Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[waldo]

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?".

don't hesitate to provide something to support your claim of the "Liberal government listening to LockMart". That media run of LockMart whimpering about being excluded... with lawsuit implications... doesn't count!

.

[waldo]

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 ). .

no kidding! Notwithstanding that NP Fisher article is nothing more than a LockMart propaganda puff-piece.

.

[Derek 2.0]

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"?

.

.

In your above response Waldo........integration of any new aircraft is carried out on its entrance into service through to its retirement........that is standard across the board, not driven by a "pent-up debate" I just provided you with the USAF group that does exactly that for all combat aircraft within the USAF.......your conclusion is devoid of reality.

[Derek 2.0]

"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.

If it requires block 4A software.......how is it already being integrated with the F-35? Likewise, at what stage will the A-10 begin to receive the SDB II?

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)!

Own goal? Not the least........the own goal is on you and your claim that the SDB II would be integrated with the Super Hornet "3-4 years" before the F-35..........that is incorrect.

Question.......when will the SDB I be integrated with the Super Hornet..or the A-10.....like how it is already with the F-35?

Edited April 13, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[waldo]

In your above response Waldo........integration of any new aircraft is carried out on its entrance into service through to its retirement........that is standard across the board, not driven by a "pent-up debate" I just provided you with the USAF group that does exactly that for all combat aircraft within the USAF.......your conclusion is devoid of reality.

again - why would the top USAF brass be so against the so-called "face-off" between the A-10 and the F-35... if it's just your claimed natural occurrence? Just answer the question - for once. Just answer it.

.

[Derek 2.0]

again - why would the top USAF brass be so against the so-called "face-off" between the A-10 and the F-35... if it's just your claimed natural occurrence? Just answer the question - for once. Just answer it.

.

I don't know that they are, that's your implication.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know that they are, that's your implication.

Agreed...CAS is a mission, not any particular aircraft. Gonna bring back A-4 Skyhawks or A-1 Skyraiders too ?

[Derek 2.0]

Agreed...CAS is a mission, not any particular aircraft. Gonna bring back A-4 Skyhawks or A-1 Skyraiders too ?

And thats the point.......I'm not arguing the A-10 is/was bad at its intended role, that's not in dispute, the issue is that its ability to carry out its intended missions against a foe with a semi-competent air force/air defense network, which was in question as early as the 80s, some 30 years ago.....today, outside of uncontested environments, the thing would be creamed.

Hence, the aircraft is now a niche platform......akin to if the battleships were in service today.........really good at several roles under ideal circumstances, but bested by everything else currently in service (F-16C/F-15E) and the aircraft that will replace it (F-35) in all other roles...........in an ideal world, where money grew on trees, both the A-10s and Battleships would continue in service, filling their niche roles when required......but in the real world with tight budgets, one trick ponies are near at an end.

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

Moot point again with regards to Canada, as we've been reliant upon multi-role aircraft since the Hornet entered service..........and the eventual replacement is simple.......the aircraft that currently has portions being made in Liberal ridings Canada.

[waldo]

I don't know that they are, that's your implication.

the quotes are freely available - try a googly

.

[waldo]

Agreed...CAS is a mission, not any particular aircraft.

if you're going to agree to something... it should actually line up with what you've quoted! Particular aircraft have particular CAS capabilities. For some reason there has been such resistance to retiring the A-10... for some reason there isn't a lock-step acceptance that the F-35 is a suitable replacement for the A-10. You know... the reason the USAF has shifted towards defining a 'new requirements definition' for CAS.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Moot point again with regards to Canada, as we've been reliant upon multi-role aircraft since the Hornet entered service..........and the eventual replacement is simple.......the aircraft that currently has portions being made in Liberal ridings Canada.

Yes...this is the real bottom line...Canada gets to pick one multi-role aircraft...and is having a great deal of difficulty even doing that in a timely manner to replace the previous single choice for a multi-role aircraft.

[waldo]

If it requires block 4A software.......how is it already being integrated with the F-35? Likewise, at what stage will the A-10 begin to receive the SDB II?

if you'd like to dispute the prior link I put forward... please do so. "Being integrated" doesn't mean it can be fired - that requires the Block 4A software; again, only target scheduled for 2022.

.

Own goal? Not the least........the own goal is on you and your claim that the SDB II would be integrated with the Super Hornet "3-4 years" before the F-35..........that is incorrect.

if you'd like to extend beyond your standard drop a link & go fetch routine... quote from your link as to the point you're trying to make!

oh wait... your link does state: 'Threshold Platforms: F-15E (USAF) F/A-18E/F, F-35B/C (DoN)" --- notwithstanding the glaringly absent F-35A, you'll still need to provide something that actually states B/C variants can fire the SDB II without waiting on the target scheduled 2022 Block 4A software.

.

Question.......when will the SDB I be integrated with the Super Hornet..or the A-10.....like how it is already with the F-35?

you were the one that brought forward the reference to 'next generation SDB II' - that was you! By the by, I've read the USAF response to the DOT&E 2015 F-35 review... it does highlight separation test results for the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb... but nothing yet for accuracy. Are you factoring that when you claim "already with"?

.

[waldo]

Yes...this is the real bottom line...Canada gets to pick one multi-role aircraft...and is having a great deal of difficulty even doing that in a timely manner to replace the previous single choice for a multi-role aircraft.

what's the timing concern/rush you seem so worried over... thanks for thinking of Canada though - good on ya! Why would any thinking country rush in and buy the F-35 up to this point... even years down the road yet! How many LRIP iterations left, hey? Oh wait, that must be why so few foreign sales have actually been completed - yes?

.

[segnosaur]

Yes, we could intercept civilian planes with other potential jet fighters. But, they might not do the job as well.

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

Because it is not outside the realm of possibility that it may be necessary to actually shoot down a civilian plane.

9/11 was a fairly successful terrorist attack, and although airport security has supposedly been improved, there is still the risk of a similar hijacking.

When Payne Stewart's plane malfunctioned, it may have been necessary to shoot it down in the situation where it might have strayed into urban areas. (Fortunately its flight path meant it wasn't an issue.)

Plus, do we really want some idiot with a cessna having the ability to crash their plane into 24 Sussex? Mattias Rust was for the most part harmless, but it illustrated what could happen if you don't have proper response mechanisms in place.

[waldo]

Plus, do we really want some idiot with a cessna having the ability to crash their plane into 24 Sussex?

given your long-standing advocacy for the F-35, is there only one aircraft option out there with an ability to 'shoot down a cessna'?

.

[segnosaur]

given your long-standing advocacy for the F-35, is there only one aircraft option out there with an ability to 'shoot down a cessna'?

.

Uhh... no. I already pointed out that such interceptions could be done with alternatives.

Its just that the F35 could probably do the job better, based on its ability to carry weapons internally (which would reduce drag and give the plane greater range and speed than the alternatives.)

And in the long term, it can probably do the job cheaper, since any of the alternatives will likely be an orphan aircraft within a decade (making the planes harder to maintain), while the F35 will be produced for decades to come (making spare parts and replacements easier to obtain).

Heck, why even bother with jets? Dust off plans for the Spitfire or Mustang, and there you go! An air defense!

[waldo]

F-35 - the stealthy cessna hunter!

.

[Moonbox]

In your above response Waldo........integration of any new aircraft is carried out on its entrance into service through to its retirement........that is standard across the board, not driven by a "pent-up debate" I just provided you with the USAF group that does exactly that for all combat aircraft within the USAF.......your conclusion is devoid of reality.

Your link showed literally nothing other than that Nellis Airforce Base exists and that it tests aircraft. Good job? Once again you've managed to provide a link that proves nothing useful and that your go-to move is to argue against a point that was never being made.

Again, waldo was clearly (and I mean painfully clearly) suggesting that A-10 vs F-35 face-off is suggesting further doubts surrounding the F-35's CAS capabilities, particularly since some of the brass (like Bogdan) is so against it.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1943

So that's not really waldo's "implication" as you say. It's a reality.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Moonbox

[Wilber]

Because it is not outside the realm of possibility that it may be necessary to actually shoot down a civilian plane.

9/11 was a fairly successful terrorist attack, and although airport security has supposedly been improved, there is still the risk of a similar hijacking.

When Payne Stewart's plane malfunctioned, it may have been necessary to shoot it down in the situation where it might have strayed into urban areas. (Fortunately its flight path meant it wasn't an issue.)

Plus, do we really want some idiot with a cessna having the ability to crash their plane into 24 Sussex? Mattias Rust was for the most part harmless, but it illustrated what could happen if you don't have proper response mechanisms in place.

If all we want fighters for is to shoot down civilian airliners, we could just resurrect some rocket firing Clunks from the fifties.

[Derek 2.0]

if you'd like to dispute the prior link I put forward... please do so. "Being integrated" doesn't mean it can be fired - that requires the Block 4A software; again, only target scheduled for 2022.

.

Dispute it? The maker of the SDB II refutes your claim and clearly stated that it is being integrated now.........Could that mean it won't be fully functional, in that it won't have the full use of its three differing seekers or networking capabilities, both its major improvements over the SDB I? Sure, without a doubt................That doesn't change the fact that the F-35, unlike the A-10, will have the use of the current SDB I (unlike the A-10) and may have partial use (or none at all) use of the SDB II until its fully integrated in ~2022............including in said CAS testing

........The point, advanced munitions that will be used by the F-35 will put it at a far greater advantage in performing CAS over the A-10 that is still reliant on 30mm depleted uranium and cluster bombs........making a marked difference between an aircraft that will be more survivable on a modern battlefield, using munitions that are both more efficient and can be used in a closer proximity to friendly troops on the ground......well greatly reducing collateral damage to the surrounding area.........versus the aircraft, that despite its lethal punch, wouldn't be able to deliver on the (then) modern battlefield of the 1980s.......

quote from your link as to the point you're trying to make!

One better

oh wait... your link does state: 'Threshold Platforms: F-15E (USAF) F/A-18E/F, F-35B/C (DoN)" --- notwithstanding the glaringly absent F-35A, you'll still need to provide something that actually states B/C variants can fire the SDB II without waiting on the target scheduled 2022 Block 4A software.

Why? I never made that claim.........unlike your claim that the Super Hornet would be able to 3-4 years prior than the F-35.

you were the one that brought forward the reference to 'next generation SDB II' - that was you! By the by, I've read the USAF response to the DOT&E 2015 F-35 review... it does highlight separation test results for the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb... but nothing yet for accuracy. Are you factoring that when you claim "already with"?

Of course I did, as its clearly the future of modern warfare, which will be a fully a integrated tool used by the F-35 in the decades ahead........unlike the A-10.......or Canada's current Hornet fleet........

I still fail to see the Waldo's point in the context of Canada's Hornet's replacement and the SDB II.........as this Government has no intention of purchasing replacements until the 2020s, nor has it shown a willingness to deploy our air force on missions that would entail performing CAS..........if the Trudeau Liberals have no intention of replacing the hornets in this mandate, and no intention of engaging a group like ISIS, what does it mater?

[Derek 2.0]

Because it is not outside the realm of possibility that it may be necessary to actually shoot down a civilian plane.

9/11 was a fairly successful terrorist attack, and although airport security has supposedly been improved, there is still the risk of a similar hijacking.

When Payne Stewart's plane malfunctioned, it may have been necessary to shoot it down in the situation where it might have strayed into urban areas. (Fortunately its flight path meant it wasn't an issue.)

Plus, do we really want some idiot with a cessna having the ability to crash their plane into 24 Sussex? Mattias Rust was for the most part harmless, but it illustrated what could happen if you don't have proper response mechanisms in place.

All good points.........I remember when the Clark Government in New Zealand did away with their fighter force.......within months of the stand down, they had a wingnut threatening to crash his light aircraft into a building in downtown Auckland. During the crisis, the Government contacted the Australians to come to their rescue, which they were more than willing to oblige (ironically, many of the former NZ pilots joined the RAAF), the problem, it would take upwards of 6-8 hours.......luckily for the Clark Government, the nutbar stalled or ran out of fuel and crashed in the harbor.

[waldo]

I still fail to see the Waldo's point in the context of Canada's Hornet's replacement and the SDB II.........

again, that was YOU that scored an own goal in bringing forward the reference to SDB II and tying it to 2018... that was YOU being (at least) 4 years off given the target schedule date for the required Block 4A software... to actually fire the missile. Seeing you wiggle/squirm here is gold, real gold.

I've already detailed, several times, the point in bringing forward the reference to the A-10/CAS... MLW member Moonbox has also reminded you several times of the intent behind that original reference. And you're being asked to be force-fed even more?

once one bothers to actually get in the weeds with you, it always becomes clear just how little you actually know - the clear cut give-away is when you start to wildly deflect by dropping go-fetch links that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand or the statements you've made.

.

[Wilber]

All good points.........I remember when the Clark Government in New Zealand did away with their fighter force.......within months of the stand down, they had a wingnut threatening to crash his light aircraft into a building in downtown Auckland. During the crisis, the Government contacted the Australians to come to their rescue, which they were more than willing to oblige (ironically, many of the former NZ pilots joined the RAAF), the problem, it would take upwards of 6-8 hours.......luckily for the Clark Government, the nutbar stalled or ran out of fuel and crashed in the harbor.

Good points but civilian aircraft aren't any faster than they were in the sixties. Subsonic fighters would do just fine if that's all we are doing with them.

[Derek 2.0]

again, that was YOU that scored an own goal in bringing forward the reference to SDB II and tying it to 2018... that was YOU being (at least) 4 years off given the target schedule date for the required Block 4A software... to actually fire the missile. Seeing you wiggle/squirm here is gold, real gold.

I'm not "squirming" the least, the SDB II will very much so be apart of the F-35's arsenal for performing CAS, as such would clearly be indexed for any future CAS requirements........SDB II won't be apart of the A-10s inventory.....nor can the A-10 defend itself against enemy fighters........nor can the A-10 perform SEAD......etc etc

But again, in what context does the A-10s out of service date have with Canada's hornet replacement? I have no qualms drifting into the subject (We may very well have a future Canadian government that isn't opposed to killing groups like ISIS with airpower after all), but I really do fail to see your point........which reads like the F-35 won't be able to fully use the SDB II until 2022, the A-10 never, hence the A-10 is better than the F-35, so Canada should purchase the A-10?

I've already detailed, several times, the point in bringing forward the reference to the A-10/CAS

In the context of Canada's Hornet replacement? Where?

[Derek 2.0]

Good points but civilian aircraft aren't any faster than they were in the sixties. Subsonic fighters would do just fine if that's all we are doing with them.

Yes and no......it comes down to both the number of interceptors you have, the locations they are based at and trigonometry......an old Canuck would be very hard pressed to run down a 777 unless it was placed in the airliners path from the start............much the same argument can be made with the "modern" Russian Blackjack bomber, no western fighter can catch the bomber on a mach 2 sprint, ergo, one has to place itself in the bombers path or intercept it before it starts sprinting.......now only if there was a way to prevent the Russian bomber's radar from knowing it was being intercepted, preventing the aircrew from putting the spurs to it