F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

[AuxBatOn]

F-22A (another debacle by your arbitrary standards): first flight in 1997. IOC in 2005. Yep, real horrible airplane.

3g: that was a measure while they fixed the air in the fuel issue. Up to 7g now.
138 lb seat limit: CF-18s are limited to 140 lb.
No laser: The only time you really need a laser is for hitting movers with Laser Guided Munitions. There are other ways to do this. Not necessary, especially with its sensors.
ALIS: not required for maintenance. It's a new thing that is merely nice to have.

Other two: that's why it's IOC and not FOC.

Nice try though.

[trampbike]

These airplanes have a 3 G maneuvering limit

Not anymore

a 138 pound minimum pilot weight

Lol... So what?

no laser designator for the CAS mission

Again... so what?

EDIT: Oops, I see that AuxBatOn beat me to the response!

[Big Pistons Forever]

The fighter jet “remains immature and provides limited combat capability,” Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation, told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, adding that the F-35 has “many unresolved significant deficiencies.”

Gilmore reported that the F-35’s latest operating system has 931 open documented deficiencies, 158 of which are Category 1 – classified as those that could cause death, severe injury, or severe illness. He called the current testing and deployment schedule “unrealistic” and estimated that the software won’t be ready before late 2018.

Of particular concern is the fighter’s onboard computer, known as the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS). When the latest version of the software was delivered for testing last month, “it was so unstable that productive flight testing could not be accomplished,” Gilmore testified. A scheduled electronic warfare mission that was to involve four F-35s with Block 3F software was cancelled when only two managed to make it to the range. The other two planes never took off, “due to avionics stability problems during startup.”

Three out of five F-35s currently considered operational have been grounded due to software problems, Gilmore explained. There are mechanical problems too – notably, the ejector seat that may kill pilots weighing less than 136 pounds (62 kg) and has “serious problems” with those weighing over 165 pounds (75 kg). For pilots weighing anywhere in between, about a quarter of all aviators, the evaluators estimated a 23 percent probability of death during ejection, and a 100-percent probability of neck injury.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement from an inside the beltway source........

Not to worry there Tramp . This program is too big to fail. Eventually the bugs will be worked out but it is clear that the final definitive FOC version, potentially not available in meaningful numbers until 2025, will be significantly less capable than initially envisioned and have a final unit cost more than double what was initially projected. The danger that it will be functionally obsolete when enough frames are available to make a difference, is IMO significant and can not be ignored.

However ultimately the question is what is best for Canada. I get what is in it for the US. It fits well into their grand strategy of battlefield supremacy everywhere and all the time, in every battle space via a heavily information integrated joint battlespace. The case for Canada is IMO opinion a lot harder articulate. Most of the F 35 capabilities can not be utilized unless the aircraft is deployed inside the USAF operational enablers. It then becomes just another USAF asset that happens to have a maple leaf on the side.

Finally The "so what" of having this airplane in terms of how it contributes to Canada's foreign policy and then by extension defense, goals has never really been examined. Sadly this is what happens when successive governments
can't answer the two big questions

1) Why do we have a Military and,

2) What do we want it to do ?

So in the meantime we to continue to throw money away on keeping the existing used up CF 18 flying well into the 2020's because we can't ever seem to have an adult conversation about the role of Canada's Military now and into the future, the essential and vital precursor to any discussion on what assets to purchase......

[trampbike]

Finally The "so what" of having this airplane in terms of how it contributes to Canada's foreign policy and then by extension defense, goals has never really been examined. Sadly this is what happens when successive governments
can't answer the two big questions

1) Why do we have a Military and,

2) What do we want it to do ?

So in the meantime we to continue to throw money away on keeping the existing used up CF 18 flying well into the 2020's because we can't ever seem to have an adult conversation about the role of Canada's Military now and into the future, the essential and vital precursor to any discussion on what assets to purchase......

I totally agree with you on this. When it comes to your technical assesment of the capabilities of the jet though, I think you're way out of your lane.