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

[bush_cheney2004]

I think it was the F-105 that first tried to tackle that issue with notable success. But, in Viet-Nam they overloaded those suckers to the max at times...wings and extra belly rack included. Still did Mach 1 at sea level...heh.

Right...recon versions of aircraft would strip away all the clutter for speed, with one of the best examples being the RA-5C Vigilante (discussed before). It was so fast that it would out run the mission's escort aircraft (Vietnam). The Americans have every intention of using these new aircraft as offensive weapons systems, just like those that have come before. Don't like it ? Bitch to Obama about it.

[DogOnPorch]

Ah yes...the Vigilante, too. Those two aircraft came out just days apart back in the late 1950s. Imagine putting that beast down on an old WW2 slant deck conversion. Yikes!

[GostHacked]

So when do we take possession of this aircraft?

[bush_cheney2004]

Ah yes...the Vigilante, too. Those two aircraft came out just days apart back in the late 1950s. Imagine putting that beast down on an old WW2 slant deck conversion. Yikes!

Yep...the aviation rates working topside hated that damn thing because it was so big and had to come in "hot". RA-5C's had the highest loss rate over Vietnam because of their post strike damage assessment (BDA) missions, when the NVA was hopping mad !!

[DogOnPorch]

Yep...the aviation rates working topside hated that damn thing because it was so big and had to come in "hot". RA-5C's had the highest loss rate over Vietnam because of their post strike damage assessment (BDA) missions, when the NVA was hopping mad !!

...and the MiG-21 was nothing if not fast. SAMs, as well, of course, if those nasty WWs weren't around.

Oh...here's a shot of a bunch on a BIGGER carrier (CVN-65)...lol. Huge!

Note also the A-4 and the F-8...

Edited June 18, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

So when do we take possession of this aircraft?

The Vigilante is long retired, GH.

[GostHacked]

The Vigilante is long retired, GH.

Wait, so the topic of this thread is about the Vigilante? Damn someone needs to change the title.

[DogOnPorch]

Wait, so the topic of this thread is about the Vigilante? Damn someone needs to change the title.

After 73 pages, I doubt it matters what aircraft BC and I talk about. You're free to put-up a possible replacement for the F-35 and we'll discuss it. Meanwhile, if you're unaware as to why the F-105 and the Vigilante are part of this discussion...read again. What do they have that the F-35 also has?

[GostHacked]

After 73 pages, I doubt it matters what aircraft BC and I talk about. You're free to put-up a possible replacement for the F-35 and we'll discuss it. Meanwhile, if you're unaware as to why the F-105 and the Vigilante are part of this discussion...read again. What do they have that the F-35 also has?

I believe there is another thread created for just that kind of talk. We should really stick to the F-35 since it is the topic at hand.

So when do we take possession of the F-35?

[AlienB]

Because PCL will not work for accurate air-to-air or ground-to-air fire control guidance against stealthy targets, If it was that easy, it would have been done years ago. EW and ECM suites will detect passive radar and coherent location efforts, if they haven't already been destroyed by defense suppression. It's still a counter measure game out there, and that includes stealth.

Why are such things called "jet fighters" or worse yet...."fighter jets" by Canadians ?

Canada sees its airplanes as means of airdefence for interception, as opposed to the US who sees them as a means to bomb other countries and achieve air superiority.

This is part of the reason why many Canadians do not like the f35 it is a stealth strike fighter, not an interceptor which since arrow times has been the role of Canadian jets. The whole idea of using Canada's small wing or two of jets to attack other countries as opposed to defend Canadian airspace works contrary to the peace loving doves.

Canada is a country of doves not hawks.

Its only since 911 that the minority majority has imposed its will on the other 60% of Canadians. You got to realize the current government does not represent the majority of the public, especially for foreign affairs matters. The majority is opposed to Canada going to war. This is much different in the US where large blocks of Americans want Islamic blood 12 years later

The war drum is being deadened though now with there being a relative split or opposition to arming the syrian rebels. Also I suppose that with new leadership in Iran, the war drum will also deaden, this means that procurements in general will be acceptable to reduce. So a whole lot is going to be on the chopping block, and procurement wise the f35 is the fall guy.

The US has also reduced and killed its own orders.. its not odd that other countries are doing the same since it is a US program.

It seems nato in syria for instance is all about doing as much collatoral damage as possible

http://www.debka.com/article/23054/First-European-NATO-heavy-arms-for-Syrian-rebels-Russian-reprisal-expected

as you can see the afghanistan war equipment (including that lost by Canadian shipping methods) is now showing up in Syria... but f35's well was is the Jordanian no fly zone being made with...

It is also suprising that Libyan weapons are also being transfered to Syria by Nato... its really a convergence in black resources.. very preplanned.

f35 has only now started its missile tests... this is important to look at as well .. does the US or other militaries have the intention of fielding the f35 to Jordan or Turkey or Israel?

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2009/01/20/Can-the-US-F-35-fighter-destroy-Russias-S-300-systems/UPI-39001232464740/

As appears obvious the timeline for impossing a no fly zone will be very in line with when flight testing is done and "combat tests" begin... perhaps with Syria as a "selling ponit"

look that nasty air defence system.. it can't hit us...

The American Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth Lightning Joint Strike Fighter is designed to destroy Russia's S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems,

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2009/01/20/Can-the-US-F-35-fighter-destroy-Russias-S-300-systems/UPI-39001232464740/#ixzz2WbdMMlP4

and all so close since Jordan Turkey and Israel all border the very small territory in which the f35 can operate in full stealth..more or less... the strike missions on Syria are the program selling point there is no doubt.

" The computer simulations have demonstrated that the Lightning can defeat Russia's S-300 in combat."

Edited June 18, 2013 by AlienB

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada sees its airplanes as means of airdefence for interception, as opposed to the US who sees them as a means to bomb other countries and achieve air superiority.

That's fine pablum for the masses, but history says otherwise going back to at least WW2. Canada has completed many attack/strike and CAP missions in Iraq, former Yugoslavia, and Libya as recently as 2011.

This is part of the reason why many Canadiand do not like the f35 it is a stealth strike fighter, not an interceptor which since arrow times has been the role of Canadian jets. The whole idea of using our small wing or two of jets to attack other countries as opposed to defend Canadian airspace works contrary to the peace loving doves.

Canada is a country of doves not hawks.

See above, and explain why Canada procured F/A-18 strike aircraft (that's what the "A" means..."Attack") instead of dedicated air superiority fighter-interceptors back in the day (e.g. F-14 Tomcat or Mirage 2000). Canada's "doves" drop bombs on people through an elected government and political leadership, just like the Americans. The only difference is one of scale.

Its only since 911 that the minority majority has imposed its will on the other 60% of Canadians. You got to realize the current government does not represent the majority of the public, especially for foreign affairs matters. The majority is opposed to Canada going to war. This is much different in the US where large blocks of Americans want Islamic blood 12 years later

See above.....Canada has bombed other sovereign states regardless of sitting government. I think you reflect a common sense of purposeful denial when it comes to such things, even as Canadian Forces still have to do the nation's dirty work.

Edited June 18, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[AlienB]

That's fine pablum for the masses, but history says otherwise going back to at least WW2. Canada has completed many attack/strike and CAP missions in Iraq, former Yugoslavia, and Libya as recently as 2011.

Yes but these were not Canadians wars, they were NATO wars.

See above, and explain why Canada procured F/A-18 strike aircraft (that's what the "A" means..."Attack") instead of dedicated air superiority fighter-interceptors back in the day (e.g. F-14 Tomcat or Mirage 2000). Canada's "doves" drop bombs on people through an elected government and political leadership, just like the Americans. The only difference is one of scale.

Yes but this is about preference, and no, that is not the case, non representative government is not their government, it is someone elses government, they didn't vote for them.

See above.....Canada has bombed other sovereign states regardless of sitting government. I think you reflect a common sense of purposeful denial when it comes to such things, even as Canadian Forces still have to do the nation's dirty work.

Sure if they are ordered by the governor general unless they want to refuse. None the less its not the country's dirty work, it is the UN or NATO's usually which represents US war strategy in every case provided. Of course Canada is part of NATO and the UN, however when was the last time Canada actually declared war... the impetus has been international calls led by the west, Canadians are not traditionally the ones to beat the war drums.

You can say Canadians' hands are bloody but in reality in no way does government or military actions represent their wishes. People of coures can present passive resistance, and some antiwar people might do that, most Canadians however just distance themselves from the actions of their government, the government doesn't represent them. That is it right there the government is a seperate class, its not a representative government, it is little more than a professional class. It really has no legal point of representation, even the MPs out there are often just representing their voters not the public.

Sure if they are ordered by the governor general unless they want to refuse. None the less its not the country's dirty work, it is the UN or NATO's usually which represents US war strategy in every case provided. Of course Canada is part of NATO and the UN, however when was the last time Canada actually declared war... the impetus has been international calls led by the west, Canadians are not traditionally the ones to beat the war drums. You can say Canadians' hands are bloody but in reality in no way does government or military actions represent their wishes. People of course can present passive resistance, and some antiwar people might do that, most Canadians however just distance themselves from the actions of their government, the government doesn't represent them. That is it right there the government is a separate class, its not a representative government, it is little more than a professional class. It really has no legal point of representation, even the MPs out there are often just representing their voters not the public.

Real Canadians arn't slaves to the state, they are free.

Edited June 18, 2013 by AlienB

[bush_cheney2004]

...Real Canadians arn't slaves to the state, they are free.

This is just more denial and rationalization. The Canadian bombs, munitions, artillery shells, and bullets are real. Americans could also delude themselves in such a way, but most do not. And I am pretty sure that this "real" Canadian didn't either:

[Guest Derek L]

ok, ok, Derek L... since you absolutely refuse to substantiate your repeated claim that F-35 program costs have come down through the iterative program cycle... even after you have been repeatedly challenged to support your claim, the waldo will drop the junkyard dog act and put you out of your misery: as you can see, the B&C variant procurement cost has never been higher... and the A variant cost is now higher than all but one of the last 4 years.

you are welcome - carry on!

Did you read your graph? Note the 2012 price for the F-35A/Air Force/Canada's planned purchase version versus the 2013 price.....

[Guest Derek L]

Italy's ruling party divided over order for F-35 combat jets

huh! The numbers I read for Italy split the significantly now reduced purchase intent (now down to 90 from the original 130) into 60 A variant and 30 B variant.

as for the Dutch... are you counting your chickens before they hatch? Yes, we have had discussion on this before - the final decision is as tenuous as the nature of coalition government. As you know, as we discussed, if not for a most unexpected win by the Dutch VVD Party in the recent election (and the resulting coalition makeup), the Netherlands Parliament had voted to kill the F-35 program. As of today, no final decision has been made... in spite of all the (relatively) recent articles stating one has. You need to read no further than the official Dutch House of Representatives website:

of course, the fact the Dutch opted not to accept the 2 F-35s they have already purchased... and that are now being stored in the U.S. - that should have been your first clue that a final decision has not yet been made!

if you do not like the above Netherlands Parliament link & quote, here is a days old update - even with a lame google translation, the essence comes through - no final decision has been made to this point.

in any case, there is uncertainty remaining still - to this day... for both F-35 Tier 2 partners, for both the Netherlands and Italy!

Did you read your above link?

The Netherlands ordered two F-35As to participate in US-led initial operational test and evaluation of the Joint Strike Fighter. The Hague says its operational phase of this activity is due to commence during 2015.

[Guest Derek L]

not tested, not proven... again, you revert to target performance metrics and stated “flight characteristics” (from LockMart)... of course you do!

Actually, the flight characteristics, such as wing loading and thrust to weight is already determined……

[Guest Derek L]

Because PCL will not work for accurate air-to-air or ground-to-air fire control guidance against stealthy targets, If it was that easy, it would have been done years ago. EW and ECM suites will detect passive radar and coherent location efforts, if they haven't already been destroyed by defense suppression. It's still a counter measure game out there, and that includes stealth.

Why are such things called "jet fighters" or worse yet...."fighter jets" by Canadians ?

Exactly, PCL like IR detection devices (common on Russian aircraft) are range and weather/relative humidity limited………If with such devices you can “spot” a stealth aircraft out to 8km and the stealth aircraft is armed with AIM-120s with a range of 100+ kms or AGM-88 with a range of 100+ km……well you do the math.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, the flight characteristics, such as wing loading and thrust to weight is already determined……

Most definitely...six ways to Sunday. No such aircraft has been so closely scrutinized.

[Guest Derek L]

So when do we take possession of this aircraft?

Likely in 2017.…..but stay tuned for the Spring of 2014.…..

[Guest Derek L]

Most definitely...six ways to Sunday. No such aircraft has been so closely scrutinized.

Exactly, actual wing loading was determined even before the X-35 took it's first first flight......Thank the continuity of mathematics

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly, PCL like IR detection devices (common on Russian aircraft) are range and weather/relative humidity limited………If with such devices you can “spot” a stealth aircraft out to 8km and the stealth aircraft is armed with AIM-120s with a range of 100+ kms or AGM-88 with a range of 100+ km……well you do the math.

Yep....modern methods to establish air superiority will systematically destroy any anti-air defense network, starting with cruise missile attacks against primary targets, power grid, command and control, comms networks, etc. It may take longer against a modernized adversary, but the result will be the same. The very recent concept of establishing a "no-fly zone" is now taken for granted. If the enemy flies...they die.

[Guest Derek L]

Yep....modern methods to establish air superiority will systematically destroy any anti-air defense network, starting with cruise missile attacks against primary targets, power grid, command and control, comms networks, etc. It may take longer against a modernized adversary, but the result will be the same. The very recent concept of establishing a "no-fly zone" is now taken for granted. If the enemy flies...they die.

Exactly......if Stealth was a dead end, why are the Chinese and Russians also attempting to build their own Stealth aircraft....

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly......if Stealth was a dead end, why are the Chinese and Russians also attempting to build their own Stealth aircraft....

Gee...haven't they heard that PCL and digital signal processing by fancy new EADS consoles will make stealth obsolete ? Those silly Russians and Chinese, what are the thinking ?

[waldo]

Did you read your graph? Note the 2012 price for the F-35A/Air Force/Canada's planned purchase version versus the 2013 price.....

nice cherry-pick... but I already stated as much: "as you can see, the B&C variant procurement cost has never been higher... and the A variant cost is now higher than all but one of the last 4 years."

but really... since you still refuse to substantiate your claim, are you now going to use my source/cite (while cherry-picking a single year... out of 4), to substantiate your claim that F-35 costs have continued to come down through project development? Is that what you're now lamely going to attempt - say it ain't so! Why not cut through any of this and just put up your own substantiation, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

nice cherry-pick... but I already stated as much: "as you can see, the B&C variant procurement cost has never been higher... and the A variant cost is now higher than all but one of the last 4 years."

but really... since you still refuse to substantiate your claim, are you now going to use my source/cite (while cherry-picking a single year... out of 4), to substantiate your claim that F-35 costs have continued to come down through project development? Is that what you're now lamely going to attempt - say it ain't so! Why not cut through any of this and just put up your own substantiation, hey?

But Canada is not purchasing the B & C.........But what happened with this year's price versus the price in 2012? We should see the details for the next batch sometime in July.....Then we'll factor that in also