F35

[afong56]

Forum Sponsor

I've absolutely demonstrated why its the best choice, looking forward. The best you can come back with is F-22s, which aren't even in production, and more importantly were never (and will never) be allowed for export? That's pathetic.

The role is a multi-role fighter. A fighter capable of intercept, reconnaissance, stealth, A2A and A2S deployments, and full integration into NCW doctrine and NORAD.

Care to try a new suggestion? Or will you proclaim again that we should buy an aircraft which isn't for sale? :lol:

State my sources? Which facts are in dispute, exactly? My opinion is based on my own knowledge of the subject, the best publicly available details. I'm not quoting blogs and leftie media, I don't need to post any sources. The information is out there, I've already taught you a whole bunch of stuff you probably had to run to wikipedia to look up.

my, someone has a pretty high opinion of themselves, don't they???

lol, the f35 is not terribly good at any of them.

air to air? outclassed
air to surface? mediocre payload, poor range, slow
intercept? outgunned, poor range, slow
reconnaissance and stealth? tested below promised stealth capabilities, and for recon, it's slow and short ranged.

btw, share with us where you got your so-called "best publicly available details", since you apparently don't even know that the f22 is still in production. . .

"I don't need to post any sources". . .lol, i'll remember that one.

hypocracy anyone???

 

[mmmnaked]

Once again, you pick certain traits and claim that the plane is outclassed. 1 dimensional outlook on a 3 dimensional issue.

The F-35 was testing beyond 1.4M back in 2010. Its plenty fast.

Everest E. Riccioni
Col. USAF, Ret.


The USAF has never appreciated that speed without persistence is meaningless.
Proof—Six USAF aircraft capable of Mach 2.2 never exceeded 1.4 Mach in combat over North Vietnam in 10 years of combat, in hundreds of thousands of sorties. The F–15 has never demonstrated its performance guarantee of Mach 2.5 flight in a combat configuration on a realistic combat mission profile.


The report that the F–22 has demonstrated supercruise is specious and misleading.
The report merely stated that the F–22 flew at 1.6-1.7 Mach flight speeds in pure turbojet (dry) thrust. The distance traveled and persistence at those speeds on its design mission were not provided. Supersonic speed at 1.6 Mach in dry thrust bodes well, but this capability is not sufficient to achieve supercruise. The need is to report the percentage of the dream mission accomplished.

 

[mmmnaked]

Oh and please enlighten us as to how its outclassed by payload... as compared to, say, an F-22 which you're strongly supporting the purchase of (nevermind that its simply not for sale)

I'll wait.

 

[afong56]

Once again, you pick certain traits and claim that the plane is outclassed. 1 dimensional outlook on a 3 dimensional issue.

The F-35 was testing beyond 1.4M back in 2010. Its plenty fast.

interesting source.

care to link to it so the rest of us can gauge its ACTUAL value? that would be the HONEST thing to do. . .

oh, and too bad its tested speed cannot be sustained without damage:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/29/michael-byers-stewart-webb-buyer-beware-the-f-35/

In December 2011, a test version of the F-35 for the first time achieved the design speed of Mach 1.6. According to Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week, the flight caused “peeling and bubbling” of the stealth coating on the horizontal tails and damage to the engine’s thermal panels, and the entire test fleet was subsequently limited to Mach 1.0
Repairing and replacing stealth materials is a time- and technology-intensive process that reduces the “mission capable rate” of aircraft. Indeed, it has been reported by the U.S. Congressional Research Service that after five years of service the F-35’s sister plane, the F-22, has a mission capable rate of just 60%.If the F-35 has a similar mission capable rate, Canada will, at any given time, only be able to deploy approximately 44 of its planned 65 planes. When attrition through accidents is factored in — and Canada has lost 18 of its CF-18s since 1982 — we could soon have an available fleet of just 30-35 planes, or roughly half of what the Department of National Defence says we need.

(note how ATTRITION is a very real cost that no one has accounted for)

so yeah, it's slow. by the time they fix this issue, it will be another year or two tacked onto delivery, along with an additional millions per jet.

Oh and please enlighten us as to how its outclassed by payload... as compared to, say, an F-22 which you're strongly supporting the purchase of (nevermind that its simply not for sale)

I'll wait.

reading comprehension fail. where do i suggest that the f22 is superior in payload? the f22 is an air superiority aircraft, not a strike fighter. read what i actually wrote instead of building up a straw man, as you usually do.

as a strike fighter, the f35 is outclassed on payload.

let's identify the actual roles that the f35 needs to do for canada, and then make the choice. in the defense matrix you suggest, i fail to see what strike role any fighter we buy will need. we need interceptors to patrol our air/water/land first and foremost, everything else is minor.

 

[mmmnaked]

www.dnipogo.org/fcs/doc/riccioni_paper.doc

Its been repeated many times by numerous commanders and higher-ups in the USAF. The actual use (in combat) of speeds beyond mach 1.4 is counted in minutes in the lifetime of said aircraft. The maximum physical speed simply does not get utilized in combat. There are far far more important factors than trivial specs such as 'top speed'. Like I said before, the most important factor is seeing your target before he sees you, and getting the first shot.

Yes there are aircraft which have more engine, or more payload, or higher speed, or any number of individual factors... but the platform is looked at as a complete package, not just a breakdown of individual specs. What use is all the speed and payload if we don't have the avionics and advanced electronics? What use is it if we have no stealth and we're always spotted and fired on first?

Which jet, in your opinion, can compare to the F-35 as a complete package? I don't care which one is faster or has more missiles- which one has all the same capabilities but does it all better? Versatility is the role.

And with regards to problems at top speed- once again, its under development. The US has a number of stealth aircraft that have gone far far faster than 1.6M- Lockheed Martin is obviously capable of fixing this and many other of the issues they're facing.

 

[afong56]

www.dnipogo.org/fcs/doc/riccioni_paper.doc

Its been repeated many times by numerous commanders and higher-ups in the USAF. The actual use (in combat) of speeds beyond mach 1.4 is counted in minutes in the lifetime of said aircraft. The maximum physical speed simply does not get utilized in combat. There are far far more important factors than trivial specs such as 'top speed'. Like I said before, the most important factor is seeing your target before he sees you, and getting the first shot.

Yes there are aircraft which have more engine, or more payload, or higher speed, or any number of individual factors... but the platform is looked at as a complete package, not just a breakdown of individual specs. What use is all the speed and payload if we don't have the avionics and advanced electronics? What use is it if we have no stealth and we're always spotted and fired on first?

Which jet, in your opinion, can compare to the F-35 as a complete package? I don't care which one is faster or has more missiles- which one has all the same capabilities but does it all better? Versatility is the role.

And with regards to problems at top speed- once again, its under development. The US has a number of stealth aircraft that have gone far far faster than 1.6M- Lockheed Martin is obviously capable of fixing this and many other of the issues they're facing.

your 'agility' argument has just as many detractors as the 'speed' argument, you know that, right?

why would a fighter with a speed, energy, and firepower advantage get caught up in an agility fight, trying to out-turn the f35?

and of course you don't care about missiles--you know that the f35 is woefully undergunned because it depends on small internal munitions bays to maintain its stealth capabilities. talk about ginning-up the comparison--do you work for the dnd?

as for a multi-role comparison, according to you, we can only buy the f35, so what's the point in getting into this debate?

not to mention, we would have to compare actual test results, not claimed abilities.

furthermore, only those who buy into the dnd's jury-rigged criteria insist we need a multi-role fighter. if we accept those limitations, of course we are painted into the f35 boondoggle-corner. . .

we would be better served critically assessing those assumptions and how enslaved we appear to be by our american masters. . .

 

[mmmnaked]

You say enslaved, I say lucky to have them as our closest ally and neighbour. My previous posts addressed all the encompassing issues and my reasoning for the F-35 being the best choice for us, on a multitude of levels.

The F-35 has ample payload in A2A and A2S configuration. According to this it will carry 8 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9s for A2A loadout. Pretty sure thats comparable to the F-22 or better. It can also be outfitted entirely for surface missions, or a combination of both with JDAM, AMRAAM, and ASRAAM all stored internally. This doesn't even take into account the external hardpoints. What exactly leads you to believe that its "undergunned"? State your sources, now we're discussing actual specifications so you better provide some facts to back your claims.

My "agility" argument? I don't think I've written the word "agility" at any one point in this thread. Are you confusing it with versatility? Explain please.

Why wouldn't we want a multi-role fighter? If our ultimate line of defense is based around NORAD and our interoperability with American forces, our options are indeed very slim. In fact, I'd say they're basically the F-35 and maybe the F-15SE, which to me is just an update of a 40 year old aircraft... so if we're making this purchase to last another 30-40 years, why would we corner ourselves just to save a few bucks now? Remember, this expenditure accounts for less than 1% of our annual spending. We are talking about fractions of a percent here.

 

[suprPHREAK]

for. the. time. being.

re-read my previous posts. that could all change in november.

the gates doctrine will not last forever. . .

Im confused....you are complaining about the cost overruns of tue F35, yet advocate the DISCONTINUED F22?

The F22 is NOT in production. Yes, the last are rolling off the line, but thats a final run. The axe has dropped.

Also, the per plane cost of the F35A is at $172M US. Yes, this is higher than expected, but it is also pre-production. The F22 by comparison finished at $412M US. We are still less than half price!

 

[afong56]

You say enslaved, I say lucky to have them as our closest ally and neighbour. My previous posts addressed all the encompassing issues and my reasoning for the F-35 being the best choice for us, on a multitude of levels.

The F-35 has ample payload in A2A and A2S configuration. According to this it will carry 8 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9s for A2A loadout. Pretty sure thats comparable to the F-22 or better. It can also be outfitted entirely for surface missions, or a combination of both with JDAM, AMRAAM, and ASRAAM all stored internally. This doesn't even take into account the external hardpoints. What exactly leads you to believe that its "undergunned"? State your sources, now we're discussing actual specifications so you better provide some facts to back your claims.

My "agility" argument? I don't think I've written the word "agility" at any one point in this thread. Are you confusing it with versatility? Explain please.

Why wouldn't we want a multi-role fighter? If our ultimate line of defense is based around NORAD and our interoperability with American forces, our options are indeed very slim. In fact, I'd say they're basically the F-35 and maybe the F-15SE, which to me is just an update of a 40 year old aircraft... so if we're making this purchase to last another 30-40 years, why would we corner ourselves just to save a few bucks now? Remember, this expenditure accounts for less than 1% of our annual spending. We are talking about fractions of a percent here.

the guy you quoted from, aka your source, presents the agility argument. . .unless you're cherry picking discrete lines of text to support your idea and discarding all of the rest, then when you cite someone who presents the agility argument, then you are also presenting the agility argument, by extension. . .or did you not bother reading your source and understanding the person behind the article?

my comparison of a2a capabilities is from here:

http://www.afa.org/ProfessionalDevelopment/IssueBriefs/F-22_v_F-35_Comparison.pdf

our numbers differ. mine suggest the f22 outguns the f35 easily.

 

[afong56]

Im confused....you are complaining about the cost overruns of tue F35, yet advocate the DISCONTINUED F22?

The F22 is NOT in production. Yes, the last are rolling off the line, but thats a final run. The axe has dropped.

Also, the per plane cost of the F35A is at $172M US. Yes, this is higher than expected, but it is also pre-production. The F22 by comparison finished at $412M US. We are still less than half price!

the flyaway cost comparisons are not what you have.

you are also not comparing apples to apples:

the f22 at a build order of a few hundred, versus f35 at a few thousand will generate the difference.
analysts suggest that if you were to switch them around, the unit cost of the f35 would easily eclipse that of the f22.

not to mention, the current build costs of the f35 are only ESTIMATES. we have not yet reached the ceiling on the f35--that's a huge difference

 

[mmmnaked]

Buddy, the F22 is not for sale. Stop bringing it up.

Its also the best air superiority fighter in the world; it was designed to that narrow specification and it does it quite well. Its the cream of the crop for air to air combat. Of course it 'outguns' the F35 A2A; where is your point?

 

[sonnythebull]

the flyaway cost comparisons are not what you have.

you are also not comparing apples to apples:

the f22 at a build order of a few hundred, versus f35 at a few thousand will generate the difference.
analysts suggest that if you were to switch them around, the unit cost of the f35 would easily eclipse that of the f22.

not to mention, the current build costs of the f35 are only ESTIMATES. we have not yet reached the ceiling on the f35--that's a huge difference

Im looking at chartering a G6 or a 850. It seems you are a top political analyst and have flown jets while simultaneously budgeting for every cost possible. Could you advise me which one I should go with? Please make your response in a circular argument of 40000 words or less

 

[afong56]

Buddy, the F22 is not for sale. Stop bringing it up.

Its also the best air superiority fighter in the world; it was designed to that narrow specification and it does it quite well. Its the cream of the crop for air to air combat. Of course it 'outguns' the F35 A2A; where is your point?

my point is three-fold:

1. people keep saying it's out of production, when it clearly is not. it's not like the plants are idle and it would take a million years to spool them back up. it's misleading to say they've stopped production. they've stopped ordering them. this decision could be changed by the end of november

2. the decision to not sell abroad is clearly a political one, and as such, can also change by the end of november. re-opening production of the f22 would be of interest not just to canadian, german, and australian partners, but the americans themselves, where some analysts have clearly identified that the projected force number of around 200 f22 will probably not cut it.

3. as i said before, if you reject the dnd's jury-rigged criteria, there's a better argument for the role of a primary air superiority jet for the rcaf than a pudgy master-of-none jsf, one that would fit into your concept of a ncw theatre. once again, the entire rationale for the american puppeteer's designation of canada's role could change as soon as the end of november.

 

[afong56]

Im looking at chartering a G6 or a 850. It seems you are a top political analyst and have flown jets while simultaneously budgeting for every cost possible. Could you advise me which one I should go with? Please make your response in a circular argument of 40000 words or less

easy answer--fly air canada with its sleepy pilots--put your dollars back into the national airline, silly.

jeez, when will you have a serious question?

qed.

 

[suprPHREAK]

my point is three-fold:

1. people keep saying it's out of production, when it clearly is not. it's not like the plants are idle and it would take a million years to spool them back up. it's misleading to say they've stopped production. they've stopped ordering them. this decision could be changed by the end of november

2. the decision to not sell abroad is clearly a political one, and as such, can also change by the end of november. re-opening production of the f22 would be of interest not just to canadian, german, and australian partners, but the americans themselves, where some analysts have clearly identified that the projected force number of around 200 f22 will probably not cut it.

3. as i said before, if you reject the dnd's jury-rigged criteria, there's a better argument for the role of a primary air superiority jet for the rcaf than a pudgy master-of-none jsf, one that would fit into your concept of a ncw theatre. once again, the entire rationale for the american puppeteer's designation of canada's role could change as soon as the end of november.

 

[afong56]

*snip of offtopic pic

lol, that's the best you can offer when your points are proven wrong?

keep trying. . .

the gov't has admitted that they are pushing the reset button on the whole f35 acquisition, so your characterisation of the issue, like everything else, is WRONG. this is not a dead issue unless people like you continue roll over and play dead.

why are we committing to a blank cheque money pit that fits what the u.s. wants us to have, rather than what we actually need. the f22 is a better fit for what canada actually needs.

when the gov't pushes the reset button, we need to put all the options back on the table.

 

[mmmnaked]

Man are you seriously refocusing your argument to a plane which isn't for sale?

WE dont get to put anything on the table. The F22 isn't an option, end of discussion.

 

[RockerGuy]

I feel this whole thread is goin in the direction of...

"Never argue with an idiot; he will bring you to his level and beat you with experience"

 

[afong56]

Man are you seriously refocusing your argument to a plane which isn't for sale?

WE dont get to put anything on the table. The F22 isn't an option, end of discussion.

the harpos claimed they pushed the reset on the f35. they weren't LYING were they?

talking about the f22 is about as hypothetical as the f35 right now, isn't it? at current rate, either is equally likely.

I feel this whole thread is goin in the direction of...

"Never argue with an idiot; he will bring you to his level and beat you with experience"

lol, personal attacks??? really?

were you planning on contributing anything to the discussion?

f35 boondoggle:

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

 

[RockerGuy]

lol, personal attacks??? really?

were you planning on contributing anything to the discussion?

I didn't directed that comment at you, but anyway...

Guilty conscience need no accuser??

Forum Sponsor