Yep. 2 x 2,000 lb JDAM bombs and 2 x 335 lb AMRAAMs, so actually a 4,670 lb internal warload.
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
When Canada cut its order down, the comment was made something to the effect "we need fewer aircraft than was the case with the CF18s, because this aircraft is more capable".
Canada is like most countries in that they are ordering fewer F-35 than they had legacy aircraft.
*It is supposed to be more capable. You need less F-35s as they generally deliver a greater payload, over a greater range and are more combat effective.
*Its post cold war, most legacy aircraft were ordered in the middle of the cold war.
*Supposed to have greater avalibility and be more reliable. The origional purchase of hornets was most likely based on figures of aircraft used in the 60's-70's.
Canada is not directly threatend by anyone, it is proberly not needed to order a 120 or so F-35's. 70 odd aircraft will most likely be okay to sustain a squad in overseas missions, and still have aircraft avalible locally for training and self defence etc.
*It is supposed to be more capable. You need less F-35s as they generally deliver a greater payload, over a greater range and are more combat effective.
*Its post cold war, most legacy aircraft were ordered in the middle of the cold war.
*Supposed to have greater avalibility and be more reliable. The origional purchase of hornets was most likely based on figures of aircraft used in the 60's-70's.
Canada is not directly threatend by anyone, it is proberly not needed to order a 120 or so F-35's. 70 odd aircraft will most likely be okay to sustain a squad in overseas missions, and still have aircraft avalible locally for training and self defence etc.
The full flight envelope of the F-35 hasn't been explored yet, but the F-35 is described by it's test pilots as having F/A-18 like slow speed handling qualities, and F-16 like acceleration and sustained/instantaneous turn rates.
Those measurements are against "clean" F/A-18 and F-16 airframes too, when the F-35 is measured, it is considered to have it's "standard" 2x AMRAAM and 2x 2000lbs JDAM payload.
In short, if it lives up to or even goes close to meeting these claims, it won't be any slouch at "turning and burning" but some would still argue against it even if it could make the Kessell run in 12 parsecs...
Funnily enough, the people that will have to take it into harms way aren't complaining about it's capability, only those who have vested interests in other platforms...
If the people that have to fly and fight this aircraft aren't concerned about it's alleged lack of capability, then I certainly am not. Especially when those people are the best pilots and air combat officers that the USAF, USN, USMC, RAF, RAAF, Israeli Air & Space Force, Italian Air Force, RNLAF, RDAF, Norway's Air Force, RSAF and Turkey's air force have to offer...
I don't think that's the strongest argument, as the pilots who haven't flown it don't know anymore than we do right now about how this aircraft will turn out. And, following the same logic, we don't hear Navy pilots complaining about the new Superhornet acquisitions, so should those be purchased instead?
As a general rule of thumb though, I think military forces anywhere are very happy to get US derived equipment. They know if the US has acquired it in bulk, it will be well developed, adapted in the future for every important new weapon to come along (due to that scale, for example, each time a new weapon systems arrives it will be a costly debate whether an aircraft like Eurofighter will be adapted for it), and more often than not the most capable weapon available in its class.
Actually quite a few people who haven't flown the F-35 would know a whole lot more than us about it - or do you think everything related to the aircraft's performance is going to be open source?
Your comment about the Super Hornet is just silly. Should an aircraft be purchased based on the fact that no one has complained about its performance, even though those same people would acknowledge there is a very real capability gap between something like a Super Hornet and an F-35? No, of course not. It's a ridiculous argument and isn't "following the same logic" as the point AD was making at all.
" or do you think everything related to the aircraft's performance is going to be open source? "
also, It's not unusual for USA to spread actual misinformation on their platforms and weapons
IIRC from past reading, isn't there even examples where the disclosed function and named system is infact not what it is and does but something completely different ?
It seems we are limited in our discussions, we are limited to open source material spec sheet, it seems only fanboys believe their platform have secret, only hinted at magical powers aided by pixie dust and everything is known about other platforms
I know that even our old hornets have secret stuff that can only be talked about behind closed doors
also, It's not unusual for USA to spread actual misinformation on their platforms and weapons
IIRC from past reading, isn't there even examples where the disclosed function and named system is infact not what it is and does but something completely different ?
It seems we are limited in our discussions, we are limited to open source material spec sheet, it seems only fanboys believe their platform have secret, only hinted at magical powers aided by pixie dust and everything is known about other platforms
I know that even our old hornets have secret stuff that can only be talked about behind closed doors
So the pilots who are preparing to bring this capability into service don't "know" any more than we do, eh?
The Air Combat officers, the people who have to figure out how to "fight" this capability (ie: operate the thing effectively in a fight) don't know any more about it than we do...
There are something like 30 pilots that have flown this aircraft now, most of whom are service appointed test pilots, not Lockheed Martin employed test pilots and they were until a couple of weeks ago flying mission system equipped production aircraft. Admittedly these mission systems are not yet fully functional but their functionality is improving as time goes by, software is rolled out and even the Block 1 software loads are demonstrating great capability.
Yeah sure, the operators who are planning to buy this aircraft haven't done anything more than read Lockheed Martin fast facts every other month and pick holes in and identify mistakes in the literature, like the naysayers do.
It's getting rather tired the idea that the operators don't know what they're talking about, but journos and fanbois do...
Funny how that works isn't it? Funny how often we're told how "outclassed" US kit is, how this bit is no good, that bit is no good etc and yet look at all the customers lining up to buy it...
And whats more, lets look at all the success this kit as in operational usage...
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
and anyone involved in the programme,their career will last just how long if they voiced any concern about the plane???...same goes for airforce personnel,you just know theres not going to be a squeak outta them,so your claim of your happy with the plane if the warfighters are is disingenous to say the least
So you believe the best way to decide on whether to acquire a new aircraft, is to run a poll among pilots of existing aircraft, on whether or not they think it may or may not be better? Get real, pilots who have not flown it are not the decision makers, and their personal opinions on whether or not the F35 may or may not be the best weapon to acquire when they haven't even sat in it, are totally irrelevant. And of course, as has been stated above, it would be a pretty career limiting move to say "my bosses decision to buy the F35 is a %^# up".
I'm sure the 30 or so who have flown it will be consulted, but even then, the buying decision won't be their's, and they will even among themselves have different personal opinions on the aircraft versus other alternatives.
I think the F35 will be a terrifically capable aircraft (albeit IMO a poor developed one from a cost, variant focus, and time-line perspective), but there are better arguments for its capability than "pilots aren't complaining". If for example, the decision is made to reduce the number of aircraft in service because of the greater capability of the F35, I wonder if pilots won't be complaining then (if this leads for example, to fewer pilots being needed)? If they do, IMO tough ##$@, its irrelevant.
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
Dont know how a few fanboi comments equate to any consensus suggesting us kit as being outclassed,so to suggest as such is...well.......
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I suggest really going back and re-reading some of the US weapons and system development histories, as you seem to be either ignoring or unaware of a number of realities.
One of them is that a number of the very bloated developmental programmes have been/had been kept alive by the US Congress and not the DoD. Even the JSF programme has been impacted by this phenomenon. The F-135 and F-136 engine development programmes high light this. The DoD only wants to continue developing the P&W engine, since that is nearly finished, while the GE engine is expected to need another 2-3 years to finish developing. Perhaps more importantly, the P&W engine is expected to 'only' need a a few hundred million more in funding to complete, while the GE engine is expected to need ~US$3 bil. to complete... The DoD understandably does not wish to pay that much in duplicate developmental costs as it does not provide an advantage to the DoD to have an alternate engine, and drives up the JSF SDD programme costs.
The reason why the GE engine has still been getting developed, despite DoD efforts to 'kill' the engine, is that members of Congress from districts where the GE plant is located, or parts suppliers for the plant, or plant workers and those whose economies exist to support the plant and plant workers have managed to keep funding being sent to GE for the engine. In US politics at least there is a term for such things, and that is 'pork barrel' projects.
The reason why I point all this out, is that uniformed and civilian personnel within the DoD have all pointed out and made decisions about the GE engine. Yet the engine still is around, and not because of the DoD, the decision was ultimately not theirs to make...
Similarly, if there was some real and glaring deficiency with the JSF, or any other defence programme, I would expect uniformed personnel would point out such issues while the programme is in testing and development. That is the whole point of such phases of a programme. Find and fix any issues while developing the piece of kit so it provides the capability desired or required.
One could, if one so desired, believe in a grand conspiracy to keep the JSF going and that governments, uniformed service personnel and defence industries are all 'in on it'. Or one could sit back, look at all the flak the JSF has Kopped from the Goon squad and others and think, 'gee, some of these objections are rather ridiculous' and then move on with some rather critical thinking of ones own.
-Cheers
Please re-read my post, as if you seriously think I'm suggesting a "pilot's poll" as a valid method of determining acquisitions you've either missed the point completely or you're deliberately taking the piss.
If you're being serious, then I'd remind you the part of my post you responded to referred specifically to people who are NOT pilots. Why you would think that was my position I have no idea as my post was quite specifically stating the opposite.
A complete and total lack of understanding on platform and system development & intergration, how they will fit into the "Bigger Picture" of the battlespace and how procurement actually works !
Rant Over
Rant Over
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
An unnecessary redundency of power plant development and a Dod who will voice that, arguing against the duplication of efforts on financial grounds all in an enviroment where an engine already exists for the plane, is in no way on par with voicing a concern about the state of the entire programme,a programme that has been said too big to fail,too important,a programme with no alternative,so to use the DoDs anti powerplant redundancy viewpoint as evidence of any transparency in the programme im not gonna take too seriously.
Any deficency in a programme thats to big to fail,to important,with no so called alternative out there is definately not a programme one wants to be on record for criticising,so to believe in a programme such as this that there could be any personel who could raise any concerns beyond the walls of the programme is wishfull thinking.
na no conspiricy theories here,just see a fighter programme subordinated to the political pork barreling process.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The closest thing to a 'counter' for what seems to be your argument is that if the programme is 'too big to fail' then knowledgeably personnel who are aware of issues would be/should be obligated to criticize areas of the program where problems exist. Failure to do so could/would trigger the programme to 'fail'.
What good is the JSF to the USAF, USN, USMC and allied/partner air forces if the JSF is unable to perform the mission roles are indicated and required?
So far we know that some issues have occurred with the JSF SDD and LRIP aircraft. That in large measure just what the testing is for. The find and fix problems so that production models do not have the same issues. We have already seen some instances where the JSF were grounded due to potential flight safety issues while problems are being worked out. This shows both that some issues still exist with the JSF, that they are still being worked on, and that uniforms do at least report some issues.
Again, the suggestion that there are issues which would make the JSF unsuitable for service, that personnel are aware of such issues, and further that reports of same are being suppressed, sounds too much like conspiracy theories to me.
-Cheers
I can tell you now this is quite incorrect and is an interesting argument when people who have voice the same type of complaints as yourself often opine that it is groupthink, or lack of moral courage or incompetence only that prevents operators complaining to their masters. Talk about tin foil hat syndrome. Couldn't possibly be the case that they know better and actually ARE happy with the kit, could it? Couldn't possibly be the case that they ARE seeing the capability of the kit first hand, that they are seeing the REAL results of it's performance in testing, rather than the puff pieces we see released publicly could it?
I can only speak for the Australian Defence Force, but there are nmerous channels to complain about the quality or capability of kit, including the RODUM's formal process and none of these are Career Limiting Moves (CLM's) and yet have had notable successes in getting real results in inadequate kit, for all their controversy...
^So you think it would be perfectly legitimate right now, for Australian air force pilots to complain about the F35 coming to Australia, even though those pilots have not flown it, and the plane is not fully developed yet?
I don't. Once they get the plane, if they don't like it, sure. But not right now. Your initial argument made no sense on this issue, anymore than we don't hear complaints about the Superhornet acquisition from the Australian forces doesn't mean that only Superhornets should be acquired instead.
Interestingly since you put such total faith in the unspoken views of pilots who haven't flown the plane, how do you feel about the various rumors floating around that the USN brass would prefer more Superhornets over the F35C? Here is an interesting blog comparing the F-35C to the evolved Superhornet:
I don't think it would be the end of the world, if the B and C variants were scrapped, and Lockheed asked to focus on more cost effectively finishing the F35A's. I'd prefer that as a cost cutting option (if that is mandated by Congress), to reducing the number of A variants produced.
I don't. Once they get the plane, if they don't like it, sure. But not right now. Your initial argument made no sense on this issue, anymore than we don't hear complaints about the Superhornet acquisition from the Australian forces doesn't mean that only Superhornets should be acquired instead.
Interestingly since you put such total faith in the unspoken views of pilots who haven't flown the plane, how do you feel about the various rumors floating around that the USN brass would prefer more Superhornets over the F35C? Here is an interesting blog comparing the F-35C to the evolved Superhornet:
Rhino's Revenge
I don't think it would be the end of the world, if the B and C variants were scrapped, and Lockheed asked to focus on more cost effectively finishing the F35A's. I'd prefer that as a cost cutting option (if that is mandated by Congress), to reducing the number of A variants produced.
Mate your embarrassing yourself, give it up, it is getting rather frustrating scrolling through your posts
Actually as a side note, if you would like to add credability to your argument, how about you list your experience in such fields, provide proof of such to the mod team and then we might pick it back up ! I doubt very much you can, prove me wrong
- Status