3900 replies to this topic

[CPCFTW]

But if it's a case of numbers, 65 F-35s won't stand a chance against the multitude of Chinese made J-20s. Even if they are better.

Case in point was the tank situation in WWII. The German Panzers were really tough, and it was simply the sheer numbers of Shermans that were built and deployed that won the battles against the Germans.

You really think we'd only have 65 f35s in the case of a war with China? If you're going to use ridiculous hypotheticals to make your argument then I can use another ridiculous hypothetical: in the case of a war with China we'd buy hundreds more f35s.

Furthermore, if 65 f35s won't stand a chance against China, do you think 80-100 j20s will (assuming the j20 is up to 50% cheaper)?

[waldo]

You really think we'd only have 65 f35s in the case of a war with China? If you're going to use ridiculous hypotheticals to make your argument then I can use another ridiculous hypothetical: in the case of a war with China we'd buy hundreds more f35s.

Furthermore, if 65 f35s won't stand a chance against China, do you think 80-100 j20s will (assuming the j20 is up to 50% cheaper)?

hey now... I thought the underlying fake premise, false narrative "theme" was the F-35 was for "domestic defense/surveillance/reconnaissance... why, you're speaking of it as a 'first striker'! The Chinese are going to invade us! Really?

[eyeball]

You really think we'd only have 65 f35s in the case of a war with China? If you're going to use ridiculous hypotheticals to make your argument then I can use another ridiculous hypothetical: in the case of a war with China we'd buy hundreds more f35s.

Furthermore, if 65 f35s won't stand a chance against China, do you think 80-100 j20s will (assuming the j20 is up to 50% cheaper)?

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to nip potential enemies in the bud by not sending them the natural resources they need to become a military threat in the first place?

Am I to believe Harper would have likewise blithely sold Germany all the materials it needed to turn around and bite us on the ass?

[DogOnPorch]

hey now... I thought the underlying fake premise, false narrative "theme" was the F-35 was for "domestic defense/surveillance/reconnaissance... why, you're speaking of it as a 'first striker'! The Chinese are going to invade us! Really?

The F-35 is what is known as a 'fighter-bomber'...in modern jargon...multi-role. If it's needed to bomb the rat-piss out of something, voila: you have a bomber. If it's needed to intercept a stray Blackjack, voila: you have an interceptor. If it's needed to make a last stand against millions of J-20s, voila: you have a fighter.

[waldo]

The F-35 is what is known as a 'fighter-bomber'...in modern jargon...multi-role. If it's needed to bomb the rat-piss out of something, voila: you have a bomber. If it's needed to intercept a stray Blackjack, voila: you have an interceptor. If it's needed to make a last stand against millions of J-20s, voila: you have a fighter.

of really? I'm reading it doesn't/won't do any of roles very well... simply by its "catch all" design. Compromise, compromise, compromise.

bomb the rat-piss out of something? Really... we do that? Oh right, those couple of times over a multi-decade period. Well worth the Parliament Hill Libyan flyover, right?

wait a minute!!! There were more F-18s in that flyover than actually bombed the rat-piss out of Libya! WTF!

[DogOnPorch]

of really? I'm reading it doesn't/won't do any of roles very well... simply by its "catch all" design. Compromise, compromise, compromise.

bomb the rat-piss out of something? Really... we do that? Oh right, those couple of times over a multi-decade period. Well worth the Parliament Hill Libyan flyover, right?



wait a minute!!! There were more F-18s in that flyover than actually bombed the rat-piss out of Libya! WTF!

Fighter-bombers traditionally don't do the job of a dedicated fighter or bomber. It IS called compromise. But oddly, with some aircraft, we don't find out what they're truely good for until they See The Elephant. The Bf-110 for example...

Edited by DogOnPorch, 09 May 2012 - 09:03 AM.

[DogOnPorch]

Now here's a pure interceptor. In a single pass it could down several four-engine bombers like the B-17 or B-24 with its big 30mm cannons. But, you wouldn't be launching one of these to 'support the troops'.



Ahhhh...Brahms.

As I've mentioned before, a dedicated light ground attack aircraft similar to this might make the purchase/design of a pure interceptor a much more feasible.

[Smallc]

wait a minute!!! There were more F-18s in that flyover than actually bombed the rat-piss out of Libya! WTF!

No, actually, that's the exact number that were there. 6 + 1 spare.

[GostHacked]

You really think we'd only have 65 f35s in the case of a war with China? If you're going to use ridiculous hypotheticals to make your argument then I can use another ridiculous hypothetical: in the case of a war with China we'd buy hundreds more f35s.

The original order was for about 80 units. But because of cost, that number has been reduced to 65. How do you expect to pay for them when the original estimate was said to be half of what it is now. And that was done deliberately to hide the true cost, and our government now admit it. Don't blame me for our governments screw up.

Furthermore, if 65 f35s won't stand a chance against China, do you think 80-100 j20s will (assuming the j20 is up to 50% cheaper)?

If we were to go to war with Norway (as an example) ... 65 units would be enough, and that might come to a draw. The only problem with a full blown war, and a possible land invasion of Canada or North America, at the moment China is behind in a land invasion capacity, but that is changing very quick. And if war with China happens, it will be against Russia as well.

If you need to buy hundreds more, in case of China.
1 - where is the money coming from?
2 - will they be delivered on time?
3 - is there enough foresight to consider getting the plane on time in case of a war?

Now buying them would be one thing, having them produced on time... that's another story. And well the F-35 still needs to be vetted in many ways before a stamp of approval can be put on it.

A war with China is not just hypothetical, but it's a real scenario that the Pentagon is taking into account. Pay attention to China's military. They have one retrofitted former Russian carrier, and are currently building a couple new ones, with the plans to build more. China is making large advances in those areas.

As others have pointed out, why do you think China is grabbing resources from around the world?

And for others, yes it is a multirole fighter. However it's a jack of all trades and master of none. And if we are spending that money on these things, I would want the VTOL version. The estimated costs NOW could easily pay for that variant.

Canadian taxpayers are getting hosed.

[Smallc]

The original order was for about 80 units. But because of cost, that number has been reduced to 65.

Which changes nothing.

How do you expect to pay for them when the original estimate was said to be half of what it is now.

It was never such.

If we were to go to war with Norway (as an example) ... 65 units would be enough, and that might come to a draw.

It depends whose airspace you were fighting over. They would win there, and we would win here, quite easily. Also, we won't have 65 combat aircraft, we'll have 48, as we do now.

The only problem with a full blown war, and a possible land invasion of Canada or North America, at the moment China is behind in a land invasion capacity, but that is changing very quick. And if war with China happens, it will be against Russia as well.

And what makes you think that they can win here, against NORAD?

And for others, yes it is a multirole fighter. However it's a jack of all trades and master of none. And if we are spending that money on these things, I would want the VTOL version. The estimated costs NOW could easily pay for that variant.

Your logic is nonsensical. Also, the SVTOL version has serious drawbacks for us.

[DogOnPorch]

Your logic is nonsensical. Also, the SVTOL version has serious drawbacks for us.

Yeah...no aircraft carrier.

[Smallc]

Yeah...no aircraft carrier.

I was thinking more of range and performance, but that too.

[CPCFTW]

hey now... I thought the underlying fake premise, false narrative "theme" was the F-35 was for "domestic defense/surveillance/reconnaissance... why, you're speaking of it as a 'first striker'! The Chinese are going to invade us! Really?

Yes really! That's why we need to wait to buy Chinese j20s instead of f35s! 80 j20s will fare much better against thousands of enemy j20s than 65 f35s will! I know it's hard to keep up with ghosthack's (or any other lefty's) deeply flawed logic!

[waldo]

No, actually, that's the exact number that were there. 6 + 1 spare.

uhhh... who's counting? Speaking of, are you still counting this post, or is it just one you'll conveniently bypass?

pending your update/correction, for now, I'll go with the F-35 @ $32,500 per hour // F/A-18 @ $18,900 per hour. Wow! Quite the difference, hey? But again, the point being you don't seem to have an actual comment on the Pentagon figure of $32,500 an hour for the F-35! Apparently, to you... whatever it costs... it costs, right?

btw, still waiting on that citation support to your claim that, "DND equates the operational costs of the F-35 and the CF-18.

[DogOnPorch]

I know it's hard to keep up with ghosthack's (or any other lefty's) deeply flawed logic!

I suspect a few of them think 'Lightning' and 'Raptor' (et al) are characters in the movie 'The Avengers'.

Edited by DogOnPorch, 09 May 2012 - 12:35 PM.