F-35 issues

[stampeder]

We're not buying the right plane, as the experts have been saying for years (i.e. by the time the F-35 is operational in volume with Canadian and European allies, Russian and Chinese detection will have eliminated the "stealth" of it, which is a "feature" we have not needed anyways) and we're buying that wrong plane without any proper competition nor open process. Canadian taxpayers are being fleeced and our air force is being let down, despite ongoing attempts to portray a unified Canadian military voice of delight over the F-35 deal. As for this thread, it seems to me that nothing more needs to be said.

[runnin']

Glad you got that all sorted out. Maybe you should write a letter. Also, I see your experts and I raise you 5 more experts. There's experts on both sides of all issues and simply saying I believe these ones and those ones are wrong doesn't cut it.

Hopefully we get these jets sooner rather than later, I'd like to check them out close up at the Abbotsford Airshow.

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by cr9527

Because it's the most advanced, most capable and least costly platform that should we back out now for the sake of considering lesser deals, it could cost us a BILLION Dollars.

Would you like to shell out a billion?

Given that the Conservative sole-sourced the contract in violation of federal law require multiple bids, then the money should be recovered in a lawsuit by suing the party and individuals involved ...

Okay, that won't happen, but if simply eliminate the requirement to have such planes at all, we will still be up many $billions.

In terms of unit cost ... you seem to ignore the vast evidence that the plane will cost more than Harper promised. That you cling to Harper's numbers shows a lack of judgement.

Originally Posted by cr9527

YES, if our Air Force didn't exist or is incompetent, Russians would attempt to push into the Arctic they have been eager to dominate for the past 5 decades.

This kind of baseless paranoia is EXACTLY the reason that no one that has anything to do with the military should have any decision making role in this country.

And if this is really about the Arctic ... good grief, we really have got the wrong plane. A single-engine jet that supposed to operate in the high arctic? A plane that hasn't even been extensively tested up there yet?

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by stampeder

We're not buying the right plane, as the experts have been saying for years (i.e. by the time the F-35 is operational in volume with Canadian and European allies, Russian and Chinese detection will have eliminated the "stealth" of it, which is a "feature" we have not needed anyways)

Your article makes many assumptions that have no evidence of even becoming true. Stealth isn't going to be rendered ineffective by the Russians, if it is, why on earth would Russia desperately try to push PAKFA into service?

and we're buying that wrong plane without any proper competition nor open process.

Like the many successful replacement programs in the past including the Leopard 2 which did not have any competition at all?

Canadian taxpayers are being fleeced and our air force is being let down, despite ongoing attempts to portray a unified Canadian military voice of delight over the F-35 deal. As for this thread, it seems to me that nothing more needs to be said.

That is because you are ignoring everything I said.

Originally Posted by nfitz

Given that the Conservative sole-sourced the contract in violation of federal law require multiple bids, then the money should be recovered in a lawsuit by suing the party and individuals involved ...

Which law is it that requires every contract to have multiple bids?

Okay, that won't happen, but if simply eliminate the requirement to have such planes at all, we will still be up many $billions.

What such planes? An upgrade? Then our Air Force would be paying MORE just to keep our CF-18s flying in the next decade or so than to buy new ones. And eventually, they will be rendered unflyabale.

Or the F-35? Then you are picking a more expensive option with less capabilities. I can't imagine how this is a better move.

In terms of unit cost ... you seem to ignore the vast evidence that the plane will cost more than Harper promised. That you cling to Harper's numbers shows a lack of judgement.

You seem to ignore the evidence I just presented from the USAF budget of FY2011 or FY2012.

This kind of baseless paranoia is EXACTLY the reason that no one that has anything to do with the military should have any decision making role in this country.

Again, like thw Whiz kids back in the 60s, Civilians making Military decisions only caused failures after failures.

And if this is really about the Arctic ... good grief, we really have got the wrong plane. A single-engine jet that supposed to operate in the high arctic? A plane that hasn't even been extensively tested up there yet?

F-35As are designed to replace the F-16s which have been operating in Alaska for the past few decades so it is a part of the F-35 requirement to meet the Arctic challenges. The F-16s in fact are doing better than the F-15s flying up there despite it being a single engined aircraft.

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by cr9527

What such planes? An upgrade? Then our Air Force would be paying MORE just to keep our CF-18s flying in the next decade or so than to buy new ones. And eventually, they will be rendered unflyabale.

I was suggesting simply not having fighter jets. Limit the air force to helicopters and cargo. Save a lot of money ... and probably drop less bombs on civilians.

Originally Posted by cr9527

You seem to ignore the evidence I just presented from the USAF budget of FY2011 or FY2012.

Which seems to be cooked as much as the Canadian numbers.

Originally Posted by cr9527

Civilians making Military decisions only caused failures after failures.

Ah yes ... all those countries that invaded Canada in the 1970s and 1980s. How could I forget?

[stampeder]

Your article makes many assumptions that have no evidence of even becoming true

FAIL!

Hee hee... tell it to the RAND Corporation (the authors) and go ahead and submit your CV there too.

[Tim Cake]

RAND (Research and Development) is the premier think-tank for the US Government. Remember the Pentagon Papers? Written by RAND for the US DoD. I wouldn't discount their findings. More documents on US fighter jet acquisitions can be found at http://www.rand.org -- just use their search engine to find the facts. I hope this helps the interested parties find some in-depth analyses on this contentious subject.

Tim

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by stampeder

FAIL!

Hee hee... tell it to the RAND Corporation (the authors) and go ahead and submit your CV there too.

Yes I know who RAND are. They are however assuming the absolute worst scenario. It wasn't a realistic analysis, but rather on what would happen if Nothing of the USAF worked.

I never said they were wrong, just said that their assumptions are unrealistic at this point.

Originally Posted by nfitz

I was suggesting simply not having fighter jets. Limit the air force to helicopters and cargo. Save a lot of money ... and probably drop less bombs on civilians.

We would not only risk being kicked off of NATO, we would also have Zero ability to deter or intercept any possible air threat.

Which seems to be cooked as much as the Canadian numbers.

Go read it yourself
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/me...110211-038.pdf

If you don't trust the USAF Budget, and instead believe PBO's estimate based on the aircraft's weight? I am at a loss of words.

Ah yes ... all those countries that invaded Canada in the 1970s and 1980s. How could I forget?

How many times did Russian bombers try to fly into our air space?

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by cr9527

We would not only risk being kicked off of NATO, we would also have Zero ability to deter or intercept any possible air threat.

So ... we get kicked out of NATO ...

And what possible air threat would we intercept. Jet planes filled with terrorist? Let's see ... that happened to the USA 4 times, and they failed to intercept any.

Originally Posted by cr9527

How many times did Russian bombers try to fly into our air space?

And if the succeeded? So what ... what would they do then? If they wanted to bomb us, they could just fire missiles.

Sounds to me we'd be better off putting some anti-aircraft missiles in place. Even 3rd world countries can afford those.

Then we could do something useful with the money instead. Perhaps some large public art displays. Or increase pride funding.

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by nfitz

So ... we get kicked out of NATO ...

And what possible air threat would we intercept. Jet planes filled with terrorist? Let's see ... that happened to the USA 4 times, and they failed to intercept any.

Russian Bombers is one. They are STILL routinely testing our defences by flying to our territory.

And if the succeeded? So what ... what would they do then? If they wanted to bomb us, they could just fire missiles.

Its a part of the nuclear deterrence. Both the States and the Soviets and thusly the Russians knew that Nukes wouldn't be able to finish the job. They need strategic bombers to clean it up, that is why both the Russians/Soviets and US kept their fleet of strategic bombers ready for nuclear attacks despite the massive nuclear arsenal.

Sounds to me we'd be better off putting some anti-aircraft missiles in place. Even 3rd world countries can afford those.

SAMs only work effectively against an incompetent Air Force. While they would inflict casualties on a more competent Air Force, they are incapable of stopping an attack from say, the Russian Air Force.

There are simply too many vulnerabilities from SAMs.

Your responses show me that you have little clue about Military affairs.

[nfitz]

Originally Posted by cr9527

Your responses show me that you have little clue about Military affairs.

Who gives a ... about military affairs. Your responses suggest you are living in a paranoid world where reds are hiding under our beds ready to conquer us and make us communists.

Of course they aren't about to start bombing us. To even suggest the idea completely is so beyond rational, that one could never take anything you say on military affairs at face value!

I think we're done here ... I'll leave you to your put back on your tin-foil bicorn.

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by nfitz

Who gives a ... about military affairs. Your responses suggest you are living in a paranoid world where reds are hiding under our beds ready to conquer us and make us communists.

Of course they aren't about to start bombing us. To even suggest the idea completely is so beyond rational, that one could never take anything you say on military affairs at face value!

I think we're done here ... I'll leave you to your put back on your tin-foil bicorn.

Right, they are flying bombers to our airspace for fun.

By that, we don't need a military do we?

You are discussing the purchase of the F-35 and yet you have zero knowledge or even appreciation of Military Affairs.

[HiroPro]

cr9527

Are you aware of the limited range F35 has!?! Are you also aware it only has one engine?

Please research the range of alternate aircraft like Rafale etc and the number of times F-18 has lost one engine and returned to base. Understand that with F-35 that would have been total aircraft lost and a pilot in the middle of the arctic.

F-35 doesn't have the required range for a country as large as Canada and also a single engine aircraft isn't reliable/survivable enough for our lengthly arctic theatre intercepts we have done in the past.

[Nanuuk]

The one engine fallacy has been disproven many times. The technology has improved over the F-16s and they have an impressive record. As far as range goes, we do have airborne refuelled aircraft. I old agree thought that we need to supplement our fleet with non 5th generation aircraft such as the Super Hornet.

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by HiroPro

cr9527

Are you aware of the limited range F35 has!?! Are you also aware it only has one engine?

Please research the range of alternate aircraft like Rafale etc and the number of times F-18 has lost one engine and returned to base. Understand that with F-35 that would have been total aircraft lost and a pilot in the middle of the arctic.

F-35 doesn't have the required range for a country as large as Canada and also a single engine aircraft isn't reliable/survivable enough for our lengthly arctic theatre intercepts we have done in the past.

Firstly, as far as I can tell, there has been less than 3 incidents in the F-18 history, including USN and RCAF where the 2 engines actually saved the pilot's life when one of them died.

Secondly, F-35 exceeds the range of the CF-18 and F-18 Super Hornet, thereby exceeds our Range requirement.
Yes, Rafale has a larger range than F-35, however, if it lacks a good enough sensor package and network integration, it might as well fly blind.

A fighter with shorter legs but can see is better than a blind fighter with longer legs.

Originally Posted by Nanuuk

The one engine fallacy has been disproven many times. The technology has improved over the F-16s and they have an impressive record. As far as range goes, we do have airborne refuelled aircraft. I old agree thought that we need to supplement our fleet with non 5th generation aircraft such as the Super Hornet.

That would require doubling our logistics, training, spares, and just about all of our other costs.

Would love to have it, but can't afford it.