Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

Canadians have had A-10 Warthogs on the brain before....anything to distract from the CF-188 replacement task...and expense.

Exactly, on paper, a surplus A-10 (or RAF Harrier GR7s) purchase would have made sense during the Afghan war, a far better option for escorting Chinooks or convoys on the ground then the Griffons for example, likewise a contribution to the pooled NATO CAS force........but in the context of our Forces now and going forward, its a solution looking for a problem.

[Moonbox]

I see, so that's why the USAF started looking at options to replace them 30 years ago?

I don't know, ask the USAF. While you're at it, why don't you ask them why they started looking at options to replace the F-15 and F-16 35 years ago when they started the ATF program. I guess that means these planes aren't/weren't relevant either? It's funny how easy it is to turn your trash logic back at you.

On paper, one would think countries like South Korea, Poland and countless Middle Eastern countries would have been in the market for a "very much relevant" anti-armor/CAS platform like the A-10......further still,the Philippines, African or Latin American countries that are fighting decades long insurgencies........yet nobody has sought an aircraft, from the United States (that hands out surplus aircraft like candy), that is "very much relevant"...........why is that?

Probably because nobody but the United States can reliably ensure the sort of "permissive" airspace an A-10 thrives in, nor do they have the budgets to make a single-role aircraft even remotely worth considering. Really though, the choices that the Philippines, Mali or Columbia make with their shoe-string military budgets couldn't be less relevant for this discussion. As usual, you've fallen hilariously off the mark.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Moonbox

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Really though, the choices that the Philippines, Mali or Columbia make with their shoe-string military budgets couldn't be less relevant for this discussion.

As are any comparisons between Canada and the United States for military budgets and procurement of tactical aircraft.

[Derek 2.0]

I don't know, ask the USAF. While you're at it, why don't you ask them why they started looking at options to replace the F-15 and F-16 35 years ago when they started the ATF program. I guess that means these planes aren't/weren't relevant either? It's funny how easy it is to turn your trash logic back at you.

The very same reason........... You understand, the USAF procured and is procuring replacements for the F-15 and F-16, in the later case, the point of this thread?

Probably because nobody but the United States can reliably ensure the sort of "permissive" airspace an A-10 thrives in, nor do they have the budgets to make a single-role aircraft even remotely worth considering. Really though, the choices that the Philippines, Mali or Columbia make with their shoe-string military budgets couldn't be less relevant for this discussion. As usual, you've fallen hilariously off the mark.

Off the mark? You just confirmed my point........niche aircraft, or niche platforms in general, are very expensive, and with lean budgets and future threats, aircraft like the A-10 are no longer "very relevant"........

Hence the comparison between a 70s era typewriter, that I don't deny is a useful item for typing a letter (and that's it), versus a smartphone with a whole host of uses.........

[Derek 2.0]

As are any comparisons between Canada and the United States for military budgets and procurement of tactical aircraft.

Even more so when this government has no intention of purchasing replacements for our current Hornet fleet inside this decade

[Moonbox]

The very same reason........... You understand, the USAF procured and is procuring replacements for the F-15 and F-16, in the later case, the point of this thread?

Try and keep your argument straight bud. You tried to suggest that the A-10 was obsolete/irrelevant simply because they started looking at replacements for it 30 years ago - something they do by default for virtually any aircraft given how long development cycles last. Your suggestion, therefore, means absolutely nothing (as usual ) and gives us no useful information on the A-10's relevance today.

Off the mark? You just confirmed my point........niche aircraft, or niche platforms in general, are very expensive, and with lean budgets and future threats, aircraft like the A-10 are no longer "very relevant"........

Niche aircraft are too expensive for a country that has a military budget approximately 0.006% the size of the US' and can barely afford a single platform for a single role.

Also, there's a point of diminishing returns with multi-role platforms. If you try to cram too many features into a single vehicle, the cost of integrating them and the compromises you have to make doing it eventually makes it so you would be better off with multiple dedicated platforms. That's why nobody uses Sporks, why the US army doesn't issue combination assault-shovels (instead of issuing a carbine/rifle AND an entrenching tool) and why the Hind failed as a troop transport/attack-helicopter combo.

Unfortunately for you reality isn't as black-and-white as your "logic" would like.

Hence the comparison between a 70s era typewriter, that I don't deny is a useful item for typing a letter (and that's it), versus a smartphone with a whole host of uses.........

It's a dumb comparison. I know you thought it was clever when you wrote it, but the type-writer is strictly obsolete. Everything it can do can be done better (and now cheaper) by something else and that's why nobody wants them anymore (except George R. Martin I guess). Nothing can do what the A-10 does as well as the A-10. Analogy failed.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

As are any comparisons between Canada and the United States for military budgets and procurement of tactical aircraft.

Who's making one?

[PIK]

It looks like we have bought the harpoon block 11 missile for our ships. This will also work with the hornet but not the 35. Will this change things??

[Moonbox]

No. We're still going to buy the F-35 because it STILL by far makes the most sense despite how much of a mess the whole program has ended up being.

[Smallc]

No. We're still going to buy the F-35 because it STILL by far makes the most sense despite how much of a mess the whole program has ended up being.

There's a good chance. I wouldn't say it's certain at this point.

[segnosaur]

No. We're still going to buy the F-35 because it STILL by far makes the most sense despite how much of a mess the whole program has ended up being.

Unless of course Trudeau Jr. decides to pull a Cormorant and buy something else just because it looks better politically. (Recall that Chretien decided to buy the Cyclone to replace part of our sea king fleet, despite the fact that it was a new, untested plane that had no other users at the time.)

The Liberals put quite a bit of political capital into opposing the F35. Remember that some of the "contempt" charges stem indirectly from the conservative plans to buy the F35. Plus there was the whole "We'll rebuild the navy by buying something other than the F35". (At least the NDP suggested an open competition, whereas many of the Liberal campaign promises totally dismissed the F35.) Then of course there are a significant number of Liberal fans who have been slamming the F35 for a long time.

For the Liberals to turn around and buy the same plane that they had spent so much time railing against would be a minor embarrassment (and at least a partial vindication for the conservatives). Because of that, there is a very good chance they may try to rig the competition in such a way that the F35 becomes ineligible.

[bush_cheney2004]

Who's making one?

Anyone who drafts A-10 Warthogs, F-22 Raptors, MQ-1/MQ-9 "drones", or any other operational/retired U.S. military aircraft as reasons for dismissing the F-35 JSF as a viable replacement for Canada's aging, lone, multi-role CF-188, which was actually designed as a U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter with associated performance compromises.

It's like a neighbour that has an old rusting jet-ski and trailer arguing that it's a bad idea to augment/replace my jet-ski, bass boat, pontoon, Boston whaler, and other watercraft with a newer multi-purpose boat.

[segnosaur]

It looks like we have bought the harpoon block 11 missile for our ships. This will also work with the hornet but not the 35. Will this change things??

Probably not.

Wasn't sure of the particular details, but it looks like the Harpoon has multiple configurations (depending on whether it is used for air or sea use). If we're buying them for ship-borne use, they may not necessarily be re-configured for air use, so we'd have to buy additional missiles anyways if we wanted to fire them from the air.

[waldo]

Anyone who drafts A-10 Warthogs, F-22 Raptors, MQ-1/MQ-9 "drones", or any other operational/retired U.S. military aircraft as reasons for dismissing the F-35 JSF as a viable replacement for Canada's aging, lone, multi-role CF-188, which was actually designed as a U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter with associated performance compromises.

no - both you and the great-deflector have falsely portrayed... purposely so... the what/why behind the rationale provided in that initial reference to the A-10. You have both been apprised of this... corrected of this... now multiple times (by both myself and MLW member Moonbox) and yet you still persist.

.

[Derek 2.0]

Try and keep your argument straight bud. You tried to suggest that the A-10 was obsolete/irrelevant simply because they started looking at replacements for it 30 years ago - something they do by default for virtually any aircraft given how long development cycles last. Your suggestion, therefore, means absolutely nothing (as usual ) and gives us no useful information on the A-10's relevance today.

My argument is straight............the A-10's ability to operate in contested airspace was in question once it entered service in the mid 70s, in large part due the IAF's experience during Yom Kippur and NATO doctrinal change to interdiction & striking the second echelon of Warsaw Pact Forces........both missions the A-10 couldn't do.......With that, the USAF looked towards an improved version of the A-7 (which the A-10 actually was to partially replace) and then the F-16.....

Unlike what you're indicating, this wasn't a case of replacing the A-10 through natural progression (Like the F-15/F-22 or the F-16/F-35), but an early replacement because the aircraft was no longer "very relevant".

Niche aircraft are too expensive for a country that has a military budget approximately 0.006% the size of the US' and can barely afford a single platform for a single role.

Niche aircraft are very expensive for the United States and the West.

Also, there's a point of diminishing returns with multi-role platforms. If you try to cram too many features into a single vehicle, the cost of integrating them and the compromises you have to make doing it eventually makes it so you would be better off with multiple dedicated platforms. That's why nobody uses Sporks, why the US army doesn't issue combination assault-shovels (instead of issuing a carbine/rifle AND an entrenching tool) and why the Hind failed as a troop transport/attack-helicopter combo.

Nice straw man, unfortunately it doesn't square with reality................if it did, we wouldn't see the decades long trend of platform rationalization across all modern forces.

It's a dumb comparison. I know you thought it was clever when you wrote it, but the type-writer is strictly obsolete. Everything it can do can be done better (and now cheaper) by something else and that's why nobody wants them anymore (except George R. Martin I guess). Nothing can do what the A-10 does as well as the A-10. Analogy failed.

I don't doubt a great many things seem dumb or odd to you..........none the less, how many roles can an A-10 perform in, and in what environments, versus say an F-16, F/A-18 or what the F-35 will do?

The A-10 is obsolete, and it wouldn't be able to perform it's niche role (without horrendous losses) against a somewhat competent force......and that is why the USAF has wanted to retire it since the 1980s.....its a drain on resources and only fills a niche role, a role that the uniformed attach emotional undertones of "supporting the troops on the ground" to.....it is to the USAF, what the Iowa's/Naval gunfire support was to the United States Navy........

There is no doubt that in their day battleships and slow flying CAS platforms played a useful role (and did save the "troops on the ground" ), nor that in permissive circumstances today they wouldn't be useful. The reality is that warfare has moved on from these types of platforms and what they brought to the table.........

So yes, in the context of this topic, the A-10 is very much so a typewriter to the F-35 smartphone, and the suggestion that the A-10 would win such a "face-off" in the context of a modern (as in 1980s) oe future battlefield is laughable when variables associated with enemy aircraft and air defense networks are applied.......t

There is no comparison between the A-10 and 4th generation aircraft like the F-16/F/A-18/F-15E etc, aircraft that unlike the A-10 have the ability to fight their way into the the conflict, conduct their task, and fight their way out.....and then if needed, do a completely different task the next day. So there is no comparison between the A-10 and a modern aircraft like the F-35........and Canada is not in the market for an obsolete CAS platform, nor a modern fighter, so Waldo's point is moot.

[Derek 2.0]

Probably not.

There's no need, and is why the Norwegians developed the Joint Strike Missile.......

[bush_cheney2004]

There's no need, and is why the Norwegians developed the Joint Strike Missile.......

Agreed.....ASuW missile capabilities are rapidly evolving for longer range standoff, mission profiles, and post launch abort. F-35 will get what it needs.

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/fae22277.jpg

Edited April 15, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

So there is no comparison between the A-10 and a modern aircraft like the F-35........and Canada is not in the market for an obsolete CAS platform, nor a modern fighter, so Waldo's point is moot.

if there is no comparison... why did you insist in, post after post after post, declaring that called for DOT&E "testing face-off comparison"... just a natural occurrence? Keep digging!

since you insist on incessantly fabricating your stated "waldo's point", let me remind you, once more with vinegar! Again, the point of that 'A-10 point of departure' was to highlight yet another bout of F-35 delay/capability impact... which did reach U.S. Congressional levels in relation to the USAF attempting to shift A-10 budget monies and related personnel over to the F-35... all towards a forced and early A-10 retirement. You can continue to ignore the raised concerns over a resulting CAS gap; you can continue to FOREVER ignore the negative impacts due to F-35 program delay/costs/capability - it's what you do, it's what you're all about.

.

[waldo]

There's no need, and is why the Norwegians developed the Joint Strike Missile.......

also tied to the target 2022 Block 4A software... given past problems/delay/delivery with F-35 software, that 2022 target is nothing but more LockMart/JSF program office propaganda.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

...So yes, in the context of this topic, the A-10 is very much so a typewriter to the F-35 smartphone, and the suggestion that the A-10 would win such a "face-off" in the context of a modern (as in 1980s) oe future battlefield is laughable when variables associated with enemy aircraft and air defense networks are applied.......t

...There is no comparison between the A-10 and 4th generation aircraft like the F-16/F/A-18/F-15E etc, aircraft that unlike the A-10 have the ability to fight their way into the the conflict, conduct their task, and fight their way out.....and then if needed, do a completely different task the next day. So there is no comparison between the A-10 and a modern aircraft like the F-35........and Canada is not in the market for an obsolete CAS platform, nor a modern fighter, so Waldo's point is moot.

Agreed..."A-10 Warthogs Forever" is most certainly moot and just another anti-F-35 JSF dodge. Operating A-10s for CAS in the modern battlespace still requires modern air superiority and defense suppression. Arguing that F-35 cannot perform the CAS mission as well as A-10 discounts the requisite support and costs/tradeoffs, none of which apply to Canada's CF-188 replacement anyway.

F-35A won't be qualified for arrested landing on a carrier either....see !!....another reason to not buy the F-35A for Canada.

Edited April 15, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

if there is no comparison... why did you insist in, post after post after post, declaring that called for DOT&E "testing face-off comparison"... just a natural occurrence? Keep digging!

.

Simple, as noted countless times, said entrance testing is intended for the end users to develop new doctrine and tactics for the new platform over preceding platform.

since you insist on incessantly fabricating your stated "waldo's point", let me remind you, once more with vinegar! Again, the point of that 'A-10 point of departure' was to highlight yet another bout of F-35 delay/capability impact...

I know the point you're attempting to make............but in the context of Canada, you're reaching.

which did reach U.S. Congressional levels in relation to the USAF attempting to shift A-10 budget monies and related personnel over to the F-35... all towards a forced and early A-10 retirement.

You're not suggesting the US isn't in budget troubles? Of course not, that trickles down to the forces, and with that niche platforms like the A-10 are low hanging fruit.......as to the personal, yes, that was/is an issue, as yet again, the numbers of qualified aircraft technicians is finite..........clearly as a new platform enters service, personal expected to go with the programs have to come from somewhere.

You can continue to ignore the raised concerns over a resulting CAS gap; you can continue to FOREVER ignore the negative impacts due to F-35 program delay/costs/capability - it's what you do, it's what you're all about.

I'm not ignoring any "CAS gap", the USAF (and USN, USMC) have wide ranging platforms to perform the mission (During the Afghan war, the iconic and elderly B-52 performed as many or more CAS missions as the A-10, afforded by modern munitions), the concern is availability of platforms..........a direct reflection of the usage of American forces for the last 15 1/2 years and the shirking of responsibilities by the American's "allies"........

...........I just had a lightbulb moment........the correlation is as follows:

-The Americans have stressed their current force with near 16 years of combat operations

-This was compounded further with the delays in the F-35 program

-This forced the Americans to use up the airframe lives of their older force, likewise keep buggering on with their A-10 force, likewise purchase the RAF's retired harrier force for spares etc

And where Canada ties in? Simple, "Allies" like Canada that refuse to aide the Americans in CAS operations against ISIS are actually making the problem worse, in that they are forcing the Americans to use-up their aircraft's lives faster, likewise take away resources intended for the replacements, the F-35........

So the often spoken to "token" Canadian contribution, when contrasted with the reality of the anti-ISIS fight, is that Canada's smallish force (including the skilled ground crews) equated to several hundred American personal not needed in the fight, that could be committed to the replacement program (F-35), speeding up the retirement of older aircraft and introduction of the F-35 into the fight.

I trust the Waldo is now opposed to the Trudeau Government ducking out on the fight against ISIS now?

Mind the "CAS-gap", further widened by the Trudeau Government........

[waldo]

I'm not ignoring any "CAS gap", the USAF (and USN, USMC) have wide ranging platforms to perform the mission

hey now! Since you forever pumped up that fake IOC combat ready date for the U.S. Marines... why isn't that F-35B all over ISIS... what are they waiting for?

.

[Derek 2.0]

Agreed..."A-10 Warthogs Forever" is most certainly moot and just another anti-F-35 JSF dodge. Operating A-10s for CAS in the modern battlespace still requires modern air superiority and defense suppression. Arguing that F-35 cannot perform the CAS mission as well as A-10 discounts the requisite support and costs/tradeoffs, none of which apply to Canada's CF-188 replacement anyway.

Exactly, I revert back to the typewriter(A-10)........there is no doubt the Selectric was the cat's meow in its day........but who types up a paper letter anymore? Why would one consider one when they can use modern products with email/auto-correct/copy & paste/laser printers/Word etc etc?

But like you said, its moot for Canada, as we're not in the market for either at this time.

[waldo]

I'm not ignoring any "CAS gap"

sure you are, just as the USAF did. The problem for the USAF is it got caught... got caught purposely, with fervor, going about destroying A-10s... got caught trying to manipulate and shift budget monies intended for the A-10 towards the F-35. For some reason A-10 advocates (military and political) have absolutely no confidence that the F-35 can provide CAS capability to the current levels of the A-10 - go figure.

.

[waldo]

But like you said, its moot for Canada, as we're not in the market for either at this time.

which is just you perpetuating your strawman... that was taken up by the guy so focused on Canada's procurement while whining and complaining about anyone speaking to the respective U.S. military branches and their F-35 pursuits.

.