Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

10 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

From what I read about funding for the Ford class, all that was given was $2.5 billion to start work on the second ship. I wouldn't call that funding restored to the program, it will take another $12.5 billion to complete that second ship.

 

You're reading too much into confusing tea leaves........the US budgetary process is far more complex then that, funding of which (and the purchase of long lead items) is done on a annual basis....

14 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Did you watch the debate? Very refreshing after the recent Presidential clown show. I don't think the view that strategic resources would be better spent on other naval vessels is a fringe viewpoint. When you have to park a $15 billion carrier over 1000 miles offshore, and have aircraft that can only operate in a less than 500 mile radius it seems like a massive waste of resources. The US doesn't want to put these expensive carriers into war zones, and endanger the lives of 5,200 sailors. Yes there are anti-missile defences, but if it can only withstand three and half minutes then it is not much use.

 

You might not consider it a fringe viewpoint, but it is, and the very points made are recycled every generation.............today's missile threats to carriers, on sheer volume alone, are nowhere near what they were in the 1980s against the Soviets........as to the USN not wanting them to go into "war zone"....bullshit.......made evident every time a carrier battlegroup enters the Persian Gulf......

 

I have no idea where you're getting your points on distances, but they are out to lunch........aerial tanking allows the very distance you describe, which is a furtherance of the flexibility of the carrier, and but one means of its defense.......if your enemy has the ability to strike at an aircraft carrier, a land based target is a gimme.....

 

26 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

One of the audience questions in the debate was on humanitarian use of aircraft carriers, watch and hear the response.

 

I can't be bothered listening to fringe orthodoxy, but I will say this, I'm certain there are thousands of Haitians, very grateful for the flattop that was off their shores....

[bush_cheney2004]

13 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

From what I read about funding for the Ford class, all that was given was $2.5 billion to start work on the second ship. I wouldn't call that funding restored to the program, it will take another $12.5 billion to complete that second ship. 

 

The USN carrier building program has been stretched for more fiscally sustainable hull starts and completions.  Unlike Canadian governments, the U.S. Congress will not let vital shipyard capabilities lapse and suffer huge employment losses in certain states, even if the president tries to kill the program.  

Aircraft programs are more agile than shipbuilding....the F-18 Super Hornet exists largely because the MD A-12 program was canceled (stealth replacement for A-6 Intruder).  

 

[?Impact]

16 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

the F-18 Super Hornet exists largely because the MD A-12 program was canceled (stealth replacement for A-6 Intruder).  

Yes, by losing the A-12 the navy severely restricted the operating range of carriers. Carrier based refuelling tankers are also in limited supply, that is why they are looking at a tanker as one of the high priority drone programs.

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, by losing the A-12 the navy severely restricted the operating range of carriers. Carrier based refuelling tankers are also in limited supply, that is why they are looking at a tanker as one of the high priority drone programs.

 

Trudeau now wants to procure 18 or more of these very interim F-18 Super Hornet aircraft on an interim basis.   That would be interim X 2.

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Out of previous discussed threads, in which their various "options" for deep strike were discussed, of which F-35Bs/LHDs were included.....The RAN and RAAF have already priced out the needed modifications, all easily done during a refit, to allow for sustained F-35B operations aboard the Canberras 

 

 

None of that is mentioned in the 2016 White Paper

 

 

Quote

 

Again, that goes back to political will.....as to their limitations, today, sure, they're very limited......but 50 years ago they were still cutting edge attack aircraft, with various wars proving their worth versus the record of the Freedom Fighter and even the Starfighter............

 

Reverting back to my point, the purchase of the Freedom Fighter was a poor, politically based choice (under a Liberal government), just as this proposed purchase of the Super Hornets would be.......Liberal government putting their political fortunes before the needs of the Canadian Forces.......

 

It always goes back to political will. A4's were never cutting edge at any time although they were a useful attack aircraft in good weather. With no air to air radar, they were probably worse than the Banshee for air to air. The F-5 was a poor choice.
 

 

Quote

You have? You've been arguing the point for pages.......none the less a STOVL aircraft like the F-35B (and LHDs) would give us a huge increase in capability, for very little initial investment and continued operating costs, much of which could be accounted for within the already existing budget framework.......replace several of the planned surface combatants (well deleting the requirement for flag facilities on the remainder) and purchase several off the shelf LHDs.....likewise with fighters, purchase fewer conventional types, opting for 12-18 F-35Bs for expeditionary deployments with NATO, the UN and other overseas deployments............

 

Completely disagree on the value of a few F-35B's stuck on one ship to be used in areas where our allies will have much greater air assets. A ton of money for very little return and no more useful in the defence of this country than F-35A's which are better performing and cheaper.

Friday 10:05 AM  Wilber said

 

Quote

 

If we want a navy with a world presence, we would be better off having multi purpose ships that can operate helicopters and land troops and equipment. Leave air superiority to those best equipped to provide it.

 

 

[Derek 2.0]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

None of that is mentioned in the 2016 White Paper

 

 

I never said that it was.

 

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

It always goes back to political will. A4's were never cutting edge at any time although they were a useful attack aircraft in good weather. With no air to air radar, they were probably worse than the Banshee for air to air. The F-5 was a poor choice.

 

You're talking out of your ass.........starting with the "Charlie", in the early 60s, the Skyhawk was an all weather attack aircraft.......it didn't need an "air to air radar" with sidewinders, and unlike the Banshee, was the primary aggressor at Top Gun for several decades.....

Putting aside its ability for nuclear strike, and a payload equal or better then most World War II bombers, its actual combat record in not only American service (but Israeli and  Argentinian service) is hardly bested by any other aircraft of its era....including the Banshee...

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

Completely disagree on the value of a few F-35B's stuck on one ship to be used in areas where our allies will have much greater air assets. A ton of money for very little return and no more useful in the defence of this country than F-35A's which are better performing and cheaper.

 

Stuck on one ship? huh? I suppose you were supportive of Trudeau removing our Hornets from Iraq because our Allies had much greater air assets.......am I right?

 

A ton of money is your subjective opinion, as treating it as a zero-sum purchase, any additional cost would be peanuts compared to return on investment.........And I fail to see your determination on how the F-35A is better performing than a F-35B......clearly apples to oranges, if your requirement was to operate off an LHD or an austere airfield (or section of roadway or steel mating) in Eastern Europe, clearly the F-35B is but the only performer.........

 

Any overseas mission our Hornets conducted over the last 30 years, an F-35B could have conducted better, increasing mission flexibility (be they operated off a ship or on land) in any given theater.........just as any mark of the F-35 is better than the Super Hornet. 

[Wilber]

12 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

I never said that it was.

 

 

Ya you did. Why did you bring it up then?

Quote

 

You're talking out of your ass.........starting with the "Charlie", in the early 60s, the Skyhawk was an all weather attack aircraft.......it didn't need an "air to air radar" with sidewinders, and unlike the Banshee, was the primary aggressor at Top Gun for several decades.....

Putting aside its ability for nuclear strike, and a payload equal or better then most World War II bombers, its actual combat record in not only American service (but Israeli and  Argentinian service) is hardly bested by any other aircraft of its era....including the Banshee...

 

 

 

You can't be all weather without radar and A4's never had air to air radar. The were a good light ground attack aircraft and the only radar they ever had was ground attack.

Top gun is visual range dogfighter school, not interceptor school.

Seriously, a subsonic fighter with no radar for air defence? Do I have to explain it to you?

 

Quote

Stuck on one ship? huh? I suppose you were supportive of Trudeau removing our Hornets from Iraq because our Allies had much greater air assets.......am I right?

Ya, stuck on one ship, you already said we don't need two when I said we would need one on each coast. What has removing aircraft from Iraqi have to do with carriers?

Quote

 

A ton of money is your subjective opinion, as treating it as a zero-sum purchase, any additional cost would be peanuts compared to return on investment.........And I fail to see your determination on how the F-35A is better performing than a F-35B......clearly apples to oranges, if your requirement was to operate off an LHD or an austere airfield (or section of roadway or steel mating) in Eastern Europe, clearly the F-35B is but the only performer.........

 

Any overseas mission our Hornets conducted over the last 30 years, an F-35B could have conducted better, increasing mission flexibility (be they operated off a ship or on land) in any given theater.........just as any mark of the F-35 is better than the Super Hornet. 

 

Some F-35A vs F35-B differences.

The F-35B has:

25% less range

3000lb less payload

Can't carry 2000lb bombs and some other weapons internally because of the shape of its weapons bay.

Structurally restricted to 7G vs the A's 9G.

There are others.

F-35B's would be a lousy investment IMO but I really do hope the Liberals keep their word and have an open and fair competition with all the main competitors participating. Then maybe we can really find out what's what. Maybe Rue is right about the Gripen, who knows.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Wilber

[Derek 2.0]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Ya you did. Why did you bring it up then?

Quote

 

No, I didn't.....and you brought it up when you stated the Australians wouldn't purchase the F-35B

 

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

You can't be all weather without radar and A4's never had air to air radar.

 

Again, you're wrong, as I already said, starting with the A-4C, produced in the early 1960s, they did have a radar, making them an all weather attack aircraft and adding nearly a half foot to the overall length of the aircraft........later versions had (then) modern avionics installed, in several versions, the avionics suite of the F-16. 

 

And Top Gun, ahh, is a school aimed at improved tactics for the USN's......interceptor fleet......really, they made a corny movie about it. 

 

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Ya, stuck on one ship,

 

You understand they can be based on other ships......even land bases?

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

you already said we don't need two when I said we would need one on each coast.

 

We'd require two+ if we wanted to guarantee 100% mission readiness....that would be dependent upon our requirements......and I never said different.....as to basing, that too would be dependent upon requirements.

 

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

What has removing aircraft from Iraqi have to do with carriers?

Quote

 

You broached the subject of the superior assets of our Allies, affording us the ability to stay home.

 

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Some F-35A vs F35-B differences.

The F-35B has:

25% less range

3000lb less payload

Can't carry 2000lb bombs and some other weapons internally because of the shape of its weapons bay.

Structurally restricted to 7G vs the A's 9G.

There are others.

 

The F-35A requires a large tarmac covered target to operate.........the F-35B not so much, an important distinction if we found ourselves in a conflict overseas with a near peer...as I said, a split buy (2:1 A-B) between the two would make the most sense, with the majority of the F-35As intended for NORAD and the F-35Bs for operations overseas in support of NATO and other Allies etc......T

The "B" offers flexibility not matched by the "A", the next time we have to bomb a third World despot we might not have basing rights next door, instead being reliant upon naval aviation, in such a scenario that could be our own vessel or one of our Allies. Likewise, if the balloon went up with Russia or China, their very first targets would be fixed airbases, bases that have been bracketed for generations......

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

the Liberals keep their word and have an open and fair competition with all the main competitors participating. Then maybe we can really find out what's what. Maybe Rue is right about the Gripen, who knows.

 

I think its pretty clear they have no intention of holding a "fair and open competition".............The Gripen would be a great choice if Canada was half the size of British Columbia and our biggest threat was several Soviet tank armies crossing our border.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 hours ago, Wilber said:

F-35B's would be a lousy investment IMO but I really do hope the Liberals keep their word and have an open and fair competition with all the main competitors participating. Then maybe we can really find out what's what. Maybe Rue is right about the Gripen, who knows.

 

Doesn't matter.....it's still a choice that the "vast majority" of Canadians and the ruling government don't want to make because of the cost. 

I suspect they would have even bitched about cheap A-4 Skyhawks, which have a combat record unmatched by all CF-18s.

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

5 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

No, I didn't.....and you brought it up when you stated the Australians wouldn't purchase the F-35B

 

 

My reference to the Australians not considering the F-35B came from news releases that said they had decided not to modify the Canberra's to take them. Throwing in the White Paper was all you. I had never seen the thing until you linked it, that is why I asked for the reference you couldn't provide. If you are going to be this obtuse, let's just agree to disagree.

[Derek 2.0]

5 minutes ago, Wilber said:

My reference to the Australians not considering the F-35B came from news releases that said they had decided not to modify the Canberra's to take them.

 

And said news release was discussed, and brought up (by Waldo?) over a year and a half ago in another thread discussing this very subject, detailing the list of options the Australians will look at to meet their requirement for future long range strike.......and said news release was debunked this year with the release of the White Paper (Which I cited chapter and verse for you), which clearly states no decision will be taken until the 2020s........hence your point that it won't happen is unfounded.

 

12 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Throwing in the White Paper was all you.

 

Yes, debunking your baseless claim.

13 minutes ago, Wilber said:

I had never seen the thing until you linked it, that is why I asked for the reference you couldn't provide

 

I linked to the paper, provided the chapter and quoted it for you.......if you need more than that you're on your own.

14 minutes ago, Wilber said:

If you are going to be this obtuse, let's just agree to disagree.

 

I'm not being the slightest bit obtuse, quite the opposite.......but I'll agree that you were confused.

 

 

------------------------------------------

 

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Doesn't matter.....it's still a choice that the "vast majority" of Canadians and the ruling government don't want to make because of the cost.

 

I really don't think cost is an issue with this government....budgets balance themselves remember........but more so a modern neo-liberal world view rooted in Fabian Socialism.

[Wilber]

11 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

 

Yes, debunking your baseless claim.

 

I linked to the paper, provided the chapter and quoted it for you.......if you need more than that you're on your own.

 

I'm not being the slightest bit obtuse, quite the opposite.......but I'll agree that you were confused.

 

 

------------------------------------------

 

 

I

My claim was based on news reports. Your White Paper made no mention of F-35B's or fixed wing carriers so why did you even mention it? Confused and obtuse.

 

Bye.

 

Bye.

[Derek 2.0]

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Your White Paper made no mention of F-35B's or fixed wing carriers so why did you even mention it?

I never said it did........as I said several times now, the White Paper proved your news paper article wrong, and that no such choice has yet been made.

[Wilber]

8 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

I never said it did........as I said several times now, the White Paper proved your news paper article wrong, and that no such choice has yet been made.

Sorry but it proved nothing, unless you think not mentioning something means they are going to do it.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Wilber

[Rue]

Derek has made some excellent arguments for the F35 in the past but I respectfully don't like it and he knows why. I ask Derek the F18 Superh was it really needed. Its incompatible with the other F18s. Either buy  the GRIPEN or stop avoiding the F35. The F18 updated is going to be as costly as the F35 is it not D...

[Rue]

Wilber the F35 is gonna be no better than an F18 superh when all is said and done.  I like the Typhoon and Gripen .

[Derek 2.0]

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Sorry but it proved nothing,

 

Uh......did it not state clearly that the Australians won't be choosing an option for deep strike until the early 2020s? I'll quote it again if you like?

4 minutes ago, Rue said:

The F18 updated is going to be as costly as the F35 is it not D...

 

The Danes and Norwegians think more so......and notice, when asked, Minister Foote wouldn't release a rough cost estimate of their proposed Super Hornet purchase......

[The_Squid]

Even under a pro-military government, the military was completely incompetent at procurement.   I don't think the military brass got more competent with a change in government.  The Liberal government probably took this out of the hands of the incompetent military procurement people by kicking the can down the road a few years.

[Wilber]

9 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Uh......did it not state clearly that the Australians won't be choosing an option for deep strike until the early 2020s? I'll quote it again if you like?

 

 

It says they will evaluate their F18E replacement based on technology, the strategic environment and their experience with the F-35A. Guess that means F-35B's and carriers in Derek speak.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps Canada misses the good 'ol days when the U.S. and other nations developed less expensive cheap second tier aircraft for client states and third world nations that could be purchased or built in Canada under license.  

The F-35 JSF programme ruined that !

Edited November 28, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

The Liberal government probably took this out of the hands of the incompetent military procurement people

Close....but not really.........it was actually the Tories that put this into the incompetent hands of civil servants at Public Works and Government Services Canada.....like all procurement, by all governments, since the Liberals created the initial department (then called the Department of Munitions and Supply) back in the early 1940s......but nice baseless rant though.........The military (or any other department) has very little say on procurement for itself.......  

[Derek 2.0]

5 minutes ago, Wilber said:

It says they will evaluate their F18E replacement based on technology, the strategic environment and their experience with the F-35A. Guess that means F-35B's and carriers in Derek speak.

 

Yes, among several other options......as discussed earlier.

[Wilber]

5 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Yes, among several other options......as discussed earlier.

At this time the option has been discussed and rejected.

[?Impact]

15 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Perhaps Canada misses the good 'ol days when the U.S. and other nations developed less expensive cheap second tier aircraft

Do you have some F-22's for sale?

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, Wilber said:

At this time the option has been discussed and rejected.

 

No.......it hasn't.....go read that link I gave you again.