F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,362
To date, the IAF has purchased 33 F-35s – all with US aid money.
Why did our government not buy and gift those 33 F-35's to our closest neighbor and NATO ally, Canada?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 749
A nice bit of video to brighten our day:
F-35 in the UK - A Commitment Kept
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
MSOCS, I don't think anyone with a sound mind thinks it should be cancelled now. Too many resources have been spent for them to be wasted.
Most are just hoping that the reality matches the hyperbole, and sooner rather than later. Australias decision to get the Super to supplement the Classic seems prescient right now (and, whilst it replaced the Pig, it's used in a true F/A role, which the Pig could never do. See Aces North..)
Most are just hoping that the reality matches the hyperbole, and sooner rather than later. Australias decision to get the Super to supplement the Classic seems prescient right now (and, whilst it replaced the Pig, it's used in a true F/A role, which the Pig could never do. See Aces North..)
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Ah, I see JATK is back with another pointless comment that causes more confusion than thought or consideration. Typical.
Hempy, The hyperbole (where it really matters) is bearing fruit and exceeding expectation. USAF declares IOC this week. Dog Davis has also said he'd put F-35B in harm's way today if he had to, and he doesn't mince words or hedge bets.
Overall I'd say don't believe all of the utter shite you read, or have read in the past. Not all of it has been impartial journalism.
F-35 is here to stay and, like the F-18 and F-16 program, the negative hyperbole will be long forgotten soon enough.
Hempy, The hyperbole (where it really matters) is bearing fruit and exceeding expectation. USAF declares IOC this week. Dog Davis has also said he'd put F-35B in harm's way today if he had to, and he doesn't mince words or hedge bets.
Overall I'd say don't believe all of the utter shite you read, or have read in the past. Not all of it has been impartial journalism.
F-35 is here to stay and, like the F-18 and F-16 program, the negative hyperbole will be long forgotten soon enough.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,362
Originally Posted by airpolice
Surely Mexico is just as close a neighbour as Canada is?
Speaking of Mexico, why don't they need a nuclear deterrent? If having the ability to melt most of another country is so crucial to defence, why are the non nuclear countries not being fried?
Originally Posted by airpolice
Supposing that Trump decides to have the F35 project shut down and all airframes crushed, all tooling to be destroyed and the capability to resurrect the program effectively wiped out. Eye watering savings for the Pentagon. Learn to live with the capability gap, if indeed there is such a thing as result of scrapping the F35.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by airpolice
Lonewolf, lots of people, even some on here, said the Nimrod would not get cancelled for the same reasons.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Kitbag, you know fully well why the F-35 isn't a Typhoon and - most importantly in this argument - why the Typhoon isn't an F-35.
If we didn't need it, we wouldn't be getting it.
To make a point back to 'airpolice', we were buying but a few Nimrods (not 138!) and the cost per frame was ridiculous. We also weren't getting a return on our investment either, unlike the F-35 which will return more to the Exchequer than we put in, when all is totted up. The Nimrod MRA4 wasn't across 9 immediate Partner and 1 FMS nations who have all (bar one, Canada) placed or taken delivery of jets, not to mention the Japanese, South Koreans, Singaporeans and other nations who have either signed initial commitments to understand more about the Programme.
But other than that, both the MRA4 and F-35 have wings and undercarriage - so there is some similarity I suppose....
If we didn't need it, we wouldn't be getting it.
To make a point back to 'airpolice', we were buying but a few Nimrods (not 138!) and the cost per frame was ridiculous. We also weren't getting a return on our investment either, unlike the F-35 which will return more to the Exchequer than we put in, when all is totted up. The Nimrod MRA4 wasn't across 9 immediate Partner and 1 FMS nations who have all (bar one, Canada) placed or taken delivery of jets, not to mention the Japanese, South Koreans, Singaporeans and other nations who have either signed initial commitments to understand more about the Programme.
But other than that, both the MRA4 and F-35 have wings and undercarriage - so there is some similarity I suppose....
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 61
Posts: 371
It would be nice to know the real truth about the F35.
It is reported that the F35B needs a number of different assets to let it achieve mission goals, although the software it runs on 2B is stable. We are also told that F35As running 3i software need to reboot their software every a number of hours, implicitly the 3I software has the same functionality as the 2B of the USMC's F35Bs, so do they need all the support assets? There seems to be two stories from the Pentagon, one there are problems, the other we are ready to deploy anywhere against any foe.
I am sure that a reasonable man would say the truth is somewhere between the two extremes, it would be interesting to know where it is though...
It is reported that the F35B needs a number of different assets to let it achieve mission goals, although the software it runs on 2B is stable. We are also told that F35As running 3i software need to reboot their software every a number of hours, implicitly the 3I software has the same functionality as the 2B of the USMC's F35Bs, so do they need all the support assets? There seems to be two stories from the Pentagon, one there are problems, the other we are ready to deploy anywhere against any foe.
I am sure that a reasonable man would say the truth is somewhere between the two extremes, it would be interesting to know where it is though...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
Farnborough Airshow 2016: F-35B Lightning II programme update on UK carrier operations 21 Jul 2016
"Peter Wilson, F-35B Lightning II STOVL Lead Test Pilot gives an update on the F-35B Lightning II programme UK carrier operations." IHS Jane's
"Peter Wilson, F-35B Lightning II STOVL Lead Test Pilot gives an update on the F-35B Lightning II programme UK carrier operations." IHS Jane's
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 31st Jul 2016 at 04:36. Reason: + IHS Jane's
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Please provide an explanation why you think what you think Turbine D. If you're saying it because the Program won't make the 2300 jets touted, then sure, that diminishes the return; by exactly how much will be determined by the final production run numbers. You clearly seem to know these so do share.
PhilipG, software stability has been sorted for some time now. It was an issue, but no more. As to F-35 needing its hand holding in missions you've got me; I've no idea what you're on about.
PhilipG, software stability has been sorted for some time now. It was an issue, but no more. As to F-35 needing its hand holding in missions you've got me; I've no idea what you're on about.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
FB, very feasible but the likelihood would be a guess at this stage. Believe a senior officer has made a statement on this recently though. At Fairford.
Last edited by MSOCS; 31st Jul 2016 at 12:13.
