• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharpey
  • Start date Start date
Good2Golf said:
Re: JMT's reference to program delays...

Still will beat Eurofighter's entry-to-service programmatic goals/targets by several years, relatively.  Even our own CF-18 was FOC many years after the first delivery in 1982.

MacKay is probably right, in hindsight. The CPC mid-judged the "credit" they thought they would receive electorally, for being collaborative on CF-18 replacement.  If some advisors had taken a Tardis to 20October 2015, they probably would have come back to Stephen Harper and said, "just buy the jSF..." :2c:

Credit current government for at least a bit better set-up of a "burning platform" (coming gap - albeit from what some assess to be deliberately slow-rolling the Hornet life-extension) than 23 years ago and the "Zee-ro 'elicopters! Zip! None! Nada!" :nod:

:2c:

Regards
G2G

I don't think the hornet program is being deliberately slow - it just is.  It was announced in 2014, and didn't start until late 2015.  It's hard to pin that on this government.

As for the delays in the Lightning, well, it wouldn't matter, if not for our current fighter predicament.
 
An interesting discussion piece by the Conference of Defence Associations Institute -- "Openness, Transparency…and 'Interim' Super Hornets?"  I've included some of the highlights, but it's worth reading the entire article, which addresses more political issues (particularly "openness and transparency" -- not directly  relevant to this thread * ).

- When it comes to the Super Hornets, one needs to ask serious questions on the extent to which there really is an imminent capability gap – something seemingly refuted by the Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), Lieutenant-​General Michael Hood, at a Parliamentary committee earlier this year.

....If only an interim measure, we’d be wasting resources to fill a purported imminent capability gap that has yet to arise...[forcing the RCAF] ... to operate a mixed fleet, or alternatively have much less leeway to select a different platform as a permanent replacement for the CF-​18. Either possibility is worrisome. A mixed-​fleet is an expensive proposition, as noted by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat’s Summary Report, while the latter possibility would represent a de facto end-​run of the government’s own promise to pursue an open competition for the next generation fighter aircraft.

...this latest, apparent ‘leak’ about the Super Hornets... is rather puzzling, to say the least!  Cabinet decisions do not usually leak out that easily, especially not ones that involve lots of money. So, one might be led to speculate it is a ‘leak’ from somewhere at the top (government) to test the waters. If so, it would seem that a pattern is emerging here, whereby important decisions might be shaped and coming out ahead of the [Defence Policy Review] and expected new Defence Policy....rather than through the systematic, consultative, and open process that the government announced earlier this year.  ...One hopes such decisions would only be made upon the completion of these consultations when the actual DPR is being formulated.


*   For example, "parenthetically, it will be interesting to observe what other ‘hints’ might come out in the coming weeks when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is going to the NATO summit in July and likely to make ‘announcements,’ and when he goes to the UN General Assembly in early fall and is expected to make more announcements about “peacekeeping.”


 
jmt18325 said:
So a hornet vs an eagle.  Which would you rather fly in that scenario?

That's what I thought.

Because something is better than some other thing doesn't mean that other thing is not good at it...  But again, it depends on the scenario you present me with.  In some cases, I'd rather be in a Hornet in some others, in an F-15C.  You cannot throw a general statement like you did and walk away:  you need to justify your statement with hard facts.
 
jmt18325 said:
So a hornet vs an eagle.  Which would you rather fly in that scenario?

That's what I thought.

I'm a helicopter guy, as you can see from my profile, so I have no direct personal interest, but I talk to guys who actually know and do stuff rather than relying on internet/media "expert" opinion.
 
Loach would rather be in an Apache, because I saw the movie Firebirds and it's capable of defeating Russian aircraft in a/a engagements fairly easily. Nicholas Cage has never led me wrong before.
 
Nope. I'd prefer the D-model Kiowa. Apache is too big and clumsy, and the AH role is not as fun as recce.
 
SupersonicMax and Loachman:

I have decided to put jmt18325 on my ignore list until he can actually provide credentials to back up his positions, other than just reading - but mis-understanding - multiple trade articles and quoting them without any understanding of what is true, what is false, what is opinion vs fact or what it means when put in the context of how things really work.

Other than the fact that he is male, there is nothing in his profile to indicate any knowledge base from which he can contribute to intelligent discussions of military matters. He shows no military experience and no trade qualification of any sort. His sole piece of information, that he is a "chief", makes no sense to me, unless he is a band chief under the Indian act - which I doubt. In my experience (and I suspect yours too) Army and Air Force Chief Warrant Officers despise being called just "Chief" (a bad Navy habit we have), and Navy chiefs, in a forum such as this one would likely do two things: first indicate which level of chief they are (CPO1 or CPO2) and indicate a trade, as trade is something we think of as very important in the Navy (which is why we pair it with rank any time we have a chance - such a MSBN, for a boatswain or MSHT, for hull tech, etc.).

So I have elected to simply ignore him (at least we know it's a him from his profile) and I suggest you do the same until he can provide reasonable credentials for his uninformed opinions.
 
Putting someone on ignore because the facts they present don't ally with your worldview or experience is rather petty, I'd say.

Statistics don't lie - I'll trust them over personal experience any day.

The F-15 is the most deadly, according to statistics, air to air fighter aircraft in history.

I'm simply suggesting that for air to air threats, there is no better alternative that we could buy ( the F-22 is not an option, after all).
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
SupersonicMax and Loachman:

I have decided to put jmt18325 on my ignore list until he can actually provide credentials to back up his positions, other than just reading - but mis-understanding - multiple trade articles and quoting them without any understanding of what is true, what is false, what is opinion vs fact or what it means when put in the context of how things really work.

Other than the fact that he is male, there is nothing in his profile to indicate any knowledge base from which he can contribute to intelligent discussions of military matters. He shows no military experience and no trade qualification of any sort. His sole piece of information, that he is a "chief", makes no sense to me, unless he is a band chief under the Indian act - which I doubt. In my experience (and I suspect yours too) Army and Air Force Chief Warrant Officers despise being called just "Chief" (a bad Navy habit we have), and Navy chiefs, in a forum such as this one would likely do two things: first indicate which level of chief they are (CPO1 or CPO2) and indicate a trade, as trade is something we think of as very important in the Navy (which is why we pair it with rank any time we have a chance - such a MSBN, for a boatswain or MSHT, for hull tech, etc.).

So I have elected to simply ignore him (at least we know it's a him from his profile) and I suggest you do the same until he can provide reasonable credentials for his uninformed opinions.

Though you put me on ignore, I never claimed to be in the military - There are other organizations that use such a rank.  It clearly says military or emergency services.  That rank however, is no longer accurate as of a few months ago (I resigned).
 
jmt18325 said:
Statistics don't lie - I'll trust them over personal experience any day.

They can certainly be twisted, or used with no context, and frequently are. As Benjamin Disraeli said, and Mark Twain quoted, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Personal experience provides context and real knowledge.

What qualifies you more than an actual fighter pilot? Hmm?

You have no credibility beyond your keyboard.

jmt18325 said:
The F-15 is the most deadly, according to statistics, air to air fighter aircraft in history.

The key phrase in that is "in history". We are not seeking a fighter for HISTORY. We are seeking a fighter for the FUTURE - at least four decades of it, unless we want to blow billions more by replacing an "interim" machine in less than half of that time. That simply makes no sense under any circumstance. It is a waste of money, and puts people at risk, just to satisfy somebody's petty ego.

By all credible indications, F35 will trounce F15, and almost everything else, soundly. No other option is worth more than passing consideration, if logic is the basis for deciding.

jmt18325 said:
I'm simply suggesting that for air to air threats, there is no better alternative that we could buy

Yes, there is: F35. Obsolescent aircraft and mixed fleets could not be more wrong.

But feel free to keep pounding away.
 
jmt18325 said:
I don't think the hornet program is being deliberately slow - it just is.  It was announced in 2014, and didn't start until late 2015.  It's hard to pin that on this government.

As for the delays in the Lightning, well, it wouldn't matter, if not for our current fighter predicament.

So let's assume the media got all the details right on DND's and PSPC's and ISEDC's collective effort to extend the Hornet's estimated life expectancy, with an announcement made in late-2014, in your expert opinion, when should the government have had a plan fully developed and approved by Treasury Board in order to extend the life of the Hornet fleet from 2020 to 2025? ???

Regards
G2G
 
Loachman said:
They can certainly be twisted, or used with no context, and frequently are. As Benjamin Disraeli said, and Mark Twain quoted, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Personal experience provides context and real knowledge.

What qualifies you more than an actual fighter pilot? Hmm?

You have no credibility beyond your keyboard.

The key phrase in that is "in history". We are not seeking a fighter for HISTORY. We are seeking a fighter for the FUTURE - at least four decades of it, unless we want to blow billions more by replacing an "interim" machine in less than half of that time. That simply makes no sense under any circumstance. It is a waste of money, and puts people at risk, just to satisfy somebody's petty ego.

By all credible indications, F35 will trounce F15, and almost everything else, soundly. No other option is worth more than passing consideration, if logic is the basis for deciding.

Yes, there is: F35. Obsolescent aircraft and mixed fleets could not be more wrong.

But feel free to keep pounding away.
I don't think the issue with the f35 is its capabilities. We can all agree, more or less, that they are world class, even with their troubled past.

The issue that some people have is it worth the cost?

 
What cost? Danes are buying them for ~$95M USD a plane. For Gen 4 and above aircraft, that's middle of the road. Eurofighter is more expensive, ASH touted by Boeing is creeping up in cost as they desperately try to match capabilities with F-35. Gripen with tech transfer is double the cost of an F-35, no one is really buying Rafales so there's not much comparison.
 
Over its lifetime, F35 will be cheaper.

And all modern aircraft have/had "troubled pasts". There is nothing unique about F35 in that regard.

I remember well how F18 was slammed in our media during its development and acquisition. It was the absolute worst possible choice back then, doomed to every imaginable failure, and would break this Country financially. Fortunately, Al Gore hadn't invented the Interweb then, so there were far fewer nutty posts by self-proclaimed experts in newspaper article comments sections.
 
Good2Golf said:
So let's assume the media got all the details right on DND's and PSPC's and ISEDC's collective effort to extend the Hornet's estimated life expectancy, with an announcement made in late-2014, in your expert opinion, when should the government have had a plan fully developed and approved by Treasury Board in order to extend the life of the Hornet fleet from 2020 to 2025? ???

Regards
G2G

I'm saying I have no confidence on it getting done on time or on budget.

I also want to apologize for offending anyone - that was never my intention.
 
jmt18325 said:
I'm saying I have no confidence on it getting done on time or on budget.

I also want to apologize for offending anyone - that was never my intention.

So what is the required timeline and what is the Government's budget for the extension that you are afraid won't be met? ???
 
The question of if it is "worth the cost" for an F-35 is interesting to contemplate.

We no longer fly AWACS missions for NATO, but the combined sensor suites of a flight of F-35's provides much of the same capability between the aircraft linked in, and this capability is not totally eliminated by a failure or destruction of a single platform, unlike AWACS. Has anyone taken regaining AWACS like capabilities with F-35's into the cost comparison mix?

We would be unable to take on independent missions in a near peer environment without some sort of stealth capability and certainly would have difficulty penetrating air defense systems without a potent combination of stealth and advanced sensor capability. What is the cost of becoming mere "bomb trucks" for any coalition mission and unable to carry out independent planning or missions in support of our own national goals?

What is the cost of being unable to make meaningful contributions to coalition missions? I believe it was the Kosovo air campaign where the commander asked potential partners to stop offering more day fighter/interceptors, since they added nothing to the air campaign. We also saw Canada's sudden and abrupt exclusion from planning meetings for fighting ISIS once we removed our most potent capability, only partners making "significant" contributions to the fight were invited.

And of course, Canadian industry losing contracts to supply parts and service to the F-35 program is a potential loss of billions of dollars in income for industry and workers.

So what is the "true" cost of the F-35 program?
 
Good2Golf said:
So what is the required timeline and what is the Government's budget for the extension that you are afraid won't be met? ???

There was a quote from someone in the airforce recently that said the upgrades have to be completed by 2021 to be worth their cost.
 
Back
Top