The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Avimimus]

Well - at least we might finally get a run off.

It'd be interesting to see the HAL Tejas get thrown into the mix.

We really need new turboprop SAR aircraft though!

 

[chuck4]

Well - at least we might finally get a run off.

It'd be interesting to see the HAL Tejas get thrown into the mix.

We really need new turboprop SAR aircraft though!

The Indians do themselves no favors by calling the HAL Tejas "generation 4 light", or "basically an updated Mig 21".

 

[2IDSGT]

Well - at least we might finally get a run off.

It'd be interesting to see the HAL Tejas get thrown into the mix.

With all the crying about the F-35 having only one engine, I doubt anything as practical as Tejas or Gripen would stand much of a chance.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Well - at least we might finally get a run off.

It'd be interesting to see the HAL Tejas get thrown into the mix.

With all the crying about the F-35 having only one engine, I doubt anything as practical as Tejas or Gripen would stand much of a chance.

Presuming that is a legitimate gripe, It really Narrows their options, and none of those are going to be the "cheap magic bullet" they hope for:

F-18E/F (most likely) F-15SE (expensive, paper plane, unknown delays/expense ahead) , Typhoon (EXPENSIVE) , or Rafale. I know someone will probably come in here and say "flanker!!" or maybe if they are really feeling it "PAKFA!" but yeah thats not going to happen.

My prediction is Canada uses all their energy to spid arounf really fast in a circle until they fall down dizzy right where they started.

 

[beachhead1973]

Oh thank the Gods! This goes a long way towards digging the Harper Government out of the hole for me.

 

[starviking]

My prediction is Canada uses all their energy to spid arounf really fast in a circle until they fall down dizzy right where they started.

It has happened before *cough* "Merlin" *cough*

 

[2IDSGT]

Well - at least we might finally get a run off.

It'd be interesting to see the HAL Tejas get thrown into the mix.

With all the crying about the F-35 having only one engine, I doubt anything as practical as Tejas or Gripen would stand much of a chance.

Presuming that is a legitimate gripe, It really Narrows their options, and none of those are going to be the "cheap magic bullet" they hope for:

F-18E/F (most likely) F-15SE (expensive, paper plane, unknown delays/expense ahead) , Typhoon (EXPENSIVE) , or Rafale. I know someone will probably come in here and say "flanker!!" or maybe if they are really feeling it "PAKFA!" but yeah thats not going to happen.

My prediction is Canada uses all their energy to spid arounf really fast in a circle until they fall down dizzy right where they started.

Well, to look at what Canadians themselves say on the boards of their own news outlets, the favorite options seem to be: (1) Resurrecting the CF-105 Arrow, (2) Eurofighter/Rafale, (3) A Flanker variant. Some of the grownups would prefer the Shornet or F-15, but most of the comments reflect simplistic and childish anti-Americanism as the main driver for what fighter should be chosen. Personally, I'd like to see Canada's F-35 order canceled outright as a piddling 60-65 planes isn't worth putting up with so much bellyaching. Plus, it would be very entertaining to watch the ensuing clusterf@ck (worse than anything the F-35 program could dish out).

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Oh thank the Gods! This goes a long way towards digging the Harper Government out of the hole for me.

Stand by to be disappointed. The F-35 isn't going anywhere.

 

[LowObservable]

Speaking of spinning around:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/11/29/f-35-not-the-only-plane-that-meets-stealth-requirements-lawson/

 

[GTX]

U.S. Air Force sticking to plans to buy 1,763 F-35 jets

* Pentagon, Lockheed said nearing deal for more jets

* Air Force spends 15 pct of investment budget on F-35 alone

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

NEW YORK, Nov 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force affirmed on Thursday its plans to buy 1,763 F-35 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp in coming years, as Lockheed and the government neared agreement on a multi-billion dollar contract for a fifth batch of planes.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told an investor conference that the service remained committed to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which alone accounts for 15 percent of the service's annual investment spending, and had no plans to revise its projected purchase of 1,763 of the new radar-evading jets.

"I don't think there's any reason to revisit that anytime in the near future," Donley told the Credit Suisse conference, underscoring his support for the Pentagon's biggest weapons program.

He said it was not feasible to consider cutting orders or make other major changes to the $396 billion F-35 program, which has already been restructured three times in recent years to allow more time for technology development and to save money.

The Pentagon is looking closely at every aspect of its budget given mounting pressure to cut defense spending, and programs as large as the F-35 are always potential targets.

But Lockheed executives argue that the Defense Department has already reduced production of the new plane sharply from projected levels, cutting into the economies of scale that were supposed to make the new warplane more affordable.

Donley said he had heard proposals about cutting F-35 purchases to save money for other priorities, but said such ideas did not make sense at this point in the program.

"These are good theoretical discussions, but when you look at where we are in the program, it makes no sense to have these discussions until about 2025," Donley said. "There is nothing in the near-term about this program that will change; there is nothing that it will contribute to deficit reduction in the next ten years with the exception of its cancellation."

And cancellation of the program, he said, was something no one would recommend.

Donley said the U.S. government was "getting close" to an agreement with Lockheed about a fifth batch of F-35 jets.

Lockheed President Marillyn Hewson told the conference earlier on Thursday that talks with the Pentagon - which have been under way for about a year - were going well and an agreement was likely before the end of the year.

"Those negotiations are progressing well," she said at her first major presentation to Wall Street investors since being named Lockheed president and chief operating officer earlier this month. "I do feel confident that we're going to get to closure on Lot 5 this year," she said.

Lockheed and the Pentagon were also making progress in talks about additional funding for early work on the sixth batch of F-35 jets, said Hewson. She will become Lockheed's CEO in January, succeeding Christopher Kubasik, who was forced out after admitting to having an affair with a subordinate.

Lockheed Chief Financial Officer Bruce Tanner said Hewson had played a key role in the company's talks with the Pentagon, and the two sides had "closed a lot of our differences."

Details of the expected agreement were not immediately available, but sources familiar with the negotiations said they expected it to include a reduction in the cost for each F-35 fighter jet from the fourth production contract, although the number of jets to be ordered will not increase.

The Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, Frank Kendall, told Reuters on Wednesday that the two sides were "getting close" to an agreement on the fifth production contract. He said he had "a very positive meeting" on Tuesday with Hewson about a range of issues, including the F-35.

Lockheed, the Pentagon's largest contractor, and its suppliers are already building the fifth batch of F-35 planes under a preliminary contract, but the two sides have been struggling since last December to finalize the deal.

In September, Air Force Major General Christopher Bogdan, who is moving up to head the F-35 program next week, said ties between Lockheed and the U.S. government were "the worst" he had ever seen in his years working on big acquisition programs.

Hewson told analysts earlier this month that the F-35 program would be one of her top priorities in her new job. Agreement on the terms of the fifth F-35 contract would free up additional funding for early work on a sixth set of planes, which the company has been funding on its own for some time.

Lockheed last month told investors that it faced a potential termination liability of $1.1 billion on that sixth batch of planes, unless it received more funds soon.

The Pentagon has refused to release any more money for the sixth batch of planes until the two sides resolve their differences and sign a contract for the fifth batch.

Source

 

[GTX]

Well - at least we might finally get a run off.

It'd be interesting to see the HAL Tejas get thrown into the mix.

Odds on you will not get a run off but rather just a comparison of options...which is basically the same thing that has already happened.


As for Tejas...let's get realistic. The only country that will ever operate the Tejas (and even then in relatively limited numbers) is India. It is more of a representation of Indian national desires to have an indigenous combat aircraft capability then a serious attempt at a a world class, exportable combat aircraft. Much the same as Japan with the F-2.


And as for all these suggestions of Gripens and similar, what happened to the apparent (and IMHO false) need for twin engines?

 

[GTX]

and in other news...U.S. Air Force sticking to plans to buy 1,763 F-35 jets

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Speaking of spinning around:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/11/29/f-35-not-the-only-plane-that-meets-stealth-requirements-lawson/

Thats a funny article right there.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As for Tejas...let's get realistic.

I know right? A single engine over Canada's vast and unique Arctic wasteland??

Come on people, Canadians didn't work hard on that meme so it could just forgotten it at the first opportunity

 

[Avimimus]

Well - at least we might finally get a run off.

It'd be interesting to see the HAL Tejas get thrown into the mix.

Odds on you will not get a run off but rather just a comparison of options...which is basically the same thing that has already happened.


As for Tejas...let's get realistic. The only country that will ever operate the Tejas (and even then in relatively limited numbers) is India. It is more of a representation of Indian national desires to have an indigenous combat aircraft capability then a serious attempt at a a world class, exportable combat aircraft. Much the same as Japan with the F-2.


And as for all these suggestions of Gripens and similar, what happened to the apparent (and IMHO false) need for twin engines?

IMHO, the Tejas is cheap enough we could afford to loose a few of them. I agree it isn't practicable though ;D

If you're willing to sacrifice some of the avionics and the low-observability - the Tejas has similar all-round performance to the F-35. Hence, why it is worthy of comparison.

You can imagine the Canadian North as being like an Ocean - but with plenty of ground clutter and no support ships. It is hard to do rapid SAR. So you either need two-engines, a large survival kit ejected with the pilot, or investing in fixed wing SAR aircraft (and the Harper government has decided we can't afford to replace our aging SAR fleet due to monetary reasons - and at one point there was even a comment that the F-35 was a good SAR platform)...

 

[Avimimus]

Well, to look at what Canadians themselves say on the boards of their own news outlets, the favorite options seem to be: (1) Resurrecting the CF-105 Arrow, (2) Eurofighter/Rafale, (3) A Flanker variant. Some of the grownups would prefer the Shornet or F-15, but most of the comments reflect simplistic and childish anti-Americanism as the main driver for what fighter should be chosen.

Well, there is something to the childishness - we have ample motivation to remain on the good side of the United States. Buying American equipment might be a way to curry favour - but if you buy from someone who you have to keep satisfied ("the seller is always correct") you're typically not getting the best deal.

I wonder what would happen if we offered to buy a stripped down J-31...? It is twin engined. I bet they'd let us put in our own avionics and RAM. Of course, that'd never happen - we'll buy parts from China though.

Anyway - you know what I'd recommend:
- High quality jet trainers / COIN aircraft (to maintain training capabilities) and possibly a handful of refurbished aircraft for running down naval patrol aircraft and airliners.
- Waiting we have a better handle on the OPFOR (J-20, J-31, PAK-FA) - particularly how widely it will be exported and the effect of any avionics advances in counter-acting stealth.
- Waiting until the UAV market has matured (to see if any affordable strike options appear).

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

IMHO, the Tejas is cheap enough we could afford to loose a few of them.

And then:

the Harper government has decided we can't afford to replace our aging SAR fleet due to monetary reasons

Pilots are going to love you

If you're willing to sacrifice some of the avionics and the low-observability - the Tejas has similar all-round performance to the F-35. Hence, why it is worthy of comparison.

I've got the perfect girl for you, you just have to sacrifice the desire for breasts and a vagina. Other than that, very similar all around and worthy of comparison to your average female. Ill get him on the phone for ya, do you like seafood? I'm not trying to be mean, but when you confuse "little things" with "defining characteristics" it can make a big difference.

I mean "some of the sensors?" It doesn't even have an AESA radar which these days is entry level stuff. And of course people around this forum have no problem telling you how the F-35 in compromising for Avionics and VLO, is a crappy performer. If you take APA's word for it, its an F-105 level. The Range for the Tejas is abysmal as well-- Yikes.

so just to review: its single engine, bound to go down (thats cool you can afford that!), you have no SAR force for when that happens, it has the "vices" of the F-35 and non of it virtues, its built in far off India, Canada doesn't get any industrial or monetary benefits and its delta wing which means it has to come in at higher speeds on frozen run ways, and doesn't have the range to patrol Canada's vast vastness??

Where do I sign up?



As for the SAR claim. The F-35 is going to cover more ground with some pretty serious sensors than a fleet of helicopters could dream. Believe me I worked in helicopters for years. SAR over vast long ranging expanses means you get very little time to search your zones, and a lot more time transiting back and forth between the missions and fuel. So the F-35 is heavy on the S, but light on the R obviously. Helicopters are great for the R but relatively poor the S.

 

[LowObservable]

TT - Funny story indeed. Not predicted either.

GTX - Re commitment to 1,763 aircraft. Asked to comment, the pilot assigned to the delivery flight of the 1,760th USAF F-35A pointed at the sky from her stroller and said LOOK LOOK AIRPLANE.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Not predicted either.

huh?

 

[LowObservable]

As noted elsewhere, a curious choice for a headline. In the real world, that decision is 15-20 years away.

One can expect other announcements as the end of the year approaches.

 

[GTX]

GTX - Re commitment to 1,763 aircraft. Asked to comment, the pilot assigned to the delivery flight of the 1,760th USAF F-35A pointed at the sky from her stroller and said LOOK LOOK AIRPLANE.

Thanks for the useless comment Bill. Mind you, I could agree with you and point out that the F-35 will be around for a long, long time and be a classic...just like the B-52 and DC-3 to name a few.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

GTX - Re commitment to 1,763 aircraft. Asked to comment, the pilot assigned to the delivery flight of the 1,760th USAF F-35A pointed at the sky from her stroller and said LOOK LOOK AIRPLANE.

Thanks for the useless comment Bill. Mind you, I could agree with you and say point out that the F-35 will be around for a long, long time and be a classic...just like the B-52 and DC-3 to name a few.

Bill is right!! Hazzah!!

Ok Canadians, serious questions. The small tropical island of Norway is getting 52 F-35s and although it can't compete with Canada's vastness it is

A rather cold
B not as large but will have more over ocean work
C Not only are they fine with the Single engine JSF, but they have been using F-16s for decades.
D has only 5 million people and yet is buying only 13 fewer JSFs than big ol Canada


Discuss.

 

[LowObservable]

GTX - Once again to the personal level.

Actually, the comment is quite realistic: it means little to commit to a decision that will not be taken for a decade or two, so the "headline news" has no real impact on the program.

 

[2IDSGT]

Asked to comment, the pilot assigned to the delivery flight of the 1,760th USAF F-35A pointed at the sky from her stroller and said LOOK LOOK AIRPLANE.

Since we're going full-on snark, where do you think the typical F-16 pilots of 2005 (year of last USAF delivery) were in the mid-1970s? Strollers maybe? Then again, the last F-35 will probably be delivered by a 2-star, so she's probably at the Academy right now, packing for Christmas break. BTW, why is everyone calling you Bill?

 

[Avimimus]

Ok Canadians, serious questions. The small tropical island of Norway is getting 52 F-35s and although it can't compete with Canada's vastness it is

A rather cold
B not as large but will have more over ocean work
C Not only are they fine with the Single engine JSF, but they have been using F-16s for decades.
D has only 5 million people and yet is buying only 13 fewer JSFs than big ol Canada


Discuss.

Yes, vasteness is the prime factor (viz the engine issue). Spot on.

(Also - Norway had an extensive controversy over the plane - to the extent that SAAB went public in defense of its bid and accused Norway's government of missrepresentation. So it could be suggested that it was also a bad decision for Norway and influenced by political pressures and lobbying).

 

[2IDSGT]

I wonder what would happen if we offered to buy a stripped down J-31...? It is twin engined. I bet they'd let us put in our own avionics and RAM. Of course, that'd never happen - we'll buy parts from China though.

That would be a terrific show. I want you to do it; I DARE you to do it. Like I said though, anything not involving the F-35 will be entertainment enough, not to mention a relief since we wouldn't have to listen to all the crying anymore.

 

[Avimimus]

Who says the J-31 doesn't involve the F-35...

IMHO, the Tejas is cheap enough we could afford to loose a few of them.

And then:

the Harper government has decided we can't afford to replace our aging SAR fleet due to monetary reasons

Pilots are going to love you

Hey - I try to consider all sides. At least with the Tejas we could afford to upgrade the SAR fleet.

If you're willing to sacrifice some of the avionics and the low-observability - the Tejas has similar all-round performance to the F-35. Hence, why it is worthy of comparison.

I mean "some of the sensors?" It doesn't even have an AESA radar which these days is entry level stuff. And of course people around this forum have no problem telling you how the F-35 in compromising for Avionics and VLO, is a crappy performer. If you take APA's word for it, its an F-105 level. The Range for the Tejas is abysmal as well-- Yikes.

so just to review: its single engine, bound to go down (thats cool you can afford that!), you have no SAR force for when that happens, it has the "vices" of the F-35 and non of it virtues, its built in far off India, Canada doesn't get any industrial or monetary benefits and its delta wing which means it has to come in at higher speeds on frozen run ways, and doesn't have the range to patrol Canada's vast vastness??

Where do I sign up?

Saying that an aircraft that was designed to replace the Folland Gnat and Mig-21 is somewhat worse than the F-35 certainly does the F-35 no favours. What I'm stuck by is how small the difference is when you remove the VLO, AESA & EOTS.

Still - I am a little flattered that you remember all of the typical Canadian criticisms of the F-35.

As for the SAR claim. The F-35 is going to cover more ground with some pretty serious sensors than a fleet of helicopters could dream. Believe me I worked in helicopters for years. SAR over vast long ranging expanses means you get very little time to search your zones, and a lot more time transiting back and forth between the missions and fuel. So the F-35 is heavy on the S, but light on the R obviously. Helicopters are great for the R but relatively poor the S.

I agree - we need both components to do a job well. I'd personally prefer an aircraft with at least three crew and longer endurance for the 'S' role. I agree that sensors are key (and that the F-35 certainly has some nice sensors).

However, I suspect that the F-35's EOTS will be excellend for search and rescue - assuming you're looking for a T-54... for a couple of stranded individuals (human individuals - not Moose) - I doubt the automated systems will work. Then all you have left is a single seat aircraft that flies too fast for the pilot to maintain awareness of the terrain (either through sensors or by looking out of the cockpit). So, it'd take take some real evidence to convince me it has any utility.

It also doesn't justify cutting back on the SAR acquisitions to pay for the fighters! If we can't afford basic SAR we can't afford that many F-35.

 

[sferrin]

Chirst, do we need another F-35 thread? Is there a reason this couldn't go in the F-35 news thread?

 

[Avimimus]

It should probably go in the other F-35 Canada thread (it already exists btw). IMHO, this is a Canadian issue - and the F-35 looks different to Canadians than it does to other countries.

 

[2IDSGT]

It should probably go in the other F-35 Canada thread (it already exists btw). IMHO, this is a Canadian issue - and the F-35 looks different to Canadians than it does to other countries.

Apparently, it looks just like an HAL Tejas to them. I can totally see the resemblance. :

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Ok Canadians, serious questions. The small tropical island of Norway is getting 52 F-35s and although it can't compete with Canada's vastness it is

A rather cold
B not as large but will have more over ocean work
C Not only are they fine with the Single engine JSF, but they have been using F-16s for decades.
D has only 5 million people and yet is buying only 13 fewer JSFs than big ol Canada


Discuss.

Yes, vasteness is the prime factor (viz the engine issue). Spot on.

(Also - Norway had an extensive controversy over the plane - to the extent that SAAB went public in defense of its bid and accused Norway's government of missrepresentation. So it could be suggested that it was also a bad decision for Norway and influenced by political pressures and lobbying).

But even with with SAAB aircraft (again Sweden getting plenty cold itself) They have one engine. And of course as you point out the Problem with Norway isn't the single engine thing. Its politics. Norway also operates F-16s and had no problem with them, so I would be worried if after years of operating singles they insisted on doubles, that would be interesting-- but they seem to be fine with singles.

Hey - I try to consider all sides. At least with the Tejas we could afford to upgrade the SAR fleet.

Good point! if you bought the F-35 it would be much harder to crash and then all the money you spent on SAR would be a waste.

Secondly. Where is the correlation between Canada purchasing the F-35 and not being able to afford SAR?

Thirdly Canada has $1.1 billion coming to it if buys the JSF... How about that for upgrade money? not enough? How much would India give you?

Saying that an aircraft that was designed to replace the Folland Gnat and Mig-21 is somewhat worse than the F-35 certainly does the F-35 no favours.

The F-35 is actually a very good performer I was simply pointing out that it gets knocked here a lot in that area.

What I'm stuck by is how small the difference is when you remove the VLO, AESA & EOTS.

You really need to do some homework then. ;D

Still - I am a little flattered that you remember all of the typical Canadian criticisms of the F-35.

I know! There is a lot of whining, hard to keep track of. Its the same complaints after all. I will admit though, the suggestion of the HAL Tejas is a new one. Never heard someone say "our vast arctic requires special consideration and two engines... which is why we buy single engines from INDIA?!"

However, I suspect that the F-35's EOTS will be excellend for search and rescue - assuming you're looking for a T-54... for a couple of stranded individuals (human individuals - not Moose) - I doubt the automated systems will work.

You do realize we have sensors that can track individuals from very high altitudes right? Do you know what a UAV is? ATFLIR? LANTIRN? We have been able to do that for decades. even the most basic FLIR is capable of picking out human beings -- especially when they are against Canada's ultra frozen ground of freezing. And if the F-35s advanced sensors can't pick up people, what sensor can?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPc8UlkqYr8

Then all you have left is a single seat aircraft that flies too fast for the pilot to maintain awareness of the terrain (either through sensors or by looking out of the cockpit). So, it'd take take some real evidence to convince me it has any utility.

Guess how I know you have no experience with fixed wing SAR?

It also doesn't justify cutting back on the SAR acquisitions to pay for the fighters! If we can't afford basic SAR we can't afford that many F-35.

So your military's sole purpose is to rescue itself? Again the F-35 means Billions of dollars to Canada. or you can buy something else and get nothing in return, and upgrade your fleet out of your own pocket. Is the Canadian SAR force in that bad a spot?
I am being serious here:

Is there some reason why Canadian pilots would be crashing at a higher rate? Is there some reason why Canadians would not be able to maintain the F-35 adequately in comparison to other countries? What am I missing? Is the F-35 just too complex for Canadians to handle?

I'm asking honestly. Why can't Canada handle the F-35? Why is it scary?

 

[GTX]

the F-35 looks different to Canadians than it does to other countries.

How exactly? Please be specific.

 

[GTX]

One can expect other announcements as the end of the year approaches.

Such as?

 

[2IDSGT]

One can expect other announcements as the end of the year approaches.

Such as?

Headline... F-35 Canceled: US to Buy Eurocanard Instead. Well, I'm just guessing that's what he wants.

 

[Arjen]

Sequestration will affect all US government spending. With Congress playing silly buggers with the budget, it's all but inevitable.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Sequestration will affect all US government spending. With Congress playing silly buggers with the budget, it's all but inevitable.

That begins on January 1 2013. All agreements before that do not fall under Sequestration. The US Gov. and Lockheed have 30 days to finalize as much of the JSF as possible to protect it from the January 1 cuts. Since both sides realize this, I'm betting a lot gets done thanks to the ticking clock.

 

[SpudmanWP]

There is already a proposal to move the cliff to Jan 2014.

 

[Arjen]

Tick, tock.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As noted elsewhere, a curious choice for a headline. In the real world, that decision is 15-20 years away.

One can expect other announcements as the end of the year approaches.

Isn't it odd that when a Major General makes a speech its a clear sign that the end is nigh, but when the Secretary of the Air Force confirms "1,763" its not worth reading anything into?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Unlocked.

This topic is for any random rants, politically based or other discussions about the F-35 All previous F-35 topics are in there, pending someone sorting out the wheat from the chaff. Any moderators are welcome to fish out relevant posts to place in the F-35 news topics.

Any good news about the F-35 project - milestones achieved, technical successes etc. should go in the Lockheed Martin F-35: Good News thread.

Any bad news about the F-35 project (milestones missed, cost overruns, etc) should go in the Lockheed Martin F-35: Bad News thread.


Hopefully this will allow pro-F-35 fanboys to post a bunch of "F-35 taxxied on a runway - Go Lockheed, awesome!" messages undisturbed by naysayers, while the doom merchants can live in their own topic where F-35 is going to be cancelled next Tuesday and replaced with more F-16s and probably won't work anyway.

And yes, I am being sarcastic because it seems incredible a bunch of (mostly) grown adults can get so childish.