Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Derek 2.0]

already addressed here in this prior post: you know, that Janes article that you simply ignored! Per summation:

"The point the War is Boring article was trying to make, and the point the JPO has failed to refute in its rebuttal, is that aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so..... This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not."

.

.

Ahh, prove otherwise, like the cited examples of the F-35 (with a combat suite) in mock aerial combat against F-16s and F-15s?

my suggested benchmark? That's doesn't follow from anything I've stated. Again, it was your reference to the former USAF air-combat command head that prompted me to remind you just what he said about the F-35 not being an air-superiority jet... in regards to "close-in, high maneuverability" combat - that the F-35 needed the F-22 to support it. Your guy - the guy you brought forward and quoted - that guy! And again, he never compared the F-35 to the F-22 directly... but clearly, by implication, his was a most damning testament of the F-35s deficiency relative to the F-22 needing to support it against "other comers... other 4th/4.5 gen aircraft".

But I assumed that it was.......as far as I know, no one has suggested the F-35 as a more superior air superiority fighter then the F-22......yet this is your go to talking point.........

I don't suppose you could repeat/cite the passage where its stated that the F-35 requires F-22 support against other 4/4.5 gen aircraft?

Hostage does speak to 5th generation Russian and Chinese aircraft and compares them to the F-35:

So what advanced aircraft are F-35s likely to face? Russia has found it impossible, so far, to field numbers of fifth-generation fighters. “The Russians can build one-off systems, can build small numbers of really capable stuff, but they have not yet achieved the industrial capacity to produce in huge volumes,” Hostage tells me.

On the other hand, the Chinese are expected to produce large numbers of J-20s over time. While F-35 critics point to the purportedly advanced features of the new Chinese aircraft, noting apparent improvements in stealth, Hostage is skeptical of the plane’s capabilities, so far.

So Hostage doesn't appear concerned with Russian/Chinese air superiority aircraft, aircraft meant to contend against the F-22, and their impact on the F-35......so what specific aircraft are you suggesting he is concerned with?

[waldo]

Ahh.......reread my post you quoted:

I cited the actual report that your media sources are quoting from...........of note, per the report, a pilot ejecting from an F-35 well wearing NVG/HMDs, from the known data, is at as much risk as a pilot ejecting from a F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Eurofighter etc etc etc.........in other words, ejecting from an aircraft is dangerous, ejecting from an aircraft with added weight on your head is even more dangerous.......

please sir, I call BS! That report you've provided is absolutely not the, as you say, "quote source". How could it be when it explicitly states the following:

We did not evaluate the F-35 ejection seat because it is currently still in development, the aircraft has not finished testing, and there is limited ejection data

would you like a do-over?

.

[waldo]

Ahh, prove otherwise, like the cited examples of the F-35 (with a combat suite) in mock aerial combat against F-16s and F-15s?

talk about "mock"... that's me continuing to mock you with your simulator references. Why wouldn't LockMart/JPO put forward actual flight engagements to counter the big-time media buzz that ensued as a result of that actual (not mock, not simulator) F-16/F-35 exchange? You would think this would have been paramount in the, as the Janes article highlights, "proving otherwise" - wouldn't you?

.

But I assumed that it was.......as far as I know, no one has suggested the F-35 as a more superior air superiority fighter then the F-22......yet this is your go to talking point.........

when you already have stated this and I reply back that I never claimed any such thing... why do you immediately come back with it again? You're right, "as far as I know... no one has suggested the F-35 as a more superior 'air superiority' fighter than the F-22" - INCLUDING ME!

.

I don't suppose you could repeat/cite the passage where its stated that the F-35 requires F-22 support against other 4/4.5 gen aircraft?

Hostage does speak to 5th generation Russian and Chinese aircraft and compares them to the F-35:

So Hostage doesn't appear concerned with Russian/Chinese air superiority aircraft, aircraft meant to contend against the F-22, and their impact on the F-35......so what specific aircraft are you suggesting he is concerned with?

oh my! You've just scored an own goal. You'll need to provide your own answer here... when you simply choose to exclude 4/4.5 gen aircraft and then follow that up with this latest suggestion of yours to also exclude Russian/Chinese 5th gen aircraft, you tell me what the former head of the USAF air-combat command was referring to when he stated, “The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.” You tell me what that statement means - you tell me what the F-35 needs the F-22 for/against? You tell me.

.

[Topaz]

Well, if u were a pilot, would u want one engine or two....I've heard two pilots say they want the Hornet over the F-35.

[Derek 2.0]

please sir, I call BS! That report you've provided is absolutely not the, as you say, "quote source". How could it be when it explicitly states the following:

would you like a do-over?

.

No, there is no need.........as your "quote source" states the same thing (because it is):

We did not evaluate the F-35 ejection seat because it is currently still in development, the aircraft has not finished testing, and there is limited ejection data

The woes on relying on third or fourth hand information

[Derek 2.0]

talk about "mock"... that's me continuing to mock you with your simulator references. Why wouldn't LockMart/JPO put forward actual flight engagements to counter the big-time media buzz that ensued as a result of that actual (not mock, not simulator) F-16/F-35 exchange? You would think this would have been paramount in the, as the Janes article highlights, "proving otherwise" - wouldn't you?

.

What simulator reference? In both cases, the reference was to "real live mock battles" between the F-35 and the F-16/F-15.....

when you already have stated this and I reply back that I never claimed any such thing... why do you immediately come back with it again? You're right, "as far as I know... no one has suggested the F-35 as a more superior 'air superiority' fighter than the F-22" - INCLUDING ME!

You're the one that appears ready to refute a claim that hasn't been made..........

oh my! You've just scored an own goal. You'll need to provide your own answer here... when you simply choose to exclude 4/4.5 gen aircraft and then follow that up with this latest suggestion of yours to also exclude Russian/Chinese 5th gen aircraft, you tell me what the former head of the USAF air-combat command was referring to when he stated, “The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.” You tell me what that statement means - you tell me what the F-35 needs the F-22 for/against? You tell me.

I have countless times, in the case of retired General Hostage, quoting him earlier in this thread:

The F-22 is to the F-35, what the F-15 is to the F-16....

Are you going to cite your claim that the F-35 requires the F-22 to contend with older 4th/4.5 gen aircraft?

[Big Guy]

How about some of these?

Vertical Takeoff

[bush_cheney2004]

Official verification that Trudeau's government keeps feeding the "zombie" F-35 file that will never die:

The most recent instalment was made June 24, when the Liberal government quietly paid $32.9 million to the U.S. program office overseeing development of the warplane, despite having promised during last year's election campaign not to buy the F-35.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-stealth-fighter-jet-1.3696269

Gosh...buying new "fighter jets" is such a headache, eh ?

[Smallc]

Contracts. It would be stupid not to pay the fee.

[segnosaur]

The most recent instalment was made June 24, when the Liberal government quietly paid $32.9 million to the U.S. program office overseeing development of the warplane

Contracts. It would be stupid not to pay the fee.

There are 2 issues that I can see:

1) Yes, from an economics point it might make sense... the amount of money earned by Canadian companies who have won contracts is much higher than the amount paid by the government.

But, you do have to admit, it doesn't exactly look good politically. Remember, many voters are idiots, and their knowledge of military procurement goes about as far as their ability to sing "Kumbya". They've been told "F35=bad" and "Military=evil" for so long, that even the hint of supporting the F35 will be seen as a negative.

In a way, I actually hope for a big backlash... The Liberals were wrong to play politics with the F35 procurement in the first place. Now the idea that this could all blow up in their faces brings me a certain amount of smug satisfaction.

2) The payments may only provide a temporary reprieve. Canada joined the F35 project and agreed to make payments in order to allow Canadian companies to bid on various subcontracts. But, that was a long time ago (and the assumption was that countries contributing to the project would end up purchasing the plane.)

But what happens if Canada decides to purchase an alternative (like the F18)? How will countries like Norway and Denmark respond (countries that both paid for the development of the plane and plan to purchase it? Will they be happy seeing contracts going to a non-customer like Canada, or will they want Canada removed from the consortium, with Canada's sub-contracts divided up between the actual customers?

Granted, Lockheed Martin wouldn't be able to cancel the contracts immediately, and it might take a while to shift development to the other partners. Still, the F35 development and manufacturing process is supposed to take place over decades.

[bush_cheney2004]

Liberal party propaganda is still holding the line against the F-35...real change:

We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber.

We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft. The primary mission of our fighter aircraft should remain the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/f-35/

[Big Guy]

The Trudeau government has decided to let the only true Canadians do the computations on the new fighter jet. Here is one during the process:

Canadian Accountant

[bush_cheney2004]

The F-35A strike fighter was declared combat ready by the USAF, which is more that can be said about parts of Canada's armed forces.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-fighter-jet-ready-for-action-1.3704508

[poochy]

The F-35A strike fighter was declared combat ready by the USAF, which is more that can be said about parts of Canada's armed forces.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-fighter-jet-ready-for-action-1.3704508

This information is only a minor inconvenience to liberals who never meet a truth that isnt worth lying about.

[segnosaur]

The F-35A strike fighter was declared combat ready by the USAF...

This information is only a minor inconvenience to liberals who never meet a truth that isnt worth lying about.

It is a good step for the plane to be declared combat ready.

A couple of points;

- This follows on a couple of successful tests for the F35... A successful shoot-down of a drone with an air-to-air missile, and a successful firing of the gun on the F35B.

- Just to play devil's advocate... keep in mind that there are issues that have to be dealt with... software upgrades, handling the helmet weight, etc. Plus, at least in the short term I'm sure they'll run into a few bugs. (Remember, the initial squadron of 'combat-ready' F35Bs had problems with spare parts and availability, but that will diminish as ground crews get experience.)

[segnosaur]

Oh oh.... looks like the F35 has encountered yet another problem during testing/training exercises.

This is a serious issue and might end up causing them to scrap the entire program.

http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-too-stealthy-2016-8

[poochy]

It is a good step for the plane to be declared combat ready.

A couple of points;

- This follows on a couple of successful tests for the F35... A successful shoot-down of a drone with an air-to-air missile, and a successful firing of the gun on the F35B.

- Just to play devil's advocate... keep in mind that there are issues that have to be dealt with... software upgrades, handling the helmet weight, etc. Plus, at least in the short term I'm sure they'll run into a few bugs. (Remember, the initial squadron of 'combat-ready' F35Bs had problems with spare parts and availability, but that will diminish as ground crews get experience.)

For sure, but there hasn't ever been a perfect new aircraft of any kind that i am aware of, it's been said hundreds of times here, but it's not really about the aircraft, it's about pacifists who would prefer we spent the money elsewhere and need a back door reason to justify not buying it.

[eyeball]

No, the justification for buying it rests with the positive claimants and they still can't deliver.

[Derek 2.0]

Oh oh.... looks like the F35 has encountered yet another problem during testing/training exercises.

This is a serious issue and might end up causing them to scrap the entire program.

http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-too-stealthy-2016-8

Yes indeed......a huge problem, which resulted in the F-35's having to squawk IFF to give the OPFOR height,course and speed......from what I understand, the "unstealthy" F-35 defeated the latest AESA radar for the Patriot missile batteries, the radars for the new MEADS air defense system and the airborne radar on an E-3 Sentry..........but somehow the decades less advanced radars from the Russians and Chinese will be able to "see" the F-35

[Derek 2.0]

- Just to play devil's advocate... keep in mind that there are issues that have to be dealt with... software upgrades, handling the helmet weight, etc. Plus, at least in the short term I'm sure they'll run into a few bugs. (Remember, the initial squadron of 'combat-ready' F35Bs had problems with spare parts and availability, but that will diminish as ground crews get experience.)

And that is no different then the progression of any other aircraft......the difference, with legacy aircraft that is denoted with the differing production blocks and versions (i.e. F-16 A/B then the F-16 C/D etc) and though older legacy aircraft can be "upgraded", the involves a near rebuild of the aircraft........updating the F-35's software involves pulling a data board from an access hatch in the aircraft and installing the new software.......night and day difference.

As to spare parts and qualified techs, that is no different then any other aircraft system introduced into any military....this now active squadron will see the rest of the bases fighter wing (388th Fighter WIng) transition (along with their Reserve Wing) in rapid succession from the F-16 to the F-35A......

[Derek 2.0]

This information is only a minor inconvenience to liberals who never meet a truth that isnt worth lying about.

Makes it hard for Trudeau to claim the F-35 "doesn't work" now that our NORAD partners have it in active service........

[segnosaur]

No, the justification for buying it rests with the positive claimants and they still can't deliver.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly would you consider to be "justification" for buying the plane?

In favor of the F35 we have:

- Multiple successful tests, including the successful launch and shoot down of a drone by air to air missle

- A previous "green flag" exercise showed that it was able to provide close air support with no losses (something that, if memory serves me correctly, the A10 and F16 were not able to do). Granted, some people dismiss the results since the F35 was not deemed 'combat ready' at the time, but still, pretty good results for a plane that is claimed to be "far from working". If its able to get those results when its "far from working", what type of results will it see when all the bugs are worked out? See: https://theaviationist.com/2015/07/01/f-35s-role-in-green-flag/

- Its been selected by many other countries... some NATO allies, some not, some members of the JSF consortium, some not. If its really such a bad plane, why are all those countries picking it over the Super Hornet?

- We know that the cost has come down substantially from the early prototype days

- Flight tests by various pilots attesting to the abilities of the F35 in a dogfight scenario. See: https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

- Well-established figures pointing to the plane's range and ceiling, which in most cases beat those of its opponents

- A large number of countries that will be purchasing the plane, and a high number scheduled to be produced, which give a good chance that they will be building F35s for decades to come (long after the last Super Hornet or Eurofighter have rolled off the assembly line). This will give us access to spare parts and replacements for a long long time. Buy the Super Hornet, and we may find ourselves scrambling to find spare parts in 2 or 3 decades.

Sounds like some pretty solid pro-F35 evidence.

[poochy]

Makes it hard for Trudeau to claim the F-35 "doesn't work" now that our NORAD partners have it in active service........

You would think so, but i doubt the issue matters much to their core supporters, they will vote for them again no matter how much they lie about the f35.

[Derek 2.0]

You would think so, but i doubt the issue matters much to their core supporters, they will vote for them again no matter how much they lie about the f35.

Inversely, if common sense prevailed, and they purchased the F-35 to avoid embarrassment (both by buying an inferior aircraft for the same price or more and gutting Canada's aerospace industry) they can do a bs dog and pony show and say they held a "fair competition", "got the best deal" and "saved Canada's high tech and aerospace industries" etc etc.......and what would the Opposition say? The Tories wouldn't say much, I doubt the Bloc would make too much noise over Quebec aerospace jobs and who cares what the NDP or Greens say........

At this point, aside from it being the actual right selection, buying the F-35 is the right political choice and does little to Trudeau politically.......

[segnosaur]

Inversely, if common sense prevailed, and they purchased the F-35 to avoid embarrassment (both by buying an inferior aircraft for the same price or more and gutting Canada's aerospace industry)...

The problem is, military procurement is a long-term activity, and governments only run for ~4 years before another election. And, on average, we don't really use our military that much.

The major problems with the Super Hornet (if we bought them) would not be apparent before the next election, or perhaps even for the next decade. (The F18 is not necessarily a bad plane, when compared to at least some of its competitors.) The problems with the Super Hornet would start showing up in 10-20 years, when spare parts start become hard to find and the military technology of other countries has started to improve. So Trudeau will look like a hero ("Hey I saved all this money buying planes!") but future governments will be screwed.