Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Smallc]

I honestly can't figure out what non political reason has them buying this jet on an interim basis.  My theory is that they know the F-35 would win a competition, and so they have to punt it.

Now, that's not to say that the Super Hornet is bad.  It'll do fine, and like has been done in the US before, it can even be integrated with our existing squadrons.  With little extra training, the same pilots can fly it and the same mechanics (it's a one hour course) can maintain it.  The only thing will be having to keep two sets of spares, as about 90% of the parts are different.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, The_Squid said:

Even under a pro-military government, the military was completely incompetent at procurement. 

The Harper Conservatives stopped being pro military when the opposition were able to exploit various stories involving the military, such as alleged torture in Afghanistan, and Peter McKay riding a helicopter to score points against the government. It's sole concern with the military thereafter was that it get no bad news which was related to the military, and funding shrank rapidly.

[Rue]

The Israeli government announced yesterday its buying 17 more F35's to up its total to 50.

Now I bet that makes their pilots oh so happy. Israel is locked into a development deal with the US over this jet. Its one reason a lot of countries signed on. They figured whatever glitches are in the F35, the Israelis will work out the kinks. Don't think so. Not even Moses will work out the computer glitches. Also the problem is if Israel modifies the F35, it doesn't mean it wil  necessarily share the modifications with anyone not even the US. There's a base F35 and then each country can make its own modifications, some that will apply and be shared with everyone in the consortium of F35's while others won't be shared. The Israeli F16 is not the same as the one the US or Saudi Arabia uses.

Most IAF pilots who have flown the F35 hate it and were told to shut up but the stories are being leaked.. They do not like the idea of relying on virtual eye sight by helmet-they don't want that to replace their own eyes.

For Israel a stealth craft, one that could evade radar might be of good use however to be used as a stealth craft the F35 can't go that long a distance without refueling and it can't carry external weapons on its wings or carry bomb missiles on its wings or underbelly meaning it limits what it can do and calling it a stealth craft is pushing it.

Hell at this point I'd use an F18 Superh, a Typhoon, an F16, a bunch of Gripens before an F35 gets ironed out..

Interestingly Saudi Arabia just announced the purchase of a fleet of F18 Superh's.

I say Gripen no.1, Typhoon no.2 for Canada. The F18 Superh to me is just a heavier F18.

F22 Raptors. They'z the only real McCoy these days. You got one of them babies, you beat anyone. Expensive toys and the US won't sell them.

The F22 is what gives the USAF the tactical edge over all other craft not the F35.

The US has some other experimental aircraft it won't sell either. It also has some amazing super quick, super strike  silent helicopters people should not under-estimate that can be as effective as fighter jets and hell let's not forget their drones and unmanned rockets.

Now this crap going on in Allepo its a classic example of misuse of fighter craft and inaccurate bombing and bombing to scare or terrorize not win a war. Levelling population centres is a shock and awe tactic but terrorists want the shock and awe because that fear and agony fuels their very essence. They depend on fear to rule. Every time Assad and the Russians terrorize Syrians it feeds into the hands of ISIL saying we are your only hope.

Putin is a coward. He's a big shot using fighter bombers on civilians. He won't dare put troops on the ground or use helicopters. Last time the Russians did that they had their asses delivered to them by scraggly old Muslim men (Mujahedeen renamed Taliban)  in the mountains of Afghanistan.

I have said it a million times, fighter aircraft can not and will never defeat terrorists on the ground. Bombing the crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq did nothing but fuel terrorism.  Israel tried it in Lebanon and it was an epic failure and empowered Hezbollah and made new enemies against Israel from Lebanese who were otherwise neutral.. The Israeli  Army warned the then civilian Prime Minister Olmert  not to do a bombing war and he ignored the IAF because he did not want to send in commandos or troops on the ground. His civilian background made him ignorant of the way the ADF and IAF worked. He chose what he thought was a quick fix and less deaths to the IDF/IAF.

What Olmert and Nato countries and the Russians do get is that to beat terrorists you need quick moving, mobile commando units with small men, not too many heavy weapons, moving in fast striking and leaving fast. Mao Tse Tung and then the Viet Cong have seen to that. They rendered conventional armies obsolete and carpet bombing useless.  

Heavy arms, loud noise, long logistic noises, over kill with bombs, gas,  napalm, white  phosphorous that mimics napalm and keeps burning through one end of the body until it comes out the other,  does not defeat terrorists, it empowers them. You have to zero in on specific units and their leaders and take them out with strategic precision pin point attacks. You can't defeat the whole thing but you make holes in its innards. Terrorists work like spider webs in structure. You have to disconnect the webs from each other, then hit the command centres of each web where the spider sits and in the Middle East their are thousands of these webs or cells each with its own spider or leader. Fighter jets are akin to letting off a bomb in a house to kill termites. Its inaccurate and overkill and the vermin simply scatter and move on reforming in new webs.

Canada needs intercepters not anti terror bombers. Canada's role n NORAD, NATO and for itself is patrolling air space and intercepting in-coming aircraft in a show of sovereignty.

Canada can't use F18's or F35's to beat terrorists. One of the few things I agree with Trudeau on, ouch that hurts to say,  is the use of our officers to train and fight with the Kurds on the  ground. That is far more effective if your goal is to defeat terrorists. Bombing is a political display by countries to make it look like they are doing something since they don't want to send in people on the ground.

In Libya, Britain, France, Italy and Canada were upofront that the bombing was only meant to be temporary and llimited but it was the US that insisted on bringing in a Muslim mercenary that then turned on the US becoming ISIL.

Commando units of no more than 25 elite men who can disappear into a crowd, the night, the sea-shadow men. That's the ticket.

F35's nope. Gripens yes. Frigates yes. Helicopters yes. Icebreakers, yes. Submarines, yes. Big tanks, big fighter gets, no. Bombers no.

Flying 3 Gripens on Patrol is still cheaper than one F35 or even F18.

What we now do with the Kurds is an excellent way for a small army to help fight the terrorism war and I agree being peacekeeprs is a good thing.

Canada's biggest threat though is to its fisheries off its coasts, drug and illegal alien smugglers coming in off the water, and the entire world travelling through our Northern passage because green house warming makes that  now possible now and  when we don't enforce our North it could be used as a legal argument against us to infer we are not disputing sovereignty by controlling these waters.

 A few Gripens buzz bombing ships protects our legal rights and vitiates that kind of legal argument.  It is what we need to enforce our waters and prevent other countries from establishing the precedent that we are not enforcing our sovereignty so we can be inferred to have given it up.

We need frigates and subs on each coast, Gripens and ice breakers up North and PROPERLY armed and trained  Arctic Rangers giving employment to our native peoples and giving them a sense of purpose, i.e., protecting the environment up North. We also need Coast guard rescue/patrol vessels (like the state of the art ones Germany makes) ad helicopters that can double as Mnr of Fisheries patrol craft..

Regards

Gen. Field Marshall for Life and Then Some,  Rue.

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Rue

[Rue]

17 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Uh......did it not state clearly that the Australians won't be choosing an option for deep strike until the early 2020s? I'll quote it again if you like?

 

The Danes and Norwegians think more so......and notice, when asked, Minister Foote wouldn't release a rough cost estimate of their proposed Super Hornet purchase......

Yah I did go back and read that. See my comment on the Israelis. They announced they are buying another 17 F35's yesterday. I knew you got  to Bibi.

[Rue]

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

The Harper Conservatives stopped being pro military when the opposition were able to exploit various stories involving the military, such as alleged torture in Afghanistan, and Peter McKay riding a helicopter to score points against the government. It's sole concern with the military thereafter was that it get no bad news which was related to the military, and funding shrank rapidly.

Strongly agree.

[Smallc]

Okay, we're down to 76 now.

Sad that the pilot didn't make it - may he rest in peace.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Smallc

[poochy]

5 hours ago, Smallc said:

I honestly can't figure out what non political reason has them buying this jet on an interim basis.  My theory is that they know the F-35 would win a competition, and so they have to punt it.

Now, that's not to say that the Super Hornet is bad.  It'll do fine, and like has been done in the US before, it can even be integrated with our existing squadrons.  With little extra training, the same pilots can fly it and the same mechanics (it's a one hour course) can maintain it.  The only thing will be having to keep two sets of spares, as about 90% of the parts are different.

The Super Hornet is a good aircraft, now, but it's clear this move was meant as a way of avoiding buying the aircraft that would win an actual competition and it puts them in a position of having greater reason to buy more super hornets later.  The idea that we need another 5 years to decide is a sick joke that no serious expert has agreed with.  The work has already been done, another new competition would take a year at most.

Edited November 28, 2016 by poochy

[segnosaur]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

The Israeli government announced yesterday its buying 17 more F35's to up its total to 50.

Wow, a country that likes the F35 so much they're buying more.

Now I bet that makes their pilots oh so happy. Israel is locked into a development deal with the US over this jet. Its one reason a lot of countries signed on. They figured whatever glitches are in the F35, the Israelis will work out the kinks.

Not really. Israel may be modifying the F35, but I doubt anyone thought it would be relevant to anyone but Israel itself.

Most IAF pilots who have flown the F35 hate it and were told to shut up but the stories are being leaked.. They do not like the idea of relying on virtual eye sight by helmet-they don't want that to replace their own eyes.

Ummm... proof? Evidence? Link? I haven't heard anything specifically about Israeli pilots, but most accounts I've seen showed that pilots prefer the F35.

...the F35 can't go that long a distance without refueling...

According to Wikipidea:

Combat radius of an F35: 1158km

Combat Radius of a JAS 39 Gripen: 800km

So, the F35 certainly doesn't have a problem with range. The problem is, the F35 detractors tend to lie a lot... they compare the range of an F35 on internal fuel with the range of one of their competitors with extra drop tanks, etc.

and it can't carry external weapons on its wings or carry bomb missiles on its wings or underbelly meaning it limits what it can do and calling it a stealth craft is pushing it.

First of all, even if it is carrying weapons externally, it will still be stealthier than a Gripen or F18 carrying a similar weapons load. (Stealth isn't an all-or-nothing issue.)

Secondly, whether it carries external weapons will depend on the mission. An initial attack will probably use F35s with internal weapons only until the immediate threats are eliminated. Secondary attacks can use fully loaded F35s (with external weapons) since the primary threats will be eliminated. Pilots will still be better off than flying a Gripen or F18, which is always going to be more visible on radar, since they won't have the option of flying i a 'clean' configuration.

Interestingly Saudi Arabia just announced the purchase of a fleet of F18 Superh's.

Sure you don't mean Kuwait? They tend to be the ones buying the F35.

Saudi Arabia flies the F15 and Typhoons. I don't know why they don't seem to be interested in purchasing the F35. (Perhaps they want to keep the current mix of planes, or maybe the U.S. doesn't want to sell such technology to them.)

The F22 is what gives the USAF the tactical edge over all other craft not the F35.

The F22 and F35 are planes with different purposes and missions.

The F22 was designed to be a pure air-superiority fighter. It has things like vectored thrust (making it more manourverable) and supercruise, but its weapons bays are designed for missiles. The F35 is designed to be an all-around plane. It can handle air-to-air combat, but it also has air-to-ground abilities that far surpass the F22... able to carry larger weapons in its bay, better communications abilities with ground forces. Its similar to the past situations where they had both the F15 for air superiority and the cheaper F16 for everything else.

Canada isn't able to afford planes for both roles. But the F35 will be able to do good enough in the air-to-air role (should we ever need it) as well as an air-to-ground roll (again, should we ever need it.)

I have said it a million times, fighter aircraft can not and will never defeat terrorists on the ground. Bombing the crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq did nothing but fuel terrorism.

First of all, I don't think anyone is claiming that air power lone is enough to stop terrorism. Yes, ground forces are necessary. But air power does contribute. Use jet planes to take out major enemy infrastructure, so that ground units can operate with less risk. You suggested that the U.S. failed because all they did was bomb afghanistan and Iraq, but the fact is, the U.S. had plenty of soldiers on the ground. The problem was not air power.

Canada needs intercepters not anti terror bombers. Canada's role n NORAD, NATO and for itself is patrolling air space and intercepting in-coming aircraft in a show of sovereignty.

The F35 is more than capable of filling the roll of an interceptor.

In Libya, Britain, France, Italy and Canada were upofront that the bombing was only meant to be temporary and llimited but it was the US that insisted on bringing in a Muslim mercenary that then turned on the US becoming ISIL.

A little history lesson...

The conflict in Libya was not started by western bombing attacks. Libyan civilians were protesting, and Rebels (ground forces) were attacking the government, and in response the government was cracking down on its own population. Western countries got involved because of the Libyan crackdown that was killing too many innocent civilians. Had the west not gotten involved, it is likely the civil war would have been longer, more brutal, and had a higher casualty count.

A few Gripens buzz bombing ships protects our legal rights and vitiates that kind of legal argument.

So would a few F35s. However, since the F35s are capable of flying missions without external weapons they can fly faster and fly further. They can also carry a larger array of anti-ship weapons.

 

[?Impact]

22 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

The problem is, the F35 detractors tend to lie a lot... they compare the range of an F35 on internal fuel with the range of one of their competitors with extra drop tanks, etc.

The problem with F-35 proponents is they tend to lie a lot more. They continually stress the "fifth generation, stealth" capability, but then compare everything about their aircraft without any stealth. Without the external fuel tanks and weapons, the F-35 is lucky to drop a firecracker on the guy down the street. Not that stealth really means that much, but once you put on external tanks and/or weapons, the radar screens of the enemy light up like Christmas time. The F-35 is clearly "batteries not included" 

[Bonam]

5 hours ago, Rue said:

For Israel a stealth craft, one that could evade radar might be of good use however to be used as a stealth craft the F35 can't go that long a distance without refueling and it can't carry external weapons on its wings or carry bomb missiles on its wings or underbelly meaning it limits what it can do and calling it a stealth craft is pushing it.

The range limitation of the F-35 is hardly an issue for Israel. The entire land area of every country that's ever attacked Israel is within the F-35's combat radius from Israeli bases, other than a bit of uninhabited desert in SW Egypt. 

[?Impact]

4 minutes ago, Bonam said:

The range limitation of the F-35 is hardly an issue for Israel. The entire land area of every country that's ever attacked Israel is within the F-35's combat radius from Israeli bases, other than a bit of uninhabited desert in SW Egypt. 

What about Iran. While it may not fit your limited criteria, tensions between the two counties are very high.

[Bonam]

17 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

What about Iran. While it may not fit your limited criteria, tensions between the two counties are very high.

Most of Iran is outside the range of the combat radius of the F-35 as well as any of its competitors. Israel is working on stealth external tanks that will work with the F-35, doubling its range. In the case of a conflict with Iran, the stealth capability of the F-35 will be crucially important, since any Israeli sorties against targets in Iran would have to fly over either Jordan and Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Syria and Turkey, none of which are likely to stand idly by if they see Israeli fighters flying over their territory. Though Saudi Arabia might allow it if the Israeli mission was to target Iranian nuclear sites. 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Bonam

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

The problem with F-35 proponents is they tend to lie a lot more. They continually stress the "fifth generation, stealth" capability, but then compare everything about their aircraft without any stealth. Without the external fuel tanks and weapons, the F-35 is lucky to drop a firecracker on the guy down the street. Not that stealth really means that much, but once you put on external tanks and/or weapons, the radar screens of the enemy light up like Christmas time. The F-35 is clearly "batteries not included" 

So do you have a theory as to why the air force wants these aircraft?

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

 ...Without the external fuel tanks and weapons, the F-35 is lucky to drop a firecracker on the guy down the street.

 

So would you volunteer your residence for F-35A air-to-ground guided bomb testing to prove this contention ?

 

[Derek 2.0]

7 hours ago, Smallc said:

My theory is that they know the F-35 would win a competition, and so they have to punt it.

As I said they would......

 

7 hours ago, Smallc said:

Now, that's not to say that the Super Hornet is bad.

As I said numerous times, it would have made sense going this route in the late 90s as opposed to upgrading the (entire) legacy fleet.

 

7 hours ago, Smallc said:

It'll do fine, and like has been done in the US before, it can even be integrated with our existing squadrons.

It will do fine until USAF NORAD ops revolve around the F-35 and F-22, then it will be at a significant disadvantage.

 

7 hours ago, Smallc said:

With little extra training, the same pilots can fly it and the same mechanics (it's a one hour course) can maintain it.

 

 "An hour course"? The USN requires pilots who've been on non-flying postings for over 6 months, to take a two week refresher course, just to be recertified.......the RAAF's initial (instructor) conversion training to Super Hornets, for both technicians and aircrew took 18 months with the USN......back in Australia, conversion training for technicians, depending on trade, was two to three months, and aircrew (pilots and air combat officers) from F-111s took ~50 hours and legacy Hornet pilots ~1/3rd that.......a little more than an hour course.

 

8 hours ago, Smallc said:

The only thing will be having to keep two sets of spares, as about 90% of the parts are different.

 

And two training streams for technicians, from radar & avionics to engines.....

[Derek 2.0]

7 hours ago, Rue said:

They announced they are buying another 17 F35's yesterday.

 

And the thing about most first world governments, if Bibi lost the next election, the new guy wouldn't go in a different direction for political reasons.

[Derek 2.0]

3 hours ago, poochy said:

The idea that we need another 5 years to decide is a sick joke

 

I agree 100%......forgot all the years of previous dithering, the Danes were able to manage in one year. 

[Derek 2.0]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

What about Iran.

They would do they same as what they did with Iraq......aerial refueling and quite support from the Sunni neighbors........or nukes....

[Smallc]

It's funny that it's the Liberals strengthening the RCAF:

“The government has announced a policy whereby the Royal Canadian Air Force is required to simultaneously meet both our NORAD and NATO commitments,” Hood told senators.

“I am at present unable to do that with the present CF-18 fleet. There aren’t enough aircraft to deliver those commitments simultaneously,” he said.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/28/more-fighters-eyed-for-canadas-air-force.html

[Derek 2.0]

1 hour ago, Smallc said:

It's funny that it's the Liberals strengthening the RCAF:

 

That's one way to polish a turd......as noted in your link:

 

Quote

 

In fact, it appears the Liberals themselves created the gap with the policy change, requiring the air force to have fighters ready to meet demands to protect North American airspace while also responding to NATO needs abroad.

 

“This government has decided as a matter of policy, it’s now a firm commitment rather than a flexible one,” said Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

 

And if Canada now requires more than 65 fighters, Perry wonders about the budget.

 

 

Whats more, once Canada left Germany, and Norway would no longer need reinforcement (and the fighter force was reduced by over 1/3rd) , our NATO commitments were solely the defense of North America through NORAD...........if this has now changed, what now is our NATO commitment? Has it been determined that North America is under increased threat, as such, we need to increase our NORAD commitment? Will the Liberals be increasing the defense budget? Why has such a drastic change in policy taken place prior to the Liberals defense review? And why are the Trudeau Liberals ordering lifetime gag orders? If this is a new policy by the Liberals, creating a "fighter gap" with a stroke of a pen, why is the replacement competition going to take five years??????

 

I smell a rat.......clearly the proposed Super Hornet buy was a solution looking for a problem.......since there were no problems to be found, the Liberals simply created one.

 

As Alan Williams said, he doubts their intent to sole source a Super Hornet buy is even legal...............This is Trudeau's open and transparent process. 

[segnosaur]

18 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The problem with F-35 proponents is they tend to lie a lot more. They continually stress the "fifth generation, stealth" capability,

No, actually we don't. In fact, I think I've posted more about:

- The long-term costs of the F35 likely being lower because production will continue for a lot longer than the F18/Gripen/etc. And this has absolutely nothing to do with stealth. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Ziltch.

- The advanced avionics, which allows better interconnection with ground forces and other planes, and the advanced helmet and sensor fusion which gives the pilot better situational awareness. This has nothing to do with stealth. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Ziltch. (It will also have ALIS, a system that allows maintenance crews to more easily maintain the planes. There are currently many bugs in the system, but even with the problems ground crews seem to find it a useful feature. None of the competitors have the same system.)

- The ability to fly in a 'clean' configuration for at least some of its missions, which gives it better speed and range than an F18 or gripen with even a light load. (While the use of internal weapons bays is marginally related to stealth, the advantage here isn't to do with its radar cross-signature, but with its performance overall.

So even if the F35 had no stealth, there would still be compelling reasons to purchase it. Stealth is a nice feature to have, but its just icing on the cake.

...but then compare everything about their aircraft without any stealth. Without the external fuel tanks and weapons, the F-35 is lucky to drop a firecracker on the guy down the street. Not that stealth really means that much, but once you put on external tanks and/or weapons, the radar screens of the enemy light up like Christmas time.

Ah, so many things wrong with that particular quote...

First of all, stealth is not an all-or-nothing thing. Yes, adding exterior drop tanks/weapons increases radar cross section, but an F35 with external drop tanks will still be harder to detect than an F18/Gripen even without drop tanks.

Secondly, drop tanks are not the only way that planes can increase their range.. The CF18 fleet uses air-to-air refueling, and the F35 has that ability as well.

Thirdly, I doubt that any plane would use drop tanks throughout the entire mission (because they decrease the plane's performance). The most likely scenario is to use the tanks in the first leg of the journey, then drop them when entering enemy territory (going the rest of the way on internal fuel). This would allow the F35 to use its stealth when the risk is greatest.

The U.S. used the stealth F117 successfully for many years, sending it in to many of the most dangerous situations, and only once did the enemy manage to shoot it down (which seemed to have more to do with bad tactical decisions by the U.S. rather than failings on part of the plane.). Seems like the U.S. air force managed to get around that little problem of radar detection and drop tanks.

So the whole "F35 can be detected with drop tanks" is a red herring. A non-existent problem that the F35 critics like to use but doesn't exist.

 

[?Impact]

7 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

So even if the F35 had no stealth, there would still be compelling reasons to purchase it. Stealth is a nice feature to have, but its just icing on the cake.

Great, so let's define the requirements and have a competition based on the complete merits of all options. That is all I have been asking for for years, but the answer has always been - but fifth generation. 

[segnosaur]

13 hours ago, Smallc said:

It's funny that it's the Liberals strengthening the RCAF:

They may be temporarily strengthening the air force, but they appear to be setting up a situation where we end up flying substandard planes for the next 4 decades.

So, short term gain for long term pain.

“The government has announced a policy whereby the Royal Canadian Air Force is required to simultaneously meet both our NORAD and NATO commitments,” Hood told senators. “I am at present unable to do that with the present CF-18 fleet. There aren’t enough aircraft to deliver those commitments simultaneously,” he said.

Keep in mind that this is the same government who has delayed military purchases because they want do a defense review first. So, they're being rather 2 faced about this.

 

Either the defense review is important, in which case a change to commitment levels should wait until after the review, or the review is not important, in which case they should proceed with needed military purchases (including a proper competition for fighter jet replacements).

 

[segnosaur]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Great, so let's define the requirements and have a competition based on the complete merits of all options. That is all I have been asking for for years, but the answer has always been - but fifth generation. 

Shouldn't you be complaining to the liberal government then? After all, they're the ones who seem to be wanting to avoid a competition by sole-sourcing the F18.

And by the way, we've been defining the requirements here in the thread for years... Cost, range, operational functionality. Its also been discussed in the media and among military experts. It is possible for a plane to have so many overwhelming advantages that a competition becomes a waste of time and money.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, segnosaur said:

Shouldn't you be complaining to the liberal government then?

Yes, the Liberal government is far from clean on this one. The bigger problem however is the wasted decade when no progress was made. I give the Liberals 10% of the fault, based on time in office wasted.

We need a competition to validate the claims and understand what the relative benefits are. Suggesting that a competition is wasteful just leads to the same back-door corruption we have been trying to eliminate reduce.