3900 replies to this topic

[DogOnPorch]

But, what's the point to all this? Let's buy French aircraft? Let's buy old F-16s? Let's not have an air force?

[waldo]

But, what's the point to all this? Let's buy French aircraft? Let's buy old F-16s? Let's not have an air force?

uhhh... some of the point is to highlight the shinola, the purposeful Harper Conservative/DND manipulation, the exorbitant costs, the false narratives particularly on how the F-35 is for "defense", the many failings of JSFail...

why, I put up this lil' ditty a short while back and it gets no play - nuthin... cause, apparently, costs don't mean anything to JSFail proponents.

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)

perhaps something you might take a chew on: I read an interesting critique on the proposed 65 number; an analysis that broke that down into how many would actually be in flying mode/state at any given time... and just how many 'bases' could be equipped across Canada, on a most minimalistic count basis. The analysis suggested 3 bases across Canada - total... with, essentially, a "bare bones" complement of active planes, revealing huge swaths of the country unable to be covered/reached. Of course, the essence of the analysis was to critique the 65 number as being woefully inadequate, particularly when compared to the original number of CF-18s purchased and the attrition rates. So... it seems not only is the F-35 a most questionable/dubious choice, on so many levels, it seems there's question as to whether 65 is even a number worth considering, given cost/delay/and "purpose".

[Peeves]

uhhh... some of the point is to highlight the shinola, the purposeful Harper Conservative/DND manipulation, the exorbitant costs, the false narratives particularly on how the F-35 is for "defense", the many failings of JSFail...

why, I put up this lil' ditty a short while back and it gets no play - nuthin... cause, apparently, costs don't mean anything to JSFail proponents.


perhaps something you might take a chew on: I read an interesting critique on the proposed 65 number; an analysis that broke that down into how many would actually be in flying mode/state at any given time... and just how many 'bases' could be equipped across Canada, on a most minimalistic count basis. The analysis suggested 3 bases across Canada - total... with, essentially, a "bare bones" complement of active planes, revealing huge swaths of the country unable to be covered/reached. Of course, the essence of the analysis was to critique the 65 number as being woefully inadequate, particularly when compared to the original number of CF-18s purchased and the attrition rates. So... it seems not only is the F-35 a most questionable/dubious choice, on so many levels, it seems there's question as to whether 65 is even a number worth considering, given cost/delay/and "purpose".

It probably was the best alternative when the Liberals started the campaign for F35's

[waldo]

It probably was the best alternative when the Liberals started the campaign for F35's

that talking point has been dispatched several times over now... by joining JSFail there was no obligation, no commitment to purchase. The stated/formal "commitment" came in June 2010 ala Harper Conservatives.

[DogOnPorch]

uhhh... some of the point is to highlight the shinola, the purposeful Harper Conservative/DND manipulation, the exorbitant costs, the false narratives particularly on how the F-35 is for "defense", the many failings of JSFail...

why, I put up this lil' ditty a short while back and it gets no play - nuthin... cause, apparently, costs don't mean anything to JSFail proponents.


perhaps something you might take a chew on: I read an interesting critique on the proposed 65 number; an analysis that broke that down into how many would actually be in flying mode/state at any given time... and just how many 'bases' could be equipped across Canada, on a most minimalistic count basis. The analysis suggested 3 bases across Canada - total... with, essentially, a "bare bones" complement of active planes, revealing huge swaths of the country unable to be covered/reached. Of course, the essence of the analysis was to critique the 65 number as being woefully inadequate, particularly when compared to the original number of CF-18s purchased and the attrition rates. So... it seems not only is the F-35 a most questionable/dubious choice, on so many levels, it seems there's question as to whether 65 is even a number worth considering, given cost/delay/and "purpose".

So...no air force? Not needed? Ineffective anyways?

[Derek L]

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!

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!

MIDS? Wiki's failed you I see



Don't give in though Hey, you got the "M" and the "D" right, and I'll give you one more little hint, it's produced by a company that’s name starts with an “L” and ends with a “ockheed Martin”, based and developed namely in California and Texas, which last I checked, weren’t overly French.?

[waldo]

MIDS? Wiki's failed you I see

Don't give in though Hey, you got the "M" and the "D" right, and I'll give you one more little hint, it's produced by a company that’s name starts with an “L” and ends with a “ockheed Martin”, based and developed namely in California and Texas, which last I checked, weren’t overly French.?

interesting... I seem to be the only guy here actually offering concrete reference/details... all you're continuing to do is blow smoke with your juvenile guessing/teasers BS. I'm very content in my previous statement identifying MIDS as the program that put the small/lightweight Link 16 data communication terminals in the varied assortment of fighter jets. You can continue to bluster or actually step up and shoot down the MIDS reference... you could do that, hey braniac?

while you're getting a chubbie over another of your gushing "testimonies" to Lockheed Martin, have a chew on this little gem (note: although the article is only dated Nov/2011, its woefully out of date in that it assumes initial delivery beginning in 2016... rather than the more current updated 2019/2020 references recently put forward) - enjoy!

Initial Canadian F-35s unable to track troops:

The initial operating system also won't be equipped with a program that helps the fighters communicate with older aircraft, such as the Air Force's Aurora surveillance planes.

The software isn't expected to be added until an upgrade program is introduced in 2019 -- three years after the Royal Canadian Air Force begins taking delivery of the advanced multi-role fighter.

The absence of both items in the initial operating system is alluded to in heavily-censored access-to-information documents, obtained by The Canadian Press and referenced in military publications in the United States.

Also missing is a feature known as a Link 16, which allows highly advanced aircraft to exchange data, such as text messages, with ships and other, older aircraft in real-time.

Not having either of them could mean that the country's first F-35s would have to stick close to home until the systems are installed and crews are trained in their use.

Officials with the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, declined to answer questions about the software upgrades, which are divided into a series of blocks.

"Lockheed Martin isn't discussing Block 4 content at this time," said Keelan Green of Thornley-Fallis, an Ottawa company that handles media queries for the U.S. defence giant.

National Defence headquarters in Ottawa also declined comment and referred questions to the Pentagon's joint strike fighter office, which did not respond.

since you're so tapped in why not provide an update on just how well that JSFail F-35 "Link 16" data comm interoperability is coming along/projected, hey? Sure you can!

[Derek L]

interesting... I seem to be the only guy here actually offering concrete reference/details... all you're continuing to do is blow smoke with your juvenile guessing/teasers BS. I'm very content in my previous statement identifying MIDS as the program that put the small/lightweight Link 16 data communication terminals in the varied assortment of fighter jets. You can continue to bluster or actually step up and shoot down the MIDS reference... you could do that, hey braniac?

while you're getting a chubbie over another of your gushing "testimonies" to Lockheed Martin, have a chew on this little gem (note: although the article is only dated Nov/2011, its woefully out of date in that it assumes initial delivery beginning in 2016... rather than the more current updated 2019/2020 references recently put forward) - enjoy!

Initial Canadian F-35s unable to track troops:



since you're so tapped in why not provide an update on just how well that JSFail F-35 "Link 16" data comm interoperability is coming along/projected, hey? Sure you can!

Of course you would Waldo, for you know not what you speak

How about them NATO 5.56x45mm rifle cartridges? What’s up with that?



Since it’s Tuesday, and you asked so nicely, I’ll give you another hint:


“It” will only be used in airborne platforms such as the F-35, B-2 and future UCAVs, and will greatly increase both the rate and volume of information exchange on the battlefield when contrasted with Link 16, and as such, will drastically increase the above users of such platforms, ability to collect (and act upon) ISR data on modern and future battlefields....

In essence, it will enable a person on the ground, to contact an F-35 pilot overhead via secured cellphone, with information pertaining to a target, said information can then be used to allow the F-35 to locate and engage said target, with cruise missiles launched from a submarine a thousand plus miles away………This is not your daddy’s Link 16.



Now no jingoistic thread drift would be complete without further (unrelated) aviation/Lockmart porn:

[Derek L]

interesting... I seem to be the only guy here actually offering concrete reference/details... all you're continuing to do is blow smoke with your juvenile guessing/teasers BS. I'm very content in my previous statement identifying MIDS as the program that put the small/lightweight Link 16 data communication terminals in the varied assortment of fighter jets. You can continue to bluster or actually step up and shoot down the MIDS reference... you could do that, hey braniac?

while you're getting a chubbie over another of your gushing "testimonies" to Lockheed Martin, have a chew on this little gem (note: although the article is only dated Nov/2011, its woefully out of date in that it assumes initial delivery beginning in 2016... rather than the more current updated 2019/2020 references recently put forward) - enjoy!

Initial Canadian F-35s unable to track troops:



since you're so tapped in why not provide an update on just how well that JSFail F-35 "Link 16" data comm interoperability is coming along/projected, hey? Sure you can!

Noticed you omitted this part:


http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20111122/f35-canada-report-111122/

OTTAWA — The first dozen or so F-35s slated to arrive in Canada won't be equipped with software that allows the stealth fighters to communicate with ground forces, a feature designed to prevent incidents of friendly fire.

So our initial aircraft, not even enough to form a squadron, and as I addressed several months ago, and will equip the RCAF F-35 operational test and evaluation flight, won’t be combat capable until after we’ve retired our Hornets

[DogOnPorch]

Derek: Of course you would Waldo, for you know not what you speak

Perhaps a trip to the airport is in order so that we're all on the same page as to what an aircraft is.

[Derek L]

Perhaps a trip to the airport is in order so that we're all on the same page as to what an aircraft is.

Indeed, and I’ll give punked credit, he at least admits he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

[DogOnPorch]

Indeed, and I’ll give punked credit, he at least admits he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

It's also pretty much impossible to tell if an aircraft will do well for the money paid. The P-38 Lightning (another Lockheed design) for example, started it's WW2 career (F model) as a real dog. By 1944, the L model was out...different story altogether. One of the best and deadliest fighters of the War.

[Derek L]

It's also pretty much impossible to tell if an aircraft will do well for the money paid. The P-38 Lightning (another Lockheed design) for example, started it's WW2 career (F model) as a real dog. By 1944, the L model was out...different story altogether. One of the best and deadliest fighters of the War.

Perhaps at one point, but in terms of avionics and flight characteristics, both Lockheed and Boeing knew exactly how their X-planes would fly prior to completing the first prototypes………..the ultimate question today is always one of funding:


No bucks, No Buck Rogers:

[DogOnPorch]

Perhaps at one point, but in terms of avionics and flight characteristics, both Lockheed and Boeing knew exactly how their X-planes would fly prior to completing the first prototypes………..the ultimate question today is always one of funding:


No bucks, No Buck Rogers:

Good movie...but, not too accurate.

The rub is you never know what the other guy might have up the ol' sleave. The Brewster Buffalo was thought to be quite the machine until it actually went into combat. Same with the Bell P-39. Or worse...the P-400. As the pilots called it...a P-40 with a Zero on its tail. But other tubs triumphed...like the delightful F-4 Wildcat and the ever deadlier F-6 Hellcat.

Edited by DogOnPorch, 08 May 2012 - 07:30 PM.

[Derek L]

Good movie...but, not too accurate.

The rub is you never know what the other guy might have up the ol' sleave. The Brewster Buffalo was thought to be quite the machine until it actually went into combat. Same with the Bell P-39. Or worse...the P-400. As the pilots called it...a P-40 with a Zero on its tail. But other tubs triumphed...like the delightful F-4 Wildcat and the ever deadlier F-6 Hellcat.

And the examples you cite were obviously designed longed before modern engineering techniques and computers……….Apples and oranges really.