F-35 looking more like white elephant

[Flightman7]

Despite what pierre sprey said, this bird in the A config is rated for 9G's, cant be that bad ! Its sustained turn rate may be another story, very hard to find the flight characteristics so early on.

[trampbike]

So. The F-35 can't turn, which means it can't do air-to-air,
or can't avoid surface to air missles very well, or air-to-air
missles for that matter.

It was tested up to 9.9G, the PW F135 engine exceeded by almost 20% the maximum thrust requirements, giving the F-35 a thrust to weight ratio that is close to 1:1, with a full internal load. The F-35A with full internal load turns as well a an empty F-16. The F-35 also has the best subsonic acceleration. I have a ton of respect for Pierre Spey, but his worries from 2008 are getting less and less worrying.

Is is as maneuverable as a Su-35 or PAK-FA, I doubt it, but we can be very confident it will overperform any legacy fighters.

And it can't do close air support.

It will not do the same kind of close air support as did the A10. It will do it from higher altitude with more precise bombing. Will it totally replace the A10? I personally doubt it, but anyone who thinks that the F35 would provide CAS in the same fashion (low and slow, mostly by visual reference) as the A10 did misses the point.

And the price keeps going up and up, and
the delivery date keeps getting pushed out further.

Norway recently confirmed it was finalizing the contract for around 50 F35 (as planned), and estimated it would pay around the same price as was planned in 2008.

So far, Canada delivery dates, as planned in 2008, still stand (2016-17 for the first modified canadian F35 delivered at the american training bases).



I won't bother posting the references here, since you explicitely told me you thought it was useless debating about the F35, yet you continue to put forward new "arguments" without even trying to defend your previous ones.

[North Shore]

^ So if it's all sunshine and roses for the F35, why does it seem like Fantino took a step away from it the other day? Doesn't seem to make sense, given the Harper Government's rigid control of message. Or are they simply trying to soften L-M up for a price concession? Or could it be that there's growing concern in Ottawa that we might not actually be able to afford it?

What's your sense of that, TB?

[Old Dog Flying]

How's this for an equation: Fantino(ex-cop)+(politician)+lap dog=Honest Answer..when hell freezes over

[Colonel Sanders]

this bird in the A config is rated for 9G's, cant be that bad

Sigh. The ability of an aircraft to turn - and thus out-maneuver
another opponent, and air-to-air missle, or a surface-to-air missile -
is a function of it's wing loading. You could pull +12G's in an F-104
and an F-16 is still going to easily pull inside you.

The F-35 has a high wing loading. It's going to turn like a pig on ice.

The F-35 zealots say that turning isn't important any more. I'm sure
the USAF generals said the same thing about their super-modern F-105's
that were shot down over Vietnam back in the 1960's by ancient MiG-17's,
before the people in the current air force were even born.

Everything is going to be BVR. Uh huh. And the cheque's in the mail,
and I'll respect you in the morning.

It's a crappy, expensive, complicated, single-engine fighter that can't
turn and can't do close air support. And we're going to end up paying
$100M (maybe $200M) for each of these pieces of crap, which means
that we're going to end up with 25, max 30 of these Edsels, to last
us for decades?!

Didn't the F-22 end up costing a third of a BILLION, each?

[frosti]

It's a crappy, expensive, complicated, single-engine fighter that can't
turn and can't do close air support. And we're going to end up paying
$100M (maybe $200M) for each of these pieces of crap, which means
that we're going to end up with 25, max 30 of these Edsels, to last
us for decades?!

Relax old man, you'll live longer.

[Shiny Side Up]

Looks like we better keep some sort of interception capability. At least until this guy gets a little less itchy about flying these things.



In Russia, President bombs you!

[trampbike]

Sigh. The ability of an aircraft to turn - and thus out-maneuver
another opponent, and air-to-air missle, or a surface-to-air missile -
is a function of it's wing loading. You could pull +12G's in an F-104
and an F-16 is still going to easily pull inside you.

Obviously.
It's a good thing then that on a full internal load, an F35A turns as well or better than an empty F16.

The F-35 zealots say that turning isn't important any more. I'm sure
the USAF generals said the same thing about their super-modern F-105's
that were shot down over Vietnam back in the 1960's by ancient MiG-17's,
before the people in the current air force were even born.

Agree with you on that, the over reliance on some new technology in the past had indeed sometimes led us astray.
It has yet to be demonstrated thought that the new tech the F35 brings won't do the job LM expects it to do.

Everything is going to be BVR.

Yeah, that's what LM and many others hope.
Remember thought that the F35 will do (or is supposed to do) as well or better than legacy fighters on every aspect of visual air combat, so it's not necessarily going to be the pig Sprey described.

It's a crappy,

Yet to be demonstrated

expensive,

Yes, but are you able to find a cheaper option that will do the job for the next 40 years?

complicated,

I fail to see your point here. What do you mean by that?

single-engine fighter

Yeah, it has only one of the most powerfull and most reliable turbofan to be ever put on a fighter.

that can't turn

So the F16 is a crappy turning airplane I guess?

and can't do close air support.

True, it won't do CAS in the same fashion as the A10 did. It doesn't mean it can't do any CAS.

And we're going to end up paying $100M (maybe $200M)

I don't understand why Norway recently said they expected to pay about the same thing as what was planned in 2008. They are finalizing the contract.



Harper and his pets are doing a terrible job at explaining the deal to the population and the parliament, and they surely are not transparent on the subject (are they ever transparent on any issue?). See here: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... t-on-f35s/

Also, Fantino's interventions during question periods consist, at best, of poorly constructed rethoric.

That whole thing sure stinks, so I'm sure that if you want to contest the purchase you can find much much better arguments than questionning the performances of the jet.

[Colonel Sanders]

Didn't Japan just agree to buy the F-35 at $120M each? I think even that price is hysterically low. $200M is far more likely for this complicated pig.

As far as the F-35 being as good as an F-16 - a 35 year old airplane - I'm not sure I drink that Kool-Aid.

A 23 year old, low-time wonder child in an F-35 should feel very nervous about going nose to nose witha grizzled 45 year old in an F-16 who has 3,000 hours on type.

The F-35 is so expensive, no one will ever get that kind of time on it.

Now go ahead and tell me that experience is unimportant, and that gee-whiz technology is always going to wotk.

[MrWings]

My concern is with the stealth capability.

I don't see how the F-35 it is going to be effective if it is going to look like a white elephant.

Unless we are stopping Hannibal in the Alps -then it's perfect!

[trampbike]

Didn't Japan just agree to buy the F-35 at $120M each?

Price per airplane don't mean much if you don't know:
When are the airplanes going to be produced?
What is included in that price? Does it include weapons, spare parts and infrastructure for initial operational capabilities? Does it include sims and other training stuff?

If 120M is the real price and includes all the goodies, it's still much better than the PBO and GAO estimates. If Canada buys later than Japan, it's reasonable to think it might go well below that. Keep in mind that the 9B budget included some "buffer" to cover rising costs.

Now go ahead and tell me that experience is unimportant, and that gee-whiz technology is always going to wotk.

You really expect me to say such things, or you're just trolling?
I'm pretty sure experienced and talented pilots like Bob Hoover or . Yeager could have jumped in a P38 of P51 and hosed a couple of inexperienced Sabre pilots.

[Flightman7]

You really expect me to say such things, or you're just trolling?
I'm pretty sure experienced and talented pilots like Bob Hoover or . Yeager could have jumped in a P38 of P51 and hosed a couple of inexperienced Sabre pilots.

"White Force [exercise control] staff would confirm that the threat was Red and Blue Air [the “good guys”] had to react. The tactic worked. An F-16C pilot assigned to the 64th Aggressor Squadron gained the first-ever F-22 kill in Red Flag. [94th commander] Lt. Col. Dirk Smith told AFM: “At least half of the 94th FS crews had less than 50 hours in the F-22 and no matter how magical the F-22, any pilot can make a mistake. The beauty of Red Flag is that we were able to go out and practice our tactics in a challenging scenario, make a mistake, learn a lesson, and be that much better prepared for actual combat. "

The pilots time actually flying there fighter is a huge aspect as prey said, and the f-35 is just too high maintenance with all the low observable coating and so on. The pilots just wont have the experience needed to perform. Canada is quite possibly doomed to more time fixing then flying. Better keep the all pebals clear of the runway, wouldnt want to chip that expensive paint job--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xViVk7Mj9Hs

[trampbike]

You do realise I was actually agreeing with Hedley about the experience thing?

The pilots just wont have the experience needed to perform.

And your source to support such a claim is?

[Flightman7]

Im aware, im providing further proof this is the case.

And your source to support such a claim is?

Im not saying its for sure, but I gave a link about how they do all this complex low observable paint job and im just seeing the problems they had with the F-22 all over again. the raptor spends a sigfigantly larger time on the ground being repaired then in the air. For this reason, the pilots get little seat time and therefore cant perform. Im seeing the same trend. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xViVk7Mj9Hs

[reality check]

Everyone seems intent on debating the merits of something we just don't need imho, whether you like the damn thing or not.


Is The F-35 Strike Fighter The Military Chevy Volt?

Defense: Pilots who arrived a year ago to train on the fighter of the future are still waiting as safety concerns, cost overruns and questions about the whole program's feasibility mount.

The F-35 is meant to be America's next-generation fighter, the heir to the Air Force's F-15 Eagle and the Navy's and Marines' F/A-18 Hornet. Those two aircraft have fulfilled their air superiority and ground-attack roles well, yet many are well beyond their expected life expectancy.

The F-35 would fill America's defense needs in an age of budget constraints, we were told. So far it has not been a smooth takeoff.

About 35 of the best fighter pilots from the Air Force, Marines and Navy who arrived in the Florida Panhandle last year to learn to fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are still waiting. They've been limited to occasionally taxying them and firing up the engines.

Otherwise, their training is limited to three F-35 flight simulators, classroom work and flights in older-model jets. Only a handful of pilots get to fly the F-35s.

Concerns have arisen, ranging from improperly installed parachutes under the pilots' ejector seats to whether the aircraft have been adequately tested.

Production has been slow and delayed, and the cost has risen from $233 billion to $385 billion. Only 43 F-35s have been built, and an additional 2,443 have been ordered by the Pentagon.

Part of the problem is that the F-35 is a one-size-fits-all aircraft designed to fit roles from taking off a carrier's deck to hovering and landing in a confined space on a foreign battlefield. It's meant to be a ground-attack and air-superiority fighter. The question is whether it can adequately be both.

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
As we learned in past conflicts, relying on one-size-fits-all aircraft can be perilous. Our reliance on the carrier-based F-4 Phantom during Vietnam is a case in point. An aircraft designed to hunt down Soviet bombers during the Cold War, it carried missiles but no guns and was ill-suited for dogfights against MiG fighters designed for a single role — that of air superiority.

That was the role originally designated for the F-22 Raptor, a stealth fighter designed to simply sweep the skies of enemy jets and let other aircraft do their thing. Production was stopped at only 187 planes, with the excuse given that we couldn't afford multiple aircraft for different roles. So the F-35 was designated as our flying jack-of-all-trades.

[azimuthaviation]

Why is Canada looking for an aircraft with such tight maneuverability? A Canadian pilot hasnt been in a dogfight in 60 years, why is the need suddenly so urgent?

[Flightman7]

Because were paying the money for a 5th gen fighter, it better be the whole package. Also because nobody knows what the future will hold.

[ch135146]

A 23 year old, low-time wonder child in an F-35 should feel very nervous about going nose to nose witha grizzled 45 year old in an F-16 who has 3,000 hours on type.

My rulebook states that, "an individual must have passed their 50th birthday to be considered grizzled. No exceptions."

[Mach1]

For those of you complaining about the cost of buying new, why not discuss the cost of buying old.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybre ... 47609.html

Sometimes a bargain is not a deal.

[Colonel Sanders]

Weeks before the auditor general is expected to release a scathing report on Canada's plans to purchase F-35 fighter jets, the United States Government Accountability Office issued a damning report of its own on the project Tuesday.

The report raises red flags about the "unprecedented" costs of the program, serious technical hang-ups like a faulty helmet displays and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's poor overall performance in tests.

"The long-stated intent that the Joint Strike Fighter would deliver an affordable, highly common fifth-generation aircraft that could be acquired in large numbers could be in question," said Michael Sullivan, the Government Accountability Office's director of acquisition management, according to Bloomberg News.

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s first 63 F-35 fighter jets have exceeded their combined target cost by $1 billion, the GAO testified at an American House Armed Services Committee hearing on tactical aviation Tuesday.

The GAO places the per-unit cost of the F-35 at between $137 and $162 million, far more than the $75 million price tag long held up by Canada's Conservative government.

The F-35 project is in running into severe problems because it is trying to design, build and test at the same time, the report says.

"Much of the instability in the JSF program has been and continues to be the result of highly concurrent development, testing, and production activities," the report says. "The program has not yet demonstrated a stable design and manufacturing processes capable of efficient production."

One example of the myriad problems facing the plane involves the helmet-mounted display, a high-tech system that projects flight and weapons data onto the pilot's visor. Software problems have put the helmet on the back burner as a less capable alternate helmet is developed, adding $80 million in project costs.

Such changes require modifications to the overall design, the report says, resulting in higher overall costs and further production delays.

Another issue is that the F-35's technological bells and whistles require 24 million lines of computer code to operate. This is six times more code than is found in an F-18 Super Hornet, and electronic coding issues have affected both the cost and timelines of the project.

Frank Kendall, the Defense Department's acting undersecretary for acquisition, said the plane's developer needs to prove its product isn't a lemon.

"It is important that Lockheed Martin demonstrate performance and help us establish confidence that the F-35 is a stable and capable platform," Kendall told the committee, according to Bloomberg News.

The F-35 program achieved only six of its 11 primary objectives in 2011, the report says, adding that to date "only four per cent of the mission system requirements for full capability has been verified."

Full-rate production has been delayed five years, and testing of a fully integrated F-35 aircraft is now expected in 2015 at the earliest.

NDP defence procurement critic Matthew Kellway said the report is a strong indictment of the project.

"I can't see the auditor general coming out with a report that's at all inconsistent," he said.

Kellway said the fundamental problem with the F-35 program is that Lockheed Martin is trying to sell something that doesn't yet exist, and that they are "wildly over-optimistic" about their ability to refine new technologies in time for production.

"As time goes on they'll be getting fewer and fewer planes for the $9 billion (the government) said they were willing to spend," he said.

A spokesperson for Associate Minister of Defence Julian Fantino would not offer comment on the GAO report.

"Our plan is to continue in the program, but we have not signed a contract for a purchase, which retains flexibility to remain within our budget," wrote Terence Scheltema in an email.

The experts here claim that the complexity of the F-35 is not a problem:

the F-35's technological bells and whistles require 24 million lines of computer code to operate. This is six times more code than is found in an F-18 Super Hornet, and electronic coding issues have affected both the cost and timelines of the project.

One can't help but wonder if the experts here have ever spent years developing large, complicated software systems.

[azimuthaviation]

Quote:

the F-35's technological bells and whistles require 24 million lines of computer code to operate. This is six times more code than is found in an F-18 Super Hornet, and electronic coding issues have affected both the cost and timelines of the project.

Thats less than what you would find in a Ford Focus.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/adv ... ns-on-code

The avionics system in the F-22 Raptor, the current U.S. Air Force frontline jet fighter, consists of about 1.7 million lines of software code. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, scheduled to become operational in 2010, will require about 5.7 million lines of code to operate its onboard systems. And Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner, scheduled to be delivered to customers in 2010, requires about 6.5 million lines of software code to operate its avionics and onboard support systems.

Even low-end cars now have 30 to 50 ECUs embedded in the body, doors, dash, roof, trunk, seats, and just about anywhere else the car’s designers can think to put them. That means that most new cars are executing tens of million of lines of software code, controlling everything from your brakes to the volume of your radio

Note the operational and delivery dates given for the F-35 and 787. This artice is a few years old...

[MrWings]

Question:

In the JSF competition betwen Lockheed Martin and Boeing, wasn't cost per unit considered?

Or was it won strictly on operational performance?

[Colonel Sanders]

what you would find in a Ford Focus

Maybe the Canadian military should buy them as front-line
fighters instead of the F-35?

[azimuthaviation]

what you would find in a Ford Focus

Maybe the Canadian military should buy them as front-line
fighters instead of the F-35?

They would have outperformed the Iltis so why not?

[126.7_STFU]

^ So if it's all sunshine and roses for the F35, why does it seem like Fantino took a step away from it the other day? Doesn't seem to make sense, given the Harper Government's rigid control of message. Or are they simply trying to soften L-M up for a price concession? Or could it be that there's growing concern in Ottawa that we might not actually be able to afford it?

What's your sense of that, TB?

Simple, this is not a developed fighter jet; not something which can be picked up at your local Ikea. I found it funny that recently in the CBC among many other Canadian news sources , (who happen to have a hate on for anything conservative), that they are now complaining because the Harper government announced we may not purchase this fighter at ridiculous unaffordable price. I fail to see why this is a problem. If we can't afford it, then fine. It was not the conservatives who got us involved with this in the first place. We lose money the Liberals invested, and we purchase some rhinos....the likely event. I then guarantee you we will see Mr. Rae bitching at how the Harper Government is failing to arm Canadians with the best equipment for the job. This was never a flip flopping issue. If the prices sky rocket to amounts which are absolutely ridiculous, we do not buy the airplane. Anything anti-conservative born from that is purely political.