F-35 looking more like white elephant

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Hedley »

I'm sure no one here has ever heard of him, but Col. John R. "Forty Second" Boyd (USAF, ret'd) was one of the most influential people in the development of jet fighter aircraft in the second half of the 20th century.

You may have heard of the F-15, the F-16, the F-18 and the A-10. For all of these, you can thank John Boyd - even though you've never heard of him.

I dearly wish he could have worked his uncomprimising magic on the F-35 Edsel. He is probably the only Colonel to have fired a two-star Major General. Hated by the USAF Generals, worshiped by the USMC, he was also the developer of OODA. You've almost certainly never heard of that, either.

If you have even a passing interest in the development of jet fighters, you will find the following fascinating:

http://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/boyd.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_ ... trategist)
During the early 1960s, Boyd, together with Thomas Christie, a civilian mathematician, created the Energy-Maneuverability, or E-M, theory of aerial combat. A legendary maverick by reputation, Boyd was said to have "stolen" the computer time to do the millions of calculations necessary to prove the theory, but it became the world standard for the design of fighter planes. At a time when the Air Force's FX project (subsequently the F-15) was foundering, Boyd's deployment orders to Vietnam were canceled and he was brought to the Pentagon to re-do the trade-off studies according to E-M. His work helped save the project from being a costly dud, even though its final product was larger and heavier than he desired. However, cancellation of that tour in Vietnam meant that Boyd would be one of the most important air-to-air combat strategists with no combat kills. He had only flown a few missions in the last months of the Korean War, and all of them as a wingman.

With Colonel Everest Riccioni and Pierre Sprey, Boyd formed a small advocacy group within Headquarters USAF which dubbed itself the "Fighter Mafia". Riccioni was an Air Force fighter pilot assigned to a staff position in Research and Development, while Sprey was a civilian statistician working in Systems Analysis. Together, they were the visionaries who conceived the LFX Lightweight Fighter program, which ultimately produced both the F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet, the latter a development of the YF-17 Light Weight Fighter. Boyd's acolytes were also largely responsible for developing the Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II or "Warthog" ground-support aircraft, though Boyd himself had little sympathy of the "air-to-mud" assignment.[4]

After his retirement from the Air Force in 1975, Boyd continued to work at the Pentagon as a consultant in the Tactical Air office of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Program Analysis and Evaluation.

Boyd is credited for largely developing the strategy for the invasion of Iraq in the first Gulf War. In 1981 Boyd had presented his briefing, Patterns of Conflict, to Richard Cheney, then a member of the United States House of Representatives.[1] By 1990 Boyd had moved to Florida because of declining health, but Cheney (then the Secretary of Defense in the George H. W. Bush administration) called him back to work on the plans for Operation Desert Storm.[1][5][6] Boyd had substantial influence on the ultimate "left hook" design of the plan.[7]

In a letter to the editor of Inside the Pentagon, former Commandant of the Marine Corps General Charles C. Krulak is quoted as saying "The Iraqi army collapsed morally and intellectually under the onslaught of American and Coalition forces. John Boyd was an architect of that victory as surely as if he'd commanded a fighter wing or a maneuver division in the desert."
It is simply incredible, how few people know of this staggeringly influential person.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by trampbike »

Here's a little summary of the last 5 pages. I removed all the fallacious reasonings (The top 4 for this thread would be: straw man, hasty conclusion, begging the question and ad hominem):

1. Canada plans to buy fighters to replace it's aging Hornet fleet.
2. Canada (that is, Air Force generals and government) says only the F35 is a viable option
3. Canada does not explain to the population why this airplane is the best (and only) choice for the country. Canada in fact says that they base their choice on some "mandatory requirements" which are based on the Air Force needs and some experts planning.
4. Canada says theses requirements are classified, so the population better trust Canada and endorse F35 procurement
5. Some people think Canada should actually tell the population why the F35 fit the requirements and why no other airplane does.
6. Since Canada does not do #5, some people speculate about Canada's needs and then go from there and deduce which airplanes would best fit Canada. Their reasonning might be very valid, but is not necessarily right since the basic assumptions (their speculation about Canada's needs) might not be right
7. Since Canada does not do #5, some people affirm it's normal the information is classified and we should not doubt the procurement process.

Here is a summary of my thoughts (worth what you paid for, that is 1min of your time):
The requirements are classified. We should question this fact. For the rest, as long as we don't know the requirements, everything we say about this would only be opinions that cannot be supported with some solid and valid arguments.

If I am one day to fly a CF fighter, I would love it to be a Spitfire, a Hellcat or a Nakajima Ki-84. From now on, let's discuss the pros and cons of such airplanes for Canada in the next half century.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by trampbike on Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Think ahead or fall behind!
albertdesalvo
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 811
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:38 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by albertdesalvo »

Rockie wrote:I guess you haven't read Hedley's posts have you?
Sure I've read them. Here are his exact words:
Hedley wrote:I've said for years that MiG and Sukhoi's give incredible bang for the buck, and from the taxpayer's standpoint would be very attractive.
However from a political standpoint, they would be an impossible choice, and that's what this is all about.
Everything else is just Hedley's obstreperous nature showing itself. He doesn't back down when attacked, everyone here knows this. But the fact remains, he specifically stated that buying Russian equipment would be impossible for Canada. Saying Sukhois are good bang for the buck does not mean "Canada should buy Sukhois."
---------- ADS -----------
 
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Hedley »

Thank you.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Dash-Ate
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1760
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:15 pm
Location: Placarded INOP

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Dash-Ate »

Great posts Hedley I do not always agree but I like your OPINIONS. They are very dangerous opinions these days. In most countries if you criticize the government, military or police you are in big trouble. Are we that different? Good luck and keep up the good fight. :smt023

You are not brainwashed like 80% of us are...
---------- ADS -----------
 
That'll buff right out :rolleyes:
Image
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Rockie »

And I pointed out that they wouldn't be good bang for the buck because of military and logistical reasons, which Hedley did not say. The bang for the buck stops as soon as you get them off the lot, then they are an albatross around our neck. That speaks to practicality rather than political reasons which are multi-faceted.

Thank you.
---------- ADS -----------
 
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by frosti »

CSk3RampBOY wrote:What I don't understand is, how can we possibly patrol the arctic with the F35???? Single engine and less range, or at least that's what they advertise.
What is wrong with "patrolling" the arctic with one engine? How many cases have you heard of our CF-18's lose an engine while "patrolling". Less range compared to what? The F35 has more internal fuel capacity than our CF-18's fully jugged up.

Just to clear something up, we don't send fighters up north to patrol a.k.a, fly around for nothing. NORAD is there for a reason, when it sees a threat they will alert the proper fighter base installations.
How can the F35 intercept the new Su35 BM when the Russians continue to invade our airspace? Its a long way to the arctic from Cold Lake.

The Pak Fa or T50, may be a few years away from joining the Air Force. But this baby is a real threat!
Russians don't invade our airspace, they are always within the international boundaries. Please don't suggest that there is a threat of Russian fighters coming over the Arctic Ocean to start a fight, I'm not going to explain why that is such a ridiculous idea. There are military installations much further north for fighters to operate out of besides Cold Lake, anyone with access to Google Earth can figure out what they are.
---------- ADS -----------
 
McJagger
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:39 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by McJagger »

so if we don't have anything to worry about? why don't we just buy them a fleet of cessnas so they can say they're flying and call it a day?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

Did you mean DA-20s?
---------- ADS -----------
 
shitdisturber
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by shitdisturber »

frosti wrote:
CSk3RampBOY wrote:What I don't understand is, how can we possibly patrol the arctic with the F35???? Single engine and less range, or at least that's what they advertise.
What is wrong with "patrolling" the arctic with one engine? How many cases have you heard of our CF-18's lose an engine while "patrolling". Less range compared to what? The F35 has more internal fuel capacity than our CF-18's fully jugged up.

Just to clear something up, we don't send fighters up north to patrol a.k.a, fly around for nothing. NORAD is there for a reason, when it sees a threat they will alert the proper fighter base installations.
How can the F35 intercept the new Su35 BM when the Russians continue to invade our airspace? Its a long way to the arctic from Cold Lake.

The Pak Fa or T50, may be a few years away from joining the Air Force. But this baby is a real threat!
Russians don't invade our airspace, they are always within the international boundaries. Please don't suggest that there is a threat of Russian fighters coming over the Arctic Ocean to start a fight, I'm not going to explain why that is such a ridiculous idea. There are military installations much further north for fighters to operate out of besides Cold Lake, anyone with access to Google Earth can figure out what they are.
Peter Mackay, swears on a stack of bibles that with modern engine technology we'll never have an engine failure so therefore a single engine aircraft is fine. That is of course, a load of crap! If we'd bought F-16's instead of Hornets, we'd have been out of airplanes years ago. Lord only knows how many times over the course of their life a Hornet has come back with one engine shut down. Personally I'd rather they'd bought the Typhoon; it's highly manouverable, has inter-operability, and has two engines.
---------- ADS -----------
 
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by frosti »

shitdisturber wrote:Peter Mackay, swears on a stack of bibles that with modern engine technology we'll never have an engine failure so therefore a single engine aircraft is fine. That is of course, a load of crap! If we'd bought F-16's instead of Hornets, we'd have been out of airplanes years ago. Lord only knows how many times over the course of their life a Hornet has come back with one engine shut down.
There is a engine failure and an engine malfunction. Total engine failure in fighter aircraft are very rare, even with our old F404s. For example, the crash in Lethbridge was not total failure - it didn't just turn-off, but due to the high AOA, low speed and altitude it made recovery impossible. Our hornets come back on one engine periodically, but you have to remember its easier to turn it off to prevent further damage. When you have only ONE engine, your procedures change. If you have an engine issue you don't just turn it off, you limp it back to the nearest airport. Ejection is the absolute last resort. We will probably lose a few CF-35's in the first 5 years due to various incidents, accidents or whatever. Good thing is, the assembly line will be open for decades and replacements would be much easier to get.
Personally I'd rather they'd bought the Typhoon; it's highly manouverable, has inter-operability, and has two engines.
We pay highly trained, experienced, and knowledgeable people to make these recommendations to the government, based upon far more factors than you will ever read anywhere. The Fighter Replacement office in Ottawa has been reviewing replacements for the past 10 years. The Typhoon was considered, along with the F-15, F-18E/F, etc. If you really don't like the JSF, please go to your closest politician with FACTS on what would be better choice.
---------- ADS -----------
 
McJagger
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:39 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by McJagger »

any facts to offer other than because they say so? just wondering...
---------- ADS -----------
 
shitdisturber
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by shitdisturber »

frosti wrote:There is a engine failure and an engine malfunction. Total engine failure in fighter aircraft are very rare, even with our old F404s. For example, the crash in Lethbridge was not total failure - it didn't just turn-off, but due to the high AOA, low speed and altitude it made recovery impossible. Our hornets come back on one engine periodically, but you have to remember its easier to turn it off to prevent further damage. When you have only ONE engine, your procedures change. If you have an engine issue you don't just turn it off, you limp it back to the nearest airport. Ejection is the absolute last resort. We will probably lose a few CF-35's in the first 5 years due to various incidents, accidents or whatever. Good thing is, the assembly line will be open for decades and replacements would be much easier to get.
And if they're up in the high arctic where airports are few and far between we'll probably lose a few pilots too. I've already known too many people who've died in fighter crashes; I don't need any more.
---------- ADS -----------
 
bizjets101
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2105
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by bizjets101 »

You mean talk to the arm twisting Americans who choose for us!!!!

Back to the Migs. Poland a member of NATO, bought 22 Mig-29's from Germany, and 9 Mig-29's from Czech Republic - bringing their Mig-29 fleet to 36 aircraft.

Polish MiGs were modified by WZL-2 in Bydgoszcz receiving the following systems:
- ANV-241MMR VOR/ILS
- AN/ARN-153 (TCN 500) TACAN
- Trimble 2101AP GPS receiver
- Thompson-CSF SB-14 radar warning receiver
- Radwar SC-10 Suprasl IFF
- Unimor-Radiocom RS 6113-2 VHF/UHF radio with new R-862 control panel
- new anti-collision lights and new "NATO" two-tone gray camouflage

GPS, TACAN and VOR/ILS systems were integrated with the aircraft navigation system via TGR-29A interface.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Just a note, NATO members Bulgaria, Hungary, and Slovakia are also equipped with
Mig-29's though Hungary (seen below) is retiring theirs.

Image
---------- ADS -----------
 
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by frosti »

shitdisturber wrote:And if they're up in the high arctic where airports are few and far between we'll probably lose a few pilots too.
That's just the nature of the business, every fighter pilot knows this. I'm sure if they wanted a safer, less exciting flying job, they'd be flying buses for airliners. I'm sure every fighter pilot flying single-engined F-16s isn't constantly concerned about engine failure. They wouldn't get in the cockpit if they were.
---------- ADS -----------
 
shitdisturber
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by shitdisturber »

frosti wrote:
shitdisturber wrote:And if they're up in the high arctic where airports are few and far between we'll probably lose a few pilots too.
That's just the nature of the business, every fighter pilot knows this. I'm sure if they wanted a safer, less exciting flying job, they'd be flying buses for airliners. I'm sure every fighter pilot flying single-engined F-16s isn't constantly concerned about engine failure. They wouldn't get in the cockpit if they were.
If you lose an engine in an F-16, chances are you're in a populated country with at least an even money chance of gliding to an airfield; it's been done, more than once. That's not an option in this country.
---------- ADS -----------
 
MichaelP
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1815
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:15 pm
Location: Out

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by MichaelP »

The British sector of Berlin was patrolled by Chipmunks with reliable Gipsy engines.

The Arctic could be patrolled by Rotax powered Predator Drones [Powerplant: 1× Rotax 914F turbocharged Four-cylinder engine].
An updated version of the Bomark missile could be used against a Russian, Danish, or American threat to Canada's Arctic territory. **
Political expediency could be to cede defence to the USA of course...

In this way Canada could save a lot of money, not bother with having to train pilots for or buy F35s, and another historical blunder (Bomark/Arrow) could be resolved.

**Oops I forgot the Norwegians...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Hedley »

reliable Gipsy engines
Mike, you're killing me :wink:
I forgot the Norwegians
Everyone tries to forget the Norwegians. And the Dutch. And carnies.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TheCheez
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 410
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Trenton

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by TheCheez »

McJagger wrote:any facts to offer other than because they say so? just wondering...

The facts are posted over and over in this thread, other threads, media, official web pages etc etc. If you don't know them it means you haven't done any research at all, disagree with the fact that they are facts (ie the F35 matches Canada's needs for the following reasons....) or you disagree that the published requirements are legitimate. Either way repeating them for you isn't gonna accomplish much in the long run.

I agree that Russian hardware probably fits our requirements on paper better but logistically and politically it's simply not gonna happen, no matter who is living at 24 Sussex. Poland or other former Russian allies using MiG's is one thing given their geographic and cultural situation, Canada using them is quite another. Buying from the Americans comes with enough headaches from bureacracy - lessons we are learning the hard way after sacrificing our power in 'cost cutting' contracts for other fleets. If the CF was still in a state that we could assume responsibility for everything MiG within the ranks this would be a different story but it's not the 70's anymore. If our politicians accept Russian hardware they are not helping the CF or the country due to the problems with parts, maintenance, training, knowledge base etc that will destroy the effectiveness of the fleet and how we use it. We have no expertise with Russian kit and now is not the time to start, especially if your reasons are bang for your buck. Case in point: How many Ladas or Skodas do you see driving around North America? Those were cheap and practical back in the day, right?

The farther you get from home, the less influence you can exert on your contrators, the more trouble you are inviting (see early CH149 problems). The US has a vested interest in seeing it's agreements work with Canada for military, political and economical reasons. European/Russian producers...not so much (again the CH149). Some would make the argument that we shouldn't buy US kit simply because it's US kit and @#$! the American's we're independant Canadians. Accepting inferior products and contracts to spite our biggest ally, trading partner and geographic neighbour is idiocy at its best.

Lastly the Superhornet is often talked about. It's marginally cheaper and has 2 engines but it's been out for a decade already and the US isn't planning on keeping it going for the life span we need to squeeze our of our next fighter. We will be stuck with old technology that's no longer being developed by the manufacturer. We need Canada's next fighter to keep us competitive until the day that UAV's are ready to take over, not to be left in the dust as soon as we've cut our teeth with it. The time to buy the Super Hornet was 10 years ago. It was talked about a lot. The government at the time decided to spend 1.1 billion to have Bombardier upgrade and extend the life of 80 CF18A/B's and retire the remainder and as a result the fleet is going to expire in 2020 and the only real replacement looking ahead is the F-35. Northern ops may not be its strongest point, but according to the experts - fighter community and Air Force brass - that's not a deal breaker, and I'll take their word for it before anyone on this forum.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Hedley »

Ok. I think people are starting to admit that technically, we could take a Russian
airframe& engines, and fit it with Western avionics, etc and have a heluva aircraft
at a great price per airframe for the poor, long-suffering taxpayer who is looking
at one mother of a deficit.

But it ain't gonna happen because of the politics and cultural biases.

Thank you. A little honesty goes a long way. I intend to try it, sometime.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
cdnpilot77
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by cdnpilot77 »

Hedley wrote:Ok. I think people are starting to admit that technically, we could take a Russian
airframe& engines, and fit it with Western avionics, etc and have a heluva aircraft
at a great price per airframe for the poor, long-suffering taxpayer who is looking
at one mother of a deficit.

But it ain't gonna happen because of the politics and cultural biases.

Thank you. A little honesty goes a long way. I intend to try it, sometime.

Isnt that what we have been trying to say all along Hedley? Why has it taken so long to catch on?
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8132
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by iflyforpie »

frosti wrote:]

We pay highly trained, experienced, and knowledgeable people to make these recommendations to the government, based upon far more factors than you will ever read anywhere.
Yes, these were the type of people who chose aircraft like the CF-5.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
User avatar
Dash-Ate
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1760
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:15 pm
Location: Placarded INOP

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Dash-Ate »

Here's a 3 min video that coverers a few higher up military advisors who were fired by Harper (globalist). Could they have impacted the jet decision or not?

I'm not going to call harper Conservative because he is not. It's bigger than any party now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsogv4Bw5kM
---------- ADS -----------
 
That'll buff right out :rolleyes:
Image
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Hedley »

the type of people who chose aircraft like the CF-5
Are they the same ones that promoted Russ Williams?
---------- ADS -----------
 
bizjets101
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2105
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by bizjets101 »

AF-4 10th J-35 to fly takes off on her maiden
flight on December 30/2010 Ft. Worth Texas.
AF-4_first_flight_Dec_30_2010_F10-92493.jpg
AF-4_first_flight_Dec_30_2010_F10-92493.jpg (60.21 KiB) Viewed 1413 times
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”