F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Shrek1985]

What is your background and/or experience to determine what the "job" actualy is, let alone that it is not enough ?

Over a decade, almost two studying every aspect of weapons, tactics, strategy and military history I can get my hands on.

Especially history, it's like a friggin crystal ball. These mistakes have been made before. They do not need to be made again at greater cost.

 

[aesop081]

Over a decade, almost two studying every aspect of weapons, tactics, strategy and military history I can get my hands on.

Especially history, it's like a friggin crystal ball. These mistakes have been made before. They do not need to be made again at greater cost.

Got it.

:

 

[Remius]

Over a decade, almost two studying every aspect of weapons, tactics, strategy and military history I can get my hands on.

Especially history, it's like a friggin crystal ball. These mistakes have been made before. They do not need to be made again at greater cost.

Lol.  This just brought back a memory.  Remember in Braveheart when the prince declares that he named Philip his high counsellor and King Longshanks asks if he's qualified.  Remember the answer and then the reaction from the king.  I just had a vision of you being Philip and CDN Aviator as the king.

Good movie if not entirely historical fiction.

 

[Loachman]

Over a decade, almost two studying every aspect of weapons, tactics, strategy and military history I can get my hands on.

So you've read a few books and seen a couple of movies about aircraft, but never actually flown anything, operationally or otherwise, yet know far more about fighter selection than those paid to do it.

Roger.

 

[Kirkhill]

....

Does that answer your questions?

Yes.  Thank you.

 

[PanaEng]

Air force's F-35 recommendation was missing key information
Report did not have important data on competing aircraft
By Scott Anderson, CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/09/27/f-f35-contract-fifth-estate.html

Interesting quote:

Steve Lucas, former Canadian chief of the air staff, acknowledges in an exclusive fifth estate interview, to air tonight, that the military's recommendation in 2006 to their political masters in Ottawa was based on incomplete data.

“With the stage we were at, at that point in time, not only did we do the glossy brochure examination, but we also went each of the countries, spoke to each of them,” Lucas told the fifth estate.

But the air force report that backed that recommendation, obtained by the fifth estate, reveals that when the Canadian military visited four other nations that were peddling competing fighter jets they were denied classified information every time.

Would like to see the whole episode tonight.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So you've read a few books and seen a couple of movies about aircraft, but never actually flown anything, operationally or otherwise, yet know far more about fighter selection than those paid to do it.

Roger.

Considering most large purchases are authorized by nonmilitary government and political leaders, it's quite possible for a interested amateur to know more than the people reading the 5 page briefing note.

 

[dapaterson]

Considering most large purchases are authorized by nonmilitary government and political leaders, it's quite possible for a interested amateur to know more than the people reading the 5 page briefing note.

Briefing notes are supposed to be two pages, max, plus any supporting documents.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I always make sure my drafts are longer, if some staffer in the MO's office wishes to remove important information, they can do it. I keep the draft so we can show that we provided all the relevant information when things go sideways.

When some staffer rants about a font being wrong, you know they far less on their plate than we do.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Air force's F-35 recommendation was missing key information
Report did not have important data on competing aircraft
By Scott Anderson, CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/09/27/f-f35-contract-fifth-estate.html

Interesting quote: Would like to see the whole episode tonight.

Ugh.

The 2006 decision to continue its participation in the F-35 was not the main decision to purchase the fighter, nor did it require Canada to undertake full competition. Its basic task was to see whether canada should continue with investing in the F-35 program with the coming PFSD MOU. So basically it had to see whether the F-35 was a viable program.

The primary analysis started the following year, with the drafting of the high-level mandatory requirements and subsequent Statement of Requirements. They did not require every aspect of information at that point, but even then they could analyze a number of key characteristics for other programs, including cost, from open documents (like US budgets), and obtain a reasonably accurate sense of the relative position of each fighter.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Considering most large purchases are authorized by nonmilitary government and political leaders, it's quite possible for a interested amateur to know more than the people reading the 5 page briefing note.

Sure, but then again, he's insinuating that the military is negligent in their analysis, when they were the ones who came up with the force plan (first from the RCAF, then among the senior leadership in 2008 and 2009) and certified it as being sufficient to meet all of their force needs. 

 

[Haletown]

Ugh.

The 2006 decision to continue its participation in the F-35 was not the main decision to purchase the fighter, nor did it require Canada to undertake full competition. Its basic task was to see whether canada should continue with investing in the F-35 program with the coming PFSD MOU. So basically it had to see whether the F-35 was a viable program.

The primary analysis started the following year, with the drafting of the high-level mandatory requirements and subsequent Statement of Requirements. They did not require every aspect of information at that point, but even then they could analyze a number of key characteristics for other programs, including cost, from open documents (like US budgets), and obtain a reasonably accurate sense of the relative position of each fighter.

HB Buddy no worries here . . . This is a CBC documentary so it will be a fair and complete telling of the story, without any drive by smears or intentionally leaving out pertinent information, presented so as to provide a fair and balanced telling of the story for Canadians.

I am sure this one hour show will be factual, complete and avoid any childish journalistic sensationalism.  There will be no half baked truths or outright lies designed to fear monger or alter perceptions or be designed to steer people's decision making down predetermined avenues.

I mean, that is what CBC is famous for, what we get for our annual $1.x billion dollar subsidy provided to CBC.

We can all rest easy knowing professional CBC journalists are on the job, working for all Canadians, spending precious taxpayer dollars to find out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

.

 

[Gorgo]

I did see The Fifth Estate's documentary on the F-35, "Runaway Fighter."

In the wake of all that, I seriously have to ask this one question:

Why am I smelling another Lockheed bribery scandal in the works?!

Didn't the idiots at Lockheed learn their lessons in the 1970s concerning trying to hawk off the F-104 Starfighter to other nations like Germany?

Sheesh!  :facepalm:

 

[observor 69]

Watched it Friday night. Obviously goods and bads in the production values as Haletown has so  kindly pointed out. But I am left wondering about the observations  from the  retired aeronautical  engineer. The  design is a compromise with the navy who need a VTOL aircraft hence too small  a wing, also poor range and loiter time. In his words a failure of an aircraft loved only by LM. Instead of giving us a blow by blow attack on the government  why not some solid rebuttal and options.
Guess that doesn't draw viewers, sad.

 

[aesop081]

The  design is a compromise with the navy who need a VTOL aircraft

The Navy does not need a VTOL. That would be the USMC (and it is STOVL, by the way).

hence too small  a wing, also poor range and loiter time.

The USN's version has a larger wing that the other versions of the F-35.

 

[Haletown]

Caught the last 20 or so minutes on Friday and as expected the dragged out Winslow Wheeler for color commentary  but I was more than amused  when they put up Pierre Sprey as an expert.

Sprey goes way back to the 1960's as a notorious Pentagon crank who claims to have been the founder and designer of the F-16 and the A-10 Hog.  While he can claim some parentage the designer claim is a ten Pinocchio.

He was and still is an M1 tank hater who claims it is a disaster - he is on recorded as saying large fleets  of M60 class tanks would have been better for the US Army.  He is a devout F-22 and F-35 hater.  He still believes the F-22 oxygen issue is due to off gassing from the stealth coating. 

When you put Sprey up as your expert source you know you have dug deep into biased opinion verging on ridiculous.

These guys do well in one on one interviews where they can tell the gullible and usually avaition illiterate interviewer all kinds of tales and stories.  It would be very entertaining to see them in a debate format with  real aviation experts and folks up to speed on the F-35 program and capabilities.

I doubt very much they would accept the challenge because their reputation would be at severe risk.


Don't think I'll bother finding the first half of the show. Nothing new, same old angles and slants on the same story, with the same predictable  outcome.

In a couple of years the same TV talking heads will be telling us how great the F-35 is and how they knew it all along . . .  or something like that.

 

[observor 69]

So to summarize the  F-35 has great wing loading, payload, range, and loiter time, great dog fight capability and it's stealth capability is close to 100% invisibility.,
It's technology is highly reliable and is "next generation."

Just wanted to get that on record.  >

 

[HB_Pencil]

Don't think I'll bother finding the first half of the show. Nothing new, same old angles and slants on the same story, with the same predictable  outcome.

I actually need to watch it and I'm dreading it.

In a couple of years the same TV talking heads will be telling us how great the F-35 is and how they knew it all along . . .  or something like that.

I doubt that. The two have been extremely consistent about their views, as they don't believe that anything but multitudes of disposable lightweight fighters is the right approach for western air forces. I wonder if we would have the success we did in the Gulf or Kosovo with such an approach, and how many pilots would be dead today if we followed their "advice."

So to summarize the  F-35 has great wing loading, payload, range, and loiter time, great dog fight capability and it's stealth capability is close to 100% invisibility.,
It's technology is highly reliable and is "next generation."

Just wanted to get that on record.  >

Actually that's not too far off. I don't know if I'd describe  stealth capability as a percentage, but its certainly one of the best in the world.

 

[Haletown]

"Quote from: Haletown on Today at 14:19:20
In a couple of years the same TV talking heads will be telling us how great the F-35 is and how they knew it all along . . .  or something like that.

I doubt that. The two have been extremely consistent about their views, as they don't believe that anything but multitudes of disposable lightweight fighters is the right approach for western air forces. I wonder if we would have the success we did in the Gulf or Kosovo with such an approach, and how many pilots would be dead today if we followed their "advice."

Sorry, my bad.  I was thinking of the  CBC talking heads and didn't clearly express it in my chosen words.

I concur with your assessment of the "expert"  talking heads.  They are locked  into their dogma and nothing will change their opinion of their opinion. 

After all, they are legends.

At least in their minds.

 

[HB_Pencil]

So I watched it. In my view, this was one of the ugliest things I've seen from the CBC; completely one sided and horribly biased. I've watched the Fifth Estate for most of my life and I'm now doubting alot of the things I've previously watched. Given the biased treatment of this issue, I can't really trust them to present a truthful account of another issue. I'd describe it simply as an hour long hack job.

What bothers me most is how they basically defended their point of view by stating over and over that because the government did not provide people for interviews, this was the best they could come up with. That's just ridiculous. In my line of work, just because I don't have access to some information does not mean I can go and present one side of the argument as if it were fact or even approaching the truth. That to me is integrity, which is to anyone who is actually interested in actually creating public awareness. Apparently the CBC believes that sensationalism and bias is a better way to go.

The program itself was basically a who's who of F-35's critics; Sprey, Wheeler, Williams with Steven Staples thrown in for good measure. I felt Ex-CAS Lucas was a sacrificial lamb put up for slaughter. Is it any wonder why the government wouldn't want to participate in such an exercise when you line up the most rabidly critical individuals and make them out to be paragons of truth? There were plenty of other sources of information out there that one could have drawn together to present the government's view.

Sprey's comments throughout the program on the F-35's performance were abjectly and patently false. They could have been easily debunked by an aeronautical engineer. These are some of the choice claims that he made:

STOVL forced short wings and poor maneuverability False. STOVL still requires lift to achieve short take off. The F-35A has nearly the same maneuverability as a A2A loaded F-16, which he apparently helped create (even better was the claim that the F-16 was better than the F-15.)

The F-35 has insufficient range: False: The F-35 has greater range and loiter time than the F/A-18E and F-16.

Stealth is a sham: False. According to Sprey, the F-117 and B-2 have been absolutely useless in the past 25 years as a weapon of war. And if that is the case, why are the Chinese and Russians, who possess the radar systems that can apparently shoot down the F-35, building their own stealthy aircraft like the J-20 and T-50?

The F-35's internal payload of 2X2000lbs bombs is useless: False. I suspect that the 2x GBU-31 loadout is probably been one of the most common utilized by US Military in the past 10 years.

This was just one section of the program. There was a whole bunch of other claims about the program management and price, which I could dissect for hours. However I found it telling they never actually discussed about how much more the aircraft would cost. They kept highlighting how they couldn't get straight answers at the July 2010 announcement of the purchase. Yet DND has made the estimates publicly available, which breakdown the costs. With a modicum of research using US Government documentation, you can see that Canada's F-35's projected costs are still within US government estimates.

Its disgusting frankly, and I'm ashamed. I'm ashamed that for a public broadcaster with such high minded principles (especially in one of their marquee programs)  would stoop to the level of journalism practiced by a tabloid.