Pentagon Grounds F-35 Fleet After Runway Fire

The F-35 Fighter Jet Is A Historic $1 Trillion Disaster
Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

It is, quite literally, an aircraft that is "too big to fail" despite facing lifetime operating costs for the U.S. Fleet of $1 trillion, and cost overruns of $167 billion before a single plane has flown a single mission.

As with Germany, quantity matters more then quality ( when facing the Russians in wwII), so even when this fighter would be great in a couple of years?, many country's will have only few numbers of this new fighter.

Imagine how many jets, especially the US could have had for the same money.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: khnum

That's almost funnier. He wants them to cancel the F-35 and buy more F-16s.

Uhrm, Canada doesn't have any F-16's.

Canada vast northern expanses have always precluded single engine fighters.

a reply to: Psynic

He actually says the Eurofighter or Viggen would of been a better choice.

a reply to: Psynic

He also isn't talking about Canada, when he says that.

a reply to: khnum

Here's a great rebuttal to a number of points he makes in that video. Yes he makes some interesting points, but a lot of what he says is such utter BS it isn't funny.

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Some good counterpoints maybe I don't write the defense minister and tell him to dig out the old world war 2 radars and buy a bunch of Mig23's just yet by the same token if the US defense department thinks this thing can replace the A10 in close support roles you really have to question the decision makers.This may turn out like the V22 osprey where you get a good aircraft in the end,or good at something whatever that is it wont be air superiority.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

He also isn't talking about Canada, when he says that.

You are very much confused.

He didn't say anyone should "scrap their F-35 order and buy more F-16's" at all. Not even close!

He said the airforce wanted something like an F-35 to be designed for them but he designed the F-16 instead .

I would say the F-16 has well proven the logic of that position.

a reply to: Psynic

And where did I say that it was in this video? You seem to think that this is the only time he's ever come out and said anything. Pierre Sprey has been commenting for decades, on just about everything the military has done. His stance is very clear, in that he thinks that the F-16 is the best fit for just about everything. Just because he didn't say it in this video, doesn't mean he hasn't said it in the past, or won't say it again in the future.

a reply to: khnum

It's not supposed to be air superiority though. That's the F-22s mission. This is the Air Force version of the F-18, which is a decent strike fighter, but would never be considered an air superiority fighter.

And I agree, it won't ever do the A-10 mission anywhere near as well as the Warthog does.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: Psynic

He actually says the Eurofighter or Viggen would of been a better choice.

Yes, I knew that already and I fully agree with him.

I watched The Fifth Estate when this was originally broadcast.

Canadians will be replacing their PM in the near future and Trudeau will be cancelling our order for F-35s.

We may get Eurofighters yet.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

And where did I say that it was in this video?

Uhrm, in your first three words in your response to the video posted by Khnum.

"That's even funnier", is exactly what you said.

Anyway you slice it he's right, the F-35 is a disaster waiting to happen and the forecast numbers are a pipe-dream.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: khnum

It's not supposed to be air superiority though. That's the F-22s mission. This is the Air Force version of the F-18, which is a decent strike fighter, but would never be considered an air superiority fighter.

And I agree, it won't ever do the A-10 mission anywhere near as well as the Warthog does.

It won't be capable of doing ANYTHING superior to purpose built aircraft that are a fraction of the cost.

a reply to: Psynic

Because it was funnier than the other video. He completely ignores huge data points to make his point in that video. Things like the F-15 Air to Air record, or the fact that only one stealth aircraft has ever been shot down, in thousands of hours of combat, but he claims that stealth is useless. And at other times has flat out said the F-16 is the best fit for almost every mission out there.

a reply to: Psynic

NO multi-role aircraft is better than a purpose built aircraft doing the same mission. Simple fact. They might be almost as good, but a purpose built aircraft will always out perform a multi-role at the mission it was designed for (unless it's an older airframe against a newer airframe, like the F-15E v A-6E).

And even a purpose built using stealth, and having the technology the F-35 has is NOT going to be "a fraction of the cost".

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

NO multi-role aircraft is better than a purpose built aircraft doing the same mission. Simple fact. They might be almost as good, but a purpose built aircraft will always out perform a multi-role at the mission it was designed for (unless it's an older airframe against a newer airframe, like the F-15E v A-6E).

Exactly, and who wants to be flying a second rate aircraft against a superior foe?

Canada needs long range interceptors to defend her territory, not multi-role attack aircraft to wage war in foreign lands.

a reply to: Psynic

And yet, they currently fly F-18s, which have short legs, and aren't the best interceptors out there by any means, but are great strike fighters.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

And yet, they currently fly F-18s, which have short legs, and aren't the best interceptors out there by any means, but are great strike fighters.

You're right, the F-18's aren't the ideal aircraft that say the Avro Arrow, which was specifically designed for Canada's needs, would have been.

At least the Hornets aren't as short legged as an F-35, and have the CAF prerequisite, twin engine configuration.

a reply to: Psynic

It's a lot more complex than made out to be. The F-35A, which is what Canada was originally planning to buy, has a combat radius of 590 nm. The CF-18 has a combat radius of around 290 nm on a high-lo-lo-high interdiction mission. At 150 nm from base, they have a 1hr 45 min loiter time. The E/F, which has a higher combat radius than the C/D that Canada has, on a straight fighter mission, still has a lower combat radius than the F-35A

The two engine requirement that they put into place, when the F-18 was originally put into service, is no longer required. At the time, engines weren't as reliable as they are now, and it was thought that two engines would allow pilots time to land if they lost one. Now, with the new engines, reliability has improved to the point where a single engine aircraft can carry bigger payloads than a twin engine aircraft, and losing one engine isn't a guarantee of the plane remaining in the air. In fact you may lose both engines, and still lose the aircraft. A number of people in the CAF procurement program have pointed this out, and have tried to change that requirement.

While the F-35s flight performance may seem a compromise I think there are capabilities it has which are highly classified and if we knew the capabilities of all of it's advanced systems it would seem a lot more impressive.

Apparently it can detect threats at very long range 360 degrees around it is just one thing I've read. It seems to have highly advanced and classified IR and other spectrum 360 degree detection systems. We can only speculate on how stealthy it will be in service form but I'm sure there is a lot the civilian world doesn't know about it.

The design concept has chosen to focus on advanced stealth and sensor technology rather than high flight performance and if armed with next gen long range AAMs I think the F-35 could be a very dangerous and challenging air to air opponent.

The problems and delays with the program show just how advanced and challenging the implementation of this new technology has been.

originally posted by: JimTSpock

The problems and delays with the program show just how advanced and challenging the implementation of this new technology has been.

This is the key. Every aircraft developed has had its issues. It's just part of the process. The UH-1, UH-60, F-15, and I'm sure others have had their share of accidents which made people question the airframe's viability. The V-22 is the perfect example of that. Now it's a proven aircraft.

The point is, you can't scrap every aircraft because of its developmental issues. Otherwise, we'd have none.