F35

[mmmnaked]

Forum Sponsor

my sources in this thread:

the national post
the ottawa citizen
the u.s. department of defense
conservative minister rona ambrose

and now, the 'hippie-left rag' the toronto sun:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/10/f-35-costs-will-go-sky-high--and-mackay-should-know-it

f35 boondoggle:

no cost certainty
gov't lied to canadian people
no due diligence or transparency
they signed a blank cheque with our tax dollars

care to remind us all of your sources???

lol, thanks for coming out. . .

Your sources are all opinion articles from "observers", some who are CLEARLY heavily biased for political and monetary reasons. We can sling **** back and forth all day, but surely you must realize that basing arguments on opinion pieces by bloggers is weak, in the strongest sense of the term.

I've discussed a number of specific technologies which make the F35 a good purchase, and you haven't refuted a single one. You keep on plastering 'talking points' over and over, as if repeating yourself makes your argument a stronger one.

is this guy right?

are we barking up the wrong tree?

If we take a hard analytical perspective on what Canada's long term strategic needs in fighter aircraft are, as distinct from DND bureaucratic “wants” in this area, several considerations become prominent:

National air defence will require a large twin engined fighter with superlative supersonic performance, superlative radar performance, and a large missile payload to defeat strategic bombers and their cruise missile payloads;
The proliferation of advanced long range fighters such as the Su-35S and PAK-FA will put a premium on combat agility for both beyond visual range (BVR) and within visual range (WVR) engagements, supersonic agility, and stealth performance;
Expeditionary campaigns into “contested” airspace will require the ability to survive against advanced SAM systems such as the S-400, S-300PMU2, HQ-9 and planned S-500, putting a premium on high stealth performance;
Expeditionary campaigns in COIN environments will require the ability to operate from shorter airfields, with high endurance and large, varied weapon payloads.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, by both definition and design, is fundamentally unsuited to any one and every one of these basic needs.

The F-35 lacks the range, missile payload, radar performance and especially supersonic performance to be effective in the strategic air defence role, and with a single engine puts the lives of Canadian pilots at unnecessary risk in harsh Arctic conditions.
The F-35 lacks the supersonic performance, missile payload, radar performance, agility and stealth performance to be effective in combat against the Su-35S Flanker E+, and has no ability to compete with the Sukhoi PAK-FA. This makes the F-35 ineffective in strategic air defence, if fighter escorts are deployed, and ineffective in expeditionary campaigns where the opponent operates such fighters.
The F-35 lacks the stealth performance to penetrate modern air defence systems armed with weapons such as the S-400, S-300PMU2, HQ-9 and planned S-500, especially if these SAMs are supported by modern “counter-stealth” radars operating in the lower radar bands.
In uncontested COIN operations, the F-35 lacks the payload and endurance to perform well, does not have the ballistic survivability for Close Air Support (CAS), and the CTOL variant demands long runways for operations, limiting choices in deployment sites.

Against each and every one of these clearly identifiable strategic needs for Canada's future fighter force, the F-35 JSF is an abject failure.

I can't believe this guy is saying that the F35 lacks radar and stealth performance, two things it has MORE of than any other fighter jet in the world.

Here's why he's wrong:

The performance of one single aircraft against another is completely and utterly irrelevant. The strength of any single weapons platform in the military lies almost completely in military doctrine, tactics, and communications between units. The strength in our F-35s (hopefully ours, some day) will be in their larger role as part of NORAD. Our fighters are going to be backed by the might of the entire US military in our backyard, and that's the point of the purchase. We'll only utilize the F-35, but the Americans (our NORAD partner, remember?) will have air-superiority fighters like the F-22 Raptor flying alongside.

Furthermore, the comparison of needs and supposed shortfalls the author above made, lacks broader vision and understanding of air tactics. The F-35 will have superior radar and situational awareness; and the fighter which gets a first shot is generally the fighter which wins. You don't have to be faster or more manoeuvrable, you just have to be the first to take the shot. With the incredible avionics, radar, and 360 degree awareness built into the F-35 (its literally built into its entire airframe), coupled with the capability of the entire NORAD system, is basically a guarantee that we'll get the first shot every time.

 

[D23]

Re: the f35 is the wrong choice?

is this guy right?

he isn't wrong but he hasn't given any evidence there is something that fits this roll.

He is pro F22 which is ~ 30% more expensive.

Shall we take a hit in the contract withdrawal and buy F22's ?

few more B... no big.

 

[afong56]

Your sources are all opinion articles from "observers", some who are CLEARLY heavily biased for political and monetary reasons. We can sling **** back and forth all day, but surely you must realize that basing arguments on opinion pieces by bloggers is weak, in the strongest sense of the term.

I've discussed a number of specific technologies which make the F35 a good purchase, and you haven't refuted a single one. You keep on plastering 'talking points' over and over, as if repeating yourself makes your argument a stronger one.




I can't believe this guy is saying that the F35 lacks radar and stealth performance, two things it has MORE of than any other fighter jet in the world.

Here's why he's wrong:

The performance of one single aircraft against another is completely and utterly irrelevant. The strength of any single weapons platform in the military lies almost completely in military doctrine, tactics, and communications between units. The strength in our F-35s (hopefully ours, some day) will be in their larger role as part of NORAD. Our fighters are going to be backed by the might of the entire US military in our backyard, and that's the point of the purchase. We'll only utilize the F-35, but the Americans (our NORAD partner, remember?) will have air-superiority fighters like the F-22 Raptor flying alongside.

Furthermore, the comparison of needs and supposed shortfalls the author above made, lacks broader vision and understanding of air tactics. The F-35 will have superior radar and situational awareness; and the fighter which gets a first shot is generally the fighter which wins. You don't have to be faster or more manoeuvrable, you just have to be the first to take the shot. With the incredible avionics, radar, and 360 degree awareness built into the F-35 (its literally built into its entire airframe), coupled with the capability of the entire NORAD system, is basically a guarantee that we'll get the first shot every time.

1. the u.s. department of defense is an 'opinion article'??? they found multiple issues with the f35. care to address any of them???

2. as for slinging back and forth. . .where do you source your facts from?

please don't tell me that you got it from lockheed martin. . .i want to see the credibility of your sources, if you're going to impugn mine.

3. btw, read more carefully, the author questions the stealth capability, not that it exists. even the u.s. dod downgraded its assessment of the f35's stealth capability.

it doesn't have great range, it doesn't have great missile capacity, it failed to maintain superior supersonic capability in testing, and it's 360 system has never performed as promised, either at night or in full throttle testing where it suffered jitter and lagging--both promise to be expensive and time-consuming fixes, btw.

and i'm still waiting to hear what your 'experts' think are the primary roles our cf18 replacements should play, if this guy is so far wrong. . .

cite your sources, please. . .

4. getting the first shot every time? care to elaborate as to what specific role this would occur in? if it is in taking on an incoming flight of russian bombers, then i guess the stealth cf-35s will somehow slip through the lead of fighter escorts that they are sure to encounter? not to mention, a lot of the in-air effectiveness of fighters will come down to the missiles they use, regardless of whether they get the first shot or not.

 

[mmmnaked]

1. the u.s. department of defense is an 'opinion article'??? they found multiple issues with the f35. care to address any of them???

2. as for slinging back and forth. . .where do you source your facts from?

please don't tell me that you got it from lockheed martin. . .i want to see the credibility of your sources, if you're going to impugn mine.

3. btw, read more carefully, the author questions the stealth capability, not that it exists. even the u.s. dod downgraded its assessment of the f35's stealth capability.

it doesn't have great range, it doesn't have great missile capacity, it failed to maintain superior supersonic capability in testing, and it's 360 system has never performed as promised, either at night or in full throttle testing where it suffered jitter and lagging--both promise to be expensive and time-consuming fixes, btw.

and i'm still waiting to hear what your 'experts' think are the primary roles our cf18 replacements should play, if this guy is so far wrong. . .

cite your sources, please. . .

4. getting the first shot every time? care to elaborate as to what specific role this would occur in? if it is in taking on an incoming flight of russian bombers, then i guess the stealth cf-35s will somehow slip through the lead of fighter escorts that they are sure to encounter? not to mention, a lot of the in-air effectiveness of fighters will come down to the missiles they use, regardless of whether they get the first shot or not.

It's in development for chrissakes... do you not know what that means? Of course some of the tech is still unproven, it's still being tested and developed.

Elaborate what role it might get the first shot? ANY role in which its RCS and LPI is unmatched by the enemy (which it already is).

If Russian bombers are coming in with escorts, NORAD is putting F-22s in the air first to establish air superiority. This is what I'm talking about, tactics. Our F-35s will integrate with the US NCW/NCO doctrine, which is precisely why we SHOULD buy the damned things. The CF-18 was a great jet, but military doctrine has changed drastically since we purchased those things. The battlefield has changed.

 

[afong56]

Re: the f35 is the wrong choice?

he isn't wrong but he hasn't given any evidence there is something that fits this roll.

He is pro F22 which is ~ 30% more expensive.

Shall we take a hit in the contract withdrawal and buy F22's ?

few more B... no big.

i definitely like the fact that it is twin engine, higher top speed, and definitely would come loaded to the teeth to protect our airspace.

i also think that the u.s. would consider us 'friendly' enough to sell them to us.

not convinced that the f22 will be the more expensive option, actually, because at least there is a semblance of cost certainty with the f22.

they are already designing tech and avionics upgrades that can be retrofit to bring the f22 specs into line with what the f35 has only promised to date.

 

[mmmnaked]

Re: the f35 is the wrong choice?

The F-22 isn't a versatile multi-role fighter... it has one simple goal and thats air-superiority. Completely different parameters than an F-35. And why buy the F-22 when our friends down south have an entire fleet of them ready to be directed by NORAD?

F-35 is the clear choice for us.

 

[D23]

3. btw, read more carefully, the author questions the stealth capability, not that it exists. even the u.s. dod downgraded its assessment of the f35's stealth capability.

Downgraded but it exists. It gives the signature of a hardball now, it was expected to give the signature of a golf ball. These "claims" were normal computer simulation in the design phase. It happens.

You source is decent but it's not the DOD. thats just a DOD factoid thrown in an opinion.

The PAK FA and F-22 are the only things that have better stealth than F-23

 

[mmmnaked]

The PAK FA and F-22 are the only things that have better stealth than F-23

According to whom, the Russians? They're not exactly known for superior electronic technologies... or telling the truth. How many T-50s are flying? 3 or 4?

 

[D23]

Those two seem to be the safe bet yes.

Flagship Flagship

I'll trust the Russians can follow our tech just as well as they always have.

Coincidentally they are having the same woes.

 

[mmmnaked]

Those two seem to be the safe bet yes.

Flagship Fagship

I'll trust the Russians can follow our tech just as well as they always have.

Coincidentally they are having the same woes.

IMO they've not been able to follow the same tech, especially the last few decades.

They make great jets, but their focus has always been more on outright dynamic performance than electronic technological advancement. Like I said before, the performance of a single platform vs another platform is completely irrelevant in US NCW/NCO doctrine. It simply no longer matters if they can maneuver faster or climb quicker... sure, in the odd chance of a one-on-one dogfight it will count, but in terms of the battle and the war? Meaningless.

 

[afong56]

It's in development for chrissakes... do you not know what that means? Of course some of the tech is still unproven, it's still being tested and developed.

Elaborate what role it might get the first shot? ANY role in which its RCS and LPI is unmatched by the enemy (which it already is).

If Russian bombers are coming in with escorts, NORAD is putting F-22s in the air first to establish air superiority. This is what I'm talking about, tactics. Our F-35s will integrate with the US NCW/NCO doctrine, which is precisely why we SHOULD buy the damned things. The CF-18 was a great jet, but military doctrine has changed drastically since we purchased those things. The battlefield has changed.

and the f35's claimed rcs and lpi advantage mated with it's on-board radar system equals?

if we are not buying these things to protect our arctic sovereignty and our airspace, please elaborate on what their role will be, 99% of the time?

The F-22 isn't a versatile multi-role fighter... it has one simple goal and thats air-superiority. Completely different parameters than an F-35. And why buy the F-22 when our friends down south have an entire fleet of them ready to be directed by NORAD?

F-35 is the clear choice for us.

since you envision the usaf f22s flooding past our f35s to go out and meet the incoming russian planes, please define the role you envision the cf35 playing in this integrated north american system. also, please describe the role that you think the f35 is vastly superior in accomplishing.

oh, and cite your sources. . .still waiting.

Downgraded but it exists. It gives the signature of a hardball now, it was expected to give the signature of a golf ball. These "claims" were normal computer simulation in the design phase. It happens.

You source is decent but it's not the DOD. thats just a DOD factoid thrown in an opinion.

The PAK FA and F-22 are the only things that have better stealth than F-23

we don't truly have accurate assessments of what the pak fa/t50 can do, do we? by some estimates, it's as big a boondoggle as the f35.

 

[D23]

IMO they've not been able to follow the same tech, especially the last few decades.

Money being no option would you still have F35 over F22?

 

[mmmnaked]

and the f35's claimed rcs and lpi advantage mated with it's on-board radar system equals?

if we are not buying these things to protect our arctic sovereignty and our airspace, please elaborate on what their role will be, 99% of the time?



since you envision the usaf f22s flooding past our f35s to go out and meet the incoming russian planes, please define the role you envision the cf35 playing in this integrated north american system. also, please describe the role that you think the f35 is vastly superior in accomplishing.

oh, and cite your sources. . .still waiting.



we don't truly have accurate assessments of what the pak fa/t50 can do, do we? by some estimates, it's as big a boondoggle as the f35.

RCS and LPIR advantage = first look, first shot = the most important aspect of air combat

What are you talking about, where did I say we're not buying it to protect our sovereignty? I've been saying the exact opposite for pages now.

What do you mean what role do I envision it in? Whatever role it needs to fill! That's why its built as a versatile multi-role fighter. Man, you really don't know... you're way out of your element here. Go back to posting links to blogs

 

[mmmnaked]

Money being no option would you still have F35 over F22?

Yes. We have F-22s at 'our' disposal through NORAD.

The F-35 is more versatile, and thus more valuable to us. Do we really need an air-superiority fighter when our closest neighbour has 200 of em?

 

[afong56]

It's in development for chrissakes... do you not know what that means? Of course some of the tech is still unproven, it's still being tested and developed.

Elaborate what role it might get the first shot? ANY role in which its RCS and LPI is unmatched by the enemy (which it already is).

If Russian bombers are coming in with escorts, NORAD is putting F-22s in the air first to establish air superiority. This is what I'm talking about, tactics. Our F-35s will integrate with the US NCW/NCO doctrine, which is precisely why we SHOULD buy the damned things. The CF-18 was a great jet, but military doctrine has changed drastically since we purchased those things. The battlefield has changed.

oh, and yes it's in development, but concurrent with production.

that means years more tacked on fixing mistakes instead of getting it correct from the jump.

that also means billions more tacked on to the purchase price.

face it, the americans are even MORE ****** about the failures of the f35, and when you hear them talking about pulling the plug, you know something's up.

what you are basically admitting is that we are purchasing a product that fits in with the air defense strategy that the americans want us to have, rather than an air superiority fighter that probably suits what we need better, one that allows us to defend our airspace, with a smidge of air-to-ground support possible.

 

[D23]

Yes. We have F-22s at 'our' disposal through NORAD.

The F-35 is more versatile, and thus more valuable to us. Do we really need an air-superiority fighter when our closest neighbour has 200 of em?

It's more versatile if its a VTL craft but we bought an airframe that should be AWD and is RWD.

 

[mmmnaked]

]
what you are basically admitting is that we are purchasing a product that fits in with the air defense strategy that the americans want us to have, rather than an air superiority fighter that probably suits what we need better, one that allows us to defend our airspace, with a smidge of air-to-ground support possible.

DUH

Our military is pathetic compared to theirs. Any serious threat to our sovereignty will also be a threat to the US, and THEY will provide the real muscle to fight it off. That muscle comes in the form of NCW/NCO doctrine, not in the performance of individual systems. Our strength will lie in the fact that we can tie into US NCW.

To suggest that we need an air-superiority fighter is beyond RIDICULOUS. Like I said, you're out of your element. Ignorant.

 

[afong56]

RCS and LPIR advantage = first look, first shot = the most important aspect of air combat

What are you talking about, where did I say we're not buying it to protect our sovereignty? I've been saying the exact opposite for pages now.

What do you mean what role do I envision it in? Whatever role it needs to fill! That's why its built as a versatile multi-role fighter. Man, you really don't know... you're way out of your element here. Go back to posting links to blogs

. . .and how good is the f35s on-board radar, especially detecting other stealth aircraft???

and since you didn't understand me the first time. . .

lockheed martin brochures claim it's a 'versatile multi-role fighter', but what role does it truly master, versus being just competent in a few?

man, d23 has been asking for pages now, and so have i. what role is the jsf the best option for?

and if it is superior to all in that role, is that the one that canada actually needs????

where are your sources, for the umpteenth time???

 

[afong56]

DUH

Our military is pathetic compared to theirs. Any serious threat to our sovereignty will also be a threat to the US, and THEY will provide the real muscle to fight it off. That muscle comes in the form of NCW/NCO doctrine, not in the performance of individual systems. Our strength will lie in the fact that we can tie into US NCW.

To suggest that we need an air-superiority fighter is beyond RIDICULOUS. Like I said, you're out of your element. Ignorant.

so let's just surrender our autonomy and military sovereignty like when dief canceled the arrow and bought bomarcs instead.

if it's an integrated system, and 100 f22s are deployed, what difference does it make if 65 are canadian and 35 are usaf, versus 100 usaf?

99% of the time, we will not be using it to fight off a massive incursion by the russians. we will be flying sorties over the north detecting ships and planes straying into our waters, etc.

 

[mmmnaked]

. . .and how good is the f35s on-board radar, especially detecting other stealth aircraft???

and since you didn't understand me the first time. . .

lockheed martin brochures claim it's a 'versatile multi-role fighter', but what role does it truly master, versus being just competent in a few?

man, d23 has been asking for pages now, and so have i. what role is the jsf the best option for?

and if it is superior to all in that role, is that the one that canada actually needs????

where are your sources, for the umpteenth time???

Stealth is a system, not a single piece of equipment. AN/APG-81 is already proven and is excellent for its size and power. If the other aircraft are bigger (PAK FA, if you wish) and have more robust radar systems, it also means they have a larger RCS and higher LPI. Couple this with the fact that our single F-35 is also networked with the entire NORAD system and every single other piece of military equipment connected to it, and you soon begin to realize it's strength not as an individual platform but as an entire military network; the absolute biggest and best in the world.

The 'multi-role fighter' is a role in itself. Considering the size and budget limitations of our military, a versatile fighter capable of stealth, A2A and A2G, and complex situational awareness through communications and networking is exactly what we should buy. A jack of all trades, if you will.

Forum Sponsor