Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Moonbox]

Yes, because you've suggested such testing isn't a regular occurrence.........clearly you're wrong.......the USAF does continual testing on all in service aircraft (Obviously to new aircraft entering service).

Nice try. He suggested no such thing.

From his comments it was painfully obvious that the point he was making was that the specifics around the F-35's CAS testing and the doubts behind its capacity to replace the A-10 for this role (like the resistance to a face-off) raised further concerns about its all-round capabilities.

Of course you somehow (incredibly) managed to screw this up into waldo apparently saying that the USAF doesn't routinely test its aircraft, even though he specifically continued to explain:

again, the point of this 'point of departure' is to highlight yet another bout of F-35 delay/capability impact... you know, something a person/body charged with evaluating available alternative aircraft options should be privy to and factor - wouldn't you think? Of course, we're still only talking about target schedules without regard to actual demonstrated result and capability, right?

.

I mean, come on. If you're trying to actually convince anyone of anything, and if you're actually interested in having a reasonable discussion, then argue what the person is actually saying instead of making up your own version of it and arguing that.

Interesting to (finally) hear these points raised by Lockheed........I've been pointing out these facts for years

It's interesting that you still think Lockheed publicity and talking points are reliable sources of information for this debate. It doesn't take a genius to see the problem with that (please don't report me for saying that ). .

Edited April 12, 2016 by Moonbox

[Argus]

What a bunch of....No F-35 would change nothing, as there's no threat to Canada's territorial approaches. The only possible threat (Russia) would require the US to do as it sees fit anyway.

And we should not expect to have to play any part in that defense? If you say you have sovereignty over an area you had better be prepared to show it. if you couldn't be bothered then you don't deserve to have it.

[Wilber]

What a bunch of....No F-35 would change nothing, as there's no threat to Canada's territorial approaches. The only possible threat (Russia) would require the US to do as it sees fit anyway.

Why wouldn't do it their way in their interest if we can't be bothered. Canada taking an active role in its own defence contributes to US security as well. If you want it a one way street with the other guy doing all the driving, you will get what you get so don't complain if it isn't what you want.

[Smallc]

And we should not expect to have to play any part in that defense? If you say you have sovereignty over an area you had better be prepared to show it. if you couldn't be bothered then you don't deserve to have it.

I'm saying it's a false premise.

[Smallc]

Why wouldn't do it their way in their interest if we can't be bothered. Canada taking an active role in its own defence contributes to US security as well. If you want it a one way street with the other guy doing all the driving, you will get what you get so don't complain if it isn't what you want.

If we don't choose the F-35, it won't make a bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.

[segnosaur]

What a bunch of....No F-35 would change nothing, as there's no threat to Canada's territorial approaches. The only possible threat (Russia) would require the US to do as it sees fit anyway.

Actually, there are other possible situations that might need to be dealt with apart from Russia...

It may be necessary for our air force to intercept civilian planes, for example in the case of a hijacking (similar to 9/11), or in the case of a malfunction (e.g. the Payne Stewart situation), or even in the case of a pilot being a dumbass (e.g. Mathias Rust). Many routes pass through Canadian arctic territory.

For those situations, I personally think we would be better off to have an air force that is able to respond quickly from Canadian territory, using our own jets, rather than relying on an American response. The ability of the F35 to carry some weapons internally would give it the ability to respond to the above situations quicker (and at a much further distance) than an alternative plane (like the F18, where all weapons are carried externally, which increases drag and reduces speed and range).

[bush_cheney2004]

If we don't choose the F-35, it won't make a bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.

Agreed....at this rate....it doesn't matter what Canada chooses....including choosing nothing at all.

[Smallc]

Actually, there are other possible situations that might need to be dealt with apart from Russia...

It may be necessary for our air force to intercept civilian planes, for example in the case of a hijacking (similar to 9/11), or in the case of a malfunction (e.g. the Payne Stewart situation), or even in the case of a pilot being a dumbass (e.g. Mathias Rust). Many routes pass through Canadian arctic territory

I think we could do that with anything we may choose. If we really wanted quick response, we'd have enough aircraft for permanently used FOBs. We don't seem to care all that much. The F-35 would serve us well. Anything else will do just fine too.

[Smallc]

Agreed....at this rate....it doesn't matter what Canada chooses....including choosing nothing at all.

Agreed actually.

[Wilber]

If we don't choose the F-35, it won't make a bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.

So there is no point in choosing anything I guess. Just hope the world goes away.

[Smallc]

So there is no point in choosing anything I guess. Just hope the world goes away.

Our jets need replacing, mostly because they'll become more difficult and expensive to maintain.

[segnosaur]

Actually, there are other possible situations that might need to be dealt with apart from Russia...

It may be necessary for our air force to intercept civilian planes

I think we could do that with anything we may choose.

Yes, we could intercept civilian planes with other potential jet fighters. But, they might not do the job as well. So, instead of intercepting an off-course airliner 500 km out with an F35, we intercept it 100km out with an F18/Gripen/etc.... Would the airliner be intercepted? Yes. But, with less time for us deal with it.

Are you talking about buying additional aircraft so that we can get a faster response? That's going to cost more money. Probably a lot more.

One of the standard chirpings from the anti-F35 people is "look at the cost". But if you start having to buy 100 F18s rather than 65 F35s, you're not likely going to be saving any money.

[Wilber]

Our jets need replacing, mostly because they'll become more difficult and expensive to maintain.

But why buy anything if it won't make any difference?

[Wilber]

Yes, we could intercept civilian planes with other potential jet fighters. But, they might not do the job as well. So, instead of intercepting an off-course airliner 500 km out with an F35, we intercept it 100km out with an F18/Gripen/etc.... Would the airliner be intercepted? Yes. But, with less time for us deal with it.

Are you talking about buying additional aircraft so that we can get a faster response? That's going to cost more money. Probably a lot more.

One of the standard chirpings from the anti-F35 people is "look at the cost". But if you start having to buy 100 F18s rather than 65 F35s, you're not likely going to be saving any money.

Why use a military aircraft at all to intercept an airliner?

[Smallc]

But why buy anything if it won't make any difference?

We still need some kind of self defence capability. We're not going to defend ourselves against our most likely aggressor on our own regardless.

[Wilber]

We still need some kind of self defence capability. We're not going to defend ourselves against our most likely aggressor on our own regardless.

What is some kind of self defense capability?

So because we wouldn't be defending against the Russians alone, any old thing will do as long as it is newer than what we have? I really don't get where you are coming from.

[Smallc]

What is some kind of self defense capability?

So because we wouldn't be defending against the Russians alone, any old thing will do as long as it is newer than what we have? I really don't get where you are coming from.

We need new aircraft. We need aircraft they meet our needs. For what we've historically done with our aircraft, any of the choices available will suffice for the next few decades.

[Derek 2.0]

Even more interesting is the Liberal government listening to Lock Mart because the price is getting cheaper. Funny how that works....going from no way Canada ever buys the F-35 "bomb truck" to "how much is that doggy in the window?".

I think actual price and/or capability have little to do with it, more so aerospace jobs in Liberal ridings.

[Derek 2.0]

Nice try. He suggested no such thing.

Yes he did, in several posts.......clearly stating it was a unique event........despite the very same group having done the like testing with the A-10 on its introduction into service in the 70s, and its near replacement by the A-16 in the 80s.........and its eventual replacement by the F-35.

Further still, one has to wonder why the USAF considered the A-10 in need of replacement with an (then) advanced type ~30 years ago..........if an A-10 wasn't considered survivable in a contested environment in the 1980s, why would it be considered so now?

[Derek 2.0]

Why wouldn't do it their way in their interest if we can't be bothered. Canada taking an active role in its own defence contributes to US security as well. If you want it a one way street with the other guy doing all the driving, you will get what you get so don't complain if it isn't what you want.

Exactly, and they expect a worthwhile contribution.........odd that this debate sounds similar to the BOMARC debate over 50 years ago........maybe the Trudeau Liberals will end up purchasing the F-35 and filling it with sawdust, then purchasing a handful of clapped out F-16s........

[Derek 2.0]

We need new aircraft. We need aircraft they meet our needs. For what we've historically done with our aircraft, any of the choices available will suffice for the next few decades.

Oh, like our deployments over the FRY, Libya and Iraq..........why would we ever want an advanced aircraft, that will have an increased margin of safety for the pilot and an ability to complete its intended mission, to serve past the middle of this century

[bush_cheney2004]

....Further still, one has to wonder why the USAF considered the A-10 in need of replacement with an (then) advanced type ~30 years ago..........if an A-10 wasn't considered survivable in a contested environment in the 1980s, why would it be considered so now?

It wasn't then and is less so today. The A-10 mission requires that air superiority be firmly established and maintained. USAF F-35A would be part of AA defense suppression and CAP missions, with CAS capability. Canada wouldn't lose any A-10 capabilities, because it does not operate them last time I checked.

[Derek 2.0]

It wasn't then and is less so today. The A-10 mission requires that air superiority be firmly established and maintained. USAF F-35A would be part of AA defense suppression and CAP missions, with CAS capability. Canada wouldn't lose any A-10 capabilities, because it does not operate them last time I checked.

Oh I know, thats why the the USAF was looking initially at an advance A-7, then the A-16 with 30mm external gun........don't get me wrong, nothing wrong the A-10 when fighting lightly armed insurgents, but as the first Gulf War proved, even against the Iraqis that had their air defense grid creamed, the A-10 and the USMC's harriers were dropping like flies.......by an Iraqi force armed with 70s era Soviet SAMs and triple-A.......funny enough, both forces are replacing these legacy fleets with the F-35...........subsonic niche aircraft are a luxury few can afford, and the USAF already has the AC-130 for breaking things and killing people in a uncontested environment.......

Imagine the CAS delivered by an aircraft that has the ability to track and determine launch points of artillery and mortar rounds with its radar/DAS?

[waldo]

Yes, because you've suggested such testing isn't a regular occurrence.........clearly you're wrong.......the USAF does continual testing on all in service aircraft (Obviously to new aircraft entering service). This was already spoken to several weeks/months ago...........likewise, the USN/USMC with its aircraft, using some of the same ranges as the USAF, including their strike fighter tactics instructor program (also conducted in Nevada)........you know, your often go-to cultural reference in such topics

Yes he did, in several posts.......clearly stating it was a unique event........despite the very same group having done the like testing with the A-10 on its introduction into service in the 70s, and its near replacement by the A-16 in the 80s.........and its eventual replacement by the F-35.

I said no such thing. You can confirm you're not making shyte up by quoting me stating what you claim. Again, that so-called testing "face-off" was driven by the U.S. DoD's DOT&E in response to the long pent-up debate over the USAF attempting to shift budget monies to retire the A-10 in favour of the F-35... debate that reached all the way up to U.S. Congressional Committee levels. For the 3rd time you refuse to bite on my highlighting USAF top brass were not in favour of the "face-off"... you know, the thing you keep calling just a natural occurrence. Why would they be so against a "natural occurrence"?

.

.

[waldo]

I said approximately 2018, as in the IOC of the munitions themselves. With regards to the SDB II, as noted, it won't be fully integrated until ~2022, but has already begun integration testing on the F-35......and what organization conducts said testing? It wouldn't be the groups that will conduct the F-35/A-10 tests would it?

Source with regards to the Super Hornet/SDB II........you see, NAVAIR says different

"as noted"... you mean, as I noted! You were off by 4 years. Doesn't matter whether you claim F-35 integration of SDB II has begun... it requires Block 4A software which still only has a target completion date of 2022. I already asked you what other weapons are also tied to that 2022 software date... for some reason you ignored that question.

I appear to have touched a nerve in stating the USN has begun SDB II integration with the Super Hornet. If you want to state "NAVAIR says different", show me your cite to that end... and then I'll show you mine! Oh wait, perhaps I'll just refer you to your provided link as quoted above... where your provided link states: "Raytheon, the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy have begun Small Diameter Bomb II integration activities on the F-35, F/A-18E/F and F-15E aircraft." (D 2.0 own-goal)!

.