3900 replies to this topic

[bush_cheney2004]

I know. Which is the real problem isn't it? We got to buy something but where is the line to buy something else?

Try the rest....then buy the best. Spend your money once.

[DogOnPorch]

Try the rest....then buy the best. Spend your money once.

A good point. Other than the A6M2 Zero, there really hasn't been a time when another fighter has beat out an American design. Well, maybe the MiG-17 for about 2 minutes in Viet-Nam.

[waldo]

Clearly selecting an aircraft that will be operated by six other NATO partners

wow! 6 out 28 NATO member countries! Just wow! But hey now... how will NATO function with all those key member countries... not... JSFail partners... not purchasing the F-35? Just how will NATO survive!!!

yet again, you refuse to provide the list of all fighter jets belonging to all NATO member countries... is there a problem?

As I stated earlier, due to the F-35 yet being in regular squadron service, it clear there won’t be a formal NATO agreement on it’s interoperability as of yet

another MLW member 'Derek L' self-aggrandized, self-serving, fluff statement of nothingness! Cite the NATO agreement for the current single jet interoperability standard. Sure you can!

Perhaps you should go back to tilting at wind turbines hey?

the only imaginary focus is yours

[Derek L]

wow! 6 out 28 NATO member countries! Just wow! But hey now... how will NATO function with all those key member countries... not... JSFail partners... not purchasing the F-35? Just how will NATO survive!!!

yet again, you refuse to provide the list of all fighter jets belonging to all NATO member countries... is there a problem?


another MLW member 'Derek L' self-aggrandized, self-serving, fluff statement of nothingness! Cite the NATO agreement for the current single jet interoperability standard. Sure you can!


the only imaginary focus is yours

The better question, is how would those other 21 nations cope without the other seven, but namely the United States? Still I fail to see your distraction point.

[waldo]

The better question, is how would those other 21 nations cope without the other seven, but namely the United States? Still I fail to see your distraction point.

of course you do. Because it doesn't line up with your/Harper Conservatives false narrative on F-35 NATO interoperability.

- provide the list of fighter jets for all NATO member countries... then describe how interoperability applies in the face of the multitude of jets being flown. It's a simple, basic and most fundamental request... one you keep avoiding

- provide the current NATO standard(s) for a single fighter jet interoperability

[Derek L]

of course you do. Because it doesn't line up with your/Harper Conservatives false narrative on F-35 NATO interoperability.

- provide the list of fighter jets for all NATO member countries... then describe how interoperability applies in the face of the multitude of jets being flown. It's a simple, basic and most fundamental request... one you keep avoiding

- provide the current NATO standard(s) for a single fighter jet interoperability

Of the remaining 21 non JSF members, 6 don’t have an air force/fighter force, another ~6 nations have obsolete Russian aircraft, Spain will replace their Harriers with the F-35, the French and Germans both operate their own nations products, the Greeks can’t afford anything and the remainder have small token forces (~20ish aircraft) made up of namely American F-16s……..Again your point? You wanna go jingoistic Waldo?

But guess how many of said members use the 5.56x 45 NATO round

[Derek L]

of course you do. Because it doesn't line up with your/Harper Conservatives false narrative on F-35 NATO interoperability.

- provide the list of fighter jets for all NATO member countries... then describe how interoperability applies in the face of the multitude of jets being flown. It's a simple, basic and most fundamental request... one you keep avoiding

- provide the current NATO standard(s) for a single fighter jet interoperability

For coalition operations, Link 16

[waldo]

Of the remaining 21 non JSF members, 6 don’t have an air force/fighter force, another ~6 nations have obsolete Russian aircraft, Spain will replace their Harriers with the F-35, the French and Germans both operate their own nations products, the Greeks can’t afford anything and the remainder have small token forces (~20ish aircraft) made up of namely American F-16s……..Again your point? You wanna go jingoistic Waldo?

get all jingorific... go for it. Nice dodge by the way... just tally all the different fighter jets that somehow... somehow... manage to fly in support of NATO operations.

are you still looking for that current NATO standard for a single fighter jet interoperability?

[waldo]

per the previously linked (recently released) Pentagon F-35 SAR:

cost per piano-flying hour for the F-35-A... in "BY2012" dollars (i.e., current 2012 dollars): a whopping, fantabulous, wait for it... wait for it... $32,500 per hour (roughly $10,000 an hour more than the F-16)

no biggee, hey MLW member 'Derek L'?

[Derek L]

get all jingorific... go for it. Nice dodge by the way... just tally all the different fighter jets that somehow... somehow... manage to fly in support of NATO operations.

are you still looking for that current NATO standard for a single fighter jet interoperability?

See above....Link 16

[waldo]

See above....Link 16

as imaginary as most of your posts

[Derek L]

as imaginary as most of your posts

You don’t know what Link 16 is…..well that’s far from imaginary

[waldo]

You don’t know what Link 16 is…..well that’s far from imaginary

perfect! As I said - somehow your imagination has you equating interoperability within a single fighter jet to data communication amongst, for example, multiple fighter jet types/AWACS, ground, sea support. Why I could put up a nice graphic that lays out a representative example... if you'd like. One that encompasses F-16, F/A-18 Hornet, F/A-18F Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, Tornado... that one example... data communications interoperability across 6 different jet fighters. Kind of takes the sting out of your/Harper Conservatives false narrative on the single jet F-35 JSFail interoperability... hey?

[Derek L]

perfect! As I said - somehow your imagination has you equating interoperability within a single fighter jet to data communication amongst, for example, multiple fighter jet types/AWACS, ground, sea support. Why I could put up a nice graphic that lays out a representative example... if you'd like. One that encompasses F-16, F/A-18 Hornet, F/A-18F Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, Tornado... that one example... data communications interoperability across 6 different jet fighters. Kind of takes the sting out of your/Harper Conservatives false narrative on the single jet F-35 JSFail interoperability... hey?

Your wikipedia skills are impressive, you think you’re up to the challenge to find though the differing point between current systems and what the F-35 brings to the table? The very nature of said point is what will preclude current aircraft…..Come on Waldo, you’re almost there, that’s a good lad.


If not, we can always go back to that ole 5.56x45mm round and it’s purpose, or how a single aircraft, operated by a sole NATO member furthers the cause of NATO interoperability…….

[waldo]

Your wikipedia skills are impressive, you think you’re up to the challenge to find though the differing point between current systems and what the F-35 brings to the table? The very nature of said point is what will preclude current aircraft…..Come on Waldo, you’re almost there, that’s a good lad.

buddy, no need for you to now attempt to detract from your "Link 16" data communications interoperability... cause you're going to need it (or something like it) to allow the multiple jet variants to communicate with AWACS/ground/ship support... multiple jet variants. Did ya hear? Apparently, not all NATO member countries bought into JSFail's F-35... or the need for your/Harper Conservatives trumped up, 'single fighter jet interoperability' - go figure!

NATO's supreme allied commander transformation, Stephane Abrial, a former fighter pilot and chief of staff of the French air force, testified before the House of Commons Defence Committee Thursday.

"We do not advocate a single type of aircraft, single type of ships, single type of rifles," Abrial said. "We never wanted to make sure everyone has the same equipment: that's not our goal."

Abrial said interoperability has to do primarily with training and ensuring all NATO forces have sufficient skills to function as one on the battlefield.

after all your blustering and dissing of the NATO Commander... because he's French... I find it quite fitting to highlight the two countries contributing the most money to fund MIDS (the international program that puts those small compact Link 16 data comm terminal thingees on multiple jet variants), were the U.S. and... the French... and that by international agreement, the deputy program manager MIDS is a French military officer

you're too easy, buddy... too easy!