|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|2014-12-28 04:39 PM|
F-35 Unable To Properly See Battlefield Below
Here's another item to add to the "What a piece of junk!" list of F-35 shortcomings:
So, in order to be stealthy (which we don't need, and which the Chinese and Russians have overcome with L-band radar anyways) the F-35 uses an internally mounted technology that is 10 years behind the capability of the newest external-pod-mounted gear on today's F-18s and other similar fighters. But, putting those newest external pods on an F-35 defeats the whole point of the stealth technology, so round and round we go on a hideously expensive piece of junk.
|2014-06-09 01:32 PM|
Reuters: Canada poised to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35s
I posted this Reuters story to /. a few days ago in case some of you have already seen it there: Canada is poised to buy 65 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets. Round and round we go, the silliness never stops. As I've said here repeatedly, this government is hell-bent on buying that plane.
|2014-06-09 11:39 AM|
|JamesK||As I recall, one of the reasons for the selection of the F-18 over F-16, many years ago, was 2 engines vs 1.|
|2014-06-09 10:47 AM|
Looks like a report is confirming what most of us in this thread have been saying for years:
F-35's single engine too dangerous for Canadian military, report says
... Entitled "One Dead Pilot," the report argues that fighter aircraft with a single engine — as the F-35 has — are too dangerous and unreliable to be used by the Canadian military ... compares the F-35 to the single-engine CF-104 Starfighter, which the Canadian air force used from the 1960s to 1987 and which was involved in 110 crashes in that time.
Hopefully we can dodge the return of the Widowmaker that government is so desperate to push on us. If the government continues to push this, I have to wonder who is getting cash in brown envelopes from arms dealers this time.
|2013-10-18 03:30 PM|
|NeilN||Thought participants in this thread might like to read the in-depth Vanity Fair article on the F-35's design issues and cost overruns: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2...ockheed-martin|
|2013-03-03 11:17 AM|
Operating costs have often been mentioned by critics. For example, fuel & training costs should not be a significant difference, but that hasn't stopped some from including them in the cost of the program, while ignoring similar costs for the alternative. As I mentioned about the Arrow. The already spent development costs were considered part of the cost of each plane to be delivered, but ignored when claiming the American plane was a better deal. The clearly political nature of that decision was shown by the order to destroy all the plans etc., even though the technology & engines could have been sold to others, even if the Arrow was canceled. So, if you want to "prove" an argument, just juggle the numbers enough to show you're right.
|2013-03-03 11:12 AM|
|Nanuuk||Nonsense. Capital programs do not include operating cost projections when speaking of the cost of procurement.|
|2013-03-01 02:47 PM|
Financial theorists write off sunk cost if you can't get any monetary value out of it. An analogy is having paid $X for a video store membership (remember those?) of a local store and then a competitor (say Blockbuster) comes around offering cheaper rentals and no membership fees. So whatever was invested in the Arrow at the time was just.. written off.
While Diefenbaker was probably right to have bought U.S.-made a/c, it did not account for the economic benefits developing one's own industry would provide, like forsaking the local video store for Blockbuster.
|2013-03-01 01:49 PM|
|99semaj||I guess we need to be careful with the term "commit" since technically there is no purchase commitment at all. Let me rephrase in a way that I think is in line with your quoted source..."The previous government put us on a path to the F-35, and the current government signalled its intention to stay on that path"|
|2013-03-01 11:06 AM|
The previous Liberal government did not commit to buy F-35, they only committed $200 million to the R&D costs in order to allow Canadian Aerospace companies to bid on contracts.
|2013-03-01 07:50 AM|
The Diefenbaker government made similar arguments when canceling the Avro Arrow. They took all the development costs and the actual production costs and claimed the Arrow was going to be $X per plane, but we could buy the American plane for $Y, which is much cheaper. But they "forgot" to include the money already spent in developing the Arrow, so that investment was thrown away. If they'd considered the actual production costs going forward, the Arrow would have done better in comparison.
|2013-02-28 11:29 PM|
Originally Posted by travisc View Post
Same thing applies here. We have pilots, bases and maintenance costs regardless of what airframe we fly. This is just partisan BS. And lets not forget that the current government didn't commit to the F35, the previous government did. The same government that squandered $500M in helicopter cancellation fees just to play smoke-and-mirrors politics.
Now a legit discussion could be held around whether Canada even needs fighter jets for the type of military work we anticipate doing...intuitively I think the answer is that we do need interceptor capability, but maybe an advanced stealth fighter is not the answer...
|2013-02-28 04:36 PM|
Do Terry Milewski and Boeing read Digital Home Forum?
Terry Milewski did a investigative report on how Boeing could provide the Super Hornet at half the cost of the purported costs, and operational costs of the F35. I haven't looked at his footnotes and sources, but it all could have come from the Digital Home Forum!
It is worth looking at if you haven't seen it yet.
|2012-12-12 11:28 PM|
Spin, spin, spin! The Cons added 12 years of "development" up to 2022 when the last plane is delivered, which cost $550ish million into the total, so they can claim that the per year costs haven't really increased. Apples to apples, the number is 30 years at $45 billion.
It's further worth noting that during the election they tried to foist the $15 billion number on us, while the secret DND number was $25 billion. So let's consider the entire life cycle of the spin on this thing before we try to claim they're not pulling the wool over our eyes.
|2012-12-12 10:31 PM|
Does any country use 20 year life-cycles for military aircraft of this nature? The Americans must have laughed at our governments use of 20 years for the F-35s. This is what the Americans do,
And some people get cranky over 3 year cell phone contracts.
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|