The F-35 is not dead

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Are you guys refering to the time a CF-18 attacked a surface ship with an AA missile, missed, then attacked it with its cannon, but because it was at night and the CF-18's gun's muzzle is located on top of the nose, within sight of the pilot, instead of down below, where it should have been, the muzzle flash blinded the pilot to the extent he was unable to even see where his tracer rounds went, let alone aim or figure out if he even hit the ship ?

I remember the pilot talking to the press about his mission......

[iflyforpie]

Too bad the same can't be said about the budget.

BAH-dum TSSS

[2R]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/23/ch ... +-+Text%29

Sorry for the thread drift ,but if . Norris comments on aircraft PAY ATTENTION
. Norris wants to save the A-10 from retirement. (Courtesy of . Norris)Air Force leaders wanting to send the A-10 Thunderbolt to the bone yard already have any number of lawmakers criticizing them from Capitol Hill.
http://images.defensetech.org/wp-conten ... x400-490x3
Now they’ve got “Lone Wolf McQuade” coming after them.

Action star . Norris – an Air Force veteran – on Monday delivered an editorial roundhouse kick to the Air Force, arguing on the World Net Daily website that the “Warthog” – as it is known – still has plenty of fight left in it.

In the ongoing campaign against ISIS, Norris writes, “the A-10′s utility is warranted even more now than ever.”

“Its firepower capability, speed and accuracy, frequent war use, and the oft-painted teeth on its nose cone have made it one of the military’s most popular aircraft,” Norris wrote.

Norris said its “combination of large and varied ordnance load, long loiter time, accurate weapons delivery, austere field capability, and survivability has proven invaluable to the United States and its allies.”

Congress has been running interference against Pentagon plans to dump the plane, saving it through 2015 with $635 million drawn from the war funding budget. But the Air Force has made clear it wants to begin retiring the Thunderbolt fleet next year, linking the move to paying for the development of the Joint Strike Fighter.

In his column, Norris throws some jabs at Warthog critics, including Air Combat Command Commander Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, who is quoted as saying: “There’s only so much you can get out of that airplane. Those airplanes are gonna wear out.”

“But that statement is true of every airplane in existence, and even the sun!” Norris wrote. “The question is: Is the fleet of A-10 ready for retirement? I just celebrated my 75th birthday, but I’m nowhere near ready to head to the scrapheap. Some things improve with age, and the A-10 has done just that, too.”

Norris, a martial arts world champion who began training while in the Air Force in the late 1950s, has achieved almost folk legend status — portrayed as someone who can never be defeated and capable of bending man and nature to his will and fists.

The martial arts superstar has gained further recent fame with an influx of comedic one-liners about his perceived super powers such as — “. Norris died 20 years ago, Death just hasn’t built up the courage to tell him yet,” or “. Norris and Superman once fought each other on a bet. The loser had to start wearing his underwear on the outside of his pants.”

To further bring attention to and save the A-10, Norris is producing and selling a T-shirt with the words “Save the A-10” on the front, and on the back, “. Norris’ First Born Son was a Warthog. He cried tears of ‘BRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTT.”



IF THE A-10 came with wheel ski's it would be perfect for defending the North from invading Hordes

[teacher]

So with Justin claiming to save $10s of billions if he cancels or doesn't purchase the F35 what plane does he think will fit the bill for less? All the equivalent aircraft are pretty close in price except for the Super hornet and Gripen.

[Kitzbuhel]

That chart has a fair bit of misinformation within it. I wouldn't base my decision on what is written on it. This procurement has a lot of moving parts and is often over simplified. The RCAF needs a new fighter, that's the only absolute truth in this whole matter. The F35 also doesn't deserves the crap it gets from the media.

[Rockie]

The media doesn't crap on the F-35, they report on the crap it gets from organizations like the US Congress and General Accounting Office (GAO). Stuff Canadians need to hear or the awe-struck and brainless conservatives would have committed us to it long ago.

Thank god for the media.

[Kitzbuhel]

The media would be good if they interpreted the information they were receiving correctly. For example, the majority of the F35 setbacks are due to the VTOL/STOL variant. Not the "A" variant that composes most of the orders. The budget overruns are very real, however that was also the case for the F22 and Eurofighter. It's a product of the current state of the industry. The biggest lie was the report that came out saying the F35 couldn't win an engagement with an F-16. If you read into the actual test you end up realizing it was a test frame that had loading limitations in comparison to the finished product as well as software limitations that didn't allow the F35 to do what it was designed to do.

Anyway I'm not a Lockheed exec and I have no horse in this race. I just think people don't understand the complexity of this whole game.

[bobcaygeon]

The F35 was designed as a common platform for the entire US military. Why wouldn't it be "average" at everything? It's a bomb truck not an air superiority fighter like the F-22.

[xchox]

I still say the Gripen... You can get twice as many aircraft for the same price as the F35. And I LOVE Lockheed!

[Troubleshot]

She's still a fat, expensive pig. The sole selling point is stealth and "it will see you before you see it" That maybe all well in good in today's technology but what about 10 years from now? If the enemy figures out a way to see it sooner (and they will) ...we are left with a fighter that can't do anything great.

I agree the F16 vs. F35 dog fight might have been skewed by software limitations but the F16 was also sporting two large external fuel tanks during the exercise so that does count for something.

The Pentagon is basically shooting down (pun intended) the dog fight story using the software limitation argument....ok then, when it is combat ready lets stack it up against several fighters in different categories and see what it can do then. My bet it is lemon, hard to find many impartial experts who say the F35 is a real bad ass. Most experts are like either saying it is a POS or that it is adequate...not good...adequate.

For the price tag, to much of a gamble for me I'm afraid. I will take this into consideration when voting this year too.

[Kitzbuhel]

I still say the Gripen... You can get twice as many aircraft for the same price as the F35. And I LOVE Lockheed!

Why would you purchase a marginal 4th gen aircraft if you intend to keep it for 50 years. It would be obsolete by the time the last one gets delivered.

In my opinion there's only 3 options.

- F35, 5th gen, will fill the roll we need it to do fairly well, will be current for most of the period we intend to utilize it. Main flaw is the delays and delivery problems, training pilots to operate in a different way.

-super hornet, 4.5 gen, ready to deliver, will accomplish what we need it for pretty well, pilots are already familiar with the airframe and modern avionics. Cons, will be obselete when gen 5 aircrafts are commonplace and the production line is shut down, meaning that parts will become difficult to come by.

- Rafale, advanced gen 4, will do what we need it for extremely well, production will be in Canada producing more return to the economy then the F35. Cons will become obselete like the super hornet, new airframe, incompatible with a lot of American weapons we already have in stores.

I don't think any of these options are better than the others, and the points I brought up are just the tip of the iceberg in the grand scheme of things.

[Rockie]

The media would be good if they interpreted the information they were receiving correctly.

The media reports other organization's interpretation because they themselves do not possess the expertise. Imagine the s**tstorm on here if they did try and analyze the technical aspects of the F-35.

That airplane is a loser, and even if it wasn't it is far too expensive for any country to get never mind ours. We are not a European country or the US. We already spend less than almost anybody else on the military compared to our GDP, and no other western country has our massive geographical size and environmental challenges. That airplane is unsuitable for Canada for so many reasons - including the single engine in case anyone forgot my opinion on that...

[Kitzbuhel]

She's still a fat, expensive pig. The sole selling point is stealth and "it will see you before you see it" That maybe all well in good in today's technology but what about 10 years from now? If the enemy figures out a way to see it sooner (and they will) ...we are left with a fighter that can't do anything great.

I agree the F16 vs. F35 dog fight might have been skewed by software limitations but the F16 was also sporting two large external fuel tanks during the exercise so that does count for something.

The Pentagon is basically shooting down (pun intended) the dog fight story using the software limitation argument....ok then, when it is combat ready lets stack it up against several fighters in different categories and see what it can do then. My bet it is lemon, hard to find many impartial experts who say the F35 is a real bad ass. Most experts are like either saying it is a POS or that it is adequate...not good...adequate.

For the price tag, to much of a gamble for me I'm afraid. I will take this into consideration when voting this year too.

I missed your reply while I was writing mine, sorry,

The biggest selling point is the sensor package, not stealth. Stealth is a fancy thing that changes the way dogfights are fought. Ask any pilot who flew against the F22. They get shot before they can even find one. If by some stroke of luck you are able to force one to merge with you its 100% on the 22 pilot's terms. He comes from
Above and with a massive energy advantage. The F35 will have the same thing going for it. In a head to head merge it might not be as superior as the f22 however the whole premise is that the pilot screwed up if he allowed himself to get into a dogfight. But even at that he will be at such a huge advantage that they will be able to easily take on the opponent.

The other thing people forget is that fighter A/C don't operate by themselves in the open sky, minimum 2 planes together are carrying out a mission offering mutual support. And the ability to inter operate between aircraft is the biggest selling point of the F35, it can use radar data from another plane to deliver payload without opening itself up to other's sensors by using its own radar. Again, something the public had no understanding of.

Point being it doesn't matter if it can't dogfight like an f16, the other plane will be dead before it can take a shot.

[Rockie]

Point being it doesn't matter if it can't dogfight like an f16, the other plane will be dead before it can take a shot.

That's a very bold promise to make, I'm guessing you've never been jumped by surprise by someone while flying a fighter?

[Kitzbuhel]

No I have not, I cannot refer to my experience because I have none. From what I know from interactions of F16 pilots that fought the F22 and had zero chance to get a shot off. Even if it came to a visual range encounter the gen 5 plane can approach the merge on his terms, not giving the F16 a fair shot. They believe the F35 will be very similar in that regard. But I might be full of shit, who knows. But from what I understand the rules of air to air engagements are different now because of the heightened sensor package and interoperability of gen 5 fighters.

[Troubleshot]

She's still a fat, expensive pig. The sole selling point is stealth and "it will see you before you see it" That maybe all well in good in today's technology but what about 10 years from now? If the enemy figures out a way to see it sooner (and they will) ...we are left with a fighter that can't do anything great.

I agree the F16 vs. F35 dog fight might have been skewed by software limitations but the F16 was also sporting two large external fuel tanks during the exercise so that does count for something.

The Pentagon is basically shooting down (pun intended) the dog fight story using the software limitation argument....ok then, when it is combat ready lets stack it up against several fighters in different categories and see what it can do then. My bet it is lemon, hard to find many impartial experts who say the F35 is a real bad ass. Most experts are like either saying it is a POS or that it is adequate...not good...adequate.

For the price tag, to much of a gamble for me I'm afraid. I will take this into consideration when voting this year too.

I missed your reply while I was writing mine, sorry,

The biggest selling point is the sensor package, not stealth. Stealth is a fancy thing that changes the way dogfights are fought. Ask any pilot who flew against the F22. They get shot before they can even find one. If by some stroke of luck you are able to force one to merge with you its 100% on the 22 pilot's terms. He comes from
Above and with a massive energy advantage. The F35 will have the same thing going for it. In a head to head merge it might not be as superior as the f22 however the whole premise is that the pilot screwed up if he allowed himself to get into a dogfight. But even at that he will be at such a huge advantage that they will be able to easily take on the opponent.

The other thing people forget is that fighter A/C don't operate by themselves in the open sky, minimum 2 planes together are carrying out a mission offering mutual support. And the ability to inter operate between aircraft is the biggest selling point of the F35, it can use radar data from another plane to deliver payload without opening itself up to other's sensors by using its own radar. Again, something the public had no understanding of.

Point being it doesn't matter if it can't dogfight like an f16, the other plane will be dead before it can take a shot.

understood, but they couldn't develop a cheaper bomb transporter?? or a cheaper warfare computer...I mean this is essentially what we have gotten to with this aircraft, it can coordinate attacks from a far. Why not buy three 737 AWACS with the same computer and then get 30 super hornets?

that maybe be nonsense but explain to me (non-fighter guy) why that is not doable, you could say the AWACs are sitting ducks, but I would argue the F35 is a sitting duck anyway.

Not enough return on this investment in my opinion, and until someone in government can prove to me this jet is an absolute requirement I am going with the party that promises to scrap it.

[Rockie]

No I have not, I cannot refer to my experience because I have none.

I do. In an air supremacy environment where there are no other air-air threats and ineffective surface-air it can be easily argued that stealth is not required. In an environment with air-air threats there is always the possibility - even probability - of someone getting in your shorts unseen until it's too late to gain separation for a missile kill, and unless you can really defend yourself you're dead. It's been proven time and time again that over-reliance on technology can kill you. No technology is unbeatable at the best of times and the clock is already ticking for the F-35's stealth to become obsolete, and unless Lockheed has developed a cloaking device it can still be seen by a Mark I eyeball.

[Kitzbuhel]

I agree with you that technology shouldn't be a crutch for skill and capability. But I'm wondering what the odds of you just running across another aircraft would be if there's nothing guiding you to it? If you can't see it but he can what are your odds of survival? Even if he's not expecting to find you there, how close do you have to be to get some kind of visual contact? I understand what you are saying and clearly you have experience to back it up, however other experienced pilots seem to think it's a game changer.

[Rockie]

But I'm wondering what the odds of you just running across another aircraft would be if there's nothing guiding you to it?

In a busy theatre they are quite good. Plus it doesn't have to be by accident, it can be missed. Personally I've "killed" an AWACS during an exercise that was protected by four dedicated F-15's by appearing to be non-threatening until it was too late. Anything can happen.

I understand what you are saying and clearly you have experience to back it up, however other experienced pilots seem to think it's a game changer.

What the F-35 promises might be a game changer but it has proven to be nothing but a disappointment on that front. The pilots who might fly it also are not considering the cost to Canada and just might be suffering from "shiny new thing" syndrome. A malady not unknown amongst pilots.

[trampbike]

including the single engine in case anyone forgot my opinion on that...

Good thing most guys who will actually end up flying whatever Canada buys don't share your opinion on this subject.

If Canada decides it needs a multi-role jet for the next 4 or 5 decades, I'd be extremely surprised if something other than the F-35 ends up being a better fit, or even cheaper in the long run.

[Rockie]

including the single engine in case anyone forgot my opinion on that...

Good thing most guys who will actually end up flying whatever Canada buys don't share your opinion on this subject.

None of them have ever flown a single engine fighter up north unless they were in a CF-18 and already lost an engine. Ask the ones who have no problem with it the question again after the first one defies Peter Mackay's bold promise that the engine will never quit and see if they still feel the same way.

[trampbike]

Don't worry, nobody will ever ask you to fly a single-engine fighter in the future, you'll be just fine.

[Rockie]

Nice deflection but the challenge stands. Check back with them after the first guy jettisons the airplane because the engine quit.

[trampbike]

Turns out I'm one of "them". You're not anymore. The fact that you perceive the single-engine thing as an unacceptable risk is irrelevant, since you are not the one having to weight those risks against the advantages, and you are not the one who would take whatever risks are related with flying a single engine.

[Rockie]

Turns out I'm one of "them". You're not anymore. The fact that you perceive the single-engine thing as an unacceptable risk is irrelevant, since you are not the one having to weight those risks against the advantages, and you are not the one who would take whatever risks are related with flying a single engine.

First of all congratulations. I'm sure you'll do us all proud and I mean that. Second, when the first guy dumps the jet because the engine stopped working (hopefully not you) come back here and tell me how you feel about that.

I must also disagree with your opinion that my opinion doesn't matter anymore. Having done your job I know the risks probably better than you do since over all I have a lot more total experience than you do. I also have an evolved knowledge of military usage beyond what I had since I was in by virtue of a couple of decades of thought and a point of view as a Canadian citizen augmented by having served.

As a civilian now and one of the people charged with not only paying my government's bills, but defending your safety on levels you may not be aware of, I cannot support this airplane.