F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Journeyman]

I'm sorry but....

On what basis do you know any of this?

Skim through his posts -- there isn't a military field in which he doesn't have an "expert" opinion.  :

One more for the <ignore> list.

 

[GAP]

Awh.....to be 17 again just so I could know it all again.....I miss those days..... :

 

[The Bread Guy]

This, from MERX (try here – screen capture at Google Docs – if the link doesn’t work):

.... (Treasury Board Secretariat) requires the services of a team of resources composed of the Senior Auditor, Project Leader/Manager or Partner/Managing Director categories to Review of the Department of National Defence (DND) acquisition and sustainment project assumptions with respect to the estimated costs for next generation fighter jet ....

And who’s been invited to send in a bid?  From the MERX posting:

• 175213 Canada Inc.
• Altis Human Resources (Ottawa) Inc.
• BDO Dunwoody LLP
• BMCI Consulting Inc.
• Collins Barrow Ottawa LLP
• Deloitte & Touche LLP
• Ernst & Young LLP
• IBM Canada Ltd.
• Interis Consulting Inc.
• KPMG LLP
• Meyers Norris Penny
• Murray Management Consulting Inc.
• Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP
• QMR Staffing Solutions Incorporated
• Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton
• Spearhead Management Canada Ltd.

Deadlines (at this point):

• Send your bids in by July 16
• Be ready to brief government officials no later than October 10
• Have a report ready for Parliament by October 24

More in the Statement of Work (7 page extract from the bid package) here, and in the amendments/clarifications to date (10 pages) here.

 

[HeavyHooker]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/admiral-leery-of-stealth-fighters-162177205.html

US Admiral (CNO) balking at "stealth technology"???  Aaaaaaaaand discuss!

 

[dapaterson]

The Navy has done this in the past - look at the F111 history.  Played nicely until nearly the end, then essentially pulled out of a joint aircraft program.

See: http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-68363.aspx for an excerpt fro mthe article; unfortunately, the original website of the article is down (cdi.org)

 

[PuckChaser]

Same old logic: We don't need stealth, we can get drones. We don't need guns on aircraft, we have missiles.

 

[observor 69]

Same old logic: We don't need stealth, we can get drones. We don't need guns on aircraft, we have missiles.

I took it more as compromises in a/c performance for stealthy can't be justified.

 

[aesop081]

"Stealth" often comes as a trade-off.

Is the loss in some areas worth the gain ? That is what is being asked.

Low-observable technologies depend on a precarious set of circumstances to function and have the advantage. If that was to be suddenly negated by technological developments in the world of IADS, you are left with a less capable aircraft that is no longer "undetectable".

The F-35 is planed to have some impressive technology that will give it capabilities that are a leap forward, even if "stealth" were to cease to be an advantage. "Stealth" will eventually be defeated, of this i have no doubt, and that day is not that far off.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Same old logic: We don't need stealth, we can get drones. We don't need guns on aircraft, we have missiles.

or even better a mass of unguided rockets.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Same old logic: We don't need stealth, we can get drones. We don't need guns on aircraft, we have missiles.

So you want chariots and rowing galleys back?

 

[PuckChaser]

So you want chariots and rowing galleys back?

Whatever works. But in the 60s the prevailing mentality was that missiles was the new technology and we didn't need guns on aircraft. That didn't work too well against maneuverable aircraft and countermeasures systems.

 

[aesop081]

Whatever works. But in the 60s the prevailing mentality was that missiles was the new technology and we didn't need guns on aircraft. That didn't work too well against maneuverable aircraft and countermeasures systems.

A bit of an over-simplification. There were serious maturity issues with the A-A missiles in use in the 1960s. Furthermore, some missiles had not been designed for "dogfighting", thus did not generate good results in that domain. The same cannot be said today.

 

[SupersonicMax]

A bit of an over-simplification. There were serious maturity issues with the A-A missiles in use in the 1960s. Furthermore, some missiles had not been designed for "dogfighting", thus did not generate good results in that domain. The same cannot be said today.

The gun is still the most discriminate, most precise weapon of all...  The way I fight BFM is taking any shot opportunity I have, while moving into a Gun WEZ.

 

[OldSolduer]

The gun is still the most discriminate, most precise weapon of all...  The way I fight BFM is taking any shot opportunity I have, while moving into a Gun WEZ.

Max, infantreee here.....small words please, and what is a BFM and a Gun WEZ?

 

[aesop081]

Max will correct me if i am wrong :

BFM = Basic Fighter Manoeuvres

WEZ = Weapon Engagement Zone

 

[cupper]

Max, infantreee here.....small words please, and what is a BFM and a Gun WEZ?

Big Freaking Machine?

Weapon Eating Zombies?

 

[SupersonicMax]

BFM = 1v1, or Dogfighting

 

[WingsofFury]

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter cockpit demonstrator hands-on (video)

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The gun is still the most discriminate, most precise weapon of all

At thousands of rounds per minute and hundreds of kilometers per hour? You must be a good shot.

 

[observor 69]

At long range you try a radar missile shot, closer in go to an Infrared missile and when too close for a missile to successfully acquire and fire you have to go to gun.
At least that is my understanding.