Smallc Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Well, the 380 for example first flew in April o5, and then did it's first commercial flight in Oct. 07. I think that kind of comparison isn't going to help the F 35 image much. The F-35 will be operational in just over a year. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 The F-35 will be operational in just over a year. Now there optimism! Or by "operational" do you mean able to fulfill it's training role? That might happen I suppose. With a lot of luck. Quote
Smallc Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Now there optimism! Or by "operational" do you mean able to fulfill it's training role? That might happen I suppose. With a lot of luck. Combat capable it just proved it in it's latest training round. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Combat capable it just proved it in it's latest training round. Perhaps a year from now, if they can get the latest bugs out of the software. Don't hold your breath. Quote
Smallc Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 The latest software upload allowed an air to air engagement. I'd link to the article in the citizen if I weren't on my phone. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 I know the information. All you have to do is google it. Let's start with the fact that the F-35 carries its weapons internally (under normal load) and so doesn't have the drag factor of the hornet. That means it's more maneuverable and faster in combat configuration. Now let's move on to range: F-35: 1080 km on internal fuel F-18: 740 km...with weapons carried on pilons...meaning it's going to be slower and less maneuverable than the Lightning. Shall we go on? You think it carries everything internally? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouT1qtgY9qQ Quote
Smallc Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 It carries a normal load internally. Loaded for bear, it has external weapons. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 We'll get a pretty good picture of what is in the report based on how long Harper tries to hide it. Quote
waldo Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 The F-35 will be operational in just over a year. your replies show you're not making variant distinctions. U.S. Marines (B variant) had a 2015 target for IOC... as was discussed previously, given a myriad of identified problems, critical suggestion is that this will be delayed at least a year. The U.S. Air Force (A variant) has a 2016 target for IOC... U.S. Navy (C variant) has a 2018 target for IOC. I trust you see what's driving the IOC dates... it isn't JSF partner countries looking down from the cheap seats. Quote
waldo Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 The latest software upload allowed an air to air engagement. I'd link to the article in the citizen if I weren't on my phone. again, you're mixing variants. The 'A' variant flew with 3i software... which is being called 'new/the latest'... but is nothing more than the same old 2B software load matched up to hardware changes. Getting to actual '3 version' software is the crux of the significant critical emphasis on F-35 (at large) software delays. It was the 'B' variant that fired 2 AMRAAMs at 2 drones... hardly real combat and not really a "biggee" in the big weapons picture. My latest understanding had the F-35 unable to carry those internally. Within anything I've read on these latest tests, I've not found anything to suggest these were mounted internally. Since you've just highlighted the internal versus external aspects (and stealth implications), perhaps you can offer an update - yes? Quote
waldo Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 I know the information. All you have to do is google it. Let's start with the fact that the F-35 carries its weapons internally (under normal load) and so doesn't have the drag factor of the hornet. That means it's more maneuverable and faster in combat configuration. Now let's move on to range: F-35: 1080 km on internal fuel F-18: 740 km...with weapons carried on pilons...meaning it's going to be slower and less maneuverable than the Lightning. Shall we go on? still flying your imaginary paper plane, hey? "Shall we go on"?....... shall we? further to the earlier reference where U.S. General Michael Hostage, head of air combat command in the U.S, went "off script" --- "F-35 ‘irrelevant’ without accompanying F-22 jet as support" But in an interview with the Air Force Times, published in February, Hostage pointed out the F-35 needs to work hand-in-hand with the F-22. “The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform,” Hostage said. “It needs the F-22.” Just Face It - The F-35 Is A "Bomb Truck" Quote
waldo Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Again, all of those numbers are right, it simply depends on the question. even if you start pining once again for Derek to 'come to your rescue', it won't help in regards to pricing. He's repeatedly tried to get the 'fly-away' cost (which really isn't anywhere near actual/full costing, once you factor in everything that it doesn't include) down, closer and closer, to the initial reeediculous Harper Conservative estimate number... he's given up on using LockMart numbers since no reputable person/outlet gives them any credence. He has tried a couple of relatively recent wascally attempts to quote numbers sans engine costs... unfortunately, for him, the waldo was quick to point out his failed attempts. But don't fret completely as I expect we'll see Derek back shortly... after he serves out his equally reeediculous (and uncalled for) suspension time. you seem quite emboldened over cost... you appear to keep barking out that $9B figure without regard to the actual cost per plane. Of course, we could have some real fun here if one took the time to highlight just what isn't included in 'fly-away' costs... not withstanding the full gamut of contingency that figure is intended to cover. It's quite the liberty you take with that figure, don't you think? Perhaps you should put your mark down for what you estimate the actual fly-away cost per plane (to Canada) will be..... and when they'll actually show up? Your cost and date, yes? I mean, since you appear so emboldened over... cost and date. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Canada will procure the LockMart F-35 JSF....this is inevitable. There are now more F-35s than there are air worthy CF-188s. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Canada will procure the LockMart F-35 JSF....this is inevitable. There are now more F-35s than there are air worthy CF-188s. Don't think so. And how would those two ideas be connected if they were true? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Don't think so. And how would those two ideas be connected if they were true? And I note you didn't say "airworthy" F 35's. Have they signed off to let them fly when it's dark yet? Quote
Smallc Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 You do understand that this is how development and testing processes work, right? The F-35 has now been certified for multiple air to air engagements, and is filling conversion squadrons as we speak. Orders are starting to come in, non parter air forces are investigating the aircraft, and costs are falling in line. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Canada will procure the LockMart F-35 JSF....this is inevitable. There are now more F-35s than there are air worthy CF-188s. Are you kidding? Canada alone operates as many as 103 188's and the 100th 35's was built last December. Quote
Smallc Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Are you kidding? Canada alone operates as many as 103 188's and the 100th 35's was built last December. Canada has only 77 operations CF-188s.... Quote
ASIP Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 There are now more F-35s than there are air worthy CF-188s. Do not flatter yourself. Use either CF-18 or CF188 identification. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 Canada has only 77 operations CF-188s.... That's only the modernized ones. And BTW, your range numbers are way off. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 Do not flatter yourself. Use either CF-18 or CF188 identification. ??? I will use whichever "identification" I please. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 And here's a little heads up in case you haven't already thought about it: the NFPS report is complete and in Harper's hot little hand. If he sits on that all the way up to the next election, you can pretty much figure out what's in that report. And I expect that's exactly what he will do. (speculation only) Quote
ASIP Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 ??? I will use whichever "identification" I please. Sure, but it shows that you have no idea what you pretend you do... It was just a friendly reminder. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Sure, but it shows that you have no idea what you pretend you do... It was just a friendly reminder. A friendly reminder of what ? That Canada refers to the U.S. designed and built F/A-18 Hornet by both CF-18 and CF-188 ? Or is it a reminder that U.S. based contractors upgraded and maintain such aircraft ? Or is it a reminder that Canada buys ordnance and laser guided munitions from the U.S. for such aircraft and qualify on U.S. ranges? Or is it a reminder that such aircraft became so obsolete that they were incompatible with NATO standards for secure data comms (Link 16) and IFF ? Or is it a reminder that Canada didn't have enough CF-18 laser designator pods during the Kosovo War ? Or is it a reminder that Canada could not sustain deployment of a CF-18 squadron to Afghanistan ? Thanks for the friendly reminder. http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=contract-signed-for-cf-18-advanced-multi-role-infrared-sensor/hnps1tln Edited June 2, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 Canada will procure the LockMart F-35 JSF....this is inevitable. There are now more F-35s than there are air worthy CF-188s. Not inevitable, not at all. I guess what it boils down to is why would we spend more than double for an airplane that may or may not be able to fulfill a role that the Super Hornet is already fulfilling. 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.