Trump calls for F-18 run off against F-35

There seems to be an unspoken assumption being made regarding 'stealth' tech. This is NOT 'Wonder Woman's Invisible Jet'! Radar invisibility does NOT translate to OPTICAL invisibility. If it can be SEEN, it can be SHOT. Do not deceive yourselves. Actual optical invisibility DOES NOT AS YET EXIST! Let us not forget also possible counters in 'Tesla-tech' (the genius, not the car company) type weapons. Proper use of microwave 'prisms' to phase-match the outputs from two microwave sources might do the trick. BTW, Northrop-Grumman's YF-23 was the BETTER platform re: F-22. It had vectored thrust, meaning it could, in effect, 'turn on a dime'. BIG choice blunder!

a reply to: WAstateMosin

Most people do realize that "stealth" isn't wonder womans invisible jet... Really, they do.





You were saying about vectored thrust??

a reply to: WAstateMosin

In 2006 a 2 meter uav was flown with full optical stealth that couldn't be seen on camera at 250 feet. There have been issues putting it on an F-22 platform, but if you think they haven't improved it in 10 years, you're dreaming.

As for stealth, most people on this forum have an outstanding idea exactly how it works.

originally posted by: Fools
www.businessinsider.com...

I think this is mainly a cost issue.

It is not just a cost issue.

#1 F-35 does not properly perform it's mission
#2 F-35 leaves the Navy without a flat top aircraft

The JSF (F-35) program is too big and important to be cancelled or cut. The JSF program was designed to be as hard to cut or cancel as possible. It has succeeded so far in that.

I think that unless there is another competitor to the F-35 made by a different company, then Lockheed Martin will have a monopoly on the fighter market. I'm sure I don't have to explain what a monopoly would mean. It's possible for a Super Super Hornet to serve the same purpose, but it's impossible to modify the Super Hornet into a comparable 5th generation aircraft.

All the more reason to give Boeing/Northrop "6th" generation (and ensure that cost and risk are priorities for this aircraft).

As far as costs go, the unit cost of the F-35 has already been decreasing (as expected). I believe this is also true for the projected costs too. So the whole notion that Trump did this (i.e. "F-35 costs Coming down, Personal Guarantee From Lockheed Martin CEO-All after Trump meeting" - the thread that was closed) is probably political BS. Ditto for Air Force One replacement.

a reply to: sy.gunson

The F35 does not properly perform its mission largely because it hasn't reached Block 3F. Mind you, in terms of time frame we are closer to Block 3F today than we are to Block 2B.

Its not clear how hard the fix for the weapons bays will be. Several issues the F-35 has had over the past couple of years (engine-rub and ejection seat to name two examples) had relatively easy and cheap fixes, but before they were fixed they imposed large operational limitations.

How does the F-35 leave the Navy without a flat top aircraft?

a reply to: sy.gunson

The last round of tests the Navy performed ended almost two weeks early because they hit all their test points so quickly. It's performing nicely and will get better as the software is completed.

originally posted by: C0bzz


All the more reason to give Boeing/Northrop "6th" generation (and ensure that cost and risk are priorities for this aircraft).

The real problem is that the F-35 fall far short of its mission performance. I don't think anybody realistically believes the Super Hornet is or can be developed into a 6th Generation fighter, but there are equally serious questions whether the F-35 really is a 6th generation fighter or a flying lemon?



If it can't match this then it is in trouble.

The US Navy's F-35C version has demonstrated excessive stress, or exceeded loads in both carrier landings and in manouvering by VFA-101. The weapons mounts for GBU-39 & AIM-9X are not strong enough. It can't manouvere adequately at high Gs below 25,000ft between 500-600kts.

a reply to: sy.gunson

There is no such thing as 6th Gen yet. It absolutely is 5th however. As for performance, it's been performing amazingly in tactics development.

The fix for the C is already being installed on aircraft on the line and will be refit to others.

a reply to: sy.gunson

If it can't match this then it is in trouble.

The operations each aircraft will be involved in are likely to be completely different as will the overall force that each aircraft is part of. The F-35 doesn't need to directly "match" anything.

The US Navy's F-35C version has demonstrated excessive stress, or exceeded loads in both carrier landings and in manouvering by VFA-101. The weapons mounts for GBU-39 & AIM-9X are not strong enough. It can't manouvere adequately at high Gs below 25,000ft between 500-600kts.

The F-35C has not reached IOC yet and this is scheduled for mid-2018. Question is, will these issues be fixed by then? Will they be fixed by FOC? At what cost? Who pays for the fix?

Maybe I'm being naive here but the F-35C is four years behind the F-35B and two years behind the F-35A in terms of IOC dates. My expectation is the F-35C will be brought up to speed with much less issues than other variants once it reaches IOC.

So somewhat related to the F35, last week I had the chance to visit the Pima Air and Space Museum, among other things I got to touch an SR71 which I thought was really, really cool. The SR71 was eventually retired because it was argued satellites can do the job better and cheaper. But lately, technology has been moving in the direction that if war between advanced nations were to break out, everyones satellites would be blown up in the first few minutes, once again necessitating aircraft that can fill the role.

Is the electronics package in the F35 reflecting the governments recognition of that, and preparing to operate without satellites if necessary?

a reply to: Aazadan

Is the electronics package in the F35 reflecting the governments recognition of that, and preparing to operate without satellites if necessary?

One would assume so. Or they'll be uplinked to sats that are more survivable. That's my working assumption, anyway. But since I'm hardly much more than a not even rank amateur in this area...take that for what it's likely worth.

a reply to: sy.gunson

From everything I've read and seen, it most certainly does perform its mission. It has some issues, but then it's still in late stages of development...and there are bugs. Those are, as I understand from my strictly layman views, being fixed almost as quickly as they crop up.

I'm curious as to how the F35 leaves the Navy without carriers? It'll be operating from them, after all.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Snarl

When you're talking about aircraft that are basically rewriting the book when it comes to capabilities, then yeah, you're going to have some high costs involved. The F-15 was considered expensive when it was developed, and it only cost $15M to begin with. That was over 6 times the cost of the F-4, which was only 10-12 years old at the time the F-15 was entering service.

Well DOD usually have school boys negotiating this stuff with Corporate Pro's. What do you expect? Plus the DOD folks really have very little reason to negotiate hard for tax payers.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Fools

Trump thinks it is a beauty pageant. he is way out of his depth, as usual.

I guess our PM thinks it is a beauty contest too.

The previous Canadian administration had the country lined up to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed as part of his election campaign to cancel the purchase on the grounds a real competition hadn't taken place and that such an expensive fighter was unnecessary. True to his word, Trudeau canceled Canada's planned purchase of the F-35 and announced a new, open competition for a permanent replacement would be forthcoming.

For some reason, smart business eludes some people.

We are going to re-up on F-18's. If there was an argument for the F-35 being a better option we would have heard about it. More capable does not mean more reasonable. The biggest thing our airforce is going to have to handle is maybe a no-fly zone over.... actually never mind, Syria is the worst situation we are ever going to get sucked into and the F-18 suites it just fine.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The F-18 doesn't do well to meet treaty obligations anymore. Trudeau canceled the F-35 because no bid contracts are bad, now is signing a no bid contract for more F-18s, and forcing anyone even remotely involved to sign a non-disclosure agreement about anything to do with the deal.

And you see this as good business? They're basically buying F-18s to delay the competition until after the next election, when they can claim victory, by not buying the F-35. They can't exclude it from a new fighter competition, so there is still a chance that it would win. By doing this, and hiding the details behind the deal, they can claim they won, instead of having a real competition, and possibly getting something other than the F-35.

a reply to: seagull

There are some issues with the outer wing pylons on the C. They've known about them for a couple of years now, and have an engineering fix already being installed. By the time they're buying them in more than two at a time the problem will have long since been resolved.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The F-18 doesn't do well to meet treaty obligations anymore. Trudeau canceled the F-35 because no bid contracts are bad, now is signing a no bid contract for more F-18s, and forcing anyone even remotely involved to sign a non-disclosure agreement about anything to do with the deal.

And you see this as good business?

I think that during the now trashed procurement of the F-35 a lot was learned about it, except it's life time maintenence costs, which is why it was scrapped.

The non-disclosure is nothing nefarious Zaphod and I am a little disappointed that you would suggest it was. I rely on you to keep a level head on issues.

And as far as treaties go, if we don't have it, we don't have it. Lockheed can't force us into giving them a blank cheque.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

There have been exactly zero other programs that I or other people I talk to that have had a non-disclosure agreement related to procurement of a non-classified aircraft. I find it suspicious that this one does. There is very little about procurement of aircraft that would require an NDA to be signed, certainly not the entire program. Even the B-2, which was one of the most secret aircraft of the time had a wide open procurement program. Yet, absolutely no details of a simple F-18 program procurement are ever going to be revealed?

And you DON'T find this suspicious?

As far as treaties go, you agree to maintain a certain force level, to do certain missions if called upon. It's not a matter of "If we don't have it, we don't have it". You're supposed to maintain it, if you sign the treaty.

From your own quote:

but current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed as part of his election campaign to cancel the purchase on the grounds a real competition hadn't taken place

The F-35 was selected as part of a no-bid contract, which the incoming government said was a Bad Thing. But now they're doing exactly what they said was bad. Yes, costs played a role, but the bigger role was the no-bid part of the contract. There were and are other options beside the F-18, that would be a good fit. But the problem the liberal government has now is that they can't legally exclude the F-35. If it were selected in a real competition, they'd have the problem of not being able to cancel it, because that would hurt the RCAF too badly.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MALBOSIA

There have been exactly zero other programs that I or other people I talk to that have had a non-disclosure agreement related to procurement of a non-classified aircraft. I find it suspicious that this one does. There is very little about procurement of aircraft that would require an NDA to be signed, certainly not the entire program. Even the B-2, which was one of the most secret aircraft of the time had a wide open procurement program. Yet, absolutely no details of a simple F-18 program procurement are ever going to be revealed?

And you DON'T find this suspicious?

As far as treaties go, you agree to maintain a certain force level, to do certain missions if called upon. It's not a matter of "If we don't have it, we don't have it". You're supposed to maintain it, if you sign the treaty.

From your own quote:

but current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed as part of his election campaign to cancel the purchase on the grounds a real competition hadn't taken place

The F-35 was selected as part of a no-bid contract, which the incoming government said was a Bad Thing. But now they're doing exactly what they said was bad. Yes, costs played a role, but the bigger role was the no-bid part of the contract. There were and are other options beside the F-18, that would be a good fit. But the problem the liberal government has now is that they can't legally exclude the F-35. If it were selected in a real competition, they'd have the problem of not being able to cancel it, because that would hurt the RCAF too badly.

OK. What do you think is being hidden with NDA's ?
What advantage would be given to Boeing if nobody talks about the F-35? It sounds more like there is some information that compromises Lockheed and that would be the cause of the NDA.

If we are just looking for numbers to restock our aging fleets while we look for something better, how is the F-18 not the best option? We are already set up to use them and maintain them and we know them really well. If there is not going to be a bid then it has to be something we already have and have complete control over.

The longer we wait, the better off we are. A new round of F-18s is more than enough to keep up with anything we have or will have on the go.

Now please don't make me defend this too much. I really dislike Trudeau. I dislike any decision he has made. But honestly, I think the deal with Lockheed was SO bad that even Harper wasn't all that sad to see it go. He didn't fight for it like he did everything else. The F-35 the way it sat a year ago was a bad deal.