US stealth F-35 jet is grounded
- Thread starter china
- Start date
The latest bad news:
F-35 Engines From United Technologies Called Unreliable - Bloomberg Business
By all means, lets send our boys on patrol over the arctic in these stupid things.
F-35 Engines From United Technologies Called Unreliable - Bloomberg Business
By all means, lets send our boys on patrol over the arctic in these stupid things.
What would Canada do with F-35 aircraft? Fisheries monitoring?
Single engines planes aren't very suitable for flying long distances out over the ocean ... or up to the Arctic ... or anywhere more than a couple of thousand kilometers away ... or anywhere where there isn't a mechanic nearby.
It's the ONLY choice for the Canadian Forces. Imagine the air shows ...
Governments internationally are have a poor history making the right choices
I am not surprised. Yes we need something but this ain't it I'm afraid there is
a lot of things wrong with this. Of course Canada is a good place to sell it.
We bought trucks from Italy that were not good in snow
We bought leaking subs from Britain that are scrap
We have bought this piece of crap we are likely stuck with
All this from a country that the only real good sub we have working sub is in
the West Edmonton Mall a thousand miles from the ocean oh well please tell
us more
I am not surprised. Yes we need something but this ain't it I'm afraid there is
a lot of things wrong with this. Of course Canada is a good place to sell it.
We bought trucks from Italy that were not good in snow
We bought leaking subs from Britain that are scrap
We have bought this piece of crap we are likely stuck with
All this from a country that the only real good sub we have working sub is in
the West Edmonton Mall a thousand miles from the ocean oh well please tell
us more
Like Eaglesmack said in an earlier tank discussion, critics claimed for years that the M1 would not be suitable for the desert. That the engines would clog with sand. Look what the M1 did in the Iraq desert. It blew the smithereens out of the opponent.
With all due respect to Eaglesmack and yourself; the Iraqi Army and the Republican guard were not equipped with the latest stuff from either Russia or China and the greatest advantage the Abrahams has is it's fire control optics and range of weapon.
These f-35's, regardless of their stated capabilities, will not be used in either desert or urban theater warfare. Canada has the longest coastline in the world with much of it being in the northern arctic latitudes. A single engine interceptor is NOT, nor has it ever been the desired platform to patrol the vast reaches of the arctic.
We should have performed even a modicum of oversight on the bidding process instead of shortlisting immediately to only ONE provider.
Don't misunderstand me please; the F-35 might be an absolute premiere interceptor for dust-ups over most continents or oceans with carrier or landing bases within easy range but to stifle our pilots to having to intercept what are very likely to be the latest aircraft from either Russia or China, over the arctic, engage them in any kind of exercise, win that exchange and return to a base thousands of kilometers away with the limited fuel carried (or smaller weapons load-out so more fuel can be carried) is tying one hand behind their back and expecting them to perform miracles.
Our Federal government seems willing to sacrifice some of the odds towards success of our military simply to claim ownership of the latest tech when in the arctic what's needed is absolute redundancy of all systems including an engine.
Consider this combat performance analysis by Rand corp itself of the F-22's performance with the very unlikely scenario of every missile fired by F-22's being a kill shot.
"The RAND Corporation’s famous “Pacific Vision 08″ study did echo Sprey and Stevenson, and also noted limitations on rational expectations for the performance of air-air missiles. That has implications for the ability of a small force to beat a large one, and its most telling point also traces back to the numbers equation. RAND’s Taiwan Strait scenario assumed perfect combat defense by the F-22s, and 100% kill ratios for every missile an F-22 launched. RAND itself acknowledged the assumptions as as wildly unrealistic, but used them to make their central point: every F-22 still died, due to their limited numbers. The available Raptors on station ran out of missiles before the Chinese ran out of planes, whereupon the Chinese fighters simply shot down the aerial tankers that the F-22s needed, preventing the F-22s’ safe return to Guam. Zai jian."
This hypothetical battle took place in an Asian theater with friendly airbase density far greater than our northern theater and although it describes the earlier generation of F-22, an aircraft with better stealth and thrust vectoring than the F-35, one can easily anticipate what would happen in our northern zones with Canada not having the economic capabilities to launch them in any numbers nor the refueling aircraft to support them while engaged in combat or loitering up there patrolling.
We've chosen badly grasshoppers.
I think that's an excellent idea. The Badley Grasshopper is the most versatile, high-performing MRCA in the world!
During Desert Storm the Iraqi Army had a very capable force in both armor and air defense. I'd be dishonest to say they were equals to the Russians or Chinese but they were capable and during the build up tales of doom were spun of how our equipment would fail and the coalition would be bogged down in the Iraqi defenses. In particular around the border of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Then reality struck. The Iraqi armor outnumbered the coalition forces and were completely routed. The 1st Armored Division lost a whopping TWO M-1s while destroying everything in their path. The USMC blew through the Iraqi Defense on the borders within a few hours.
Well that is why we have war games.
At Top Gun (USN/USMC) and Red Flag (USAF) "Orange" forces would often whip F-14's, F-15's, and F-16's. That hasn't happened in the real world.
Hopping Armored vehicles would offer a great tactical advantage.
Nah, we've already seen that a bunch of Stone Age teddy bears can take them out.
Sorry Kreskin, but again with all due respect that is simply not the case as the versions used in Iraq were still of the gas turbine variety and they needed to stop frequently for refueling with one notable occasion enabling the escape of the entire Republican Guard armour while they were being refueled due to them having used speed at the cost of fuel consumption to get with in range of them.
They also refined their entire engine change out procedure to enable engine module changes in 15 minutes purely due to the fact those things ingested desert sand at an incredible rate with filters clogging constantly.
In short; not one of those tanks went "clear across the desert" without needing to stop frequently for maintenance, very frequent re- fueling.
All tanks are subject to the problems associated with operating in the desert but a gas turbine one suffers more than a diesel one.
COOLER M1 ABRAMS TANK ENGINES
The U.S, took the knowledge gained from that fracas in the desert and vastly improved upon the Abrams as a leading power would be expected to.
Now getting back to aircraft; use your own analogy of the Abrams (which doesn't fall out of the sky when it runs out of fuel) to compare the operation of this single engine fighter interceptor that is slower, shorter ranged, and less maneuverable than the opposition, operating where refueling is not an easily accessed option. Who is going to provide the learning and modifying experiences for the F-35 operating in arctic conditions prior to Canada relying upon them?
Unlike many; I would prefer to not crap-shoot with our pilots lives but instead, even just in the short term, rely upon a proven platform with our also proven abilities in research and resources being spent performing our own improvements much like the Israelis did for the F-15.
Had we chosen to do this with any number of already existing platforms we would have been well ahead of the cruve by now instead of waiting patiently for while another platform is readied for everything from carrier operations to Marine specifications upgrades to operating with short landing and take-off considerations ......all of which enhance it's abilities for everything but it's range, speed and far north Canadian reliability it does not have nor will ever have.
BruSan... the entire Republican Guard did not escape. They were beaten pretty badly as a matter of fact.
Battle of Medina and Battle of 73 Easting... look it up.
Yes... tanks need to refuel. Not a revelation there.
Once again; don't misunderstand my opposition to the F-35 as a blanket denigration of the aircraft. It will undoubtedly develop into a formidable platform BUT it does not have those essentials for far north operation that will be enjoyed by nearly every one of it's likely opponents: speed, range, and engine redundancy. Partial stealth is of little use to you when you're running out of fuel and are slower and less capable of loitering to use that stealth effectively.
Talk to any of the authoritative sources within the air combat fraternity and they will invariably choose any one of the OTHER existing aircraft to use as their primary interceptor weapon for the far north.
In keeping with Canada's mission of defence rather than offensive capabilities, we need a long range, FAST, multiple weapons capable, multi engined, very maneuverable platform to engage the LIKELY opponents and even after the F-35 attains full operational readiness it will not service those parameters.
Please keep in mind we are not the United States with multiples of aircraft choices available for all theaters of operations where a combat situation can lead to an officer asking the question based upon satellite or air cover radar platforms flying overhead "what are they throwing at us" and then choose any one of probably at least four other aircraft better suited to engage.
Once again I did NOT make this about those damn tanks! They performed well and are now, after modifications learned from that experience, much better prepared for any desert warfare.
My points are:
The F-35 is not being designed with our needs paramount among it's requirements. It will never have multiple engines. It will never have speed in it's quiver. It will never have fuel range. It will never have ability to engage with it's likely opposition in the far north.
We will need to perform any number of additional considerations to make the thing anywhere near usable or effective up there involving everything from building multiple operating airfields for them to operate from to having way more of them to having multiples of refueling platforms readily available from those same bases. To date none of those additional ABSOLUTELY required resources have even been mentioned.
We have a current interception ability based upon 60's technology of getting an early warning of monitored aircraft entering or approaching our airspace, we then launch F-18s to go after-burner to reach them, give them the finger from the cockpit and after they obligingly turn away after performing their designated "test" of our response our aircraft then cruise speed to conserve fuel back to base......helllooooo. Where does using an aircraft without even the current speed and range capability fit into that scenario?
Now factor in a very possible cockpit warning light occasioning just one of those to mission cancel and what have you left?
I've attended two aircraft flight display demonstrations in the U.S. where the Raptors were unable to perform at all due to electronic glitches, so the attendant F-15's and even the venerable P-51 had to lengthen their program to keep the crowd entertained and fill out the time slots. We (either the U.S. or Canada) can ill afford that behaviour in a like aircraft in a far tougher environment such as over the far north.
Talk to any of the authoritative sources within the air combat fraternity and they will invariably choose any one of the OTHER existing aircraft to use as their primary interceptor weapon for the far north.
In keeping with Canada's mission of defence rather than offensive capabilities, we need a long range, FAST, multiple weapons capable, multi engined, very maneuverable platform to engage the LIKELY opponents and even after the F-35 attains full operational readiness it will not service those parameters.
Please keep in mind we are not the United States with multiples of aircraft choices available for all theaters of operations where a combat situation can lead to an officer asking the question based upon satellite or air cover radar platforms flying overhead "what are they throwing at us" and then choose any one of probably at least four other aircraft better suited to engage.
My last post was an attempt to mitigate this somewhat, but anyway. They did escape the initial attempt to engage them because just as your tanks got within range they required a refueling stop while the Guard ran for the hills requiring you once again to chase them down to engage them. That was not the original intended battle plan.
Once again I did NOT make this about those damn tanks! They performed well and are now, after modifications learned from that experience, much better prepared for any desert warfare.
My points are:
The F-35 is not being designed with our needs paramount among it's requirements. It will never have multiple engines. It will never have speed in it's quiver. It will never have fuel range. It will never have ability to engage with it's likely opposition in the far north.
We will need to perform any number of additional considerations to make the thing anywhere near usable or effective up there involving everything from building multiple operating airfields for them to operate from to having way more of them to having multiples of refueling platforms readily available from those same bases. To date none of those additional ABSOLUTELY required resources have even been mentioned.
We have a current interception ability based upon 60's technology of getting an early warning of monitored aircraft entering or approaching our airspace, we then launch F-18s to go after-burner to reach them, give them the finger from the cockpit and after they obligingly turn away after performing their designated "test" of our response our aircraft then cruise speed to conserve fuel back to base......helllooooo. Where does using an aircraft without even the current speed and range capability fit into that scenario?
Now factor in a very possible cockpit warning light occasioning just one of those to mission cancel and what have you left?
I've attended two aircraft flight display demonstrations in the U.S. where the Raptors were unable to perform at all due to electronic glitches, so the attendant F-15's and even the venerable P-51 had to lengthen their program to keep the crowd entertained and fill out the time slots. We (either the U.S. or Canada) can ill afford that behaviour in a like aircraft in a far tougher environment such as over the far north.
Last edited:
You see BruSan... what you are saying what happened and what actually happened are so far apart. The Republican Guard armor was not able to get away during a refueling stop.
The Republican Guard was battered silly by US Armored Forces at the Battle of Medina and the Battle of 73 Easting. The Republican Guard was absolutely mauled. Only during a Republican Guard counter attack were some elements able to escape annihilation.
You need to really look up those two battles and stop yourself.
As far as your analysis of the F-35 we can simply say we've heard it all before. Every weapons platform has it's critics.
You are aware that the F-35 is not the Raptor aren't you?
Of course I'm aware of the difference of the F-22 to the F-35 but the F-35 is sharing so much of the same technology and development paths we cannot discount those issues the F-35 will have in parallel to the F-22's well known reliability problems. Canada cannot afford to simply accept a do-over, we have neither the economy or the plurality of aircraft availability to accommodate development happening WHILE USING them.
And while you are correct that those engagements that occurred with the Republican Guard were "routs" . I was responding to (the implied by another poster) they performed without flaw.
"It was the 1991 Persian Gulf War that highlighted the limits of the Abrams' specialized design and Army doctrine. Charging through the Iraqi desert west of Kuwait, the Army's VII Corps struggled to keep four armored and mechanized divisions synchronized (tanks and other vehicles moving together) for a simultaneous attack on the Iraqi Republican Guard. Synchronization meant frequent stops and slow downs to keep a common pace among thousands of vehicles. The Corps could only move as fast as the slowest element if it was to stay together. Most telling, when units halted to refuel, the Abrams' tanks were empty while other vehicles, including tracked Bradley Fighting Vehicles, had quarter- and even half-filled fuel tanks. The pace of the battle was slowed in a way the corps commander didn't believe he could change. The Abrams drank too much gas and Army doctrine said that synchronization was vital. He couldn't abandon the Abrams and he felt desynchronizing his force would result in friendly fire. The "slow" pace of VII Corps is blamed by some for the escape of Republican Guard elements in the last days of the war."
I am fully aware of those battles where actual engagement occurred Iraqi Armour was slaughtered but.....once again I am addressing just that one shortfall of the then current Abrams that caused commanders to adjust battle strategy to take that into account allowing for a chase scenario to occur.
What Ever Happened to the Republican Guard? - TIME
Please take this in the context of which it was intended and not as an indictment of the Abrams or the U.S. I responded to the poster that likened the DEVELOPMENT of the F-35 to that of the comments made about the Abrams prior to desert battle.
The Abrams experienced some operational problems in the desert, of that there can be no argument. Did those problems affect the outcome of the battle.....only very slightly because you had air superiority and were fighting a force without the motivation to fight for it's dictator leader rather than for it's home soil.
Canada will enjoy no such advantages with using the F-35 to patrol or engage in the north. Neither Russia nor any other likely foe will be fielding inferior troops or equipment and whatever they bring to the table they will bring far more of it than we will be able to.
We cannot afford to have our first strike defense be that of an aircraft NOT designed primarily for the purpose intended. We cannot afford to use a tool without back-up by any other tools in a theater that precludes fielding armor or naval response vessels we do not have. We desperately need an aircraft that can go long distances, linger and do battle head to head with far faster and maneuverable aircraft with greater range and bases to land upon.
How do you see the F-35 ever being able to operate thusly?
We're not talking the middle east here or anywhere else over the Eruopean/Asian continents, We are however talking about a theater of operations the U.S. has NEVER had to operate anything other than submarines in.
I would far prefer to have at our disposal a proven platform suitably upgraded to provide us with multiple aircraft to sustain losses and still back up those naval units you would have operating up there.
Canada needs to be able to do it's part as much as our smaller economy of scale allows and this is not the aircraft to enable that. Our intelligence analysts that are not being listened to all agree on this. One massive engagement up there and we're out of the fight if the only thing we have at our disposal is limited numbers of VERY expensive, ill-suited aircraft.
Big change from this...
I do not recall anyone saying they performed without flaw. They performed way above... FAR ABOVE... expectations of some critics. Before it all kicked off our tanks were doomed to flounder according to many "experts".
I thought I was being clear in my posts Eagle. As I have repeated in numerous posts; I was responding to the poster who did in fact imply they performed without flaw. Again I did not introduce stupid tanks into an aircraft discussion.
Sheesh, I will explain one more time, the republican Guard did escape once.
This from another weapons platform developer:
In Destert Storm US Army VII Corps under General Franks had to wait to refuel their Abrams (with a normal engine), which consequently allowed the Republican Guard to escape and reform. Another advantage of this engine is that it produces far less heat, thus being less vulnerable to infra-red mortar rounds and heat-seeking top-attack ATGMs. Additionally, the curret gast turbine engine produces so much heat that infantrymen cannot follow behind for protection. This engine burns at 1.2 gallons a mile.
Were the Republican Guard armor eventually destroyed ....yes. NOT by the initial thrust of U.S. armor as originally planned, but later.
My point ONCE AGAIN is we cannot afford to develope this aircraft in the field.
Can we at least agree on this aircraft being unsuitable for patrolling the vast northern coastline without air bases in proximity in it's designed single engine iteration?
The F35 is just a quantum step too far in its level of complexity and its aim to cram all possible functions and technologies into a single aircraft.
It's time to look seriously at the Dassault Rafale, a 5th generation aircraft, encompassing a 2 engine design which has always been a requirement for Canadian jets, given the immense distance between airports in much of the country.
They are far cheaper, will be more reliable, and likely more flexible to domestic production. They will fill the prime requirement of a weapons platform.. which allows for retrofitting to current technology decades into the future.
The F35 is a Hangar Queen.. and always will be.
It's time to look seriously at the Dassault Rafale, a 5th generation aircraft, encompassing a 2 engine design which has always been a requirement for Canadian jets, given the immense distance between airports in much of the country.
They are far cheaper, will be more reliable, and likely more flexible to domestic production. They will fill the prime requirement of a weapons platform.. which allows for retrofitting to current technology decades into the future.
The F35 is a Hangar Queen.. and always will be.
The more I research these two particular aircraft the less I like our chances in any kind of encounter if all our eggs are in the F-35 basket..
F-22 and F-35: America’s Costly Boondoggles Are the Victims of Arrogance and Appeasement | Gerard Direct
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/...taboola&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=rt-rtcom
Simple; count the ones on the ground undergoing attempts to make them operate as designed.
Last edited: