The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[CBH99]

I have to ask guys, as someone who has been watching this thread for quite a while.

Why is it whenever JMT says anything, people jump down his throat?  And whenever he tries to state that his comments are simply trying to contribute to the discussion, do people continue to insult him by suggesting that his comments aren't contributing, or welcome, or useful?

We all make comments in threads that temporarily derail conversations.  We all have discussions on here in which various posters have varying levels of expertise.  Some people on this board have a huge amount of experience & expertise in the LRPA community, fighter community, infantry, armour, frigates, etc etc. 

We all contribute our opinions or ideas, and sometimes those opinions & ideas are different from each others.  Sometimes we have disagreements on what direction the government should take, or what decisions it should make in the future, or what our force structure should look like in the future, etc etc.

It's a discussion board.  That's supposed to happen.  What isn't supposed to happen is the near instantaneous bullying of a contributor just for posting thoughts or ideas that are perhaps different than some others.

If it is intended well or a constructive part of the conversation (JMT wasn't party to the Super Hornet decision being made) - even if it is something disagreed on, can we lay off the heavy handed responses?    :2c:

 

[Good2Golf]

I have to ask guys, as someone who has been watching this thread for quite a while.

Why is it whenever JMT says anything, people jump down his throat?  And whenever he tries to state that his comments are simply trying to contribute to the discussion, do people continue to insult him by suggesting that his comments aren't contributing, or welcome, or useful?

We all make comments in threads that temporarily derail conversations.  We all have discussions on here in which various posters have varying levels of expertise.  Some people on this board have a huge amount of experience & expertise in the LRPA community, fighter community, infantry, armour, frigates, etc etc. 

We all contribute our opinions or ideas, and sometimes those opinions & ideas are different from each others.  Sometimes we have disagreements on what direction the government should take, or what decisions it should make in the future, or what our force structure should look like in the future, etc etc.

It's a discussion board.  That's supposed to happen.  What isn't supposed to happen is the near instantaneous bullying of a contributor just for posting thoughts or ideas that are perhaps different than some others.

If it is intended well or a constructive part of the conversation (JMT wasn't party to the Super Hornet decision being made) - even if it is something disagreed on, can we lay off the heavy handed responses?    :2c:

When people do have things to add, significant things to add either from operational or technical or programatic experience, they often (usually) get the "you're just one more un-verified dude on the internet and I can have my own opinion" from jmt.  That and the numerous unsubstantiated deliberate excursions (not just thread drift) based on nothing more than personal opinion, followed by tucking behind the 'I was just adding this simple, irrefutable statement' inject to reinforce the 'that's all I'm saying, and you're all ganging up on me' theme.

The day that jmt provides even a moderately considered (and researched, if not able to comment through operational/technical/procedural experience) input, fine...he'll probably get a modicum of respect.  But it's the woe-is-me M.O. that irritates many.  Ever notice that when there is solid information put out there, jmt conveniently moves on without referencing it and pick up some other piece of fly poop from the pepper later in the thread, CBH?  There are a few of them on here that given a level of desire that I don't have at the moment, I'd identify for you, maybe some time in the future.

There are always a few "what about this [partially or completely irrelevant] piece of information?" types out there, that do not positively add to the discourse.  If jmt had a general record of positive contribution on such issues, he'd probably get a bit of slack for the unconstructive excursions...but...

My own :2c: ...

G2G

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm a reader on this thread for the most part;  fighters aren't my area of knowledge and/or experience.  But G2G summed it up nicely.

There have been posts from many Air Ops types here, but the constant thing I seem to notice is JMT disregarding those comments (we've even had SME input from SSM as a fighter type) and periodic stuff like the "inferiority complex" stuff.

Hence the 'civie twat' comment.  That's my honest overall take on his contribution to the thread at this point.  It seems to me the main goal is to be dismissive of credible posts from folks trying to provide the meaningful input he says he's looking for and/or take a stance that is argumentative.

 

[Zoomie]

Let's move on and get back to talking about the most important RCAF weapons platform purchase this decade - FWSAR.

 

[dapaterson]

Let's move on and get back to talking about the most important only RCAF weapons platform purchase this decade - FWSAR.

FTFY

 

[Journeyman]

...only RCAF weapons platform purchase this decade - FWSAR.

I don't think that Lawn Darts SAR Techs are considered weapons systems -- 'offensive,' possibly, but not really offensive weapons. 

 

[dapaterson]

I don't think that Lawn Darts SAR Techs are considered weapons systems -- 'offensive,' possibly, but not really offensive weapons. 

The RCAF calls every aircraft a weapons system.  Even the Tutors, where the most offensive thing you can find is the pilots' egos.

 

[suffolkowner]

These pods on canted pylons won't affect range and endurance at all... :

Yes, the olane would need to be re-engineered..

so are there going to be a stealth pods on the wings or just a center line pod or none at all

 

[RCPalmer]

Just a suggestion to JMT....

There are guys on here who have real-life experience with systems that we only read about.

Based on my experience as a civvie on this forum for what I think is close to 10 years, those guys are totally open to provide their insights (where not breaking OPSEC) if you phrase your inquiry in the form of a question as opposed to stating an opinion as fact, when you don't really have the facts. 

Your call.....

The key thing to keep in mind here is that no one is going to "have the facts" or the "ground truth" until these aircraft are engaged on a two way range against a foe in possession of a modern air force and/or AD capability.  Simulation, testing, and exercises will help us to iterate towards the truth, but we must recognize the limitations and potential biases of those methods.

There are clearly some very smart people on the thread with intimate knowledge of air operations, and that real life experience is a critical component of the discussion.  However, that experience and knowledge comes with its own inherent biases which are inevitable as a result of being close to any issue and the prevailing institutional narrative.  I would hope that this same experience and knowledge would lead those well-informed individuals to recognize the level of complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity associated with this issue (primarily due to our limited knowledge of current and future adversary capabilities), and respect alternative views. 

All too often in this thread (and many others here), I have seen the discussion slide into a comparison of the referent power of the posters.  Again, referent power (aka knowledge and experience) is an important part of the dialog, particularly when those individuals are able to offer observable "facts", but it is by no means the whole story.  In a discussion topic such as this, whenever possible the arguments should stand on their own merit.

There is a great deal of information available through open sources on this topic, so there is no reason a layperson could not produce an intelligent argument.  The layperson also has the advantage of not being subject to the same institutionalization that the experts have, which opens the door to fresh ideas. 

If a layperson can produce an argument that cannot be refuted by an expert (with their associated advantage in knowledge and experience) without that expert retreating into their referent power, that is probably a sign of trouble. 

While I don't agree with a lot of what JMT has said, he has generally provided references to support his positions, and in my opinion, has defended himself (relatively) amicably in spite of the considerable hostility he has experienced here.  I would offer that JMT might be the subject of the kind of "dog pile" I have often seen on this site when someone enthusiastically champions a position that differs from the prevailing view.  This dynamic has certainly kept me on the sidelines over the years, and I would imagine has scared a lot of good people away. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Then perhaps a reference that jmt can sink his teeth into...the very basis of stealth technology by the Soviet Academician Dr. Pytr Ufimtsev: "Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction."  Many of us who have studied RF reflective energy at the undergraduate, and certainly the graduate level familiarized ourselves not only with Maxwell's Equations, but the underlying theory of edge wave diffraction that Dr. Ufimtsev championed (and luckily for us was essentially ignored by his Soviet masters, but fortunately not by Kelly Johnson and his team).  All of the sub-sets of reflective/diffractive surfaces that Ufimtsev studied are what form the blended shape(s) that figure prominently in stealthy technology.  There is a lot more to stealth than "hey look, there's a cool shaped weapons container we can add to the Super Hornet..."

"Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction, P.Y. Ufimtsev (1962, trans. USAF 1971)."

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[RCPalmer]

Then perhaps a reference that jmt can sink his teeth into...the very basis of stealth technology by the Soviet Academician Dr. Pytr Ufimtsev: "Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction."  Many of us who have studied RF reflective energy at the undergraduate, and certainly the graduate level familiarized ourselves not only with Maxwell's Equations, but the underlying theory of edge wave diffraction that Dr. Ufimtsev championed (and luckily for us was essentially ignored by his Soviet masters, but fortunately not by Kelly Johnson and his team).  All of the sub-sets of reflective/diffractive surfaces that Ufimtsev studied are what form the blended shape(s) that figure prominently in stealthy technology.  There is a lot more to stealth than "hey look, there's a cool shaped weapons container we can add to the Super Hornet..."

"Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction, P.Y. Ufimtsev (1962, trans. USAF 1971)."

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Ok, so what is your objective here? I don't think anyone on this thread (including JMT) is saying that an Improved Super Hornet could achieve comparable stealth to the F-35 from a radar signature perspective. However, if you are trying to patronize someone (who you presumably disagree with) until they throw up their hands and go away, you seem to be on track.  My question is "Why"?  I really don't understand the hostility.

 

[vonGarvin]

As a subscriber who has on more than one occasion been a total dolt on these fora, may I suggest that we get back on topic and talk CF-188 and its replacement?  Now to get back on topic, please remember that we would have to use said replacement not so much against these guys:

But these guys:

Thanks

 

[HB_Pencil]

Ok, so what is your objective here? I don't think anyone on this thread (including JMT) is saying that an Improved Super Hornet could achieve comparable stealth to the F-35 from a radar signature perspective. However, if you are trying to patronize someone (who you presumably disagree with) until they throw up their hands and go away, you seem to be on track.  My question is "Why"?  I really don't understand the hostility.

Oh, I can tell you why the hostility is occurring. On several occasions I've explained a why he's incorrect on a point or position, and his near constant response when he's cornered is to say "oh but you've misunderstood what I said" when clearly he was intimating a specific point. Then he has the gall to say "oh but I've referenced everything" when in a number of cases myself and others have explained why its incorrect by applying our unique knowledge sets. His response in those cases, despite the rash of evidence in front of him is to say "oh well I'll trust the article by the reporter, or the government press release."

I'm all for free flowing discourse, but JMT isn't about that. Its about him ignoring all evidence to push his views.

 

[suffolkowner]

RC:

I do understand the hostility.  It relates to tone.  That seems to be a work in progress.

I don't. Tone must be a one way street. I get that sometimes it seems that jmt reaches a little too far in order to justify a Liberal position, but surely people can get over that. I don't think anyone interested in the Canadian Armed Forces is entirely comfortable with the this interim Super Hornet purchase idea or the justification for it put forth so far. Unfortunately that is part and parcel with the secrecy with which all things Canadian Forces is done

 

[RCPalmer]

Oh, I can tell you why the hostility is occurring. On several occasions I've explained a why he's incorrect on a point or position, and his near constant response when he's cornered is to say "oh but you've misunderstood what I said" when clearly he was intimating a specific point. Then he has the gall to say "oh but I've referenced everything" when in a number of cases myself and others have explained why its incorrect by applying our unique knowledge sets. His response in those cases, despite the rash of evidence in front of him is to say "oh well I'll trust the article by the reporter, or the government press release."

I'm all for free flowing discourse, but JMT isn't about that. Its about him ignoring all evidence to push his views.

Fair enough.  Admittedly I haven't read every post in detail, but I had been following the thread and it didn't seem that bad. If a person isn't able to concede a point in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, I could see how that would be annoying. I also agree that tone is an issue in this case.

To return to the scheduled programming, is there anyone in the Air Ops community willing to play devil's advocate on the F-35?  What are the risks we (and I include the USAF, USN and our allies in the broader "we") need to mitigate if go down/stay on that path? 

 

[SupersonicMax]

Your word is not better evidence than published sources, and never will be.  That's simply the way it is.

Nope.  That's not the way it is.  Because it is publishes does not make it absolute or true.  I speak from personnal (first hand) experience in the Fighter community for the last 8 years, involving some F-35 tactics development, some Super Hornet flying with the USN (albeit in a fairly limited fashion but more importantly interracting and befriending with those that flew them into combat) and a developmental test pilot qualification.

I would say that in a lot of cases, this has more weight than a published article by some outsider or observer.

 

[Good2Golf]

So a Michael Byers publishes a paper on fighter strategy and capability and he's to be believed, and Max isn't, JMT (and others of the same view)? 

While a number of us with operational, technical and academic (applied) experience have traded paint in the past over specifics, it is still from a position of relative mutual respect and appreciation, understanding where each is coming from.  That is not something that I will ever be able to say of jmt, so based on his past performance here, as well as his having nothing really to add other than hyperlinking to other material that in many cases, is merely published opinion, he will never have my personal respect on these types of issues.  Max has flown the Super Hornet in person.  I've worked EW for decades, have actually programmed on earlier Hornet variants, and during service pre-retirement briefed up to and including DM on the fighter portfolio.  Frankly, I really couldn't care any less that jmt's feelings are hurt, or that to some, worse yet, he doesn't take my word or anyone else's who "hasn't published" for what it is.  My feelings are by no means the least hurt by his dismissiveness while he takes egregious offence to others refusal to pay heed to his willy nilly postings.

This will always be a Mexican Standoff for a number of us, with jmt.

Back on point, the principle issue is that now, a serving Government has to many's view compromised the capability path of the RCAF's fighter force with a politically-driven face-saving exercise that I will bet you dollars to donuts will cost more in overall life-ccle costs to run an interim split fleet, that it would be to accept that "new information not available during the time of election campaigning" has made it clear that full acquisition and in-service support costs for the F-35 would in fact be the best value for Canadian taxpayers for the next 40 years.  If I had 5 mins with ex-PM Harper, it would be to admonish him for believing that it was worth kiting the fighter force cheque beyond the next election than owning it and committing the Government to supply the Canadian military with the best and most affordable full-capability fighter force for the foreseeable future, full stop.  Rest assured, F/A-18E interim will cost the Gov't more for less than going straight to F-35 without delay.

:2c: reasonably informed...

Regards
G2G 

 

[jmt18325]

The last government also compromised the fighter fleet capability by kicking the can down the road.  I'm not a fan of this interim buy, but, the slow nature of our procurement system, and the fact that the project has been continuously delayed makes the fact that at least something is happening a defacto positive.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

No, JMT, no.

Buying an "interim" capability in the Super Hornet is in no way a positive development for Canada.

It will consume finite cash and more importantly, personnel resources. It will make it near impossible for any Government post next election to abandon the sunk costs of those 18 aircraft, which will make it a near certainty that the fix will be in for the actual replacement project. I can pretty much bet that we will now be operating a SH fleet out to 2050, and it will cost us a bag load more money for a boatload less capability. And before you trot out the USN again, I remind you the USN is not facing a binary choice of fighters (F35 or SH)- they intend on and can afford to operate both- in a unique carrier based role. Unlike Canada.

I did not start out as an F35 fan. However, once I came to understand even the unclassified characteristics of this aircraft, I recognized that it will change fighter tactics forever. By the mid 2030s we will have, essentially, a fighter force fit only for the air show circuit, if we go down the Boeing road.

 

[jmt18325]

I did not start out as an F35 fan. However, once I came to understand even the unclassified characteristics of this aircraft, I recognized that it will change fighter tactics forever. By the mid 2030s we will have, essentially, a fighter force fit only for the air show circuit, if we go down the Boeing road.

That's needless hyperbole.  Yes, the US Navy will operate more than one fighter post in the ~2030 range, but their most used fighter until 2035 will be the Super Hornet.  Unless they're going to be flying a whole lot of air shows, they probably plan to use those aircraft.