical of the U.S. (country, proper)... I believe as close as I've come to even speaking of the U.S. (country, proper), is to showcase U.S. budgetary constraint affecting the F-35 program. These recent exchanges reveal another quirk in your sensitivities and how you react.

Don't start whining now about Canada's well documented military procurement 'fiascos'. If you are ashamed of the Canadian record, and continue to deflect with the usual references to the U.S. and utter dependence on American data (when Canada has little or none available in the public space), then be prepared to get strafed repeatedly.

I don't know or care what Canada chooses to do about replacing their existing American strike fighter aircraft. But Americans will continue to spend big bucks on weapons platforms and systems to the point of increasing debt...and capabilities against all present and projected threats. You will not be able to "kill the program" by complaining about the costs from another (Tier 3) nation.

[bush_cheney2004]

uhhh... Pentagon.....F-35....U.S. government/Pentagon....FOI pursuits. Who really knows how bad it is, particularly when the problems begin to get redacted in terms of classified info?

But you live in Canada, remember ? Why worry so much about the American problems with their shiny new F-35's? You have grandpa's CF-18's...plenty good for bombing the crap out of Libyans (after the American defense suppression is complete).

Edited March 10, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

"Aborted" F-35B with weapons bay opened. This aircraft variant is/was never intended for Canadian procurement, but is often referenced here at MLW anyway:

[bush_cheney2004]

F-35A test aircraft at Edwards....these are parked too close together and could be destroyed by Canadian critics in one well coordinated Google attack:

Edited March 10, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[ReeferMadness]

F-35A test aircraft at Edwards....these are parked too close together and could be destroyed by Canadian critics in one well coordinated Google attack:

Thanks for the war porn. Please don't share with us the things you do when you're alone with these images. Even for a war-cheerleader like yourself, you seem to be pushing this particular button with all your fingers and thumbs. Care to divulge any personal interest in the F-35 success?

It's not as exciting as your pictures of course, but I thought you might be interested in some actual analysis on this supersonic turkey.

The problem is that the F-35 is not a proven fighter design, with a demonstrated baseline of performance in service. It’s a developmental aircraft in the early middle of its test program, which is now scheduled to continue until 2018 or even 2019.

As one might expect, this status makes the F-35 a controversial long-term bet in many of the program’s member countries. Costs aren’t certain, numbers ordered are slipping in many countries, and timelines aren’t certain after numerous schedule delays. With combat testing still a year or 2 away, even operational performance isn’t certain. That’s especially consequential for air forces that expect to field the F-35 as their only fighter.

The clear implication of the RAND study is that the F-35 is very likely to wind up facing many more “up close and personal” opponents than its proponents suggest, while dealing with effective beyond-visual-range infrared-guided missiles as an added complication. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 is described as “double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”

Oh, dear.

Edited March 10, 2013 by ReeferMadness

[Guest Derek L]

the 'rules' were simply an easy symbolic reference to the over-riding conceptual limitation of the F-35... in attempting to design a foundation that presumes to allow the divergent needs of all military branches to be met, the F-35 won't be exceptional in meeting the needs for any of them. F-35 - "design by compromise"!

but really, your response was most selective. On occasion, the waldo tries to showcase your self-serving pick&choose approach... this time, you picked, you chose, not to acknowledge and respond to the "F-35 programs acquisition malpractice" quote from the Pentagon's big-cheese for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Too much of a burn, hey?

Your rules, constructed to disparage the F-35, when applied to other past aircraft, clearly demonstrate said “litmus tests” were flawed in their methodology………So how does one post your neato strawman comic?

[bush_cheney2004]

Thanks for the war porn. Please don't share with us the things you do when you're alone with these images. Even for a war-cheerleader like yourself, you seem to be pushing this particular button with all your fingers and thumbs. Care to divulge any personal interest in the F-35 success?

No personal interest in the F-35...hell..it's costing "me" a fortune. I just decided to join the Canadian exuberance for American procurement program costs that is on display here by certain members. If it's American war toys and DoD data that works them up into a lather, then I shall provide all they can handle and more. We both know that what Americans choose to do is so important to Canada !

It's not as exciting as your pictures of course, but I thought you might be interested in some actual analysis on this supersonic turkey.

Oh, dear.

For the umpteenth time, the U.S. blows more money on "turkey" development than Canada can even imagine. Two prototype programs were fully funded before the F-35 ever came to be. This is why Canada is considering (yet again) procurement of American made kit....there is none...nothing....nada...available from Canada, which didn't even buy its own Avro Arrow.

Edited March 10, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

I don't know or care what Canada chooses to do about replacing their existing American strike fighter aircraft.

whaaa! You have a most interesting way in choosing to express your, 'don't know, don't care'!!!

[Guest Derek L]

uhhh... this latest article just extends upon the earlier one, you've now ignored - twice. That one does speak to the parameters... does offer a degree of contrast. It's interesting how you can manage to find 'this article', but you can't find the other one (now posted twice). This article was more general, but equally, more pointed in highlighting this is not the first time the Pentagon has lowered standards to allow the F-35 to continue/proceed. You could choose to address the other article and, in particular, why you believe lowering performance standards is 'no biggee'... you could do that, but will you?

I mean, really, c'mon... shyte happens and some of it gets worked through. But you simply refuse to accept any criticisms... even those presented to you as coming from independent sources... even those internal to the U.S. government/Pentagon, some of which are only coming forward via leaks or FOI pursuits. Who really knows how bad it is, particularly when the problems begin to get redacted in terms of classified info? Other sources like this article references: Trillion-Dollar Jet Has Thirteen Expensive New Flaws... all of which, with more to come, reinforce the significant impacts F-35 testing/development concurrency has and will continue to have going forward, farther and farther ahead. You know, the "acquisition malpractice" emphasis you refuse to acknowledge... in your bubble!

Nowhere in said article did it offer contrast in terms of another aircraft……………..Perhaps offering the F-35’s specifications with an air-to-air load out (stored internally) versus say an F-16 or a Su-35 with an equal external load may shed better light when attempting to critique the F-35’s combat effectiveness………

[bush_cheney2004]

More 'aborted' F-35 variants in a foreign country that has nothing to do with Canada....this time F-35B and C at Pax River. Note lift fan aft of cockpit that will never be procured by Canada, but is often referred to here at MLW:

[Guest Derek L]

More 'aborted' F-35 variants in a foreign country that has nothing to do with Canada....this time F-35B and C at Pax River. Note lift fan aft of cockpit that will never be procured by Canada, but is often referred to here at MLW:

Why that can’t be…………just over a year ago, the “B” was the runt of the litter and faced the axe? Are you now suggesting that it’s formed an operational squadron?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why that can’t be…………just over a year ago, the “B” was the runt of the litter and faced the axe? Are you now suggesting that it’s formed an operational squadron?

No....the F-35B can't be at Yuma in an operational squadron because certain self anointed experts here say it ain't happening. This video was faked by the Marine Corp:

Edited March 10, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

This 'aborted' F-35B starts ferry from Fort Worth to Pax River....none of these actually exist: