F-35's

[Syn7]

Scrap metal or genius?

Can you really make a fighter that can do it all? Serve all arms of the military?

Some say it's the next sh1t, others say it's a failed attempt to build on a bad idea. For example, small wings let it launch vertically, yet limit it in maneuverability. Apparently this tit for tat trade off is affecting all aspects of the plane. Stealth what? I call bullsh1t on that one. Stealth my ass. Ask Bosnia how hard it is to shoot down a "stealth" plane!!!

And now the affordable price tag is up up up, so far. We'll see. Anyone up to date on this? I heard over 200 mill per unit. That is a base cost, not operational cost. OUCH!!!

You gotta wonder, with so many great nations backing this build, how bad could it be? On the other hand, we've seen worse. When people won't admit defeat they tend to waste even more time and money. We're better off with the CF-188 Hornets, lol. I feel like this is another cash grab at the expense of our economy and safety.

What's even worse, after the Canadian Gov was exposed in being shady and/or incompetent, they won't even talk about it. They spend YOUR money but won't even return a phone call about what they spent it on. I don't understand how this became acceptable? Who decided this was ok?

When Norway was thinking about going with the Swede plane, The US bullied them into going with the f-35. Wikileaks show us the threats made. It's all in the cables. And it says this tactic should be used against any country thinking of bailing on the program. Something is very wrong here. Good plane or not.

I think maybe the US is bullying nations to join the program so that they can scale back their own commitments to a failed idea. Make everyone else buy the mistake rather than owning up.


The Harper Gov promised a competition for the best plane for us, then all the sudden all is secret and we are locked in to this crap? After investors started freaking out and the plane started showing it wasn't working out, all the sudden Canada and Israel are on board? Why the rush? Why the lies? 65 planes for 9 billion and they said it was a total running cost. Turns out it was a base cost not counting anything but the plane itself. With weapons, gear, upkeep, infrastructure etc Harper papers say 16 billion. I think that is way low, but we'll see.

Also, why did they hide the statement of requirement if they have nothing to hide? And where is this cost guaruntee contract that Harper swears we have? That guy just str8 up lied, again.

Why do people just live with this? Drives me nutts. Those of us left to try on our own get stomped out for it while everyone else hides in their lil holes.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Air "superiority" fighters are an easy sell because people think they are getting "more plane for less coin".
Outside the F-4, F-14 and the F-15, I don't recall any really good "all around" fighter.
The Raptor is a great plane but I don't think it is as good as everyone says it is.
In my time most pilots had lots of issues with the F-18 hornets, but the plane supposedly got better as the years went by.

Honestly I am not sure how much "dog fighting" still happens nowadays and it seems that what planes are used for (manned) is as bombers more than anything else.

[David Jamieson]

I see that the F-22s aren't being put up for sale.
I hear they are pretty good at most stuff.

[Syn7]

Air "superiority" fighters are an easy sell because people think they are getting "more plane for less coin".
Outside the F-4, F-14 and the F-15, I don't recall any really good "all around" fighter.
The Raptor is a great plane but I don't think it is as good as everyone says it is.
In my time most pilots had lots of issues with the F-18 hornets, but the plane supposedly got better as the years went by.

Honestly I am not sure how much "dog fighting" still happens nowadays and it seems that what planes are used for (manned) is as bombers more than anything else.

Well, it depends who you're fighting, where the you're located etc. If there are going to be dogfights, best to be ready for it.

I understand the desire to cut costs in these hard times, but this is NOT the way to do it. It was a bad idea from the get go. Where we're at technologically, one all round plane isn't a good idea. As I understand it anyways. You wanna bomber, build a bomber. Sure, make it as versatile as you can, but don't sacrifice it's bombing capabilities any more than you have to. If your bomber needs support, then it needs support. But don't sacrifice it's abilities so far as to make it half a bomber and half a dogfighter but 100% of nothing. Know what I mean?

[Syn7]

I see that the F-22s aren't being put up for sale.
I hear they are pretty good at most stuff.

You think we'll end up with the 35's anyways? As I understand it, anyone in the program can opt out at any time.

Does the timing raise any flags for you?

[Drake]

Stealth means undetected by radar. It isn't a cloaking device.

And regardless... EVERYTHING has a signature.

[sanjuro_ronin]

My personal opinion in regards to the Canadian military has always been the same:
Make it the BEST possible military for the budget it has.
In short, quality over quantity.

[Syn7]

Stealth means undetected by radar. It isn't a cloaking device.

And regardless... EVERYTHING has a signature.

AH, cloaking device. I wish. If only.............


"Stealth means undetected by radar." A bit of an oversimplification don't ya think? I know what stealth means. I said what I said because the media plays it up as something it isn't. And Lockheed has done nothing to dispel that myth. They even encourage it.

If it was your call, would you choose the 35? If it was your @ss? Is it even an issue where you're at? The only reason it got any attention here is because of the massive cost increases. Then people started asking about the plane itself, looked at other countries in the program and all this came out. There is a lot of opposition to this program and this plane. A LOT! But then again, it does have a ton of support. It just seems that the defense is from those who have interest in the program, whereas the critique is from outsiders and insiders who have retired. I imagine any staff have strict confidentiality agreements, so they won't speak out regardless of how they feel. So nobody on the inside is going to criticize this plane as long as the program is a go. If anyone did speak up they would be ruined, whether they were right or wrong.

[Drake]

I don't think anyone here is qualified to discuss intelligently if we do or don't need it. However, that being said, I personally feel we should focus on the improving basic equipment before we try inventing the hovertank.

[Lucas]

If they stand in horse stance for the next three years, in ten years they will be able to learn how to be a complete system.

[Syn7]

My personal opinion in regards to the Canadian military has always been the same:
Make it the BEST possible military for the budget it has.
In short, quality over quantity.

No doubt. Unfortunately not everyone agrees.

[Syn7]

I don't think anyone here is qualified to discuss intelligently if we do or don't need it. However, that being said, I personally feel we should focus on the improving basic equipment before we try inventing the hovertank.

are they actually building a hovertank? or were you just making a point?

We? as in the US or everyone in the program?

[Bacon]

The problem is with the basic idea of building an all round plane. Two things to consider...
1. Dogfighting is a thing of the past with long range AA missiles and long range air to air missiles being the way planes are usually taken out in the air.
2. Specialization is the key to building the best tool for the job. You don't slap the big guns from a ship onto a sub and go "look now it can be a sub AND a ship. Bombers should be bombers, interceptors should be interceptors, you then round everything out if you need to by deploying in squadrons who have a varied compliment of aircraft.

But regardless of whether we get these or not Canada has always made do with sub par equipment. We make up for it will good training and skills. Either way we'll still do pretty well.

[sanjuro_ronin]

No doubt. Unfortunately not everyone agrees.

Yeah, it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks.
The modern military is more "specialized", more "elite training" oriented BUT the mentality is still "more is better".

[David Jamieson]

I don't think anyone here is qualified to discuss intelligently if we do or don't need it. However, that being said, I personally feel we should focus on the improving basic equipment before we try inventing the hovertank.

Dude, if my tax dollars are gonna pay for these things, then I'm at least qualified to talk about the expenditure and whether or not it is worth that at the very least.

The F-35 program in Canada is a bit of a meatball as our PM isn't that good at sorting these things and the guy on point (McKay) is not the most clever person and the reform party peeps who run the country seem to enjoy making policies in the dark and flying by the seat of their pants quite often on many issues.