• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharpey
  • Start date Start date
Jarnhamar said:
The Liberals already promised that and look at what happened. As much as I can think of 1000 other things we could spend our money on in the CF we're going to end up buying the F35s.

Mean while you'll be deploying in this war wagon.

lsvw_l6.jpg
I doubt we are getting the F35. When the prime minister stands up in the house and blasts it you can tell he probably won't buy it based on spite at this point. Not saying that's the best way to go about fighter procurement so please resist the urge to engage me on that point.

As for deploying in a LS, I wouldn't care if I deployed on bicycle at this point. Roller blades. Unicycle even.
 
Atlair,

I don't think you understand what most of us is arguing.  We are arguing what Canada should get for the fighter replacement, not what it will get.
 
SupersonicMax said:
Atlair,

I don't think you understand what most of us is arguing.  We are arguing what Canada should get for the fighter replacement, not what it will get.
I'm aware. I tried doing that as well. I won't make that mistake ever again.
 
The problem is that, past glossy brochures from the manufacturer, you have been unable to substantiate your opinion through critical thinking and/or experience.  Of course people will see through that and call you on that...
 
SupersonicMax said:
The problem is that, past glossy brochures from the manufacturer, you have been unable to substantiate your opinion through critical thinking and/or experience.  Of course people will see through that and call you on that...
Fair enough.

Off to join the Brazilian  air force, be back when I have enough experience.

Nah, I'll just not post here.
 
Max:

100909-Sleeping_dogs.jpg


In the name of all that is good and holy......
 
F-35s had to turn on their transponders so the SAM sites in a recent exercise could locate the F-35. ;D

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

The F-35 has hit yet another snag. During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, US Air Force F-35A pilots set out to practice evading surface-to-air missiles, but they could not, because the SAM radars on the ground could not even find the ultra-stealthy planes.

"If they never saw us, they couldn't target us," said Lt. Col. George Watkins, commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, told the Air Force Times.
 
In the event of an open competition....I don't think I can complete my thought as I'm laughing at that opening too hard...lol

It'd be nice to see how a Strike Eagle variant would stand against the F-35A.  I know it'd lose, but it'd be an interesting competition none the less given the Strike Eagles advanced sensor arrays, lengthy service expectancy, and commonality with existing weapons systems such as the JHMCS used on the current Hornet.

Again, I realise that it's not the F-35A and never will be; but if the Liberal government is talking about an interim fleet until something else is purchased, a Strike Eagle variant could fit the bill.
 
If people think the F-35 is expensive, wait until you see how the advanced versions of the Strike Eagle would put us back!  But if we go 4th Gen, this is the aircraft we should get. 
 
SupersonicMax said:
If people think the F-35 is expensive, wait until you see how the advanced versions of the Strike Eagle would put us back! 

Talking about the Slam Eagle that ROK purchased a few years ago?
 
jmt18325 said:
I find echo chambers to be a pretty dangerous place.  This website has that problem on a few fronts if people like you stay quiet.

I'm going to be blunt. The problem isnt that this is an echo chamber.... that would be such a trivial thing if it was. Rather the problem is that the viewpoints expressed by several members here, are not more widely known in the public. the problem is that we have an electorate that frankly do not have the slightest understanding of this issue, and a political class that understands almost as little.

And this is the incisive part. You claim there is another side. I know for a fact that the arguments you put forward here are for the most part wrong. The vast vast vast majority of the reason why we're here today is not because the F-35 is deficient in capability, cost, or industrial benefits. Actually, for not a single one of those categories can any of the other options claim they are better than the F-35. That was known clearly as far back as 2010, and despite every effort to prove otherwise, it remains true today. And that's widely known within the bureaucracy, and now within the government.

Rather the reason why we're here is because on a constant basis we have had two political parties, who despite in possession of the facts of the program, fail to possess political will, or understanding of this issue to actually get things done. You know why the government changed its mind on this interim purchase? Because it had made a decision based on a whole bunch of BS offloaded on them ill informed "defence experts" and Boeing representatives, official and unofficial. Then when the National Post released the story, they were forced to hear actual expert opinion... then they realized just how wrong they were. So they do what every government does when confronted with an unpalatable political decision: kick the can down the road.

As a side note. the Government can't dilute the requirements to make it NORAD only: F-35 wins in that competition hands down. The can't eliminate the F-35 with the twin engine requirement: that would open them up to a CITT Lawsuit the likes of which has never been seen because LM can claim such a requirement is spurious and discriminatory to their capability. Actually, there is almost no way they can run a legitimate competition without the F-35 winning, and that alone means running one opens Canada to a lawsuit.

So what you represent is not some other claim to truth. Rather, you represent to me the pervasive public opinion that the F-35 isn't ready, costs too much, and is a poor aircraft, which if you actually are familiar with the program (and not done a few google searches), are just rubbish. The best I can describe it, its like being for brexit and thinking Britain going to be fine and dandy, despite the overwhelming opinion that told you otherwise.

That's my blunt assessment. Perhaps too blunt. However that's the dynamic that's going on here. All of these facts you're claiming here are just BS. However this government, like the last one lacks the political courage to actually do the right thing.




 
The F-35 isn't ready.  That's realty.  Anything else you said doesn't apply to me, as I haven't said any of those things.
 
jmt18325 said:
The F-35 isn't ready.  That's realty.  Anything else you said doesn't apply to me, as I haven't said any of those things.

Oh come on, now. The CF-18 was at the same level of "isn't ready" when we bought it in 1982. It seemed to work out just fine.

What is your basis for supposing it won't also work out this time, too?  Your extensive experience in aviation procurement? Your aeronautical engineering background? Your years as a fighter pilot?

Or are you just a keyboard warrior that is (just maybe) way out of his/her depth?
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Oh come on, now. The CF-18 was at the same level of "isn't ready" when we bought it in 1982. It seemed to work out just fine.

What is your basis for supposing it won't also work out this time, too?

Point out where I said that we shouldn't buy it.
 
jmt18325 said:
The F-35 isn't ready.  That's realty.

No, that's your view, not an objective assessment of the facts. Right off the bat, You have USAF IOC in less than six months. We couldn't even put together the bureaucratic machinery together to make our order in that time... and the real delivery date would be likely in two years. By the time this government actually makes any decision, its actually likely the F-35 would have already operated over a combat zone. The idea that "its not ready" is specious (as Sea Taco pointed out with the CF-18). In this case you have an aircraft that will be the USAF's and most of our major allies' primary fighter aircraft for the next 30 years: its far beyond too big to fail. At this stage of development the "basic" stuff has long since been ironed out. The stuff that remains is the "cherry on top" like autonomic logistical systems, sensor fusion, and new weapon integrations. These for the most are systems not present in other fighter aircraft.


I'd like to back to something you said earlier. You claimed that the F/A-18E is the "safer bet." No, its not. Its the safer bet to ensure that we're a second tier partner in our critical allied partnerships, because its a major capability deficiency after 2025. Its also less safe to operate in the north because it does not possess an Auto-GCAS system.

Lets look at what does an interim buy of the F/A-18E actually entails. As I've noted earlier, we can't get it any faster than the F-35, we can't establish a training regime faster than the ready made one we have with JSF program at Luke AFB. We would purchase an aircraft that actually costs more than the F-35, has significantly less capability, would be riskier to operate in the long run, yes even in the arctic.

Finally, and most ironically, purchasing F/A-18E/F would create an actual capability gap, not the fictions one created by the Liberal Politicians. It would force us to operate two fleets, with two separate training systems that will mean we have fewer individuals to provide to maintain operations, like we have in the past.

When you broaden out what you consider as "risk" going with the F/A-18E presents a much more massive risk to the RCAF than any minuscule chance that an issue that may crop up between now and the F-35's IOC in six month.
 
HB_Pencil said:
No, that's your view, not an objective assessment of the facts. Right off the bat, You have USAF IOC in less than six months. We couldn't even put together the bureaucratic machinery together to make our order in that time... and the real delivery date would be likely in two years. By the time this government actually makes any decision, its actually likely the F-35 would have already operated over a combat zone. The idea that "its not ready" is specious (as Sea Taco pointed out with the CF-18). In this case you have an aircraft that will be the USAF's and most of our major allies' primary fighter aircraft for the next 30 years: its far beyond too big to fail. At this stage of development the "basic" stuff has long since been ironed out. The stuff that remains is the "cherry on top" like autonomic logistical systems, sensor fusion, and new weapon integrations. These for the most are systems not present in other fighter aircraft.

There are still a lot of problems that need to be worked out.  That's reality.  You keep attempting to pretend that's not reality, but it is.  The IOCs are even specious, given that it hasn't actually reached operational capability.

The F-35 will be an amazing aircraft, and we would do well with it.  Given our needs and what we'll realistically use it for, there are also other options that would serve us well.
 
jmt18325 said:
There are still a lot of problems that need to be worked out.  That's reality.  You keep attempting to pretend that's not reality, but it is.  The IOCs are even specious, given that it hasn't actually reached operational capability.

The F-35 will be an amazing aircraft, and we would do well with it.  Given our needs and what we'll realistically use it for, there are also other options that would serve us well.

:facepalm:

Stop trying, HB.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
:facepalm:

Stop trying, HB.

It's not ready:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/get-ready-islamic-state-the-f-35-ready-battle-syria-or-not-14243

Not much has changed since then.
 
You mean, except for 8 months passing and the USAF declaring a Sqn IOC?

I am still curious, since HB absolutely demolished your love affair with the Super Hornet, which other fighter are you now pushing for Canada and why?
 
Back
Top