Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

And for the numpties that say the F-35 lacks the ability to defend itself from other aircraft: 

 

 

Quote

Aviation Week reports that the Joint Strike Fighter killed 15 aggressors for each F-35 downed. The F-35 achieved this remarkable ratio in a drastically increased threat environment that included radar jamming, increased air threats, and surface-to-air missile batteries.

 

Furthermore:

 

Quote

 

But the F-35s didn't just shoot down the enemy — they used their sensor-fusion and data link abilities to talk to other planes and help them sniff out threats they wouldn't have seen on their own.

 

"Before, where we would have one advanced threat and we would put everything we had — F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, missiles, we would shoot everything we had at that one threat just to take it out — now we are seeing three or four of those threats at a time," Lt. Col. George Watkins, 34th Fighter Squadron commander, told Aviation Week.

 

"Just between [the F-35] and the [F-22] Raptor, we are able to geolocate them, precision-target them, and then we are able to bring the fourth-generation assets in behind us after those threats are neutralized," Watkins said. "It's a whole different world out there for us now."

 

 

And its not just a force multiplier for other aircraft, but naval and ground forces........with a radar capable of tracking something as small and fast as an artillery shell, giving the f-35 the ability to not only track and attack artillery to the point in which it was fired, but relay targeting information to other allied ground forces.......likewise, in a naval environment, the F-35 is capable of providing targeting data for ships and subs, allowing these platforms to remain "stealth" by not turning on their own search and fire control radars.........

 

Purchasing any legacy aircraft, absent attrition aircraft, today is idiotic, even more so now that the F-35's price has fallen dramatically

[Rue]

16 hours ago, Omni said:

Actually there isn't much fuel savings having one engine when the F 35 uses about 2000 kg more fuel to go the same distance as the Super-hornet. There may be some savings in overhaul costs with one engine, if you can get the same TBO out of that one engine but the F 35 burns so hot I would tend to think it may be subjected to unscheduled maintenance. And of course if you do lose that one engine you lose the whole plane. From what I know from actual pilots, they like lots of engines. Especially if they are over the ocean or the freezing cold arctic. .  

You are quite correct about the F35 compared to SuperH in terms of gas consumption. Say between a Gripen and F35 there would be a major difference.

I think form what I have read when you look at the state of the art single jet fighters and double get fighters today, the most  modern ones, you are probably right and the major difference would be overhaul and wear and tear and maintenance.  Gas mileage probably on small recreational craft between two and one engine can be significant but with these state of the art monsters all bets are off in measuring fuel consumption as the only criteria.

The crash records are not safer with two engine crafts. Its a goo debate there are pros and cons to both all I am saying is safety alone is not necessarily improved by two engines in fact the increase in an accident because of 2 engines or the severity of accident with two engines may be greater.

Interestingly I love the F15 which is a two engine craft. Then again the F16 was and is a great craft. Push come to shove I take the F15 over the F16 but not because of the engines but other stuff. The Mig 35 I do not like but not just because it has 2 engines.

If the F35 ever was able to magically do away with all its defects then the question would be, do you want to spend what is now 110 million per get? B the time its actually ready to fly in 4 years does anyone think it won't be double the price by then?

You lock into a price now by signing a contract with a jet ready to go or do you keep it open to escalating prices hoping the F35 finally gets off the ground. I say its a no brainwr. You go for the Gripen E because its cheaper and is an excellent interceptor and we never needed and do not need an F35 stealth craft. Its the completely wrong craft we need.. Either the Gripen E or Rafale or Super H.

[Rue]

12 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

And for the numpties that say the F-35 lacks the ability to defend itself from other aircraft

 

Does it? Before I address the other comments of Derek let's start with the sentence above and answer it this way:

source:http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/f-35-biggest-aviation-project-ever.html

Table: Problems of the F-35 Lightning II

What:	Problem:	Result:
The cross-sectional area (Its radar “size”):	Both the huge fan and bomb bays made the cross sectional area bigger than thought.	It is easier to be seen on radar.
Aerodynamics:	The need for the Marine’s lift fan for vertical landings increased the fuselage of the airplane.	The Aerodynamics are bad resulting in decreased acceleration, fuel efficiency and flying range.
Dogfights:	The big lift fan located behind the cockpit obscures the sight backwards.	Limits the dogfight capability tremendously. The pilots say it would be: “gunned every time”.
Single engine:	The need to angle the engine downwards makes it only possible for one engine to be installed.	Less safe as if two engines are used then one can keep going if one fails. The maneuvrability also decreases because of the loss of thrust vectoring. Advantage: One engine is cheaper
Weight:	Enormous weight because of the lift fan and other systems coming with the fan.	Make the F-35 very heavy and so decreases acceleration and

 

 

 

 

 

[Rue]

Derek stated:  " in a naval environment, the F-35 is capable of providing targeting data for ships and subs, allowing these platforms to remain "stealth" by not turning on their own search and fire control radars.."

Stealth craft were first designed by the US based on the premises the Soviets could not afford to build them, the US could and so it would give the US jet fighter a technical advantage, i.e., it could sneak in undetected by radar and using that advantage do its damage without needing to get into dog fights.

That premises of warfare is completely and absolutely not what Canada needs. We are not a superpower. In any major war we would not be able to lead attacks on Russia or China. What we have always needed since the end of WW2 is an interceptor, period. That's a craft that can quickly escort an aircraft from an opposing country out of our air space. Russia uses antiquated propeller Tupolov bombers with no bombs no probe our response time. Most of our interception is to escort such bombers out of Canadian air space. Can we be real. If Russia or for that matter China sent its state of the art fighters into Canada F22 Raptors would be called into service as the attack craft with F15's, F16's and F18's or super F18's, in the second line. a Gripen E, Rafale, or SuperH or even our current F18's do not and have never needed stealth technology to be intercptors-we of course want to be visible not invisible.

Now read the above and use common sense. Why would you want your jet fighter invisible to an illegal fishing vessel, a drug smuggling or refugee smuggling ship? The biggest threats to Canadian waters are drug and refugee smugglers and illegal fishing vessels. For that we need a damn navy not stealth fighters remaining invisivle to them. We need an interceptor that quickly makes an appearance swooping in low and threatening such vessels to move back while one would hope our surface vessels which at this point are non existent move in. It makes no sense to spend all your money on an invisible aircraft so you have no navy to follow up. Absolute nonsense.

Invisible to submarines? What the phack does that mean? An F35 can't stop a submarine. Hey wouldn't it be nice though if we had naval vessels that could not only stop them but track them too?

Good God man. Can we take the b.s. out of the word stealth. All stealth means is that the design of the craft, its shell is made b harder to detect by radar not insivible. For phack's sake Russia, China, have had plenty of time to come up with counter measures over the last 25 years. The f35 is supposed to be hard to see at certain angles. Its supposed to have radar absorbent material (RAM) placed on its shell surface to reduce radar reflectivity. Keep that in mind because with the F35 if there are any dents, scratches, ice, on the shell poof goes that idea. As well you can't carry missiles on its wings like interceptors should. Oh wow. So we have an F35 that is supposed to scatter and dissipate radar energy rather than directly reflect it back towards its source. Since when do fishing vessels from Japan, China, USA, Norwat, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Britain, France, Japan  depleting the remaining fish we have left need us to be secret when we sneak in on them?  You think we need stealth to counter bush planes or low flying commercial craft coming in to dump drugs? Oh wait, when the boats come in with Sri Lankans off the coast of BC we need stealth?

Can someone get real? Does anyone think an F35's cost justifies itself because its supposedly harder to detect radar wise, a featurw we have n o need at all for? What horse crap. We went along with the stealth thinking the mass production of the craft would make it possible to have it as an added bonus. It was never a crucial operational requirement, in fact its never ben a requirement. We need interceptors thank you. Interception is making your presence known not hiding it.

 

 

 

[Rue]

Stealth aircraft technology. Can we put it to rest once and for all.

You know what it does? If I am using a radar a supposedly detectable aircraft without such technology appears as a blip  and in theory you lock on it. The F35 they claim will the size of  a ball bearing blip as opposed to a basketball size blip. So in theory it takes longer to detect and it can get in closer before jets are scrambled to counter it.

Hello this is Canada? Are we invading China or Russia? Can we get real. If we were needed in Europe we could play other roles more cost effective to carry out than sending in F35's to attack Russia which has its own stealth fighters.

Again can we be real. All a stealth jet fighter is, is a craft with a shell that has no sharp edges or attachments that can be picked up easier by radar. The jet requires an oinion skin smooth surface at all times. Hey now do you know a large jet fighter without ice on its wings, scratches, dents, markings? Sure you do. Its just like your car. Not only does its shell have to be like a baby's bum bum but it requires heat and electronic suppression systems to work. Those systems you think they don't malfunction?

Better still let me ask any of you stealth devotees this, do you not think that after 25 years since the F35 has farted and sputtered about never being able to iron out its defects the Russians and Chinese have been sitting on their buttoxes picking their noses? How the hell do you think they have created their own stealth fighter jets? What a birdy told them? They weren't able to get at the plans of the F35 and F22 or other US stealth craft? Lol.

I got news for you. Most certainly Britain, France China, Japan, Russia, Taiwan, probably South Korea, Israel all have the ablity to solve and/or counter stealth. 

Everyone has the technology. Hell the very car you use today designed to cut down on air resistance for better air mileage rounds out the body design and has removed a lof of the edges and made car paint onion thin based on similar concepts.

Advancing technology in high performance aircraft is a game. You come up with a system, the other side comes up with a countermeasure. Airshows are a time ti display your product to nations you want to sell too and you bet your enemy is there watching and taking notes as well.

This is about giant mega military industrial networks competing with one another to sell the most jets and spin off products from technology of those jets as well.

Its not just the jet sold but thousands of consumer products that then spin off the technology to create their own products to be sold.

Hey those ICBM Missiles that were all over the US? Who the phack you think built them. General Electric and Westinghouse. The cooling system in the missiles went on to be the basis of all those lovely Frigidaires we were buying.

Can we get real. The F35 is being made by this massive military industrial complex that employees millions. It doesn't matter how crappy the  craft really is. If it keeps people employed, politicians on Capital Hill in Washington and in Ottawa will be only to happy to kiss the buttoxes of its lobbyists to make sure their constituents remain employed..

 

[Rue]

Derek stated: " ..(The F35 has) with a radar capable of tracking something as small and fast as an artillery shell, giving the f-35 the ability to not only track and attack artillery to the point in which it was fired, but relay targeting information to other allied ground forces......."

Earth to Derek. Earth to Derek.  There are no artillery attacks by illegal fishing vessels, drug smugglers, people smugglers, submarines, naval vessels.

Psst, we need an interceptor not an artillery shell detector.

If the Russian artillery comes into Canada trust me, you'll need something more than F35's. At that point you may even have to arm our Inuit peoples and have them engage in guerilla warfare against them Ruskies. No we are not getting F35's to fight Russia invading  Europe we are getting them to patrol our air space. Our army, you remember what that is, they might be used by NATO but hey if they have no air transports to get them to Europe let alone clothes and weapons, because we spent all our money on F35's you think we can do that. Have you ever seen a Canadian soldier when they are naked running at someone? I have. These guys are scary. You best get them their TimHorton's and stand back before you get your eye poked out. These guys are not stream lined. Nice people but when naked they get darn mean. Ask Army Guy. Let me tell you their current Defence Minister, he's one hairy guy.

[Rue]

Oh I aint done. Let's talk about the supposed cost of the F35 having gone down.

Let's deal with that b.s. claim head on shall we?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21776/f-35-cheaper/

Sure the CEO of Lockhead said that. She claims the price will go down to $85 mil by 2019.

She said that in response to Donald Trump threatening to shut the F35 down and he had the audacity to take credit for that.

The F35 version A is the one she is talking about.Just so you know the F35B the one that allows for vertical take of and landing which is what the US marines require and Canada should have which only the Gripen right now can do, Canada needs to be able to land fighter jets in small air bases in the North or even on ice. The USMC was supposed to get this craft because its supposed to be a support craft for US Marines operations something we do NOT need in Canada. Its why we got an F18 and not a Warthog or an F16 or F15 for that matter. The F35 was supposed to replace the Warthog as well as the F16 and F15 all in one.

Now the A model's actual cost is not known and I will tell you why. The A version will be modified by Israel to its own version and no one will ever know how much that will cost but most assuredly the Israeli version of the F35 will not be the F35A that will be used in Turkey, Denmark. Norway, Holland, Japan and South Korea. Most likely South Korea and Japan will modify their software and electric systems as well. The actual version the US Marine Corps, UK and Italy as well as US Nacy will use is he B version and that  is the one Canada should be getting as well not the A version. So the claim is a crock.

Also the above is not guaranteed.  It assumes the more planes ordered the less cost it will be to build them. If Canada or any other country pulls out of its current purchases orders, the price skyrockets. Its a cost also predicated on no more delays. Hah. There have been continuous delays over its entire production run and as of January the Pentagon says there are over 35 major defects yet to be fixed and of course those will increase its cost.

At the early end 25 years ago they were $130 million an twenty five years later the cost right now is $110 mil per plane with a SuperH about 55 mil and we know a Gripen E would be cheaper than the SuperH at this point but have more state of the art radar technology, speed, manouverability and vertica take off and landing which the SuperH does not have, plus could take all the old F18 ammunition and even use many of its parts which the SuperH can not..

The SuperH is not a stealth craft. You want an up to date interceptor with a longer shelf life that is not stealth its the Rafale or Gripen. You want the best two engine jet well no one can buy the F22 so that leaves the Eurofighter Typhoon which is way too expensive for Canada and far better than the SuperH.

Canada for now chose the SuperH because it has no definitive proof the Gripen E is going to be able to quickly replace Canadian craft. It has good reports on the Rafale and has already bought one product from France which may mean something. However given how close the Rafale and SuperH are and how the SuperH has far more job spin off in Canada than the Rafale which would have very little and given the strong Boeing lobby in Canada, I just can't see the RCAF not going full time with the SuperH. I think they will pull out of the F35 and the Yanks can live with us having SuperH's but they would retaliate if we chose Rafale's or Gripens and I think part of this going back and forth to the US these last few weeks like the colonial lap dogs we are is about going with the SuperH in return for the US backing off hurting us over NAFTA. Me thinks we are using te SuperH  trade as a way to offset Trump threats.

That's my guess.

I also hear scuttle butt that the Pentagon wants out of the F35 and Israel and Britain have no problem with that. The US, Britain and Israel all have plenty of alternatives to the F35 and please let's not underestimate that with all this talk about stealth craft at the same time strides have been made with drones and helicopters making stealth craft a ridiculousy expensive and perhaps outmoded weapon. Smaller not larger is where weapons are going. State of the art naval vessels are going smaller, and faster not larger.

Size is an exaggerated quality although from the sounds of it Trump and Putin don't get that.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

Procuring a replacement strike fighter for Canada's very old and dwindling number of CF-18s is not a concern for Trump or Putin.  Both the USA and Russian Federation have an ample number of military aircraft now and into the future.   As usual, Canada hasn't chosen anything yet (no contracts signed).   It is the zombie file that refuses to die, regardless of ruling political party.

Meanwhile, the 200th production F-35 has been delivered as of last month, and another 100 have been ordered (LRIP 10). 

The world can move on while Canada does what it always does. 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/200th-operational-f-35-delivered/

[Derek 2.0]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Meanwhile, the 200th production F-35 has been delivered as of last month, and another 100 have been ordered (LRIP 10). 

The world can move on while Canada does what it always does. 

 

And that is what it look like this government is going to do......but, the one hope for common sense prevailing is the Trump administration pressuring Canada to pull up her socks.....just as the Western Europeans and Reagan administration did with the last Trudeau in the 70s and early 80s.

[Omni]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Procuring a replacement strike fighter for Canada's very old and dwindling number of CF-18s is not a concern for Trump or Putin.  Both the USA and Russian Federation have an ample number of military aircraft now and into the future.   As usual, Canada hasn't chosen anything yet (no contracts signed).   It is the zombie file that refuses to die, regardless of ruling political party.

Meanwhile, the 200th production F-35 has been delivered as of last month, and another 100 have been ordered (LRIP 10). 

The world can move on while Canada does what it always does. 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/200th-operational-f-35-delivered/

Since even Trump doesn't like the F 35 and has been encouraging Boeing I'd say Canada is making a smart choice.

[Derek 2.0]

21 minutes ago, Omni said:

Trump doesn't like the F 35 and has been encouraging Boeing

The Trump administration just purchased 55 additional F-35s.......... 

[Omni]

10 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

The Trump administration just purchased 55 additional F-35s.......... 

Obviously he's not going to just snap his fingers and have it go away. And as the article states, he may be too late anyway.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/trump-f-35/510329/

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

Obviously he's not going to just snap his fingers and have it go away. And as the article states, he may be too late anyway.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/trump-f-35/510329/

Your article is both dated and wrong.......Trump himself is calling the LRIP 10 F-35 contract a great achievement.........how many Super Hornets has the Trump administration ordered since taking office? 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Your article is both dated and wrong.......Trump himself is calling the LRIP 10 F-35 contract a great achievement.........how many Super Hornets has the Trump administration ordered since taking office? 

Not the point. How many SuperHornet orders have been increased and how many F 35 contracts scaled back. Not only in the US but worldwide.

[Derek 2.0]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

Not the point. 

It is the point, you suggested Trump "didn't like the F-35".......yet he just purchased more, and didn't purchase additional Super Hornets.

 

12 minutes ago, Omni said:

How many SuperHornet orders have been increased and how many F 35 contracts scaled back. Not only in the US but worldwide

 

Who cares? Trump just purchased more F-35s then there are Super Hornets in international service........likewise, within the last several years, there has now been 200 F-35s built, far more then Super Hornets within this decade. 

[Omni]

5 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

It is the point, you suggested Trump "didn't like the F-35".......yet he just purchased more, and didn't purchase additional Super Hornets.

 

 

Who cares? Trump just purchased more F-35s then there are Super Hornets in international service........likewise, within the last several years, there has now been 200 F-35s built, far more then Super Hornets within this decade. 

Who cares? Do you want an idiot like Trump spending your tax dollars?

[Army Guy]

21 hours ago, Omni said:

Who cares? Do you want an idiot like Trump spending your tax dollars?

You were just schooled and that is your best comment......we already have an idiot spending our tax dollars....one that knows better than the experts, one that is above the law when it comes down to purchases, and competition one that changes the rules to suit his needs.....

[Omni]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

You were just schooled and that is your best comment......we already have an idiot spending our tax dollars....one that knows better than the experts, one that is above the law when it comes down to purchases, and competition one that changes the rules to suit his needs.....

It seems to be mostly the "experts" from Lock-Mart who claim the F 35 is a good deal.

[Derek 2.0]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

one that knows better than the experts,

 

Or more likely, takes the unfounded opinions of the peanut gallery as gospel.......the same peanut gallery that once said, decades ago, programs like the F-15, AH-64, Trident missile/Ohio class SSBN, AEGIS and M1A1 would be failures.

[Rue]

Let's be clear. The people criticizing the F35 include the Pentagon, test pilots, even the designer of the F16.

Smeering them all as a "peanut gallery" as a tactic to avoid the flaws they speak of won't make those flaws go away.

As well Derek has no idea what the people listed below once may have said about the F15 or I f they even made comments about the F15.

He threw that in as a gratuitous comment to smeer all the critics so he does not have to deal with the issues they raise.

There has always been criticism of jets in their development stages-doesn't matter what the jet is or was.. Doesn't mean the criticism was invalid.

The issue with the F-35 is abundantly clear though.  After 25 years of costly development, its still riddled with defects.

Go on Derek ignore the "peanut gallery".

http://www.lifeintheknow.com/f-35-joint-strike-fighter

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer-of-the-f-16-explains-why-the-f-35-is-such-1591828468

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/f-35-costs-could-double-over-programs-life-expert-says/article18325378/

https://emergingequity.org/2016/03/20/military-admits-trillion-dollar-f-35-program-is-a-failure/

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/10/After-Flight-Test-Failure-F-35-Could-Be-Demoted-New-Defense-Chief

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-one-americas-worst-fighter-14254

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/17/military-admits-billion-dollar-war-toy-f-35-is-f-ked.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3759036/The-400bn-F-35-not-path-success-Damning-test-report-warns-fighter-jet-running-time-money.html

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/03/military-admits-trillion-dollar-f-35-program-is-a-failure.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-f-35-strike-fighter-technical-failures-of-the-worlds-most-expensive-weapons-system/5390065

http://www.globalresearch.ca/after-shocking-failures-f-35-could-be-long-gone-by-new-defense-chief/5464912

https://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/

https://warisboring.com/everything-wrong-with-the-f-35-3b62e8b3b432#.j6gakz7pn

https://www.rt.com/usa/341032-f-35-scandal-tragedy-senate/

http://theweek.com/articles/605165/f35-still-horribly-broken

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/

http://www.mintpressnews.com/americas-new-trillion-dollar-war-plane/214573/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/04/pentagon-vaunted-f-35-earns-lousy-review-from-test-pilot-in-secret-report.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-24/lockheed-s-f-35-still-falls-short-pentagon-s-chief-tester-says

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/171925/f_35-still-failing-to-impress,-says-watchdog-group.

 

Edited February 11, 2017 by Rue

[Army Guy]

13 hours ago, Omni said:

It seems to be mostly the "experts" from Lock-Mart who claim the F 35 is a good deal.

Actually i was talking about the Canadian Air force, you know the guys that fly our military aircraft for a living.....the guys that the liberals have disregarded,  any and all advise when it comes to purchasing equipment, this will be the second contract liberals have given DND the finger, and purchased what was good for the liberals.....

You've come on here to debate and yet you have not shown us any valid proof the F-35 is as bad as you and the liberals claim, today the evidence shows quit clearly that the F-35 is the western best aircraft of choice , with sales to prove that...Nation after Nation have had extensive competitions and most have chosen the F-35 as the clear winner...Why is that ? because the F-18 is the better aircraft right ? and when all else fails you go to the all and famous  "Canada does not need a stealth fighter"  and yet we have signed and are a part of the same defense agreements that the other F-35 operators are a part of, what do they know that you do not, we all share the same missions.... well to start with it goes again'st the liberals leader election promise, and all liberals will blindly back the school teacher up regardless of whom he comes up again'st .....like DND for instance...WTF do they know, after all liberals and their Military have always had a close relationship....In fact Canadians and their military have always had a close relationship.....except when the military want's funding then it is go F*** yourself.....you want proof of that visit a military base, infra structure over 40 to 50 years old is very common, shit PMQ's that were built just after the war, ya they been upgraded a few times, mostly lipstick....then look at the equipment they run....army, navy and airforce......most of it is over 30 to 40 years old, ya you can find a few pieces that are under 10 years old, but not many......it's a telling sign..... 

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/agreement-reached-on-lowest-priced-f-35s-in-program-history

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/red-flag-gives-f-35a-its-toughest-test-yet

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/marine-corps-aviation-officer-believes-study-will-back-f-35-over-super-horn

https://theaviationist.com/category/military-aviation/f-35/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/02/03/five-reasons-the-latest-pentagon-testing-report-on-the-f-35-fighter-doesnt-matter/#1d83729a5085

Edited February 11, 2017 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

Rue....

Last year i also started to research the Grippen E, and in fact the more i read the more i liked, What do i know.... even found a Grippen E Canadian web site, the author make a good argument for why the Grippen E  is best for our nation, in fact he updates it regularly and discusses not only the F-35, but all the aircraft that were in the last competition, euro fighter , Rafel, F-18E and even dabbles in the F-16, F-15D and E to name a few.....however it was derek that always bought me back to earth so to say...The F-35 has more "working" capabilities that are standard than any of the competitors, giving operators more capabilities than any other......and once the short fall issues are fixed it will only out distance any aircraft put in front of it.....

If one steps back a little and read the info being put out with an open mind , you clearly see progress is being made......and to add to that pressure the US president has locked on to this project......The US have to much invested in this aircraft for it to be beaten on the battle field by a 4 th gen aircraft.....It will perform as advertised as with any military project that the military has huge amounts of funding attached,let alone so much riding on this.....if it fails they will have to start over, something that can not and will not happen.....  heavily involved, like derek has already mention the F-16 had a rocky start, same as the Osprey OV-22, very rarely do the critics get it right....well except perhaps the Sgt York, a few other smaller projects.....i remember the Bradleys IFV  project being in the media for years and years.....but that machine has served it's country for over 20 years....and still in service.....

Why Canada should buy the F-35....Well it is what the experts picked, meaning the Canadian air force, all the testing then and now still points to the F-35 as being the best Air craft.... and if we are going to disregard all that info and testing that our Air force completed then why even bother with having DND do testing....we can just let the liberals pick one and save bils in the process, in fact we could press that saving even more and fire off most of the upper chain of command, as they are not need ,after all we have the liberals and thousands of air chair critics that can make the tough choices.....DND is like a whipped dog right now and will take any bone thrown at it....they will always tow the party line what ever that is....only a few exceptions to that rule Hillier and look how popular he was with the government.....

The US can not afford to let this project tank.....regardless of what it costs ....this aircraft will fly , and it will be the best in it's class, to much is depending on it, there is no future F-35 in the wings....well there is the Boeing aircraft.....but really whats the odds.....

Inter-operable with our brothers in the south has so much importance to it , it dictates a lot of our policies, and purchases we make. with the Navy and Air force having most of the restrictions attached to it, although they can be rapidly deployed , in the long run we will be supported by the US logistics in one way or another.....This has happened more time than i can count where we actually resupplied from US war stocks....OP Mudusa was one of those examples, when our Battle group blew through the entire Canadian Armed Forces Small arms supply along with 25mm and 155mm in just 4 days of fighting ....God Bless America....the battle would last another 2 weeks, mostly on American bullets.......and as fast as they could bring ammo in we used it.....and trust me the air force and army can haul shit tonnes of bullets.....and even they could not keep it, with ground pounders putting rounds down range... 

Pricing F-35 pricing is coming down .....and it is happening fast 12 % over the last two contracts....and for those that follow other purchases made by other militaries, prices are not so low for other aircraft either, Euro fighter , Rafale are now priced well above 100 mil a copy, and the Grippen E well even it is not as cheap as it once was....take a look at the sale to the swiss, or Brazil  even my math puts them well above the 55 mil that is being stated....and F-18 E well sir the liberals are going to burn the Canadian public with those numbers later, nut i'll bet my left nut is is over 100 mil a copy, in fact even Boeing has said the numbers for US navy are about right , or approx 110 mil a copy....so if we are thinking we are getting a deal on pricing think again...

Canada's history when it comes down to purchases, hey lets look at that for a moment....How old is the F18 going to be once it is retired....4O years or older....If we are squeezing every ounce of life out of our equipment .....why can we not choose equipment that has the longest longevity equipment that will be supported for 40 plus years....and i can tell you that the all those gen 4 air craft will not be flying in 40 years from the time of delivery......right now that's looking around 2060.....and the way todays tech is being researched and developed that's light years....considering the difference between a sopwith Camel and a P-51 is less than 40 years....

But then again if we look at our purchase history, the Military rarely gets what it has requested, or preferred, or recommended.....90 % of the time the decision is made by guys in suits who only experience with military equipment is having a picture of themselves in some cock pit or in some tank,or ship in some corner of the office....they will come up with some excuse....and Canadians will buy it hook line and sinker....we'll end up with equipment like our new SAR aircraft, that if you taller than 6 feet you won't be able to stand up in....or LSVW truck that failed every test the army threw at it, and had to take it to the desert in the US, so it could meet some of the specs....but because it was made by western star in BC it was chosen.....and just 20 years later most of that veh fleet lies in frozen fields, rusted, and broken, leaving a critical shortage.....the list goes on and on.... it's sad really.....once again it talks volumes to the relationship between government and Canadians with DND.......But this is just some examples of how screw our military can get.....with having untrained people pick the equipment and supplies that our nations military depend on with their lives.....Does the military need over sight, yes by all means.....should this over sight be extended to what equipment should be purchased "NO"  

 

The Canadian Airforce fighters have been on alot of missions Canada has been in, exception Afghanistan which hurt them for experience and job knowledge.....And although i will deny this if any airforce guys read it, we could of used them in Afghanistan, nothing like the feeling of having Canadian air support over head , you know they'd go the extra mile to get the job down...it's a moral thing for us guys on the ground.....having a fighter that has a shit ton of capabilities is like having a swiss army knife , it has a tool for every problem....and while that may not be important to our Liberal government , or most arm chair Canadians , i've yet to see any of those fu**ers on any battle field, So when a air force guy tells me he needs an F-35 to kick some ass....i tend to believe him, i also support him regardless....as they will support us in our time of need.....

 

Quote

A leaked 2009 report shook that confidence, as it revealed that the Gripen finished below the Rafale and Eurofighter in almost all areas, and was rated as not meeting competition specifications in key areas like air superiority. Swiss authorities countered that the JAS-39E version offered in the 2010 RFP was fully compliant, and subsequent ratings did give it a “good enough” score. It would have been Switzerland’s cheapest and most appropriate choice, but the government lost the May 2014 national referendum.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing-its-f-5s-04624/

 

Rue i know our soldiers have your support, you've been consistent in showing it since i've known you, and the discontent  i have shown other posters on this topic is by no means directed at you......

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

....The US can not afford to let this project tank.....regardless of what it costs ....this aircraft will fly , and it will be the best in it's class, to much is depending on it, there is no future F-35 in the wings....well there is the Boeing aircraft.....but really whats the odds.....

 

Agreed...the U.S. Pentagon has a lot riding on the F-35 JSF platform and it will be deployed.

The U.S. does not have the luxury of sitting on its cheap ass and waiting 40 years to procure strike aircraft that are designed, developed, and manufactured by other nations.   National security requires that domestic capabilities for military platforms remain supported, regardless of cost.  

Canada deserves exactly what it is willing to pay for.

 

[Argus]

A dozen former chiefs of the air force have signed a letter to Trudeau begging him not to make the interim purchase of F-18 super hornets. They point out it would be enormously expensive, consume scarce resources since hundreds of new technicians would have to be hired and trained, and is unnecessary.

Which simply goes to reinforce the belief that this purchase, at a cost of billions of dollars, has nothing to do with the military and is simply a political ploy to make things more comfortable for the federal Liberals after their boy wonder said during the election the F-35 was overpriced.

The main point right now is that the government seems determined to go ahead with a plan that those of us with countless decades of experience running the air force think would take decades to correct. It makes no sense.”

Manson and the 12 former air force lieutenant-generals say they have serious misgivings about the government’s claim that a “capability gap” exists, justifying the need for an interim fleet of 18 Super Hornets.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/retired+chiefs+urge+liberals+ditch+98costly+unnecessary+plan/12969004/story.html

[DogOnPorch]

F-35...17-1 kill ratio at Red Flag.