Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[bush_cheney2004]

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

All I can figure is that the same people who lobbied "Sea Kings Forever" in Canada have another dear affection for A-10 Warthogs, especially if it can distract from the procurement of F-35A. In this game, anything will do, because the flip-flopping Liberals may stab their supporters in the back and pick JSF after all. This is the soap opera that keeps on giving.

Nevermind that Super Hornets, Gripens, Rafale, etc. can't perform the CAS mission like A-10 either.

[Derek 2.0]

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?

.

As noted in one of the many threads, deployment cycles and the Pacific pivot........the currently first USMC F-35 squadron is deploying to Japan later this year (or early next), a deployment that represents 1/3rd of USMC aviation, and is intended to be the first response to any North Korean aggression against the South or Japan.......been that way since '53

Further to that, I believe the first USAF F-35A squadron will be going to the United Kingdom to act as a pooled air asset for NATO....

The point, the Americans, by circumstance, can sing and dance at the same time.

[waldo]

As noted in one of the many threads, deployment cycles and the Pacific pivot........the currently first USMC F-35 squadron is deploying to Japan later this year (or early next), a deployment that represents 1/3rd of USMC aviation, and is intended to be the first response to any North Korean aggression against the South or Japan.......been that way since '53

Further to that, I believe the first USAF F-35A squadron will be going to the United Kingdom to act as a pooled air asset for NATO....

The point, the Americans, by circumstance, can sing and dance at the same time.

oh my! So now you're emphasizing and reinforcing a USAF F-35 influenced CAS gap... one the U.S. gyrenes with their fake IOC can't even deal with! And you do this while you earlier presumed to mock with your, "Mind the "CAS-gap", further widened by the Trudeau Government........Trudeau Government ducking out on the fight against ISIS"! Talk about a CAS gap! Keep twisting, squirming and digging - you wear it well!

.

[waldo]

All I can figure is that the same people who lobbied "Sea Kings Forever" in Canada have another dear affection for A-10 Warthogs, especially if it can distract from the procurement of F-35A. In this game, anything will do, because the flip-flopping Liberals may stab their supporters in the back and pick JSF after all. This is the soap opera that keeps on giving.

strawman perpetuation extraordinaire! Why are you so concerned about Canada's procurement process?

.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

.

That is tin-foil hat dribble that predates not only the F-35, but the A-10 and goes back to the creation of the United States Air Force, taking away the army air force from the US Army.........there is nothing to figure.

The current loudest A-10 advocate, the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, just happens to have the bulk of the current A-10 forces based in his home State...........

[Derek 2.0]

oh my! So now you're emphasizing and reinforcing a USAF F-35 influenced CAS gap...

.

You can revert back to the tin-foil hat point all you want........the USAF has been trying to retire the A-10 long before the F-35 was even thought of..........30 years ago, the "debate" was exactly the same as today, just replace F-35 with A-16.........it doesn't change anything.

[Moonbox]

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.....

You don't even know what it is to keep an argument straight. As usual, your response to having your junk logic debunked is to prattle on with a bunch of irrelevant factoids that have little to do with the actual point you tried and failed to make. Perceived deficiencies from 30+ years ago don't really tell us much about what a plane can do today. The A-10's life has been extended for a reason.

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

Not as expensive as over-reaching, trying to cram all of them into one platform and then having the program explode spectacularly in your face. The F-35 is so late and so over-budget now that nobody would have approved it in the first place if they'd have known where they'd end up.

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.

and decades of failed/cancelled/troubled projects that confirm exactly what I said there. That wasn't a straw-man (that's really funny coming from you. Maybe look up the definition?). It was common sense and reality. Multi-role doesn't automatically mean better or cheaper.

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 role it was designed for, which it still does better than any of these planes.

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.

Something the USAF hasn't really faced in 30+ years and counting and isn't likely to any time soon. Thing is it's proven REALLY good at playing wack-a-mole against the type of enemies it HAS faced.

Regardless, the point of this argument was never to compare the A-10 as an either-or debate. Nobody's debating whether we should buy A-10's. waldo brought up the A-10 vs F-35 face-off because it's just another concern for this colossally troubled project that's given few indications it can actually deliver on the all-in-one plane it was originally conceived and advertised as.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Moonbox

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Regardless, the point of this argument was never to compare the A-10 as an either-or debate. Nobody's debating whether we should buy A-10's. waldo brought up the A-10 vs F-35 face-off because it's just another concern for this colossally troubled project that's given few indications it can actually deliver on the all-in-one plane it was originally conceived and advertised as.

This mischaracterizes the program for not only the United States, but all JSF partners, many of which never operated multiple aircraft types to satisfy AAW, AG, EW, CAS, CAP, and other missions to begin with. The USAF/USN/USMC will continue to operate multiple platforms concurrent with the F-35 JSF by design....this is not a credible option for Canada for obvious budgetary and political reasons.

If F-35 JSF program delays/costs were such a concern for CF-188 replacement, then a different choice would have been made by now, but we know the real issue has nothing to do with F-35s, F/A-18s, Gripens, Rafales, or any other readily available aircraft.

[Derek 2.0]

You don't even know what it is to keep an argument straight. As usual, your response to having your junk logic debunked is to prattle on with a bunch of irrelevant factoids that have little to do with the actual point you tried and failed to make. Perceived deficiencies from 30+ years ago don't really tell us much about what a plane can do today. The A-10's life has been extended for a reason.

There is nothing perceived, said concerns were confirmed during the First Gulf War........The A-10 hasn't been extended, but received investments to keep the aircraft flyable and continue to have the ability to operate next to a modern force........this is a reflection not in the ability of the A-10, but massive budget cuts in the 90s that prevented the USAF and Air National Guard units from replacing units flying even older types like F-4s and A-7s with the then latest block of the F-16. This continued onto the last decade that has seen several (current) A-10 squadrons loose their F-16s, to replace F-16s in the regular force, and get given sun baked A-10s that were stored in the desert.

Not as expensive as over-reaching, trying to cram all of them into one platform and then having the program explode spectacularly in your face. The F-35 is so late and so over-budget now that nobody would have approved it in the first place if they'd have known where they'd end up.

Do tell, why has said trend been present for decades among Western Forces?

and decades of failed/cancelled/troubled projects that confirm exactly what I said there. That wasn't a straw-man (that's really funny coming from you. Maybe look up the definition?). It was common sense and reality. Multi-role doesn't automatically mean better or cheaper.

Who's reality? In my reality, for example, a deck of a US carrier 30 years ago had far many more types aboard then today.............reality isn't confirming what you're saying

The role it was designed for, which it still does better than any of these planes.

Bullshit.......how can it do a role well when it can't survive long enough to get to the location its needed to perform its role......the force got beat-up by the Iraqis 1991, operating on the outside edges of the battle era, against a force armed with Soviet air defense platforms from the 60s and 70s..........

How does an A-10 drop a precision weapon better than an F-15E or a Hornet? Inversely the F-15E/Hornet will be able to survive far longer then the A-10 if the people they are dropping bombs on are shooting back.........

Something the USAF hasn't really faced in 30+ years and counting and isn't likely to any time soon. Thing is it's proven REALLY good at playing wack-a-mole against the type of enemies it HAS faced.

You know this how? Perhaps you should market your crystal ball skills......a wingnut in the back of a Toyota is just as dead from a smart munition dropped by a modern fighter as it is from an A-10........The same can't be said if the wingnut is actually semi -capable and has obtained modern Russian or Chinese SAMs or aircraft......

Regardless, the point of this argument was never to compare the A-10 as an either-or debate. Nobody's debating whether we should buy A-10's. waldo brought up the A-10 vs F-35 face-off because it's just another concern for this colossally troubled project that's given few indications it can actually deliver on the all-in-one plane it was originally conceived and advertised as.

From the point of view of a few critical of the F-35.........in reality, when compared to the roles currently performed by the A-10 that it will replace, it doesn't need to do them in the same manner as the A-10, just achieve the same results or better..........

Where's an A-10 might engage a target with cluster bombs and a burp of 30mm, the F-35 will engage the same targets from over 30 miles away with self targeting smart munitions.........The A-10 might be a stable platform to act as a bird dog for other strike aircraft, but an F-35 will be able to target other platforms munitions (be they sub-surface, surface, land or air based) without itself or the other platforms being anywhere near visual range......in a semi contested battlefield, the A-10 will need a whole host of supporting aircraft to even have a chance of performing its mission, the F-35 will be a self-sustaining strike package.....etc

So no, I get the point Waldo is trying to make, the problem is that its incorrect.........its akin to someone arguing over navies switching from sail to steam ~150 year ago, citing the problems associated coaling stations and expensive boilers and their upkeep.........it makes no sense.

In the context of the Canada's Hornet replacement, even less sense, as any suggestion that the aircraft with all the bells and whistle will be delayed into the early 2020s makes no difference to Canada.........as we won't be purchasing anything until the early 2020s.

[bush_cheney2004]

....In the context of the Canada's Hornet replacement, even less sense, as any suggestion that the aircraft with all the bells and whistle will be delayed into the early 2020s makes no difference to Canada.........as we won't be purchasing anything until the early 2020s.

Don't confuse them with facts....the F-35 must be stopped....except for the jobs in Canada.

[waldo]

The current loudest A-10 advocate, the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, just happens to have the bulk of the current A-10 forces based in his home State...........

there's a few squadrons in Arizona to line up with McCain... which apparently gives you all the liberty you need to simply dismiss that gap as nothing more than pork-barrel patronage. It also highlights your typical big-time reach, where you dismiss/negate the Republican House rep who is a former A-10 combat pilot... or the Republican Senator whose husband is an active A-10 combat pilot --- where you dismiss the A-10 squadrons located in Georgia, Nevada, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Michigan, Arkansas, Missouri, Alaska. Now c'mon, don't you feel silly for writing that?

.

[waldo]

In the context of the Canada's Hornet replacement, even less sense, as any suggestion that the aircraft with all the bells and whistle will be delayed into the early 2020s makes no difference to Canada.........as we won't be purchasing anything until the early 2020s.

whether your conjecture has basis, are you suggesting there would be any purchase earlier under a Harper Conservative government... and if so, what basis do you rely upon to say so?

.

[Derek 2.0]

there's a few squadrons in Arizona to line up with McCain... which apparently gives you all the liberty you need to simply dismiss that gap as nothing more than pork-barrel patronage. It also highlights your typical big-time reach, where you dismiss/negate the Republican House rep who is a former A-10 combat pilot... or the Republican Senator whose husband is an active A-10 combat pilot --- where you dismiss the A-10 squadrons located in Georgia, Nevada, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Michigan, Arkansas, Missouri, Alaska. Now c'mon, don't you feel silly for writing that?

.

Your list is dated.......Outside of Arizona, which is the support and training hub for the entire fleet (easy when its based at the aircraft boneyard full of spares), there are active units in Georgia (dedicated to Special Operations and CSAR, which I said earlier, if funding is there, might receive something like the Tucano) and the aircraft based in Nevada at the test and evaluation establishment and a unit in South Korea.

The rest of your list is dated, like Clinton Administration dated is some cases.............As such cited Guard Units, have either since been stood down, converted to older F-15s and F-16s post 9/11 for the NORAD mission or are Guard units that operated OA-10s and have since converted to the Predator/Reaper UAVs........

My point still stands, the A-10 establishment is Davis-Monthan centric and has been since it entered service (Arizona being home to major weapons ranges and Army/Marine desert warfare combat training centers) and all units outside of Arizona operating the A-10 (and ones that operated it in the past) went through Arizona.........and has been that way since the A-10 entered service several years after Vietnam and started replacing the A-7..........

When the A-10 fleet goes, its not certain what will replace it and the thousands of people associated with it at Davis-Monthan.......Luke AFB, also in Arizona is transitioning from the F-16 to the F-35A, likewise in Yuma Arizona, the Marines are transitioning from their Harriers to the F-35B..........but the slop bucket will be emptied somewhat when the A-10 goes........No politician likes base closures, job losses and the hit to the local economy in their home district.

[Derek 2.0]

whether your conjecture has basis, are you suggesting there would be any purchase earlier under a Harper Conservative government... and if so, what basis do you rely upon to say so?

.

Not at all, that was all but confirmed when it was announced over a year ago that our Hornets were next in line for the center barrel replacement life extension to add another 3-5 years to the back end of their lives.......rumors of purchasing a handful of F-35s in 2017-2018 under a Harper Government aside, no Canadian Government was purchasing the entire replacements within this mandate............How do I know this? Simple there was no money put aside in this timeline, nor is there a requirement to purchase (F-35s) now, when the intent was to purchase them once they entered full rate production.

Simply put, the only reason to move-up a Hornet replacement within this mandate would be if the Government intended to purchase one of the various aircraft that is currently in production now as an alternative, but won't be in four years time...........the Liberal's "re-profiling" of procurement money outward to the early 2020s is an indication they will either not replace the Hornets, purchase the F-35 or role the dice on one of the often cited "alternatives" still being in production..................The MND now won't go on record as counting out the F-35, we've stayed in the program and in a time of budget unrest still found millions in the sofa cushions to pay our next round of dues, and you just know lobbyists from the Canadian Aerospace sector, which represent a lot of voters in greater Montreal, are hammering the Trudeau Government.........

[bush_cheney2004]

....The MND now won't go on record as counting out the F-35, we've stayed in the program and in a time of budget unrest still found millions in the sofa cushions to pay our next round of dues, and you just know lobbyists from the Canadian Aerospace sector, which represent a lot of voters in greater Montreal, are hammering the Trudeau Government.........

Sho 'nuf...the Canadian subcontractors and politicians don't like losing aerospace jobs any more than A-10 Warthog congressional districts/states.

Canada will pay the next F-35 JSF program dues of about $33 million USD in May, hedging this bet again regardless of any campaign rhetoric from last year:

...That runs directly counter to what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said during the run-up to the federal election in October. Trudeau said if his Liberal Party was elected, which it was on Oct. 4, his government would not buy the F-35 since it was not needed for Canadian defense and was too expensive.

Department of National Defence spokeswoman Ashley Lemire said Canada’s payment for continued participation in the F-35 program covers the period from Oct. 1, 2015 to Sept. 30, 2016.

Edited April 16, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Your list is dated.......Outside of Arizona, which is the support and training hub for the entire fleet (easy when its based at the aircraft boneyard full of spares), there are active units in Georgia (dedicated to Special Operations and CSAR, which I said earlier, if funding is there, might receive something like the Tucano) and the aircraft based in Nevada at the test and evaluation establishment and a unit in South Korea.

perhaps... yet a single check suggests you prematurely scratched out the state of Michigan (as of a month ago, the 127th Wing of the Michigan Air National Guard at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Macomb County had 21 A-10s assigned to it). What else did you get wrong? Rather than beat further on the point, I trust you accept your single focus on McCain/Arizona was a weak attempt given the other politicians I noted (and the additional number of states beyond Arizona).

and the actual point you kept deflecting from: the A-10 has been given budget life to at least 2022... which presumes on the F-35 being in a position at that point to provide a CAS "equivalency". And there's that "magic 2022" date again - you know, the scheduled target date for the Block 4A software that so much of the hyped F-35 capability is tied to. Given past delays and performance/testing concerns and, of course, the ever-tightening screws associated with the concurrency methodology cascading down upon these upcoming LRIP iterations, care to speculate on just how many more years beyond 2022 countries should wait for the UNCERTAIN capabilities of the F-35? And you keep harping on about the Liberals not buying now, about the Defence Review delay..... why would any country buy the F-35 now?

.

[waldo]

Sho 'nuf...the Canadian subcontractors and politicians don't like losing aerospace jobs any more than A-10 Warthog congressional districts/states.

Canada will pay the next F-35 JSF program dues of about $33 million USD in May, hedging this bet again regardless of any campaign rhetoric from last year:

sho 'nuf... you keep repeating a point long since dispatched! Of course you do. There is no requirement for Canada to actually buy the F-35 in order to bid/secure contracts associated to the F-35... just like has been occurring up to this point. Paying dues is 'mice-nuts' in that regard.

.

[Derek 2.0]

perhaps... yet a single check suggests you prematurely scratched out the state of Michigan (as of a month ago, the 127th Wing of the Michigan Air National Guard at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Macomb County had 21 A-10s assigned to it). What else did you get wrong? Rather than beat further on the point, I trust you accept your single focus on McCain/Arizona was a weak attempt given the other politicians I noted (and the additional number of states beyond Arizona).

That could be true, they could be one of the last Guard units granted a reprieve by ISIS/Congress finding funding recently, but without a doubt the majority have completed their transition to Predator/Reaper drones,........none the less, the point still stands, even going back to A-10 operations during the Cold War, all end users (past and present) are supported by the 355th Fighter Wing, since the 1970s, based at Davis-Monthan Arizona.....the same group I linked to above.

and the actual point you kept deflecting from: the A-10 has been given budget life to at least 2022... which presumes on the F-35 being in a position at that point to provide a CAS "equivalency". And there's that "magic 2022" date again - you know, the scheduled target date for the Block 4A software that so much of the hyped F-35 capability is tied to.

That's subject Waldo, as noted in countless threads over the years, unlike legacy aircraft, from the start, the F-35 was intended to encompass continual upgrades through its life.

Given past delays and performance/testing concerns and, of course, the ever-tightening screws associated with the concurrency methodology cascading down upon these upcoming LRIP iterations, care to speculate on just how many more years beyond 2022 countries should wait for the UNCERTAIN capabilities of the F-35?

As noted countless times, throughout the life of the program.................unlike current legacy aircraft, that receive differing production blocks incorporating new technology (i.e. F/A-18 A/B, F/A-18 C/D, F/A-18 E/F, EA-18G), the three versions of the F-35 will receive continual upgrades throughout their service lives........avoiding block obsolescence (like what happened to our Hornets by the time they were only a ~decade old) and happenstance (current USAF F-16s or F-15s being less advanced then current export versions)............

And you keep harping on about the Liberals not buying now, about the Defence Review delay..... why would any country buy the F-35 now?

My "harping" is simply a response to the now present confirmation of what I said they would do before and after the election......punt........despite what certain members suggested to the contrary (IIRC you weren't one of them)........A Harper Government wasn't going to buy Hornet replacements in this mandate, a Mulcair Government the same, but what is now confirmed, the Liberals aren't either........which throws on its ear their suggestion they were going to hold a competition with other aircraft.....when most, if not all of the alternative aircraft will no longer be in production in the early 2020s......that is not only within this mandate, but several years into the next one.

[waldo]

My "harping" is simply a response to the now present confirmation of what I said they would do before and after the election......punt........despite what certain members suggested to the contrary (IIRC you weren't one of them)........A Harper Government wasn't going to buy Hornet replacements in this mandate, a Mulcair Government the same, but what is now confirmed, the Liberals aren't either........which throws on its ear their suggestion they were going to hold a competition with other aircraft.....when most, if not all of the alternative aircraft will no longer be in production in the early 2020s......that is not only within this mandate, but several years into the next one.

the funny (sad) thing here is your perpetual fantasy that the F-35 will be the only aircraft left standing! Of course reality has other nations continuing to pursue those other alternatives... why... look at India alone: they are dipping into the Rafale well but it also appears they have grand designs (for another 120+ planes) elsewhere. Why in recent weeks we have both LockMart flogging the F-16 and Boeing offering up the Super Hornet... with both presenting options to have the planes built in India. And by the by, as I understand, LockMart initially offered the F-35 and the Indians said, "no way, no how"!

.

[Derek 2.0]

the funny (sad) thing here is your perpetual fantasy that the F-35 will be the only aircraft left standing!

.

Where did I say that? The F-35 is the only aircraft guaranteed to be in production in ~2021+

Of course reality has other nations continuing to pursue those other alternatives... why... look at India alone: they are dipping into the Rafale well but it also appears they have grand designs (for another 120+ planes) elsewhere. Why in recent weeks we have both LockMart flogging the F-16 and Boeing offering up the Super Hornet... with both presenting options to have the planes built in India.

Assuming one of said aircraft wins, the Indian requirement is for domestically produced aircraft......in the case of the American aircraft, licensed production agreements with HAL in India, and the transfer of production tooling to the Indians as the American lines close...........does Canada (and our aerospace industry) little good unless we're seeking Indian produced aircraft.......

And by the by, as I understand, LockMart initially offered the F-35 and the Indians said, "no way, no how"!

And you would be wrong, as the US State Department said "no way, no how" to the sale of advanced stealth technology to South Asian and Arab nations, hence why the F-35 was never offered or entered into any Indian program..........likewise why they have refused to offer it to Persian Gulf States.............the end result, the Indians and Pakistan have joined with Russian and Chinese stealth programs, and the Arabs have been selecting the Eurofighter and Rafale........largely shutting out American legacy aircraft sales to the region.

[dre]

Canada should probably buy this plane because at the rate at which costs are increasing if we wait for Generation 6 we will probably only be able to buy one plane. A generation 7 plane with probably cost more than Canadas entire GDP.

Truly an outrageous scam. By Generation 8 only Russia and the USA and China will be able to buy them... theyll each have one.

[Derek 2.0]

Truly an outrageous scam.

What a scam indeed.......the above cited F-86 Sabre would cost ~$2 million a copy in today's dollars, quite pricey for an aircraft armed with a handful of machine guns, a good thing though considering you'd need several fighter wings, with hundreds of aircraft to complete the same task a single fighter squadron of a dozen+ aircraft could do today.........likewise, my father bought (in 1964) a 1959 Buick Electra for $3000, which is crazy and would be like paying ~$20-25k now for a five year old family sedan...........Inversely, the latest Apple smartphone today would have only cost ~$90 back in the 1950s, what a steal, considering a smartphone then would be the most powerful computer on the planet...........I wonder what the average family home cost back in 1950........

Isn't inflation fun?

Edited April 17, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[waldo]

Where did I say that? The F-35 is the only aircraft guaranteed to be in production in ~2021+

oh pleeeese! You're forever on about "all other production lines closing". You've stated it many times over.

.

Assuming one of said aircraft wins, the Indian requirement is for domestically produced aircraft......in the case of the American aircraft, licensed production agreements with HAL in India, and the transfer of production tooling to the Indians as the American lines close...........does Canada (and our aerospace industry) little good unless we're seeking Indian produced aircraft.......

nice! Are you saying all the effort, time, money invested by any manufacturer in establishing a localized manufacturing presence, means/implies planes created within those plants are not the 'real deal'? Is that what you're saying?

.

And you would be wrong, as the US State Department said "no way, no how" to the sale of advanced stealth technology to South Asian and Arab nations, hence why the F-35 was never offered or entered into any Indian program..........likewise why they have refused to offer it to Persian Gulf States.............the end result, the Indians and Pakistan have joined with Russian and Chinese stealth programs, and the Arabs have been selecting the Eurofighter and Rafale........largely shutting out American legacy aircraft sales to the region.

and that's where you would be wrong. LockMart did present the F-35 as a part of that initial MRCA competition, eventually falling back to the F-16. Are you saying LockMart (with U.S. DOD authorization) didn't recently present the F-35C to the Indian Navy?

.

[dre]

What a scam indeed.......the above cited F-86 Sabre would cost ~$2 million a copy in today's dollars, quite pricey for an aircraft armed with a handful of machine guns, a good thing though considering you'd need several fighter wings, with hundreds of aircraft to complete the same task a single fighter squadron of a dozen+ aircraft could do today.........likewise, my father bought (in 1964) a 1959 Buick Electra for $3000, which is crazy and would be like paying ~$20-25k now for a five year old family sedan...........Inversely, the latest Apple smartphone today would have only cost ~$90 back in the 1950s, what a steal, considering a smartphone then would be the most powerful computer on the planet...........I wonder what the average family home cost back in 1950........

Isn't inflation fun?

Cool story bro!...But that graph is inflation adjusted.

Seriously though... Do you ever find it a bit surreal that we might spend 100 million dollars on a plane that costs another 35 thousand per hour to fly... even though the chance of it ever being used to defend the country is about as remote as the chances of being struck by lightening?

[Derek 2.0]

oh pleeeese! You're forever on about "all other production lines closing". You've stated it many times over.

.

Sure, and they will.........as I said there is zero certainty over which other aircraft will still be in production.

nice! Are you saying all the effort, time, money invested by any manufacturer in establishing a localized manufacturing presence, means/implies planes created within those plants are not the 'real deal'? Is that what you're saying?

I don't know that Indian production and quality control really screams out to me.........none the less, my point, a Hornet/Rafale/Falcon production line, sold to the Indians and continued by the Indians, has zero benefit for the Canadian aerospace industry.

and that's where you would be wrong. LockMart did present the F-35 as a part of that initial MRCA competition, eventually falling back to the F-16. Are you saying LockMart (with U.S. DOD authorization) didn't recently present the F-35C to the Indian Navy?

It doesn't mater what Lockheed or the DoD do, no administration approval through the State Department, no F-35....hence why the aircraft was never entered in the program the Rafale won.........Same principle with the F-22.....Lockheed/Boeing would have loved to export it to F-15 users, likewise the USAF which would have seen its purchase price reduced......law makers say no way, no how, the the Lockheed and the USAF's wishes are moot.

As to the Indian navy, they recently purchased Russian Migs....one would assume additional aircraft for their navy in the interim would be additional MIGs....or the naval version of the Rafale.......