The F-35 is not dead

[frosti]

This thread is hilarious. Bunch of Wikipedia warriors.

You buy Super Hornets. They will be relevant until drones wipe fighters off the face of the earth. Canada already has TONS of jobs related to CF-18 support and training programs.

Pot, meet kettle. Until drones can intercept threats and dogfight and take down other drones/fighters, there will always be a need for manned fighters. You are talking 40-50 years if we're lucky. But hey, lets buy that Super hornet abortion on the premise that drones will be ready by then, great thinking.

[davecessna]

This thread is hilarious. Bunch of Wikipedia warriors.

You buy Super Hornets. They will be relevant until drones wipe fighters off the face of the earth. Canada already has TONS of jobs related to CF-18 support and training programs.

Pot, meet kettle. Until drones can intercept threats and dogfight and take down other drones/fighters, there will always be a need for manned fighters. You are talking 40-50 years if we're lucky. But hey, lets buy that Super hornet abortion on the premise that drones will be ready by then, great thinking.

Drones can intercept threats, both ground and air. The company I work for literally has an entire training center dedicated to UAV's. Also, Boeing recently showed that remote controlled F-16's could perform combat maneuvers. Go buy yourself a control theory book. 40-50 years still seem reasonable to you? Are you a fighter pilot yourself? I'd be pretty pissed too if I knew I was destined to become obsolete (my kind are becoming obsolete actually, another discussion). For the record, I think it's incredibly sad that fighter pilots are the next in line on the chopping block in this digital age.

Super hornet abortion? There's a lot of bias in there, I'm trying my very best to be objective. Canada's only real foreseeable threat is Russia in the Arctic passage. There are other threats abroad. Now using your 40-50 year timeline usefully , assuming the conflict will involve the fossil fuels up there more so than the shipping lanes, I suggest it would be wiser to save what little money we have and throw it all into R&D for alternative fuel. It's an old horse argument, but seeing as many of you are old horses, here's to you.

[trampbike]

Dear "wikipedia warrior", I think you have some googling to do:

-Manned fighters still have a long way to go. Hint: EW and countermeasures.

[Pop n Fresh]

Dear "wikipedia warrior", I think you have some googling to do:

-Manned fighters still have a long way to go. Hint: EW and countermeasures.

"I can't control the drone. It's like someone's jamming the signal."?

[azimuthaviation]

I wasn't sure we really needed a full-time military, sounds ignorant I know but it was how I felt.

Now with the recent developments in Ukraine/Crimea and Russia just walking in with zero resistance I am changing my stance...

Ukraine has an army, a very large one. The fact that they are not resisting has nothing to do with lack of capabilities and more to do with lack of political will. Given what they have, they could muster up enough forces to put up a viable resistance. Heck the Chechens did with only a fraction of what Ukraine has, sent the Russians back home in defeat where they spent two years regrouping before they took back Chechnya. Total cost was 100 000 Russian soldiers dead or wounded.

People are saying that the events in Ukraine are perfect examples of why Canada needs the F35 in particular, or a stronger military in general. I see it as a perfect example of why we should do the opposite.

Because we are part of military alliances and that's what the government decided.

2003, John McCain was touting the Iraq war as the best thing since sliced bread, couldnt quite understand why he wasnt convincing many people. He went to Baghdad himself, like a one man side show, touting the new Iraq, all the possibilities, looking for allies. Not too many came, very few from NATO in particular. But Yanukovych came. Sent his army out there, under the command of the MNF as McCain had asked. Spent billions, gave dozens of Ukrainian wounded and martyrs, (yes these lions in Iraq are the lambs you see in Crimea today) took a lot of political flak back home and was voted out by a candidate who made exiting from Iraq the centre of his campaign. Last month McCain was in Kiev, pushing the people to overthrow him after he was reelected in the following election. One of the only men who stood by him in Iraq is now at his doorstep standing against him. Are these the military alliances you are speaking about? These are the allies, who wont hesitate to throw us under the bus when it benefits their policies of the day? Thats where you want to send my tax dollars? Your childrens tax dollars?

[frosti]

South Korea just bought 40, along with 4 Global hawk drones to keep track of the North.

http://www.chinadailyasia.com/news/2014 ... 26685.html

SEOUL - The Repuclic of Korea (ROK) expects to pay around 7.34 trillion won ($6.79 billion) for 40 Lockheed Martin jets, two sources with knowledge of the matter said on Monday, as Seoul boosts its air defences amid simmering tensions in the region.
ROK also confirmed plans to buy four Northrop Grumman Global Hawk unmanned aircraft to monitor the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The drones will cost about 880 billion won and will be delivered starting 2018, one of the sources said.

"Lockheed Martin agrees ... that the cost of the F-35 is on a downward path that will lead to a Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost for an F-35A of between $80-85 million," said Randy Howard, Director of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Korea Business Development in an emailed statement last week.

Cheaper and way more capable than that super hornet/international hornet/advanced hornet disaster.

[Tom H]

South Korea just bought 40, along with 4 Global hawk drones to keep track of the North.

http://www.chinadailyasia.com/news/2014 ... 26685.html

SEOUL - The Repuclic of Korea (ROK) expects to pay around 7.34 trillion won ($6.79 billion) for 40 Lockheed Martin jets, two sources with knowledge of the matter said on Monday, as Seoul boosts its air defences amid simmering tensions in the region.
ROK also confirmed plans to buy four Northrop Grumman Global Hawk unmanned aircraft to monitor the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The drones will cost about 880 billion won and will be delivered starting 2018, one of the sources said.

"Lockheed Martin agrees ... that the cost of the F-35 is on a downward path that will lead to a Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost for an F-35A of between $80-85 million," said Randy Howard, Director of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Korea Business Development in an emailed statement last week.

Cheaper and way more capable than that super hornet/international hornet/advanced hornet disaster.

Right

A Country the size of a postage stamp (nothing against ROK but it is small) with an heavily armed aggressor (that relies on 50s-60s technology) on its door step is a comparable to Canada?

Ya think the mission and focus are a little different maybe?

As to cost...my poor old solar calculator comes up with a lot more than 80-85 million per when I divide 6.79 Billion by 40. How bout yours?

In my highly biased personal opinion

[trampbike]

As to cost...my poor old solar calculator comes up with a lot more than 80-85 million per when I divide 6.79 Billion by 40. How bout yours?

I don't know how he calculated it. What I know however is that simply dividing the total price by the number of aircraft does not equal the unit recurring flyaway cost. There are so many untold variables.

[frosti]

As to cost...my poor old solar calculator comes up with a lot more than 80-85 million per when I divide 6.79 Billion by 40. How bout yours?

Are you that naive to think that 6.79 billion is for only the aircraft? Some people....

A Country the size of a postage stamp (nothing against ROK but it is small) with an heavily armed aggressor (that relies on 50s-60s technology) on its door step is a comparable to Canada?

They put their money into an aircraft that will have to protect them against a real threat. Canada doesn't have real threats next door. If its good enough for south korea its good enough for Canada, we aren't special little snowflakes. Our mission isn't that different - defence of the nation.

[Tom H]

As to cost...my poor old solar calculator comes up with a lot more than 80-85 million per when I divide 6.79 Billion by 40. How bout yours?

Are you that naive to think that 6.79 billion is for only the aircraft? Some people....

A Country the size of a postage stamp (nothing against ROK but it is small) with an heavily armed aggressor (that relies on 50s-60s technology) on its door step is a comparable to Canada?

They put their money into an aircraft that will have to protect them against a real threat. Canada doesn't have real threats next door. If its good enough for south korea its good enough for Canada, we aren't special little snowflakes. Our mission isn't that different - defence of the nation.

Are you that naive to think that 6.79 billion is for only the aircraft? Some people....

Caught in your own spin and didn't like it!

Yes some people, why populate your post with inaccurate information if you don't want to get called on it.

Also explain why Canada should give up its pilot training to send our pilots to the US?

If its good enough for south korea its good enough for Canada, we aren't special little snowflakes. Our mission isn't that different - defence of the nation

Well sorry we are special little snowflakes with a country how many times bigger?
Come on you can do it. Area of Canada divided by the area of the ROK equals?

That alone makes our needs different.

Not having an immediate aggressor on our edges that has military based on 60s technology makes a difference

Not having a population base anywhere near the ROK's makes a difference.

Apples and Oranges...Canada and ROK.

Surprisingly I don't have anything against the F-35. Lockheed will eventually get it sorted, might take awhile, but they will.

But the F-35 is being pushed into an poorly defined mission for political reasons and doesn't take our real needs into account. (That and your attitude, which from my perspective has caused the F-35 and the process more harm than the politicians)

While it might be a greater political discussion it makes the entire process tainted and distasteful.

Yeah I was in during the NFA and this is even more convoluted that that one.

Have a nice day

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Moose47]

G'day

When it comes to the Arctic, I think we should purchase 20 plus Global Hawks fitted with the latest generation of surveillance gear. Operate them from Goose Bay with recovery/re-launch sites at Cold Lake and Comox. All data would be sent directly to the ops centre here at 22 Wing for processing and analysis. This would free up the Aurora for other operations saving precious flying hours on airframe.

Cheers...Chris

[Big Pistons Forever]

From Flight International:

Quote The US government has awarded Lockheed Martin a $698 million contract to buy long-lead materials for 57 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

The contract was announced on 25 March – one day after the government’s watchdog agency reiterated doubts about the programme’s ability to reach operational readiness by target dates.

Materials to be covered by the award are for the low-rate initial production (LRIP) of 26 F-35As for the US Air Force, six F-35Bs for the US Marine Corps, two F-35Cs for the US Navy and additional aircraft for Israel, Italy, Japan, Norway and the UK. Those aircraft will be in the ninth lot of LRIP.

The new contract follows a report released on 24 March, in which the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) says slow progression of software testing in 2013 raises the possibility of further delays. If delays continue or funding dries up, the Department of Defense “may have to make decisions about whether to proceed with production as planned with less capable aircraft, or to alter the production rate," it says Unquote

Another report which just adds to the steady drip,drip,drip of bad news. This is the 9th batch of aircraft ordered and like the first 8 will be more expensive, delivered later, and be less capable than promised......

[frosti]

I can't read any of that.

In the end Canada will purchase the F-35 because after the next election there won't be anything else available but the JSF. Super abortion Hornet line will be shut down, the Rafale is too expensive, French and obsolete. Gripen is a downgrade. We will all look back 20 years from now and wonder what all the controversy was all about. Most of the naysayers will fade into obscurity and their voices will sound more like senile old rants. The RCAF will fly the F35 despite all its perceived shortcomings and life will go on.

[davecessna]

I can't read any of that.

In the end Canada will purchase the F-35 because after the next election there won't be anything else available but the JSF. Super abortion Hornet line will be shut down, the Rafale is too expensive, French and obsolete. Gripen is a downgrade. We will all look back 20 years from now and wonder what all the controversy was all about. Most of the naysayers will fade into obscurity and their voices will sound more like senile old rants. The RCAF will fly the F35 despite all its perceived shortcomings and life will go on.

Their voices sound like senile old rants now.

[rigpiggy]

Nope, just on life support............

[YYZSaabGuy]

Progress, of a sort: [url][http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-ri ... 1.2614105/][url]. I'll be interested to read the full analysis, assuming it's released, regardless of which aircraft is ultimately chosen. For those with poor connectivity:

F-35 rivals report done as cabinet considers fighter jet options
Super Hornet, Eurofighter among other options to replace CF-18 fighter jets

Public Works Minister Diane Finley says a key report that will determine whether the Harper government sticks with the F-35 jet fighter program is complete, and the federal cabinet will take a few weeks to consider its next step.

An analysis of what fighter jets already on the market would be best suited to replace the air force's current fleet of CF-18s was ordered in late 2012 following a scathing auditor general's report, which accused National Defence and Public Works of low-balling the enormous cost of the stealth fighter program.

Finley did not release the findings of the review, conducted by four outside defence experts.

In prepared remarks for a speech in Vancouver, Finley said she met with the panel several times during their study.

"Keith Coulter, Rod Monette, Philippe Lagassé and Jim Mitchell have really kept the RCAF’s feet to the fire in this evaluation," Finley said of the panel.

The panellists have a range of experience: Coulter is a former fighter pilot and commanded a CF-18 squadron before eventually joining the public service. Monette is a former comptroller general of Canada and CFO at National Defence. Lagassé is an assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, specializing in Canadian defence policy and civil-military relations. Mitchell is a consultant and former senior civil servant who started his career in the foreign service.
Other planes to be considered

Finley says the panellists have taken their role seriously and "done a great service to Canada."

"And they have now completed their work. Over the next several weeks we will be carefully reviewing a number of reports relating to the evaluation of options, industrial benefits, costs and other factors related to the decision to replace our CF-18 fleet."

The panel looked at information from five rival aircraft makers: Lockheed Martin, the F-35's manufacturer; Boeing's Super Hornet; EADS Eurofighter, also known as the Typhoon; Dassault's French-built Rafale; and the Saab-manufactured Gripen from Sweden.

Finley says the market analysis will be one of several documents that cabinet will review before deciding whether to hold an open competition.

There's been speculation the Harper government is anxious to keep the CF-18 replacement off the political agenda in the run-up to the 2015 election, given the political firestorm created by auditor general Michael Ferguson's F-35 criticisms.

[iflyforpie]

I wonder if the Liberal platform will be to cancel the jets...? ....much like the EH-101 under Chretien...

[YYZSaabGuy]

I wonder if the Liberal platform will be to cancel the jets...? ....much like the EH-101 under Chretien...

That might be a tough sell. Most people are open to being convinced that the CF-18 fleet needs to be replaced. (Granted, the same was also true for the Sea Kings). A better strategy for the Liberals might be to carp endlessly about whatever choice is made, assuming a selection is finalized before 2015, and then quietly learn to live with it if they actually get elected. Quebec-based industrial benefits spin-offs would certainly help to make this outcome palatable.

Given the way the EH-101 fiasco has played out, I find it hard to believe even the Liberals would be cynical enough (and dumb enough) to try this approach a second time.

[Pop n Fresh]

So, they landed one on a boat, a couple of weeks ago. No one noticed?

[iflyforpie]

Looks like they had some challenges with the takeoff....


http://youtu.be/rVpCh__Xzg8

[Spokes]

Looks like they had some challenges with the takeoff....


http://youtu.be/rVpCh__Xzg8

wow, that was quite a piece of flying.

[Rockie]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/11/07 ... -briefing/

Of course the Conservatives are denying it, so what's the plan here? Are they relying on the plane's stealth technology for the purposes of buying them too? You know, get four at a time without detection until the entire fleet pops up in a press release from Cold Lake and Bagotville.

This government has proven themselves completely lacking any kind of honesty, ethics or intelligence in anything they touch, but this sets historic lows even for them.

[kamikaze]

They're actually going to field a partially functioning plane! Nice ... and 180 rounds? Really? What's the point ...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -2019.html

[Rockie]

"Proponents of the F-35 within the Air Force leadership argue that the jet’s sensors and ability to display information intuitively will allow the stealthy new fighter to do the close air-support mission from high altitudes using satellite-guided weapons"

Is "close" too hard a concept to understand anymore?

"Another senior Air Force official with stealth fighter experience agreed. “From an air-to-air standpoint, an argument could be made that the F-35A not having a functional gun—or any gun, for that matter—will have little to no impact. Heck, it only has 180 rounds anyway,” he said. “I would be lying if I said there exists any plausible tactical air-to-air scenario where the F-35 will need to employ the gun. Personally, I just don’t see it ever happening and think they should have saved the weight [by getting rid of the gun altogether].”

That same argument was made when they were building fighters before the Vietnam war...but then came the Vietnam war.

[AuxBatOn]

The "close" in Close Air Support refers to the level of coordination with the tactical ground commander, not physical proximity.

Nice try.