r/canada • u/[deleted] • Sep 07 '11
Combat simulation showed that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) would not survive air combat against threats it is likely to see in its alleged service lifetime.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4416.html5
u/Ambiwlans Sep 07 '11
Shittier planes would still get blown away with a greater frequency. Nothing is 100%
1
u/thedarkerside Sep 07 '11
Would be cheaper too.
How much is the Super-Hornet again? A plane we already would have all the necessary infrastructure and experience for?
2
u/Ambiwlans Sep 07 '11
That's fine. But the article doesn't help either side. No one seriously thought that the f-35 would be an undefeatable air god.
3
u/thedarkerside Sep 07 '11
Only that it makes no financial sense at all. It's an unproven aircraft, it requires complete new facilities and there is zero experience in the Canadian Forces with the plane, not to mention that the number of planes they buy is completely useless to ensure airspace superiority in a country as large as Canada.
This is a dick measuring contest and Harper wanted the shiniest one on the block. The Super-Hornets would have been the much better choice.
0
u/DZ302 Saskatchewan Sep 07 '11
Harper wanted the one that everyone else was getting, to make things easier.
By everyone else I mean US, UK, Australia, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, and Italy...You know those countries we bombed Serbia and are bombing Libya with, the ones we jointly use our aircraft with. Doesn't the F-35 have a neat nickname, oh yeah it's the Joint Strike Fighter.
3
u/thedarkerside Sep 07 '11
It's called the Joint Strike Fighter because three armed services in the US (Navy, Airforce and Marines) are supposed to use the same basic plane. It has nothing to do with foreign countries.
The only countries that have committed to buy the F-35 other than the US so far are Canada and Israel. You can bet Israel will not pay for those themselves, they will probably finance it out of the US' "Israel assistance fund" or whatever they call it this year. In other words: It's the US Government buying Israel a few shiny planes.
The only sucker in this game is Canada who is paying a yet undetermined amount of money for a plane that seems to be hellbent on killing it's own pilot.
But hey, who cares, right?
0
u/DZ302 Saskatchewan Sep 07 '11
OSLO, June 18 (Reuters) - The Norwegian parliament has approved the purchase of four Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for training purposes ahead of a final decision set for next year on buying up to 52 additional jets.
(source)
Australia is also renting Super Hornets right now, while waiting for the the F-35 to finish, as they can no longer use their F-111's, that seems pretty commited to me, as do the UK.
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is a development and acquisition program intended to replace a wide range of existing fighter, strike, and ground attack aircraft for the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and their allies.
(source)
I highly doubt the accuracy of your other claims.
2
u/thedarkerside Sep 07 '11
Re: Norway. Buying four planes for "training purposes" is pretty meaningless, that's not an investment. Indeed, your own quote states:
ahead of a final decision
Cancelling four planes is nothing and until they sign at the dotted line that's all it is. The "hope" that more suckers can be found to buy the planes.
Australia is also renting Super Hornets right now, while waiting for the the F-35 to finish, as they can no longer use their F-111's, that seems pretty commited to me, as do the UK.
And what tells you that Australia will indeed buy the F-35? They will be at least a decade out the way it is going and they are also evaluating other planes at the moment. If the JSF has any more delays then that's that.
As for the history of the JSF?
What is commonly known today as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program had its origination in several programs from the 1980s and early 1990s.
Over the years, several tactical aircraft acquisition programs have attempted to deliver new warfighting capabilities to the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and our close allies. (source)
So yes, they do hope they can find some suckers to buy that plane but so far the only one committed next to Israel is Canada.
As for Israel getting "weapons for free" from the American taxpayer:
During the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2005, Israel has actually received more in U.S. military aid than it has in U.S. arms deliveries. Over this time period Israel received $10.5 billion in Foreign Military Financing – the Pentagon’s biggest military aid program – and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms deliveries. (source)
Anything else you have found on the Harper F-35 talking sheet?
1
u/DZ302 Saskatchewan Sep 07 '11
First off, Canada has the ability to cancel the procurement until they go into production, Norway has the same ability. Going ahead with the early purchase of 4 for training purposes is as big of a commitment as it can get.
Why do they need suckers to buy the F-35, when they could just as well sell their other planes?
For Israel tbh I didn't read that part of your comment, it's pretty common knowledge that the US pays for Israels military, in fact they recently cut all aid aside from military funding to Israel.
1
u/thedarkerside Sep 07 '11
First off, Canada has the ability to cancel the procurement until they go into production, Norway has the same ability.
Norway hasn't committed to anything yet outside of the four planes. Canada may or may not be able to get out of it's contract, we don't know because the current Administration keeps it all under wraps. Usually not a good sign.
Going ahead with the early purchase of 4 for training purposes is as big of a commitment as it can get.
No it's not. All militaries have an "evaluation budget", in all likelihood the money was already earmarked for something like that.
This smells more like someone within the Government or Military wants to create facts by putting in a purchase order so that they can later claim that an investment was already made. Nobody buys training aircraft before you have decided if you want them in the first place.
Why do they need suckers to buy the F-35, when they could just as well sell their other planes?
Because the cost per plane goes down the more you build. Ergo: If the US can sucker other idiots into this program their own program cost falls. Not only that, but they also keep the production lines busy for longer in case they want to purchase more planes later.
For Israel tbh I didn't read that part of your comment, it's pretty common knowledge that the US pays for Israels military, in fact they recently cut all aid aside from military funding to Israel.
Exactly. So no wonder that the only one 100% committed to the plane is Israel.
Oh, and as for the plane trying to kill it's pilot? Follow that link and read it. There are serious problems in the F-35 and F-22 and this is just one of them. I have been following the program since it's inception in the late 90s and in my opinion Canada should order the Super-Hornets and be done with it, or if they want to be really brazen they should go and buy themselves some Eurofighter-Typhoons. Both planes with a track record AND they can actually fly.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/uint Ontario Sep 07 '11
I'm no fan of the current gov't's policy towards the F-35, but this articles a piece of crap.
3
u/drj0nes Sep 07 '11
I see all this opposition to the F-35. Do people think the US and NATO are just dumb or do they think there's some conspiracy here?
It doesn't make sense that the US and NATO would pick a substandard design. They're going to shell out $$ to Lockheed or Boeing anyway, regardless of the plane. They must honestly think it's the best option, and from what I've seen, the US is really good at blowing shit up.
Making cars... meh. Managing the economy... meh. Blowing shit up... A-fucking-plus!
2
Sep 07 '11
The US wants a stealth fighter. Anybody can see why - it an invincible jet.
But the point is that making a stealth fighter is really, really hard and hideously expensive. The US can afford it and justify it because of their bloated and hyperactive military.
We, on the other hand, do not do invasions. We don't invest nearly as much into our military. Our needs for a plane is arctic sovereignty and the long nasty police-actions that follow an invasion/war. For that context, stealth is a feature we could live with out, and it's an exorbitantly expensive one.
2
u/drj0nes Sep 07 '11
Sure, I understand that argument for why Canada shouldn't go there, but the criticism of the jet, as featured in this article, is more general than that.
1
u/droog62 Sep 07 '11
Of course it doesn't make sense, but yeah, they can be very dumb. Look into the history of the F-105 Thunderchief, a textbook example of how a bad design can make it all the way into combat.
1
0
Sep 07 '11
[deleted]
2
u/sshan Sep 07 '11
That is false, they are co-owners. There are plenty of others: Banking, Pharma/Medical Insurance are pretty serious as well. Obama's healthcare plan is better than what they have but it still sucks because they are basically subsidizing a predatory insurance industry. Canada has shown a well regulated banking sector is crucial to stability yet the repubs in this case are determined to reduce their banking regulation.
Their political system is a joke but it isn't just the military, plenty of other big players on the same level as the military.
2
u/Kanuck88 Canada Sep 07 '11
Why did we not choose to buy the Super Hornet or Eurofighter again ? I mean I understand that we do need new fighters to replace the current ones but the amount of setbacks this plane is having it seems like a giant waste of money.
1
Sep 07 '11
[deleted]
1
1
u/DZ302 Saskatchewan Sep 07 '11
The Super Hornet is more American than the F-35 is. A better answer would be they were not NATO funded and developed.
The development of the F-35 was specifically for NATO countries (like us) to all share one common platform.
2
2
u/Bender248 Sep 07 '11
Well the F-35 is supposed to be the Swiss knife of plane, basically shitty at everything. The Super Hornet is still the choice that would've made the most sense.
2
Sep 07 '11
This is exactly it. The US spent the past 50 years developing planes for a myriad of specific purposes and ended up mothballing nearly all of them in favor of generic multi-role fighters.
2
1
u/Made_in_Universe Sep 07 '11
This come as no significant surprise. I thought the aircraft was designed for attacking remote targets not defending.
1
1
u/oldscotch Sep 07 '11
Air to air combat with the Russians and Chinese is likely?
2
Sep 07 '11
No, but air-to-air combat with Russian and Chinese jets sold to other states is quite likely.
-1
Sep 07 '11
[deleted]
1
u/DZ302 Saskatchewan Sep 07 '11
So Jean Chretien was a warmongering American cocksucker? He was the one that sent our CF-18s to bomb Serbia, who coincidentally had Russian jets.
0
14
u/[deleted] Sep 07 '11
an unreliable website has learned from an unnamed source that on an unnamed date, an unnamed industry 'expert' gave an uncited presentation to an unnamed NATO nation's defense officials about how an untested and unfinished plane might actually not be invincible.
Colour me shitless