Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: F-35 helmet costs $400,000 — 4 times that of predecessor

  1. #1
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,505

    Default F-35 helmet costs $400,000 — 4 times that of predecessor

    that's the most expensive helmets in aviation's history


    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ssor/74650574/
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  2. #2

    Default

    Beware the military-industrial complex.

    Read: Milk the tax dollars for all their worth.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  3. #3
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,396

    Default

    Trudeau said he wouldn't proceed with the F-35 though.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ifax-1.3235791

  4. #4
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,853
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    While admittedly expensive...and the F35 program has other issues than cost...

    Does anyone commeting have a clue as to just how much goes into these systems? You know, the ones that have to work under extreme conditions, while being shot at, and pulling 6+G, varying temperatures, pressures, etc?

    ...or are we doing the typical and comparing your Nintendo Wii to military grade hardware?
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  5. #5

    Default

    ^agreed, while expensive, the helmet is pretty cool. It will allow pilots to look "through" the plane using those cameras on the outside of the plane, to see 360 degrees, completely around them, and to fire in any direction with no need to turn the plane (why manouverability isn't such a big deal, unlike previous fighters). It costs a lot less to build a helmet that does that, than to change all the aerodynamics on the plane (which then also creates other compromises, like reduced range, etc.).
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-10-2015 at 03:56 PM.

  6. #6

    Default

    ...and soon drone pilots may be the only ones wearing them.

  7. #7

    Default

    All of which can be taken out by a bunch of kids with a lucky shot.



    Something the Russians learned years ago

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  8. #8
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,853
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Again...lucky shot or not...you're being SHOT AT....

    You need the best defences. Saying that someone can take you down with a lucky shot...well, you may as well get into a fetal position right now and give up.

    As for "drone" pilots, the technology needed for that would make this helmet look like a bargain...plus, there are no plans for pilotless dog fighters anytime soon. small scale strikes where the craft can be autonomous for the most part...ok.

    Fighter pilots are not in danger of extinction...at least on a massive scale. One on one...depends if you're in a dogfight and fail.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  9. #9

    Default

    And people wonder why the US is broke... f-35 cost: "US$1.3 trillion (Overall including inflation), US$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012[10]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhe...5_Lightning_II

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by River Valley Green View Post
    And people wonder why the US is broke... f-35 cost: "US$1.3 trillion (Overall including inflation), US$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012[10]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhe...5_Lightning_II
    From that same source

    "Even in its third iteration, the F-35’s helmet continues to show high false-alarm rates and computer stability concerns, seriously reducing pilots’ situational awareness and endangering their lives in combat;"

    and

    "In July 2015, an F-35 pilot commented that the helmet may have been one of the issues that the F-35 faced while dogfighting against an F-16 during a test; "The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft. There were multiple occasions when the bandit would've been visible (not blocked by the seat) but the helmet prevented getting in a position to see him (behind the high side of the seat, around the inside of the seat, or high near the lift vector).""
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  11. #11

    Default

    ^which is why they ran the test, and reduced the size of the helmet. Finding and fixing problems means the program is working (albeit expensivley), not failing. It used to be, just build the thing, wait till some pilots die, then try to fix it (look for example, at the F14 and its engine failures while in service). That's not acceptable today, and everything costs a lot more because of it.
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-10-2015 at 12:26 PM.

  12. #12

    Default

    which is contrary to what you say, the F-35 program tests are being cut back.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Does anyone commeting have a clue as to just how much goes into these systems? You know, the ones that have to work under extreme conditions, while being shot at, and pulling 6+G, varying temperatures, pressures, etc?
    This comment may belong in the other thread about "Canada's next fighter..." but is connected as it relates to the helmet in the F35 and I'm only piggybacking on Richard's post not necessarily countering it.

    Then I guess the next question would be; how often does the quoted scenario occur for the Canadian Air Force and its role both domestically and abroad? You've described the perfect storm for aircraft combat. Many sorties are short range 'drop and gun it' types without any resistance at all, done at night, engaging isolated targets. One or two of the above listed variables may be at play. Maybe.

    I'm all for tech and having the best available etc etc. But does a pilot really need 'look through the fuseluge' helmet tech to drop its payload at night from 3000 feet? All of which has been pre-programmed prior too with the latest intel, and the pilot in constant communication with the ground should unforeseen resistance be detected, of which one can then abort and redo or send in the appropriate measures to counter?
    Does stuff happen? absolutely. But to listen to the F35 boosters (not targeting anyone in particular) you wonder how we (the world) ever lived without it.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Does anyone commeting have a clue as to just how much goes into these systems? You know, the ones that have to work under extreme conditions, while being shot at, and pulling 6+G, varying temperatures, pressures, etc?
    .... you wonder how we (the world) ever lived without it.
    A lot of people in WWII etc didn't live without it.

    However, push the cost of a weapon too high and so necessarily reduce the size of the potential production run, and the value at risk will cause hesitation in its deployment. Similarly with the 'value' of a pilot. That's why I think drones will soon rule the sky - make them cheap and expendible and you can deplete any fighter's arsenal and then potentially take the fighter itself out.
    Last edited by KC; 29-10-2015 at 10:16 AM.

  15. #15
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    How often do modern aircraft get into dog fights? Seriously what year is this?

    Launching missiles from 30+ km's out seems like standard fair. Also
    be offended! figure out why later...

  16. #16

    Default

    ^which is why stealth is everything now in air to air combat, the Russian understand this to, re the PAK-FA they are developing, and the Chinese with their developments. If you can spot your enemy on radar before enemy spots you, you win. Doesn't matter how fast the plane is, or how well it turns. I think the point of the helmet is less about the point and shoot at enemy aircraft, than it is about quicker targetting of ground targets.

    Its unlikely our planes will get into air to air combat though, so to the extent we just want bomb trucks to do basic NATO duties against poor technology foes, or to intercept large russian patrol aircraft / bombers, something cheaper / less advanced (but still very expensive), like the Superhornet or Gripen, will do. They will lose in every mapple flag though (not sure if that matters).
    Last edited by moahunter; 29-10-2015 at 02:07 PM.

  17. #17

    Default

    All of this is moot if Trudeau goes through with his plan to scrap the purchase. Just like Chretien scrapped the purchase of the MH-101 helicopters, and then ten years later bought the same helicopters under a new contract for a higher price. That's Liberal politics at it's finest.

    Cancelling the deal is one thing, but it only makes sense if he's got a good alternative in mind, otherwise he's just screwing our forces again by latching onto a popular complaint to help win an election.

    So, what is the alternative?

  18. #18
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,396

    Default

    Justin did state there would be a competitive bid process, so not as adamant as Chretien's MH-101/Sea King fiasco. Our F-18s are getting old and quite a few are retired so they do need to be replaced with something. I just want Canadians to get a reasonable fighter at a reasonable price, unfortunately the F-35 isn't either.
    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...-to-ditch-f-35

  19. #19

    Default

    I agree though that this issue is slightly less straight forward than the EH-101 issue because the F-35 has some controversy surrounding its capabilities. Unfortunately, I don't see an obvious alternative to the F-35. What other new state of the art fighters are out there? The F-22? The Super Hornet? I doubt Russia would be willing to sell us the Sukhoi PAK FA.

  20. #20
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    F-22 production was mothballed, and it's not coming back. There's the Eurofighter, Rafale, Super Hornet and possibly others that I'm forgetting about. I'm sure Russia would be more than thrilled to sell Canada jets, but the rest of NATO would probably not be. In any case, it'll be interesting to see how this file is handled. Along with other major procurement programs. Procurement is an absolute disaster in Canada, and has been for decades.

  21. #21
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,505
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  22. #22

  23. #23

    Default

    Moahunter, even if you had one, you would never be as cool as Piper the airport dog.

    Coolest dog in the world video

    Note that he is working with his leg in a cast. One tough dog!
    AIPORTK9.ORG



    More pictures
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tr...ffs-boots.html
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 04-03-2016 at 01:04 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  24. #24
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,396

    Default

    $400 grand for a helmet, yah sure it is custom made per pilot and has integrated night vision and HMD, but still that seems like an order of magnitude too much money for what is being delivered.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    seems like an order of magnitude too much money for what is being delivered.
    This is the JSF project.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    $400 grand for a helmet, yah sure it is custom made per pilot and has integrated night vision and HMD, but still that seems like an order of magnitude too much money for what is being delivered.
    Agreed. The entire project feels like a giant scam.

  27. #27
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    A high end motorcycle helmet goes for 1-2k. A high end set of night vision goggles is in the tens of thousands. I have no idea if 400k is reasonable, but "an order of magnitude too much" puts it at 40k. That's totally unrealistic, given the massive amount of technology in that helmet.

  28. #28
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,396

    Default

    Massive amount of technology?

    Integrated night vision, separate binocular units are about $10,000, say the HMD is similar at $10,000 (I know you can get AR displays for far less than that). So you still have $20,000 left over for customizing the helmet and lens, I think $40,000 is very possible.

  29. #29

    Default

    Military Industrial Complex profit markup, 1,000%
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Massive amount of technology?
    Yeah, supposedly you can look in any direction and it senses your eyeball movement and projects through the plane. So, if you look at the floor, you see the ground not your legs, can lock onto something with your eyes and joystick, and fire. Its advanced, its not an oculus. The need to have to customize it for every pilot sounds a bit extreme though, but maybe that's not so different from a customized shoe or similar (I don't know).

    I'm sure if someone can produce the functionality for a cheaper price though, Lockheed won't say no.
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-03-2016 at 03:36 PM.

  31. #31

    Default

    what are those poor hard-done by pilots in the F22 hope to achieve with their antiquated gear? Oh right, air superiority.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  32. #32

    Default

    ^F22 costs a lot more than an F35 to buy (not that any country can), but also a lot more to operate, about $68k per flight hour. 6 hours of flight time pays the cost of the helmet, military aircraft aren't cheap. Basically the F35 uses electronics, like the helmet, to help make up for the extra jet / better stealth / thrust vectoring that the F22 has, which should make it operationally cheaper to operate.

    http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-03-2016 at 03:47 PM.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^ but also a lot more to operate, about $68k per flight hour.
    Just to repeat a comment mentioned in the article you linked;
    "Without context and the formula used, this is useless"
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  34. #34

    Default

    Anyone who can use Google can pretty much ascertain that the 'real' differences between the F22 and F35 are negligible. Use what criteria you will. Split hairs all you want. Two engines? One? etc
    The footprint and RnD was there in the F22. Refine it, define it, tweak it, option it up. Whatever.
    No, LM says its not for sale. Then proceed to build AND sell a cheap knock off. Imagine what the F22 could be with HALF of what's been dumped into the JSF program...A third?
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  35. #35

    Default

    ^an F22 cost 678m per jet. Now, if they had produced more, it would have been cheaper. But its proven to be a maintenance nightmare, from the stealth coatings (an integral design issue, which F35 is much simpler on), through to various other day to day issues, which the F35 was designed to address from the outset. I'm not excusing the F35 cost over-runs / poor project management, but it is already a much cheaper plane to operate than the F22, which is almost prohibitively expensive to fly even for the US. Once there are few thousand F35's built, and they are rolling off the production line on mass, its cost will come down (like every other fighter ever produced on mass). Canada doesn't have to pay for most of the R&D / production inefficiencies, as the US is doing most of that by taking the most orders for it.

    And as I said, if someone in the private sector thinks they can do the helmet cheaper and make a profit, there is nothing stopping them trying.

    As of mid 2015 here is the proposed order book, there will be no other western fighter with anywhere near this amount of demand for parts, and every new weapons system will be optimized for it:

    USAF A 1763
    USN C 260
    USMC B 340
    USMC C 80
    United Kingdom B 138
    Turkey A 100
    Australia A 100
    Italy A 60
    Italy B 30
    Netherlands A 37 (down from 85)
    Canada A 65 (in doubt)
    Norway A 52
    Japan A 42
    South Korea A 40 (+20 optional)
    Israel A 33 (+17 optional)
    Denmark A 30

    If I were Trudeau, I'd hold off for as long possible / wait for price to come down as that production above kicks in, and allow time to evaluate the possibility we can instead jump straight to drones. I don't know how much more the CF18s can be life extended for, but it's worth pushing it in this case. If the only two goals are to shoot down big bombers or close air support, that is a future option.
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-03-2016 at 06:34 PM.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    If I were Trudeau, I'd hold off for as long possible / wait for price to come down as that production above kicks in, and allow time to evaluate the possibility we can instead jump straight to drones. I don't know how much more the CF18s can be life extended for, but it's worth pushing it in this case. If the only two goals are to shoot down big bombers or close air support, that is a future option.
    That sounds so much like "Kill the Avro Arrow project. Nobody flies jets anymore. The future is in missiles!"

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    That sounds so much like "Kill the Avro Arrow project. Nobody flies jets anymore. The future is in missiles!"
    Maybe, although in fairness the Arrow, a pure interceptor, was made largely redundant by ballistic missiles. The US hardly used the interceptor they built at the same time which was basically the equivalent of the Arrow (the F106), it never saw combat and ended up being used as target drones:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-106_Delta_Dart



    The big difference though is the technology is out there now, whereas it wasn't during the Arrow days. Here is a proposal along those lines, although it suggests some fighters (could be US NORAD planes though):

    With this in mind, we think that Ottawa should consider the following as a way to contain costs and meet Canada’s immediate air defence and operational needs: 1) commit to a substantial fleet of combat and surveillance UAVs; 2) invest in air denial systems – linked and reinforced by satellites and early warning radar; 3) invest in supersonic and long-range subsonic ballistic missiles; and 4) integrate a small number of next generation fighters – if deemed appropriate by a defence review – into a pan-national air defence system to protect the country’s territorial integrity.
    http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2014/1...ssiles-answer/
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-03-2016 at 09:14 AM.

  38. #38

    Default

    But Canada and the US used the F-104 interceptor extensively
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    But Canada and the US used the F-104 interceptor extensively
    This was the transition time from pure interceptors to multi-role / air superiority fighters.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^an F22 cost 678m per jet.
    http://www.wired.com/2011/12/f-22-real-cost/

    I see in this article where you came up with that number (or other sources) but could be "As little as $137 million per jet and as much as $678 million, depending on how and what you count." Hmm that low number is awfully close to F35.....

    But again being there is so much criteria that goes into a 'price' of an aircraft, the F22 deserves the same latitude afforded to the F35 supporters and justifiers.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  41. #41

    Default

    ^the price of a jet is less about the initial cost, than about the full cost including future on-going maintenance. That's where the F22 has been a total disaster for the US, it was designed at a time during the Cold War where nobody cared about costs. Its why even the US is limiting their flight hours and only using them in a few operational theaters. Re Canada, have a read of this (this site likes the Gripen):

    http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.c...or-canada.html

    Simply put, the F-22 is too expensive for most air forces.

    Even if economies of scale lowered the F-22's procurement price to below $200 million each, there is still the problem of its astronomical cost per flight hour. At over $68,000 per hour, the Raptor has over triple the CPFH of the ubiquitous F-16. Even nations used to the F-15 would find the F-22's operating cost hard to manage.

    In a world where most NATO nations seem unwilling to up their military procurement budgets, there would seem to be a very limited customer base for the Raptor.
    It also has other issues, which would make it a money pit:

    Compared to many supposed "fourth generation" aircraft, the F-22 has some glaring omissions. It currently lacks any sort of helmet-mounted display (HMD), IRST, or high-off-foresight (HOBS) capability. This leaves it within visual range performance surprisingly lacking compared to fighters like the Typhoon. While the F-22 currently dominates thanks to its stealth and BVR performance, it would be foolish to assume that the Raptor's stealth will stymie detection indefinitely.

    The F-22 is also in sore need of a more universal data-link, as it currently lacks the ability to communicate with other allied units. Realistically, the F-22 would require a complete reworking of its electronics package, as its current 80's era processors are woefully outdated.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-03-2016 at 02:28 PM.

  42. #42

    Default

    Which goes back to my original point, all or most of these glaring omissions could be remedied with a portion of the ongoing, ever increasing, potentially never ending budget that has been awarded to the F35. A helmet? An electronics package? Really? These are in the trillions of dollars.
    There was/is a platform here; the F22. What are the items that dictate such a high cost to operate this plane? Somewhat rhetorical question.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    There was/is a platform here; the F22. What are the items that dictate such a high cost to operate this plane? Somewhat rhetorical question.
    Thrust vectoring nozzles / systems, dual engines, high grade stealth coatings / design (stealth bomber grade, which is why the US refuses to sell F22 as they want to keep that for their nuclear deterant), lack of electronics / software for multirole missions, lack of automated diagnostics (which F35 will have once they get it working properly), poorly designed for modern manufacturing, lack of heads up display, etc. etc. By the time you change all of that, you have an F35 (which is made by the same company).
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-03-2016 at 03:50 PM.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    There was/is a platform here; the F22. What are the items that dictate such a high cost to operate this plane? Somewhat rhetorical question.
    Thrust vectoring nozzles / systems, dual engines, high grade stealth coatings / design (stealth bomber grade, which is why the US refuses to sell F22 as they want to keep that for their nuclear deterant), lack of electronics / software for multirole missions, lack of automated diagnostics (which F35 will have once they get it working properly), poorly designed for modern manufacturing, lack of heads up display, etc. etc. By the time you change all of that, you have an F35 (which is made by the same company).
    You're not 'changing' anything. You adding or upgrading.
    Thrust vectoring nozzles? That's on ONE variant of the F35. And really the only variant that makes the F35 somewhat special and worth putting some dollars into. The other two are run of the mill fighters. Yeah, Run. of. the. mill.
    Lack of electronics and automated dianostics? Add them. Its 'plug and play'.
    Poorly designed for modern manufacturing? I don't know what you mean here but if its manufactured it can be modified. This isn't the first fighter LM produced. Figure it out.
    Lack of HUD? Please. Like that $400K monstrosity that will snap the neck of the horse jockey/pilot thats testing the F35 now? Come on LM, figure it out.

    To be clear I'm not saying the 22 can be the 35. But what appears to be pioneered in 22 is being 'repioneered' for the 35 at stupid dollars cause LM says it needs to be. The 22 would be the envy of any air force in the world, but LM says the 35 is superior. Gadgets.
    Thrust. Lift. Drag. The 35 isn't inventing any of these and its not improving on them either.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  45. #45

    Default

    ^i was referring to the thrust vectoring nozzles on the F22, they add to the maintenance and the price versus F35A, and they couldn't just be removed because they are integral to the design. Regardless, I don't think it would be very clever for Canada to try and buy a plane that is no longer in production, that US congress has prohibited from sale, that costs more than any fighter aircraft available today, and that even the US can't afford to regularly fly. But carry on with whatever weird point you are trying to make... It's certainly not one that most western air forces believe in. Like it or not, for all the flaws in the development process, the F35 will be the most produced western jet, and I am highly skeptical that purchasing a less produced jet or one in final production will be less expensive over its lifespan. That simply doesn't match what history shows, not just on aeroplanes, but pretty much any manufactured product since the Model T.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-03-2016 at 09:16 PM.

  46. #46

    Default

    "To be clear I'm not saying the 22 can be the 35. But what appears to be pioneered in 22 is being 'repioneered' for the 35 at stupid dollars cause LM says it needs to be. The 22 would be the envy of any air force in the world, but LM says the 35 is superior. Gadgets.
    Thrust. Lift. Drag. The 35 isn't inventing any of these and its not improving on them either."

    This is my weird point as in my last post. Has always been my point in the other thread as well. I didn't say Canada should buy the 22. The 35 isn't inventing anything, marginally improving some things, and second rate at others. It's LM propaganda. Pretty much claiming the world can't be without it. They have the most sophisticated and advanced jet fighter in the world now, the F22. Funny how billions is being asked for (and receiving) and spent on another sophisticated and advanced jet fighter. Gadgets. Why do I care? Because Canada will likely be caught in the undertow of US procurement. And it sounds expensive.... I know, I know this is where you say " but if they build lots of these the costs will come down...."

    In the case of the F35, tell me this, where would the application of 'see through the floor' technology be warranted?
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    In the case of the F35, tell me this, where would the application of 'see through the floor' technology be warranted?
    Keeping an eye on Canadian troops on the ground, with the option of engaging an opponent. Or in a dogfight, knowing where your opponent is, and having the ability to rapidly change the angle of attack to it. The F35 it seems, is quite capable in a dog fight, per the article I posted by a Norwegian F16 pilot, even though its mostly designed for BVR fighter combat.

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Keeping an eye on Canadian troops on the ground, with the option of engaging an opponent. Or in a dogfight, knowing where your opponent is, and having the ability to rapidly change the angle of attack to it.
    Thought you'd say that. Really? There is plenty of tech available to 'keep an eye on Cdn troops' and billions of dollars less. And in a dog fight? In the very same breath you preach the wonders of stealth and the ability to not be seen, to fire WAAAAAAY before the enemy ever even knows you're there (and be gone before they realize what happened). When would the F35 be in a dog fight? Apparently it can sense when and where opposing fighters are being deployed and punch them out prior to.
    This is my issue with the swiss army knife jet fighter. If I want an aircraft riding shotgun to troops on the ground, I'd like an A-10.

    Moa, to be fair. I'm not in the military nor profess to know what is best for the Canadian military. I'm just a casual observer to the F35 debate but so far most of what I read is excuses and promises. F-35=magic beans. Oh, it'll be produced in mass numbers and this debate will continue with or without me.

    The complaint about the F22 maintenance expense? At least the 22 has maintenance. There's no maintenance numbers for the 35 yet. But we're told it'll be less.....
    Last edited by bpeters; 09-03-2016 at 11:07 AM.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •