Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Smallc]

Not their current fleet of aircraft they won't.

You're the one making a big deal about the new purchases (with more to come) of Super Hornets being attrition aircraft. If you were planning to operate the fleet into the 2040s, you'd need that, wouldn't you?

[Derek 2.0]

You're the one making a big deal about the new purchases (with more to come) of Super Hornets being attrition aircraft. If you were planning to operate the fleet into the 2040s, you'd need that, wouldn't you?

No, you (they) need attrition replacements because aircraft procured in the later 1990s and early 2000s are nearing (sometime this year) their useful life, and are either going to the desert or going through an extensive SLEP.............just late last year, the NAVAIR put in place fleet wide load carrying restrictions for the Super Hornet tanker force (cutting its carrying capacity by over 1/3rd) and is reducing the number of flight hours land based training establishments fly by nearly 40%............added to the retirement of an entire carrier wing next year, and the increased funding for the tanker replacement (which represents ~25% of the deployed Super Hornet force), is a clear indication that the entire force won't be physically able to fly through the 2030s and not the 2040s as you suggest...........

Likewise, your citation of the Admiral is both dated and out of context, as its several years old and was raised during congressional funding season.......like I said before, your "facts" are often out of context and/or dated.

The point, the Super Hornet isn't apart of the USN's planning outwards to the 2040s, and isn't justification for Canada to operate the type outwards to the 2060s.

[Derek 2.0]

You're arguing with yourself again.

I'm not arguing at all, I understand the historic context quite fine.

And never actually went to war with the same powers that the Nazis did.

Again that's subjective and lacking context........unlike in the 1930s and 1940s, the West applied the lessons learned about allowing an aggressor to consolidate power unopposed prior to confronting them.

[Smallc]

Again that's subjective and lacking context

No - when your life is actually threatened - gun to your head - your ability to work miracles is quite different than when there's a vague, possible threat on your life.

[Smallc]

Likewise, your citation of the Admiral is both dated and out of context, as its several years old and was raised during congressional funding season

It's just over one year old. There are follow on quotes from less than a year ago.

like I said before, your "facts" are often out of context and/or dated.

And your's have no citations whatsoever.

The point, the Super Hornet isn't apart of the USN's planning outwards to the 2040s

And given that I've already provided evidence - from more than one source - that you're wrong, you are going to have to prove that.

[Derek 2.0]

No - when your life is actually threatened - gun to your head - your ability to work miracles is quite different than when there's a vague, possible threat on your life.

Again, in all those prior listed examples, those responding to aggression all felt a gun to their head........I'm sorry, but you can't change historic fact to suite your narrative..........

[Derek 2.0]

It's just over one year old. There are follow on quotes from less than a year ago.

And doesn't mean its any less dated.

And your's have no citations whatsoever.

I've provided countless citations, in countless threads on this topic, for years.

And given that I've already provided evidence - from more than one source - that you're wrong, you are going to have to prove that.

You've done nothing of the sort, repeating your same out of context and made up argument does not equate to fact..........simple question(s), if the Super Hornet is the solution to the USN's requirements in the decades ahead, why does the USN have several ongoing programs to replace it? Why isn't the DoD funding the "Super-Duper" Hornet and replacing their near timed out fleet?

Likewise, if the Super Hornet is "good enough" and can fulfill the same roles the F-35 will do out to the 2050-60s, at a greatly reduced cost as you've suggested, why hasn't a single (cash strapped) member nation of the JSF program opted for the "good enough" Super Hornet?

Edited February 28, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[dre]

I've provided countless citations, in countless threads on this topic, for years.

No kidding. The F-35 has generated the lowest quality discourse of any subject on this forum besides Conflict: Dirtfarm. I've never seen people repeat the same arguments so many times.

Edited February 28, 2016 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

....You've done nothing of the sort, repeating your same out of context and made up argument does not equate to fact..........simple question(s), if the Super Hornet is the solution to the USN's requirements in the decades ahead, why does the USN have several ongoing programs to replace it? Why isn't the DoD funding the "Super-Duper" Hornet and replacing their near timed out fleet?

Good questions....what does the USN force structure and multiple procurement programs have to do with the seemingly impossible Canadian task of defining requirements and buying ONE aircraft type to replace aging CF-188s ? How can "Super Hornets" be the obvious answer when Trudeau's DND hasn't even defined the mission and platform requirements ?

"Oh look...see what the U.S. Navy is doing ?" So what, the USN will continue to develop, procure, and deploy multiple aircraft types, including the F-35. Why is that so hard to understand ?

[nerve]

Good questions....what does the USN force structure and multiple procurement programs have to do with the seemingly impossible Canadian task of defining requirements and buying ONE aircraft type to replace aging CF-188s ? How can "Super Hornets" be the obvious answer when Trudeau's DND hasn't even defined the mission and platform requirements ?

"Oh look...see what the U.S. Navy is doing ?" So what, the USN will continue to develop, procure, and deploy multiple aircraft types, including the F-35. Why is that so hard to understand ?

Normally they poll the military on these things.

generally the Canadian air force has two missions

#1: defence as part of NORAD = being able to communicate with Norad, as well as operate in all of Canada's climates i.e. maritime and arctic and in mountains and over land, with the capability to effectively engage in intercept of Russian bear bombers or anything else the Russians throw over the Atlantic, or other missile intercept operations.

#2: Participate in international operations under the guise of UN peacekeepering operations, or so as to lend support to NATO operations where a nato member has been attacked.

In general these roles call for a defensive fighter, with ground strike capability.

Canada doesn't have the appetite for regime change like the US does, it has more or less been dragged along by the US, UK and France for years on this stuff. It is a waste of resources. Nato/US has been outright invading and topling governments without apparent cause other than kicking them while they are down. That really isn't a defensive strategy outside of Israel.

You know something like a F-16 air superiority fighter, or Su35/47pakfa etc.. might be more useful than a strike fighter to Canada's actual needs. Oddly most Russian Arctic jets will likely work fine in Canada too, and they are cheaper. Doubt it would happen but it is sort of logical.

I'd love to see the Russians put in their new fighter into the competition. That thing is looking really good operationally, even without its upgrade engine.

None the less an open bid would be great. Of course it will come down to issues like supply and carryover interoperability.

None the less I still think the French defence industry development in Canada has been the best deal on the table so far.

I think if the Russians were taken seriously and put in a bid they would win if the decision didn't become a political one.

http://tinyurl.com/j6y7624

If it wasn't a political decision there is no way the f35 would win due to cost.

You know the #1 issue right now is the delivery deadline. You know who can make deliveries before 2025.

Edited March 2, 2016 by nerve

[bush_cheney2004]

Normally they poll the military on these things.

generally the Canadian air force has two missions

....You know something like a F-16 air superiority fighter, or T35 might be more useful than a strike fighter to Canada's actual needs.

Yes...and that was true 30 years ago too, but somehow Canada's mission definition and wacky procurement process ended up with U.S. Navy, carrier based strike fighters with less range. Canada has fielded F/A-18s so long, some members here think that another U.S. Navy strike fighter is the way to go again.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes...and that was true 30 years ago too, but somehow Canada's mission definition and wacky procurement process ended up with U.S. Navy, carrier based strike fighters with less range. Canada has fielded F/A-18s so long, some members here think that another U.S. Navy strike fighter is the way to go again.

Well I know you tried hard, but it turns out the f 35's are basically a piece of shit that tries to be all things to all people, and it turns out you got a plane that cant turn, cant accelerate, cant maneuver. And it has cost you boyes a boatload to find out you cnt have one plane do all things. Good try though.

[Derek 2.0]

Well I know you tried hard, but it turns out the f 35's are basically a piece of shit that tries to be all things to all people, and it turns out you got a plane that cant turn, cant accelerate, cant maneuver. And it has cost you boyes a boatload to find out you cnt have one plane do all things. Good try though.

Ahhh no, not according to this Royal Norwegian Air Force pilot's account:

The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire. (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.

in addition:

To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.

In the defensive role the same characteristics are valuable. I can «whip» the airplane around in a reactive maneuver while slowing down. The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you´d be able to emergency brake your car. This is important because my opponent has to react to me «stopping, or risk ending up in a role-reversal where he flies past me. (Same principle as many would have seen in Top Gun; «hit the brakes, and he’ll fly right by.» But me quoting Top Gun does not make the movie a documentary)

So if this Norwegian pilot and his American partners find the F-35 a better "dog-fighter" than the F-16, and the F-16 being one of the most capable "dog-fighters" in the West presently, that would make the F-35.......an even better "dog-fighter".........

and in closing:

The final «textbook» for how to best employ the F-35 in visual combat – BFM – is not written. It is literally being written by my neighbor, down here in Arizona! We have had many good discussions on this topic over the last few weeks, and it feels very rewarding to be part the development. I would emphasize the term “multirole” after experiencing this jet in many roles, and now also in a dogfight. The F-35 has a real bite! Those in doubt will be surprised when they finally meet this "bomber”.

[On Guard for Thee]

Once again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148585/Pentagon-say-reason-expensive-fighter-jet-F35-lost-dogfight-F16-40-years-ago-did-not-special-coat-stealth-paint.html

[Derek 2.0]

Once again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148585/Pentagon-say-reason-expensive-fighter-jet-F35-lost-dogfight-F16-40-years-ago-did-not-special-coat-stealth-paint.html

So? Again, as addressed numerous times, said aircraft wasn't an operational type and said flight was used as a calibration for the aircraft's flight safety margins.........

Maybe its time you started repeating more current mantras.........and explain why an F-16 pilot, now flying with a unit that transitioned from the f-16, says the F-35 is a better dog-fighter than the F-16............an actual person that is current in both aircraft, and shoots down your repeated claims quite soundly.......

[On Guard for Thee]

So? Again, as addressed numerous times, said aircraft wasn't an operational type and said flight was used as a calibration for the aircraft's flight safety margins.........

Maybe its time you started repeating more current mantras.........and explain why an F-16 pilot, now flying with a unit that transitioned from the f-16, says the F-35 is a better dog-fighter than the F-16............an actual person that is current in both aircraft, and shoots down your repeated claims quite soundly.......

Well the more current "mantras" indicate the software is still quite faulty. So it turns out the machine not only has no guts, it also has no brains. Even after all those years and all those billions.

[bush_cheney2004]

There are lots of famous F-16 software bugs, one of the best known being the autopilot inverting the aircraft when crossing the equator.

Over 4500 F-16s have been built and delivered to date.

[Derek 2.0]

Well the more current "mantras" indicate the software is still quite faulty. So it turns out the machine not only has no guts, it also has no brains. Even after all those years and all those billions.

Your "points" run contrary to an actual F-35 (and former F-16) pilot, which directly remarks on the available power between both the F-35 and F-16.....likewise, as already cited, your "concerns" over the software, which have already been countered and put into context, over which, have no baring of the IOC of the F-35 with the USAF or the USN.

[Derek 2.0]

There are lots of famous F-16 software bugs, one of the best known being the autopilot inverting the aircraft when crossing the equator.

Over 4500 F-16s have been built and delivered to date.

Right, and their are ongoing, potentially lethal, "mysteries" with the Super Hornet and Hornet families......problems that have yet to be addressed by either Boeing or the end users.

[On Guard for Thee]

Your "points" run contrary to an actual F-35 (and former F-16) pilot, which directly remarks on the available power between both the F-35 and F-16.....likewise, as already cited, your "concerns" over the software, which have already been countered and put into context, over which, have no baring of the IOC of the F-35 with the USAF or the USN.

They're not my points. And no, they have not been "countered"

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/01/22/dod-weapons-tester-concerned-f-35-software-development/79191890/

[Derek 2.0]

They're not my points. And no, they have not been "countered"

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/01/22/dod-weapons-tester-concerned-f-35-software-development/79191890/

Did you not, as you've done countless times, suggest the F-35 couldn't "dog-fight"? That is clearly countered by an actual F-35/F-16 pilot above....

Likewise, in this very thread, you suggested that software "delays" would delay the IOC by upwards of four years (I can quote you if you like) of the F-35........yet from your above link:

DellaVedova defended Block 3i, saying the software has been continually improved throughout the development test and evaluation process. Early versions of 3i did contain deficiencies, but these issues were addressed and resolved in later increments of the software, he said. The latest version of 3i is being flown with “improved results,” he said.

The IOC dates for the Air Force and the Navy are on track, according to DellaVedova

.

Thanks for confirming my point.............

[Hoser360]

US Air Force Maj. Gen. James F. Martin Jr. fainted at the rostrum during a media briefing when he was talking about the F-35 plane in Pentagon on Wednesday.
The high-ranking officer was delivering a report on the Air Force budget and in particular about the future of the ill-fated F-35 program when he...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDhIJ-WFnnM

[Topaz]

Australia has bought many and signed the deal 10 years ago but today, the F-35 is a lemon.
LINK

Edited March 4, 2016 by Michael Hardner
added video link

[nerve]

The sixth-generation fighters are expected to use advanced engines such as Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology to allow longer ranges and higher performance. Risk reduction began in 2012 so that engine development can start around 2020. An engine is to be ready when fighters are introduced by the Navy in 2028 and the Air Force in 2032.

Seems like at this rate, with delivery time frames could be off by only a few years before the next Generation is rolling out

Edited March 4, 2016 by nerve

[Argus]

Seems like at this rate, with delivery time frames could be off by only a few years before the next Generation is rolling out

And how long will there be pilots?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/pentagon-hands-out-118m-contract-to-build-lightningstrike-plane-that-can-take-off-and-land-vertically