Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Argus]

wassup - you said it yourself... you self-acknowledged you weren't informed -

Nobody here, except perhaps Derek and BC are informed. You're just a blog reader. So, shockingly, I don't rely on any of you, but on the real generals.

And so far not one of them wants the F-18 instead of the F-35. And that's something you can dance around all you want, general, but it's rock hard evidence of what the real generals, you know, the ones who know what they're talking about (unlike you) think of the two aircraft.

[Derek 2.0]

huh! You're out of context (or I am)... where did the F-15 reference come from?

.

Mine might have been confusing........my point was that the Super Hornet, by comparison to the legacy Hornet, has done poorly with export sales......with its only current buyer (Australia) purchasing it (and the Growler) due to a proposed electronic warfare version of the Strike Eagle never being developed to fruition....in effect the Super Hornet/Growler was the only game in town for the RAAF............with other nations either electing for the F-16 (just as capable as the Super Hornet, but cheaper) or more advanced (and costly) European aircraft and now the F-35.

[SpankyMcFarland]

You mean like I keep asking you why every western country has turned up its nose at the decrepit old Super Hornet and decided to buy something else instead?

Is 'every western country' going to buy F-35s?

[Smallc]

I count 7 international customers...Australia, Canada, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Spain, and Switzerland.

Is that very few ? NAVAIR provides mid life cycle support through the ISS program....Canada has been all over that.

Compared to the F-16?

I mean, if Canada and Kuwait were to buy the Super Hornet, that's 3.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

The F-35 is just undergoing its final trials and adjustments. It is at the same stage the F-18 was at more than 20 years ago. Your complaint is inane.

You don't know what you're talking about. The first flight of the Super Hornet was in 1995. It reached IOC in 2001. The Lightning had it's first flight in 2006. It reached IOC last year.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not my point, quite the opposite, both the Hornet and Falcon did well with initial sales in a then flooded market, both offering nations cutting edge advanced technology in a then unproven aircraft...........its really quite surprising, when many nations could have went with the "proven" decades old F-4 Phantom or A-7 Corsair

Yes...those were headier times. I actually had the Revell model for GD F-16A on my desk...in full blown red, white, and blue trim. Irked my USN colleagues hoping for a F/A-18 or F-14 fleet seat. Only the USMC guaranteed a seat. Oh, and we had Disco music too.

[bush_cheney2004]

Compared to the F-16?

I mean, if Canada and Kuwait were to buy the Super Hornet, that's 3.

Accordingly, the Super Hornet has not come close to achieving Hornet or Fighting Falcon sales numbers to foreign buyers. What does Team Trudeau know that other nation's don't (from above) ?

Edited June 13, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[?Impact]

Accordingly, the Super Hornet has not come close to achieving Hornet or Fighting Falcon sales numbers to foreign buyers.

Every single fighter aircraft in the world has failed to achieve previous generation sales numbers - period.

[bush_cheney2004]

Every single fighter aircraft in the world has failed to achieve previous generation sales numbers - period.

That's not true at all....WW2 fighter aircraft production/sales certainly exceeded previous numbers. Depends on the aircraft and demand.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes...those were headier times. I actually had the Revell model for GD F-16A on my desk...in full blown red, white, and blue trim. Irked my USN colleagues hoping for a F/A-18 or F-14 fleet seat. Only the USMC guaranteed a seat. Oh, and we had Disco music too.

Exactly, the later 70s and earlier 80s was truly a transformation between the 3rd and 4th generation of aircraft, coupled with the last hurrah for many of the singular post-war manufacturers......as I've said numerous times, today's debates mirror those of that period so much.......

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly, the later 70s and earlier 80s was truly a transformation between the 3rd and 4th generation of aircraft, coupled with the last hurrah for many of the singular post-war manufacturers......as I've said numerous times, today's debates mirror those of that period so much.......

Few like to admit it, but the retooled (losing) YF-17 was the low cost component to a hi-low mix of U.S. fighter/strike aircraft. Far more capable but very expensive F-15s and F-14s were to be complemented by LWF (lightweight fighters), just like Northop's F-5 Tiger/Freedom Fighter family of aircraft before that. The smaller, cheaper aircraft had FMS sales in mind as part of the program.

IOW, the original F/A-18 was the bargain buy....the Ford Escort/Focus of its day. No surprise that the later Super Hornets (different aircraft) had larger dimensions and capacities to make up for lost front line capabilities and other aircraft that were canceled/retired. The bargain aircraft is the one that Canada bought long ago.

Edited June 13, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Nobody here, except perhaps Derek and BC are informed. You're just a blog reader. So, shockingly, I don't rely on any of you, but on the real generals.

And so far not one of them wants the F-18 instead of the F-35. And that's something you can dance around all you want, general, but it's rock hard evidence of what the real generals, you know, the ones who know what they're talking about (unlike you) think of the two aircraft.

oh snap - I'm really feeling your burn! Considering you yourself indicated you don't have any knowledge on the subject matter, how are you able to determine "informed"? Reading your frustration come out in you once again referring to me as 'general' is gold, real gold!

in the past I've brought forward many comments from the "real Generals" you presume to leverage... very critical comments towards the F-35. Invariably, some of those got walked-back once the "PR machine" went into damage control. But again, for your reliance to mean anything you actually have to demonstrate the end result of your "real Generals" translated on through to political will/approval extended to signed contracts; you know, the following that you continue to avoid or even acknowledge:

- of the official JSF partner nations, (United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, and Norway)... how many F-35s have actually been purchased... not original commitments... not even rolled back commitments from the originals - how many have been purchased with contracts signed and money exchanged, by which countries and over what time frames?

.

[waldo]

Mine might have been confusing........my point was that the Super Hornet, by comparison to the legacy Hornet, has done poorly with export sales......

Accordingly, the Super Hornet has not come close to achieving Hornet or Fighting Falcon sales numbers to foreign buyers. What does Team Trudeau know that other nation's don't (from above) ?

which is hardly a representative comparison. If nothing else, the JSF program has impacted upon potential sales for all other manufacturers... directly and indirectly as countries are waiting it out to see if the F-35 can actually prove itself. That, coupled with military budget cutbacks, recessionary impacts, re-prioritization within some countries, natural ties/allegiance to prior same manufacturer purchases, etc.. There's are reasons the head of the F-35's volume-sales pitch 'road show' didn't land those big fish... what are they?

.

Edited June 13, 2016 by waldo

[PIK]

And in 10 yrs when most are flying new generation fighters we will be stuck with these old hornets. Helecopters anyone?? I see another sea king had a emergency landing out east the other day.

Edited June 13, 2016 by PIK

[Argus]

And in 10 yrs when most are flying new generation fighters we will be stuck with these old hornets. Helecopters anyone?? I see another sea king had a emergency landing out east the other day.

Matthew Fisher has spent several decades reporting on the military. His take on this is entirely different from that of MLW's resident left wing generals.

Why the Super Hornets will force Canada out of its own north.

Russia announced last week that its air force will begin deploying its first stealthy T-50 fifth-generation jet fighters next year. Such a timeline is highly doubtful. But Vladimir Putin has no higher priority than acquiring stealth technologies and, within a decade, T-50s will be deployed at air bases across the top of Russia. Once this happens, and with threats from T-50-launched cruise missiles and Russian and North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-35 will be far more able to shoot down than Super Hornets, the reality is that the U.S. will do whatever it has to to defend itself.

That will mean patrolling Canada’s margins with USAF F-35s, which will use fighter jet-capable airfields in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, Inuvik and Yellowknife built mostly with U.S. money in the 1980s. Worse than that, Washington will insist that Canada’s Super Hornets stay in the rear.

The reason is clear. Four allied air forces operate in the Arctic. The U.S., Norway and Denmark, which defends Greenland and sometimes deploys fighter jets to a base they jointly operate with the USAF at Thule, will soon only be flying state-of-the art F-35s in the Far North. The other country, Canada, will not.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/matthew-fisher-why-the-super-hornets-will-force-canada-out-of-its-own-north

Edited June 13, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

Bull - Canada's CF-18s are already outmatched by Russian fighters and we patrol our own north, and respond when we're the closest asset for NORAD missions.

[Smallc]

That's like saying that the US Navy will be completely useless for the next 20 years.

[?Impact]

with threats from T-50-launched cruise missiles and Russian and North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-35 will be far more able to shoot down than Super Hornets

Why? Because "fifth generation"? You have swallowed the marketing BS. The F-35 is not an interceptor aircraft, that has been proven time and time again. It is a ground attack aircraft.

[Argus]

Why? Because "fifth generation"? You have swallowed the marketing BS. The F-35 is not an interceptor aircraft, that has been proven time and time again. It is a ground attack aircraft.

Okay, general. I know you too have a vast array of experiences and training in military avionics.

[Argus]

Bull - Canada's CF-18s are already outmatched by Russian fighters and we patrol our own north, and respond when we're the closest asset for NORAD missions.

I've been reading Matt Fisher for a lot of years. He's always struck me as an extremely knowledgeable and intelligent guy. And what he writes makes sense. And today is not tomorrow.

The fighter that wins in the air is the one that "sees" the other guy and fires first. And the guy whose missiles can lock on and hold the other aircraft as it tracks in. That is never going to be the F-18 once the Russians have stealth fighters.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

That's like saying that the US Navy will be completely useless for the next 20 years.

The navy primarily beats up on third world countries. And it will be buying the F-35, as well.

[Smallc]

The navy primarily beats up on third world countries. And it will be buying the F-35, as well.

The Navy fleet will be made up mostly of hornets and super hornets until 2030, and super hornets until 2035.

[Smallc]

I've been reading Matt Fisher for a lot of years. He's always struck me as an extremely knowledgeable and intelligent guy. And what he writes makes sense. And today is not tomorrow.

The fighter that wins in the air is the one that "sees" the other guy and fires first. And the guy whose missiles can lock on and hold the other aircraft as it tracks in. That is never going to be the F-18 once the Russians have stealth fighters.

The Russians can already shoot our jets out of the air long before we can even think about shooting theirs.

[DogOnPorch]

The Russians can already shoot our jets out of the air long before we can even think about shooting theirs.

With what, exactly?

[?Impact]

With what, exactly?

With both the MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27 (Su-30 also, but it is essentially a derivative of the Su-27). The American F-22 is superior to them in air-air combat, but the F-35 is not.