F-35 - so bad even Canada is having second thoughts

FluffyMcDeath

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,257
Reaction score
2,693
I don't know if this video will work outside of Canada (it's only available on the CBC website) but it seems like even in Canada we are having trouble killing this white elephant that the politicians just can't seem to put aside. But they're getting closer.
 
the video is playing for me....will watch tomorrow
 
The F-35 was a good idea, implemented badly. From the competitive fly off against Boeing to its continual development problems, Lockheed hasn't been able to straighten things out. It's a program that needs reevaluating by the DoD audit agency (DCMA) and the DoD inspector general.

Regards,
ltstanfo
 
I don't think the F-35 is a piece of junk really. The audiophile guy trashing it I think went overboard. He said some funny things, such as, it sucks at dog fights. That may be true in the classic sense, but he should have also mentioned that it's been US airforce policy to not place much importance on dog fights. Modern air war is far more advanced these days with air born radar, command and control units that essentially use the fighters as missile transports. The missiles do all the work these days, the plane just needs to get close and being stealth maybe good enough.

Anyway, my question is, why does Canada need such a plane? It may be good at certain things, but does it really serve Canada? We haven't really discussed what Canada needs, have we? Maybe that should be discussed first, then we can go shopping and comparing. It seems to me we did things backwards: Buy a plane that doesn't exist and hope it does the work we haven't determined yet. Classic!

Thank goodness for the NHL strike, or most Canadians wouldn't even hear about this!
 
Glaucus said:
I don't think the F-35 is a piece of junk really.
Click to expand...
It's too expensive to be junk, but is it any good and is it value for money? I think the problem starts at the specification stage. You want something that does everything, does each of those things better than a specialized design AND do it cheaply. One or two of those constraints has to give. Cheaply seems to be the first to go. The second item is just unlikely to hold up in the real world.
Anyway, my question is, why does Canada need such a plane?
Click to expand...
I think the two missions of this fighter were mentioned. The primary mission is to funnel money to Lockheed.
As for why Canada would need them it's at least two fold. As a good vassal nation we have to help feed the US arms contractors since they have already outstripped the US ability to pay. We also need to support and defray the costs of securing oil contracts for US, UK and French oil companies.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I think it was an attractive idea impossible to deliver.
Click to expand...

They said the same about Harrier and worse.

That said, Harrier worked and was cost efficient. There are very few aircraft that make good jack of all trades and I think that from the beginning the one thing this bird lacked was cost oversight. The F16 is in many ways what the F35 should have aimed to emulate, a single basic airframe that offered a lot of options at an affordable price.

You might well be right in that too much was demanded of a single design. In air to air this thing would be easy prey for any number of this or the previous Gen of fighters, in air to ground it lacks payload and range of more specialised birds such as the F111 and even other multi role aircraft such as the F15/16/18 not to mention the cost disparity verses all of those and the Harrier...

I half expect it to go the way of the Comanche.
 
Alan and Fluffy,

I concur with both your posts. To put it simply, the F-35 suffers from "Jack of all Trades" syndrome... (supposed to be) good at everything, master of none.

The original idea was to make a multi-role, joint service aircraft (oddly enough patterned to be the successor to the F-16) but much like the Army's M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle (successor to the highly success M113) the designers went wild and added way too much to the now overloaded design. The marines would only sign on board if they could get VTOL to replace their harriers. Co$t$ escalated accordingly. When the Pentagon (and Lockheed) realized the new per unit cost, friendly nations were invited to participate to help defray costs.. which only continued to rise. This is one program that needs intensive review by the DCMA and Pentagon IG (as I previously mentioned).

Finally, I have to disagree with Mike's previous comment about US Air Force doctrine. There is still a place for close in air combat maneuvering (ACM) but the F35 has "evolved" to be more of a support aircraft and not an air superiority vehicle so ACM has suffered accordingly.

The ironic / funny thing (to me) is that Lockheed really wanted to sell an export version of the F22 to friendly nations (including Israel) but the State Department / Pentagon and Obama administration blocked said sale due to concerns of technology loss / security. So, in goes the F35 and yet another modified form to try to fill in the gap from the now forbidden F22. Once again... Jack of all Trades syndrome. As someone who has up close, first hand experience with the F22 I can assure you that it is an ACM machine, designed for air superiority. :-)

Regards,
ltstanfo
 
The F22 may be great at dog fighting, but how many times has it done so in real combat? That number is probably very close to zero.

Modern Air Combat
With modern Radar guided air-to-air missiles like the AMRAAM greatly extending the general engagement range of jet fighters, some experts hypothesize that dogfighting may be headed toward extinction, but others cite the occurrences in Vietnam as evidence otherwise. However, it is worth noting that there have been a great number of Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) kills occurring during and after Operation Desert Storm. This was due to the improved reliability of BVR missiles, radars, and most importantly, the integration of C3I assets such as AWACS aircraft into the realm of aerial warfare. This provided Coalition forces with a superior picture of the battlefield and in conjunction with airspace management allowed utilization of BVR weaponry.
Click to expand...
 
Time to slow the military spending. Especially when things like Camo that never worked costed us billions and lives of our troops.

Recently Stormin' Norman passed away. He was well known for giving hell to the military management and respecting the troops. We need more like him.
 
Glaucus said:
The F22 may be great at dog fighting, but how many times has it done so in real combat? That number is probably very close to zero.

Modern Air Combat
Click to expand...

That's a fair question and I honestly don't have an answer. I do know that the Air Force is (publicly at least) reluctant to send their new fighter into harm's way and that certainly doesn't look good from a PR standpoint. However I should also point out that the Air Force isn't in a habit of disclosing every mission that their aircraft fly.

The original idea was to have the F22 replace the F15 but given the costs to build the new fighter that couldn't happen, financially. The USAF had to settle for less. Given that, I'd also be inclined to keep them corralled until really needed.

Regards,
ltstanfo
 
you people are pikers!

I'm getting on board my Starship and warping outa here!!
 
the one good thing about
ltstanfo said:
That's a fair question and I honestly don't have an answer. I do know that the Air Force is (publicly at least) reluctant to send their new fighter into harm's way and that certainly doesn't look good from a PR standpoint. However I should also point out that the Air Force isn't in a habit of disclosing every mission that their aircraft fly.
Click to expand...
Perhaps one good thing about very expensive weapons is that the owners are scared to lose them and thus choose not to use them.
 
There is some truth to what you say there. I prefer the other axiom that states the best weapon is one you'll never use. :-)

Regards,
ltstanfo
 
One of the more annoying things about the F35 debacle is that thanks to the cronyism that seems endemic within the UK military, we look set to end up with two aircraft carriers that will end up with no aircraft to fly off of them - because we sold the last of our Harriers to the US Marines last year.

The cost of fitting a catapult system (which the carriers were designed to allow for from the beginning) would be about 150Million if we went to the manufacturers shipyards in the US to get it fitted.

BAE were going to charge 2billion. Not a typo - billion with a b.

The result is that the government backed off a purchase of either F18 or Rafale and are now effectively forced to wait possibly indefinitely for F35. Each of the two carriers were set to cost around 2billion.

Time to break up BAE or start looking to other suppliers, because right now BAE have for the past few decades supplied us with nothing but crap and charged us through the nose for the privilege.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top