Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

bring_it_on said:
What exactly did Portugal announce and what are they now walking back? Looks like its walking back "plans to buy F-35 in the future"..So not even sure of whether they were at the LOI stage or left of that.
Click to expand...

They selected F-35 and had commenced service integration talks with Lockheed Martin and the USAF to prepare their armed forces for its introduction (training, procurement, logistics chain, basing requirements, etc..). Lockheed Martin had deployed staff to Monte Real air base to assess infrastructure requirements for the aircraft. They hadn't placed a signed order for airframes but they weren't considering any alternatives.
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
They selected F-35 and had commenced service integration talks with Lockheed Martin and the USAF to prepare their armed forces for its introduction (training, procurement, logistics chain, basing requirements, etc..). Lockheed Martin had deployed staff to Monte Real air base to assess infrastructure requirements for the aircraft. They hadn't placed a signed order for airframes but they weren't considering any alternatives.
Click to expand...

In actual contractual terms where were they in the process*? Source selection? Formal LOI to GOTUS, approved FMS case? Signed Contract? If it is left of LOI, they were effectively just getting started so hardly a 'cancellation'. Any process that's left of that can be walked backwards and re-started at a future date if things change.

*In other words, what was the probability of a signed contract in 2 years? 5 years?
 
bring_it_on said:
In actual contractual terms where were they in the process*? Source selection? Formal LOI to GOTUS, approved FMS case? Signed Contract? If it is left of LOI, they were effectively just getting started so hardly a 'cancellation'. Any process that's left of that can be walked backwards and re-started at a future date if things change.

*In other words, what was the probability of a signed contract in 2 years? 5 years?
Click to expand...
Left of LOI.
Chances of signed contract in 2 years, slightly better (but just slightly...) than a signed contract with Iran. In 5 years, possible but i wouldnt make a bet on it.
 
In other words, at the end of the present US administration, they will be at the same point as of today... Canceling was a cheap thing to do, without the burden of any consequences but made them the hero of a day. In 4 years, they would be able to reopen negotiations without much if any delays in their overall plans.

Internet is gaining traction in politics.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
I other words, at the end of the present US administration, they will be at the same point as of today... Canceling was a cheap thing to do, without the burden of any consequences but made them the hero of a day. In 4 years, they would be able to reopen negotiations without much if any delays in their overall plans.

Internet is gaining traction in politics.
Click to expand...
Orange Hitler & Spaceman Hitler tend to make people irrational.
 
TomcatViP said:
I other words, at the end of the present US administration, they will be at the same point as of today... Canceling was a cheap thing to do, without the burden of any consequences but made them the hero of a day. In 4 years, they would be able to reopen negotiations without much if any delays in their overall plans.

Internet is gaining traction in politics.
Click to expand...
If that's their plan, they better hope Vance isn't the big P next round. Slim chance, maybe? But none as an absolute zero.
 
bring_it_on said:
In actual contractual terms where were they in the process*? Source selection? Formal LOI to GOTUS, approved FMS case? Signed Contract? If it is left of LOI, they were effectively just getting started so hardly a 'cancellation'. Any process that's left of that can be walked backwards and re-started at a future date if things change.

*In other words, what was the probability of a signed contract in 2 years? 5 years?
Click to expand...

In actual contract terms, Sole Source Selection. Meaning no multi-vendor bid tendering or open public procurement process required.
 
Sintra said:
Suspect that the FAP F-16's are gonna do a "F-86" (fly until desintegration, the Sabre flew with the FAP til 1980).
Click to expand...
For me, that makes sense. Portugal could ideally update some F-16s to the Block 70 standard but cancelling the F-35s and then getting Rafales or Typhoons wouldn’t make much sense – in my opionion.
The more rational solution would be to wait for the GCAP/Tempest with its presumably longer air policing range (Azores) than the already mentioned aircraft.

As to the hyped F-35 cancellation – I would start to be cautious if Switzerland and Finland would switch to other aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Portugal could replace its ageing American-made F-16 fighter jets with European jets rather than F-35s following U.S. President Donald Trump's policy shifts, the country's defence ministry said on Friday.
Defence Minister Nuno Melo told Portugal's Publico newspaper the unpredictable nature of Trump's policy towards NATO and Europe could determine the country's pick of aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
Is it even possible to cancel a F-35 "deal" once committed and after a few years ? Sometimes I feel it's like Concorde: no escape clause, baby. As would say Nacho Varga "It's not about what you want. When you're in - you're in."
 
TomS said:
We can firmly disabuse the Gibson origin for the phrase, because he used "Kill Switch" as the title for an episode of the X Files in 1998 only after encountering a band of that same name. It's certainly possible he is responsible for the usage in computer science, but it's way older than that in things like machine tools and even power boats.
Click to expand...

The War in 2020 by Ralph Peters was published in 1991. If I recall correctly, the United States is being defeated by an ascendant new Japanese empire (yes, one of those novels from that era) and the fatal mistake the Japanese make is that all of the weapons they export to their proxies can be remotely disabled. I'm not sure if the novel uses the term 'kill switch', but the idea of using satellites to remotely disable export systems is central to that novel.

Of course, this is much less of a concern than the potential for cutting off access to spare parts and avionics upgrades (as a potential negotiating tactic or way of controlling allies). But since we're getting into the history of the terminology and idea, I thought it was worth adding.
 
Archibald said:
Is it even possible to cancel a F-35 "deal" once committed and after a few years ? Sometimes I feel it's like Concorde: no escape clause, baby. As would say Nacho Varga "It's not about what you want. When you're in - you're in."
Click to expand...

Well, contracts and treaties aren't exactly stable right now. The big questions would be (1) is there a viable alternative capability available and (2) how much have costs already been sunk (including things like training).

I could see some smaller countries selling their handful of aircraft (especially as recently received) and then buying Gripen-E to maintain a baseline 4+ while buying into GCAP. Since a lot of the maintenance structure is just-in-time and centred in the U.S. it should be pretty easy to transfer with the airframes.
 
I am pretty sure that the €800b budget is to augment the situation of Europe armies with more forces and capacity. Not the military version of remodeling the kitchen.
 
I read the press headline about Canada reconsidering their F-35 order. Before that, we had complimentary reports about the rational and experienced personality of the new Prime minister.

But then again, how many F-35 Canada will in effect introduce in service during the next 4 years, as per their actual plan? What realistic impact would it have on its alleged defense posture?

Sane Politics is not about postponing urgent military requirements on the ground that it does not make you fashionable.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Sane Politics is not about postponing urgent military requirements on the ground that it does not make you fashionable.
Click to expand...
There's point they can be reviewed if main scenario is under doubt. F-35 is ultimately a 100% "allied commitment".

If Ottawa considers common interventions of united free world as not the only possible scenario, options emerge.

If Ottawa considers it is under no threat but such interventions are not as likely anymore, other options may be considered. To save some money, if anything.
If Ottawa considers Russia as a threat, other options are urgently worth looking into.
If Ottawa considers (let's think for a second) US a threat, other options should be acted upon yesterday, in panic.
 
Well, when Russia leader will address Canada bare chested and all nipples out vaunting the friendship b/w the two countries, you would recommend rushing orders to Sukhoi?
 
There are alternatives to the US, and the new Prime Minister has rightly ordered a review into the defence and economic implications of ordering weapons from the US at the same time the US is threatening to invade it and whether purchasing a different platform (for example the runner up SAAB bid or a different platform if Canadian workshare could be agreed) would be better.
 
That was what I was thinking WatcherZero, the Gripen E would be a good alternative to the F-35.
 
Recent exercise with the British Navy and USMC manned F-35B whipping out the entire French team off French coast flying nearly unlimited Rafale or open complaints from French pilots that it is not possible to win a fight against a 5th Gen fighter does not raise any realistic reasonable outcome for Canada while buying the Saab fighter. (I am using the example of France as part of Canadians speak the same language and that Rafale have been regularly evaluated a better buy than the Saab Gripen).

All this discussion is rather ridiculous on an Aerospace forum. We Know fairly well how the Lightning is dominant across numerous evaluations, campaigns and reports. We can't spend our time argumenting into infinity the same biased arguments. Please, leave that to X.com.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
All this discussion is rather ridiculous on an Aerospace forum. We Know fairly well how the Lightning is dominant across numerous evaluations, campaigns and reports. We can't spend our time argumenting into infinity the same biased arguments. Please, leave that to X.com.
Click to expand...

And its also inferior in many others such as sortie generation, combat load, operating cost which is 3x higher, basing requirements, and interdiction roles. The F-35 is a very good intruder it doesn't automatically make it the right tool for the job in other roles such as patrol and defence. There have also been exercises where the F-35 got slaughtered by 4th gen such as in Red Flags where it was in the rapid reaction role, or wargaming aerial and naval engagements over the Pacific. That Red Flag for example in 2017 where it was claimed it got a 15:1 kill ratio it was acting in the role of a bomber alongside F-22 engaging aerial targets, B1 and two squadrons of Growlers providing jamming operating against an opposing force of F-16C's a late 80'/early 90's aircraft that numerous countries have retired as obsolete.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Recent exercise with the British Navy and USMC manned F-35B whipping out the entire French team off French coast flying nearly unlimited Rafale or open complaints from French pilots that it is not possible to win a fight against a 5th Gen fighter does not raise any realistic reasonable outcome for Canada while buying the Saab fighter. (I am using the example of France as part of Canadians speak the same language and that Rafale have been regularly evaluated a better buy than the Saab Gripen).

All this discussion is rather ridiculous on an Aerospace forum. We Know fairly well how the Lightning is dominant across numerous evaluations, campaigns and reports. We can't spend our time argumenting into infinity the same biased arguments. Please, leave that to X.com.
Click to expand...
Yes, but. What to do if Canadian establishment considers:

(1) Accompanying US into wars is no longer the main goal. Mexico does alright without adequate fighters at all.
(2) Surviving against US as one of potential goals.
Thrown in for fun purposes, but ultimately POTUS says what he says.

Eurocanards can't compete with F-35 being F-35: arguably it's out of European reach to even produce this pair of aircraft and ecosystem - even if they had 5th gen.
But this doesn't mean there are no circumstances where other aircraft can be more suitable.
 
Ainen said:
Yes, but. What to do if Canadian establishment considers:

(1) Accompanying US into wars is no longer the main goal. Mexico does alright without adequate fighters at all.
(2) Surviving against US as one of potential goals.
Click to expand...
Mexico isn't part of NATO and has no obligations there. And #2 is idiotic.
 
sferrin said:
Mexico isn't part of NATO and has no obligations there. And #2 is idiotic.
Click to expand...
Yes, but obligations can be fulfilled cheaper.
Allied obligation is *help*, not being an extension of USAF. There are other means of help. Other, cheaper(or more suitable to defend Canada) aircraft included.

#2, at the very least, may not be perceived as idiotic by governor of the Great state of Canada.
There's a famous Israeli teaching, to believe people promising you harm.

Annexation rhetoric isn't exactly a funny joke.
 
TomcatViP said:
Recent exercise with the British Navy and USMC manned F-35B whipping out the entire French team off French coast flying nearly unlimited Rafale or open complaints from French pilots that it is not possible to win a fight against a 5th Gen fighter does not raise any realistic reasonable outcome for Canada while buying the Saab fighter. (I am using the example of France as part of Canadians speak the same language and that Rafale have been regularly evaluated a better buy than the Saab Gripen).

All this discussion is rather ridiculous on an Aerospace forum. We Know fairly well how the Lightning is dominant across numerous evaluations, campaigns and reports. We can't spend our time argumenting into infinity the same biased arguments. Please, leave that to X.com.
Click to expand...

Any source for such outrageous claims ?
 
Canada is free to do as they wish. Buying the Gripen is a good idea. I also think they should withdraw from NORAD immediately.

If the Canadians are so afraid of "kill switches", if these even exist (and no, there's no boom button on any F-35 nor a remote shutdown one), I recommend they turn over their fleet of American-made aircraft and pay contract penalties accordingly.
Ainen said:
Annexation rhetoric isn't exactly a funny joke.
Click to expand...
It's a le funny for them in 2014 and 2022, but when the boogeyman's straight right up their border then it's a situation now?
 
Archibald said:
Is it even possible to cancel a F-35 "deal" once committed and after a few years ? Sometimes I feel it's like Concorde: no escape clause, baby. As would say Nacho Varga "It's not about what you want. When you're in - you're in."
Click to expand...
Ahem ahem... *Screams in agony as the mind goes back to the Turkey S-400 political drama*

51G9opkppzL.jpg
 
In fact, the dumping of F-35 fighter jets in Europe has already undermined Europe's fifth-generation aircraft development program to some extent.Although Canada may not be very happy, the F35 is the best fighter they can buy. For Canadians, as long as you hold on and be patient for four years, any problem will be solved
 
All the Canadians can do at this time is to play the waiting game and perhaps lease two squadrons worth of Rafales and see who gets into the White House in four years time then buy the F-35.
 
TomcatViP said:
In other words, at the end of the present US administration, they will be at the same point as of today... Canceling was a cheap thing to do, without the burden of any consequences but made them the hero of a day. In 4 years, they would be able to reopen negotiations without much if any delays in their overall plans.

Internet is gaining traction in politics.
Click to expand...
That assumes they want to rely on the average American voter suddenly gaining a bout of sanity in the coming four years.... After those same voters voted for the Mango Mussolini twice.
 
MihoshiK said:
That assumes they want to rely on the average American voter suddenly gaining a bout of sanity in the coming four years.... After those same voters voted for the Mango Mussolini twice.
Click to expand...
Mangolini... also known as Cheetolini, a nickname which made my day when I heard about it. Also Sweet Potato Hitler.
 
Canada has already transferred the funds for the first 13 of its 88 order, they are reviewing curtailing the order after those first 13.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom