PIK Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 The germans would have had a semi stealth fighter in the 40's, if the war went longer. The Horton 229. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 the Super Hornet is an adequate plane for Canada's needs... Now we're back to that special expertise you have that allows you to say that. particularly if all it ever does it what the F-18s have done. Now we're back to you being able to read the future. I would think your claimed penchant for "fiscal conservatism" would want to confirm the F-35 capabilities... Lacking your military expertise I rely on our military to decide that. In that regard, purchasing a gap measure of 'some number' of Super Hornets seems like a most prudent first-step - yes? This is not a 'gap measure' and you know it. This is not an 'interim' purchase. If we buy the S-hornets there will be no further fighter planes this generation. And given the S-hornet is LAST generation's fighter plane I find it hard to approve of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 (edited) no - Danish Parliament has yet to approve; again, http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/denmark-approves-purchase-of-lockheed-f-35-jets-1.2938204 Finland has not purchased (no monies). But Finland did say the cost of the F-35 was quite low now, and comparable to the old S-hornet. You talk of "selected" - original partner nations didn't select... they bought into the program site unseen... And are still with it. Why? Are they all stupid? Do they not have access to your source material?[ Edited June 9, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted June 9, 2016 Report Share Posted June 9, 2016 adequate That sums up what people like you want this country to be. Every other country that is, or is thinking about buying this jet, must clearly no less than Canadian liberals, how delusional do you have to be to believe that? O but i know, in Canada they will be prone to falling out of the sky, and this has nothing to do with the underlying liberal predilection to believe that we don't need them at all, or much of any military for that matter. If we are all just nice, adequate Canadians, we will never need them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Lacking your military expertise I rely on our military to decide that. typically, someone so openly acknowledging a lack of subject matter knowledge... like you... that someone takes a more reserved, perhaps cautionary view instead of being just so absolutely certain. You continue to bristle and trash-talk anyone who doesn't line up with... with... your repeated refrain that has you simply deferring to, your preferred cadre of "experts". I certainly recall another MLW member Argus who quite regularly criticized Canadian procurement initiatives, DND, the military, etc.. Where's that guy now? I sure don't recall you ever being so forcefully engaged and pro-F-35 when it was the Harper show... when Harper let the RCAF game the requirements after the fact, when Harper kicked it down the road to avoid any attachment to the election - where was MLW member Argus then - MIA? . This is not a 'gap measure' and you know it. This is not an 'interim' purchase. If we buy the S-hornets there will be no further fighter planes this generation. And given the S-hornet is LAST generation's fighter plane I find it hard to approve of that. I don't know that. I do interpret the discussion possibility as an "interim" purchase. If in 'x' years time if the F-35 can actually prove itself - which it hasn't in spite of your "enthusiasm", I would expect it to position favourably in a real open competition. I thought asking you to reflect on your oft postured 'fiscal conservative' self might have you dial-down your drum beat - apparently not! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 pot-stir time: countdown to D2.0's excuse list... Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight - New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle I have no need of an excuse, as said blog post lacked context (as we already hashed), in that said flight testing was intended to set the control laws of the aircraft's avionics..........inversely, you've been remiss in addressing the comments of the Norwegian air force pilot: So how does the the F-35 behave in a dogfight? The offensive role feels somewhat different from what I am used to with the F-16. In the F-16, I had to be more patient than in the F-35, before pointing my nose at my opponent to employ weapons; pointing my nose and employing, before being safely established in the control position, would often lead to a role reversal, where the offensive became the defensive part. 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. .......etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 But Finland did say the cost of the F-35 was quite low now, and comparable to the old S-hornet. citation request... specific to the costs you reference. in regards Denmark: so it's Parliament did approve it (yesterday)... for reference in line with my earlier comments about partner nations significantly dialing back their original commitments: Denmark originally committed to purchasing 48... through the long delays, ever increasing costs and inability to match the hype, Denmark peeled that back to 30... which has now become 27. I've not read of them yet but I expect details of the incentives LockMart had to agree to will reveal in short order. . And are still with it. Why? Are they all stupid? Do they not have access to your source material?[ that's a standard D2.0 ploy... 'no one has left the program yet'! You balance that against actual purchases and numbers therein... while comparing back to original commitments made. And, of course, you obviously factor in the ever extending timelines... "teasers" that keep countries hanging on... to the next shift, then the next one, etc.. Of course some nations remain because they keep waiting for evidence to counter the plethora of problems... some remain to allow them to bid on contracts - spending $30 million for fees (in Canada's case), is 'mice-nuts' when speaking of multi-billion dollar outlays should actual purchases proceed. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 And are still with it. Why? Are they all stupid? Do they not have access to your source material?[ And that is the question that Waldo (and OGFT) have refused to answer, namely how all these air forces have been "duped" and keep selecting the F-35......and not the Super Hornet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 I have no need of an excuse, as said blog post lacked context (as we already hashed), in that said flight testing was intended to set the control laws of the aircraft's avionics..........inversely, you've been remiss in addressing the comments of the Norwegian air force pilot: why wasn't the F-35 test pilot in on that "context"? Do you have a ready-go cite in regards your "setting the control laws of avionics"? Ya ya... along the lines of all those excuses that came forward after the Rand exercise! Uhhh... your link is not an English reference... in any case, I might be inclined to fire up a translator... but only after the Penguins win the cup - CUlater. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 And that is the question that Waldo (and OGFT) have refused to answer, namely how all these air forces have been "duped" and keep selecting the F-35......and not the Super Hornet. which partner nations and what numbers? Don't forget to compare those to original commitments. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 To prove it's capabilities, the Pentagon plans to have the F-35 face off against the Supermarine Spitfire. The test will be limited to 15 minutes in duration, to minimize the chance of the F-35 software rebooting in the middle of battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 To prove it's capabilities, the Pentagon plans to have the F-35 face off against the Supermarine Spitfire. The test will be limited to 15 minutes in duration, to minimize the chance of the F-35 software rebooting in the middle of battle. Good...more information for the incompetent and tight wad military procurement process in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) why wasn't the F-35 test pilot in on that "context"? Do you have a ready-go cite in regards your "setting the control laws of avionics"? Ya ya... along the lines of all those excuses that came forward after the Rand exercise! Uhhh... your link is not an English reference... in any case, I might be inclined to fire up a translator... but only after the Penguins win the cup - CUlater. . . Yes, several links: The Actual report that your blog cited: The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs. The evaluation focused on the overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment. This consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive, and neutral setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet MSL. The Flying Qualities criteria were that the aircraft response would be positive and predictable and that there should be no undesired, unexpected, or unpredictable aircraft responses. Qualitative observations were made regarding the high AoA capability, cues that the aircraft was entering a low energy state, as well as various human factors considerations. And in English, what high Angle of Attack (AoA) means...........as to the Norwegian link, there should be no reason to use a translator, scroll further down (half way) the page and the piece is repeated in English. Edited June 10, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) which partner nations and what numbers? Don't forget to compare those to original commitments. . The same nations since the start (USA/UK/Canada/Australia/Netherlands/Norway/Denmark/Italy/Turkey), in addition to those that have since joined (Japan/South Korea/Israel) and those that are expected to join (Singapore/Belgium/Finland/Spain/Poland). As to eventual, total, numbers, I have no way of knowing with a production expected to last for the next 20+ years will result in..........as cited earlier, there are currently ~160-170 LRIP aircraft in various services......Which is more then the combined total of Rafales and Gripen NGs presently flying.......and about 1/3rd of the current total production of the Eurofighter or the Super Hornet.......and this is an aircraft yet to even enter full production. Edited June 10, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Good...more information for the incompetent and tight wad military procurement process in Canada. so you keep saying - repeatedly. Yes, of course, Canadian military procurement has had failures... what would your need/purpose be to continually bring this same notice forward - repeatedly? In any case, as I've repeatedly challenged you, should you not also acknowledge the many and most significant failures within the history of U.S. military procurement... Canada's but a 'piker-nation' in procurement failures as compared to the litany of big-time U.S. failures. Anytime you want to have a failure draw-down - game on! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Yes, several links: The Actual report that your blog cited: actually, I was keen to have you extrapolate on your exact phrasing, "setting the control laws of avionics"! You mentioned 'missing context', yet I don't read you stating just what that missing context was/is... in your own words. Care to do so? could you be very precise: are you suggesting the interpretation of that F-35 test-pilot's report is incorrect - and if so, how so... particularly in regards to your statement on missing context; context you haven't elaborated on yet. Is the article's title an accurate reflection on that report - if not, why not? You know, the title: Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight --- New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 What does stealth (5th generation, next generation) really mean? A lot of noise has been made about this 'requirement', but what is really being delivered. We already know that this feature is compromised if the aircraft actually wants to do any useful work (ie. carry more than a couple of fire crackers, or fly further than across Aunt Sally's corn field), but even when the aircraft is 'stealth' does that really mean anything at all? in the past I've trotted out a critique of stealth by USN Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert - 2012 dated now. This updated article reference also includes mention of the same Admiral Greenert speaking on stealth... within a broader context of USN views toward the F-35, particularly against the backdrop of the 'tried and true' workhorse, the Super Hornet: Analysts: Navy brass view F-35C's stealth as overrated The top officer of one of three services projected to spend tens of billions of dollars on stealthy new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, now says "stealth may be overrated." "What does that next strike fighter look like?" Greenert asked the packed forum. "I'm not sure it's manned, don't know that it is. You can only go so fast, and you know that stealth may be overrated. ... Let's face it, if something moves fast through the air, disrupts molecules and puts out heat — I don't care how cool the engine can be, it's going to be detectable. You get my point." Greenert was speaking about the next generation of fighter aircraft, but his comments could just as easily be applied to Lockheed Martin's F-35C, the carrier-based version of the joint strike fighter. Aviation analysts who watch the F-35 program closely say Greenert's comments reflect ambivalence among naval aviators about the F-35 as a strike fighter, especially compared to the tried-and-true F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets. Greenert has expressed skepticism about stealth technology's value before, arguing in a 2012 paper that improving computing technology will render even the most stealthy aircraft more detectable. "Those developments do not herald the end of stealth, but they do show the limits of stealth design in getting platforms close enough to use short-range weapons," Greenert wrote. "It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems — or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them." . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 actually, I was keen to have you extrapolate on your exact phrasing, "setting the control laws of avionics"! You mentioned 'missing context', yet I don't read you stating just what that missing context was/is... in your own words. Care to do so? Fair enough, the blog article through implication suggested the F-35's capabilities as in its end state.......when in actual fact, said series of testing (as cited in the second link) wasn't even the end of the beginning state, in determining the safety (control laws) limits of the F-35's avionics.........as mentioned in the actual cited report, the aircraft operated in predictable patterns (as intended to determine a baseline), well lacking any of the actual force multipliers (as was the case with the f-16 also) and munitions the aircraft would be carrying into actual combat. could you be very precise: are you suggesting the interpretation of that F-35 test-pilot's report is incorrect Not at all, quite the opposite in fact.....as I spoke to above, the lacking of context was associated with the reporting of the series of tests.........from what the pilot mentioned with regards to conservative control limits, contrasted with the Norwegian's experience over a year later, it would indicate that the recommended alterations to said flight control limits (from the first test) were implemented........hence the initial test, along with many other prior and in-between, achieved its intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 in the past I've trotted out a critique of stealth by USN Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert - 2012 dated now. This updated article reference also includes mention of the same Admiral Greenert speaking on stealth... within a broader context of USN views toward the F-35, particularly against the backdrop of the 'tried and true' workhorse, the Super Hornet: Analysts: Navy brass view F-35C's stealth as overrated . Why is this being revisited and spun yet again? As clearly indicated and cited several years, both the actual remarks from the speech and their transcripts, the CNO was clearly talking in context of the entire USN's platforms (sub/surface/air launched munitions) and their current reliance on namely short range weapons, and the few remaining stand-off weapon types they currently employ (Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles) trace their linage to the early 70s and late 60s................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) Why is this being revisited and spun yet again? Because some folks love them some U.S. Navy platforms and experiences, despite the fact that Canada would not even be considering the F-35 B/C. I blame Tom Cruise and the movie Top Gun...still working its magic. Edited June 10, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Can Canada afford to stay in this game? The national will to pay untold billions for such hardware seems to be lacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Present agreement regarding Canada's purchase of f-35's IRB's - (Industrial Regional Benefits) does not guarantee that a single penny of benefits has to go to Canadian industry. Is that what we want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) With the time lines, costs and lack of specific needs maybe Cabada should be looking at the 6th generation FA-XX manned/unmanned aircraft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-XX_Program Looks like sophisticated drones appear to be the future, why not get ahead of the curve? FA-XX Edited June 10, 2016 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 maybe Cabada should be looking at the 6th generation FA-XX manned/unmanned aircraft As I was saying the other day about stealth, this article also quotes Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations saying the F/A-XX would not rely on speed or stealth as much as previous generation jet fighters due to better signature detection and proliferating high-speed anti-aircraft weapons I am not sure however that we want to work with a US navy program, for the same reason the F-35 is such a dog. The US navy requires that aircraft be able to takeoff and land on aircraft carriers. While this is not quite as bad as the VTOL requirement from the US marines that completely destroyed the F-35, it generally dictates much heavier landing gear and larger wing surface. If there is enough volume from non-navy purchases, then perhaps variants will be created to the basic airframe. Canada would be better to partner with other airforces that have similar requirements to our own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Can Canada afford to stay in this game? The national will to pay untold billions for such hardware seems to be lacking. So you don't think we're in the same league as the big boys like Australia and Denmark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.