F-35 fails Marine testing

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)

"did not -- and could not —demonstrate that Block 2B F-35B is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation, or that it was ready for real-world operational deployments, given the way the event was structured,"

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/politi...ess/index.html

[IIJG27Rich]

[Vlerkies]

If anything man made ever looked like it 'belongs in the air' its the Russian jets, from the Mig 29 / Su 27 onwards. They are simply works of art and aviation porn with a lot of punch!

If it looks right it will fly right, but nowadays there's a lot more to it than that in air warfare.

[Combat Wombat]

Indeed they are the sexyest thing aloft Vlerkies Be it playing with them in our so called simulator or those of us lucky enough to have seen one in the real world jaw dropping moment.

[IIJG27Rich]

Agree. I hope Elton John and Vladimir have a nice time because I sure don't want us going up against those Russians...in the air.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

The gamble which the USAAF and the designers of the F-35 are making is very simple:

They are betting the stealth capabilities of the F-35 will be sufficient to overcome its inferiority in speed/maneuver/climb.

Lockheed is saying none of the conventional historical measurements of aircraft performances are important anymore... forget faster, quicker, nimbler... that doesn't matter.

Their assumption is an un-detected F-35 will be able to kill the opposition before it gets within visual sighting range.

This is a big gamble...which has to payoff... because if the F-35 is spotted... it is dead.

The problem with this assumption is the stealth technology which reduces radar signatures is focused on defeating a particular type of radar... and there are other types, which are not as affected, which are in development by both the Chinese and Russians. Plus there are other methods whereby an object can be remotely detected, which are in development.

If there is a leap in technology in any of the above detection systems, then the F-35 is a sitting duck.

Historically developments in aircraft and anti-aircraft measures happen in the space of a decade... but Lockheed and the Pentagon are saying the F-35 will be good for the next 40 years... that nothing will be developed sufficient to counter its abilities for four decades.

Think about the difference between the aircraft which were equipping the USAF in 1975 and those which are available now... and how much has changed. The entire 'stealth' technology envelope has been developed in that time period.

From my perspective, I don't understand how designers could deliberately build an aircraft which sacrifices so much in the way of aerodynamics and power for the very limited goal of stealth. There should have been some kind of balance in the equation... to allow the aircraft to be competitive in conventional air to air combat, while incorporating some additional stealth capability.

But this is the problem with a military-industrial complex which has very little in the way of competition, and which is given free-rein in spending and zero oversight.

[IIJG27Rich]

It's made to do too many things and it doesn't do any of them well.

[ATAG_Septic]

And it costs so very, very much.

UK will probably only buy a hat full, it's a damn shame.

Septic.

[Combat Wombat]

I think we Aussies have gone for the updated f-18 from memory may be wrong but what else is there as I don't see our BD government buying russian ! 5th PM in as many years .

[AKA_Knutsac]

"But this is the problem with a military-industrial complex which has very little in the way of competition, and which is given free-rein in spending and zero oversight"

+1

No kidding, we've created a monster.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

[7./JG26_SMOKEJUMPER]

It's okay, America has an absolute butt load of F-16s. Great fighter and super cheap.

[TWC_SLAG]

"But this is the problem with a military-industrial complex which has very little in the way of competition, and which is given free-rein in spending and zero oversight"

+1

No kidding, we've created a monster.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

No.

The suppliers are not given free-rein, and there is a s**t load of oversight. On the Space Station program, for instance, there were two NASA employees for each one company employee. The Space Station program was, according to NASA at the beginning, to be a "no change program". When I retired we had been given ~15,000 change orders.

I worked for a major defense supplier for 35 years, and the biggest problem is the government insisting on pricing before they have completely decided what it is they want. Then, those numbers are taken to Congress, so that funding can be created. Then, change after change is made to the statement of work, causing almost all of the over-runs. After that the government can't afford the number they wanted. Reducing the number of units built means the development costs have to be spread over fewer units, further raising the unit costs. Then, the schedule is moved to the right, because of annual budget constraints, so then inflation bumps up the costs some more.

As for competition, where are you going to buy military hardware, other than from companies in your own country? Who else has the infrastructure to take on multi-billion multi-year contracts? ALL weapon systems like the F-35 are competitively bid. Most systems are so expensive and risky, anymore, that the winning bidder company spreads the risk by partnering with their competitors.

You have to understand that the suppliers are not in control, and must do what the government wants, or they won't be asked to bid on the next big program. Our inside joke was that, when the government says "jump", we asked "how high" on the way up.

Stop reading news reports about overruns, fraud, waste, and abuse because none of the reporters know anything they are talking about.

badfinger

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

It's great to have another perspective, but I have read a LOT of reports on waste and poor design, or over-design.

You say its not the private corporations... but what I do know is the lobbyists who spend their time trying to get Congress to approve spending are often former military who were involved in the process, then who retired, and who are now getting big paychecks from the corporations to push the solutions the corporations propose. And the politicians are often getting big donations to their political campaigns from the same corporations. None of these guys should have any say in the process... but they do.

Certainly the military has some responsibility, there are an awful lot of paper pushing mid level Generals out there whose careers depend on their pet project going ahead.

By no stretch of the imagination can this particular aircraft be considered a good example of precision and efficiency in design. When I look at WWII, and the example of the Grumman Hellcat being designed and built in the space of approx. 1 year, and I look at the F-35, and the amount of time it has taken, I have to wonder. Yeah, Jets are more complex aircraft, but the designers also have cadcam and fluid dynamic simulation programs, and many other tools which were nowhere to be seen way back when.

You say the problem is the government demands pre-project pricing... well that is typical of every private enterprise bidding process I have ever been a part of... the government/organization asks for bids on a project.... the bidders do their research and come back with a figure. The Government then looks at the proposals, decides which one is the most cost effective/realistic, and picks it. If the project goes over budget or fails to complete according to the agreed upon schedule, then the contractor is penalized. No one forces the company to pick their price... that is their decision.

The problem with the relationship between the military and the military industrial contractors is the military NEVER seems to penalize or call the companies on their failures.... they just suck it up and pay the overcosts. That breeds a culture of failure as being acceptable... which it shouldn't be. The result is chronic underpricing of the bids by the contractors... they know they will be able to get away with charging more in the final bill. Frankly, that is wrong.

Rant off.

No.

The suppliers are not given free-rein, and there is a s**t load of oversight. On the Space Station program, for instance, there were two NASA employees for each one company employee. The Space Station program was, according to NASA at the beginning, to be a "no change program". When I retired we had been given ~15,000 change orders.

I worked for a major defense supplier for 35 years, and the biggest problem is the government insisting on pricing before they have completely decided what it is they want. Then, those numbers are taken to Congress, so that funding can be created. Then, change after change is made to the statement of work, causing almost all of the over-runs. After that the government can't afford the number they wanted. Reducing the number of units built means the development costs have to be spread over fewer units, further raising the unit costs. Then, the schedule is moved to the right, because of annual budget constraints, so then inflation bumps up the costs some more.

As for competition, where are you going to buy military hardware, other than from companies in your own country? Who else has the infrastructure to take on multi-billion multi-year contracts? ALL weapon systems like the F-35 are competitively bid. Most systems are so expensive and risky, anymore, that the winning bidder company spreads the risk by partnering with their competitors.

You have to understand that the suppliers are not in control, and must do what the government wants, or they won't be asked to bid on the next big program. Our inside joke was that, when the government says "jump", we asked "how high" on the way up.

Stop reading news reports about overruns, fraud, waste, and abuse because none of the reporters know anything they are talking about.

badfinger

[AKA_Knutsac]

It's the "military-industrial complex"....with "military" referring generally to the incompetent government you cite (and note that private companies are not immune to incompetence either). It's the incestuous relationship between the military (and politicians) and the defense contractors (and not any single company...it's the whole industry). The name of the game is to siphon off as big a chunk of tax dollars as possible for new toys for the military and private profit for the executives and the shareholders. Question or oppose fancy new weapon systems and one is most likely labeled "weak" or worse. Reason and rationality (and courage) often seem in short supply.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

[♣_Spiritus_♣]

Shouldn't worry yet. The USAF will have 16's, 15's, and a few 10's for quite a while plus the 22 and the Navy signed for 18 E/F's until at least 2040. By then the JSF will have undergone numerous upgrades and field trials (plus probably a few wars thrown in) for pilots to really say what they need/what they don't need.

I don't personally like the aircraft all that much but not worried at all. Yet.

[TWC_SLAG]

It's great to have another perspective, but I have read a LOT of reports on waste and poor design, or over-design.

You say its not the private corporations... but what I do know is the lobbyists who spend their time trying to get Congress to approve spending are often former military who were involved in the process, then who retired, and who are now getting big paychecks from the corporations to push the solutions the corporations propose. And the politicians are often getting big donations to their political campaigns from the same corporations. None of these guys should have any say in the process... but they do.

Certainly the military has some responsibility, there are an awful lot of paper pushing mid level Generals out there whose careers depend on their pet project going ahead.

By no stretch of the imagination can this particular aircraft be considered a good example of precision and efficiency in design. When I look at WWII, and the example of the Grumman Hellcat being designed and built in the space of approx. 1 year, and I look at the F-35, and the amount of time it has taken, I have to wonder. Yeah, Jets are more complex aircraft, but the designers also have cadcam and fluid dynamic simulation programs, and many other tools which were nowhere to be seen way back when.

You say the problem is the government demands pre-project pricing... well that is typical of every private enterprise bidding process I have ever been a part of... the government/organization asks for bids on a project.... the bidders do their research and come back with a figure. The Government then looks at the proposals, decides which one is the most cost effective/realistic, and picks it. If the project goes over budget or fails to complete according to the agreed upon schedule, then the contractor is penalized. No one forces the company to pick their price... that is their decision.

The problem with the relationship between the military and the military industrial contractors is the military NEVER seems to penalize or call the companies on their failures.... they just suck it up and pay the overcosts. That breeds a culture of failure as being acceptable... which it shouldn't be. The result is chronic underpricing of the bids by the contractors... they know they will be able to get away with charging more in the final bill. Frankly, that is wrong.

Rant off.

You say the military never penalizes the companies on their failures. Then, you say that, when the project goes over budget or fails to complete, the companies are penalized. Which it it? Are they penalized or not?

You say it is typical in private enterprise to do pre-project pricing. Is it also typical for the winning bidder to eat the costs of changes made by the customer? Is it typical for the customer to publically blame the winner for cost overruns/delays the customer knows he caused?

"No one forced them to pick their price"???? But when the statement of work is changed after the fact, whose at fault for the overruns? Bids get priced based on the governments description of what they want in the request for proposal. Then, the government changes its mind, but they keep reporting the same budget figures to Congress and the public. The contractors must bid to the statement of work or their bid is rejected as non- responsive. This keeps the contractors from bidding a price for what they may suspect the government will eventually want. The government "sucks it up" because they caused the overruns. Do you really think the government is going to admit guilt? The contractors prefer cost plus arrangements because they know the government will change its mind. If they agreed to a fixed price contract, they would be out of business when the changes come flooding in.

Let's talk for a minute about the "incestuous relationship". Would you rather have a weapon system built by contractor experts who have built similar systems in the past and, as a result, have relationships with the government people, or contractors building that weapon system with no expertise, no history, no proof they can deliver, who reject any input from anyone with those attributes and has an adversarial relationship with their customer?

Read whatever you want. But always consider the source and its credibility.

The fallacy the public swallows is that the government is always reasonable in their expectations and it is the contractor who always screws things up. CAD/CAM and other technologies can't make up for a customer who doesn't know what he wants.

One more remark. Do you really think that the weapon systems we now have are the result of the government being able to control those greedy corporations only looking for profits and high shareholder dividends, with their lobbyist and old boy relationships? Or, is it just possible that defense contractors are patriots, like you and me, who want the military to have the best equipment available, but have a customer that cares more about getting re-elected than anything else?

The Marines got a product they don't like because it was built to government specs, more than because the contractors did a crappy job of building to those specs.

End of my rant,

badfinger

[AKA_Knutsac]

"Or, is it just possible that defense contractors are patriots, like you and me, who want the military to have the best equipment available, but have a customer that cares more about getting re-elected than anything else?"

If the defense contractor is a publicly traded corporation, then it is apolitical (and amoral), regardless the personal values or "patriotism" of the managers and employees. Corporations exist, in fact are legally bound, to pursue a single goal - increase shareholder value. They will do so by whatever means they can, hopefully in a legal and ethical manner, but certainly not always. Note how many of our "patriotic" corporations are more than happy to sell weapons (or other technology) to our "enemies" or potential enemies. But for government export laws, they would happily supply anybody with anything...if it is profitable for them.

The activities of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler prior to and during World War II...are instructive. At that time, these three firms dominated motor vehicle production in both the United States and Germany. Due to its mass production capabilities, automobile manufacturing is one of the most crucial industries with respect to national defense. As a result, these firms retained the economic and political power to affect the shape of governmental relations both within and between these nations in a manner which maximized corporate global profits. In short, they were private governments unaccountable to the citizens of any country yet possessing tremendous influence over the course of war and peace in the world. The substantial contribution of these firms to the American war effort in terms of tanks, aircraft components, and other military equipment is widely acknowledged. Less well known are the simultaneous contributions of their foreign subsidiaries to the Axis Powers. In sum, they maximized profits by supplying both sides with the materiel needed to conduct the war. (1974 Senate Committee Report)

And "buying" politicians (via campaign contributions) and military leaders (via lucrative job offers) in exchange for their support for the latest and greatest whiz bang weapon system is just part of the game (at tax payer expense)...a military industrial complex if you will. And wars are great for helping turn over inventory and making more $$.

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." 1933 Major General Smedley Butler, USMC (and two-time Medal of Honor recipient)

~S~

AKA Knutsac

[rowns]

I did read that they also wanted to replace the A10 with the F35's.

I was born close to a city called Leeuwarden in the Netherlands. The city has a military airfield with 2/3 squadrons who are using F16's. Every 3 or 4 years they had airfield event, I don't know what it is called in english but anyway. I loved to see the the different planes. From the dutch demo F16 to the american F18's blue angels and more. My opinion is that the F16 is one of the best looking jets in the world and I am kind going to miss that plane.

[TWC_SLAG]

"Or, is it just possible that defense contractors are patriots, like you and me, who want the military to have the best equipment available, but have a customer that cares more about getting re-elected than anything else?"

If the defense contractor is a publicly traded corporation, then it is apolitical (and amoral), regardless the personal values or "patriotism" of the managers and employees. Corporations exist, in fact are legally bound, to pursue a single goal - increase shareholder value. They will do so by whatever means they can, hopefully in a legal and ethical manner, but certainly not always. Note how many of our "patriotic" corporations are more than happy to sell weapons (or other technology) to our "enemies" or potential enemies. But for government export laws, they would happily supply anybody with anything...if it is profitable for them.

The activities of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler prior to and during World War II...are instructive. At that time, these three firms dominated motor vehicle production in both the United States and Germany. Due to its mass production capabilities, automobile manufacturing is one of the most crucial industries with respect to national defense. As a result, these firms retained the economic and political power to affect the shape of governmental relations both within and between these nations in a manner which maximized corporate global profits. In short, they were private governments unaccountable to the citizens of any country yet possessing tremendous influence over the course of war and peace in the world. The substantial contribution of these firms to the American war effort in terms of tanks, aircraft components, and other military equipment is widely acknowledged. Less well known are the simultaneous contributions of their foreign subsidiaries to the Axis Powers. In sum, they maximized profits by supplying both sides with the materiel needed to conduct the war. (1974 Senate Committee Report)

And "buying" politicians (via campaign contributions) and military leaders (via lucrative job offers) in exchange for their support for the latest and greatest whiz bang weapon system is just part of the game (at tax payer expense)...a military industrial complex if you will. And wars are great for helping turn over inventory and making more $$.

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." 1933 Major General Smedley Butler, USMC (and two-time Medal of Honor recipient)

~S~

AKA Knutsac

So, your whole case is based on some stuff you read, and what may have happened either during WWII or 100 years ago.

That sure trumps my more recent years of personal experience with the Army, Navy, Air Force, NASA, and every major government contractor in the country.

badfinger

[AKA_Knutsac]

Well, I'm not sure exactly what your background is or how it relates to the high-level relations between the gov't and the defense industries. But I'm pretty sure that over the last hundred years (not a long time anyway), the fundamentals of the corporate charter have remain unchanged (i.e. the mandate to increase shareholder value above all else). Corporations aren't "patriotic", they are money-making creations with no loyalty to anything else. I'm not saying this is necessarily "bad", but we shouldn't kid ourselves on what their goals are or what they'll do to achieve those goals (again, increase shareholder value...$$$ drives everything they do). Here's some other old stuff I read (I know, ancient history and not pertinent).

"United Technologies Corp on Thursday admitted selling China software that helped Beijing develop its first modern military attack helicopter, one of hundreds of export control violations over nearly two decades." http://www.businessinsider.com/unite...embargo-2012-6

"Brent R. Wilkes, a California defense contractor and prominent GOP campaign contributor, was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison yesterday for lavishing a Republican congressman with money, prostitutes and other bribes in exchange for nearly $90 million in work from the Pentagon." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021902456.html)

"ITT Corp. has agreed to pay a $100 million penalty for illegally sending classified night-vision technology used in military operations to China and other countries, U.S. Attorney John Brownlee announced Tuesday. ITT, the leading manufacturer of night-vision equipment for U.S. armed forces, will plead guilty in U.S. District Court on Wednesday to two felony charges, Brownlee said at a news conference. One count is export of defense articles without a license and the other is omission of statements of material facts in arms exports reports." (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17814559/n.../#.Vf2qMJdxNOY)

And I'm not questioning the ethics or patriotism of the rank and file company managers and employees (ok, maybe some), just making the case that the corporate system has no loyalty (unless regulated via the gov't, "we the people" in the US).

~S~

AKA Knutsac

[TWC_SLAG]

Well, I'm not sure exactly what your background is or how it relates to the high-level relations between the gov't and the defense industries. But I'm pretty sure that over the last hundred years (not a long time anyway), the fundamentals of the corporate charter have remain unchanged (i.e. the mandate to increase shareholder value above all else). Corporations aren't "patriotic", they are money-making creations with no loyalty to anything else. I'm not saying this is necessarily "bad", but we shouldn't kid ourselves on what their goals are or what they'll do to achieve those goals (again, increase shareholder value...$$$ drives everything they do). Here's some other old stuff I read (I know, ancient history and not pertinent).

"United Technologies Corp on Thursday admitted selling China software that helped Beijing develop its first modern military attack helicopter, one of hundreds of export control violations over nearly two decades." http://www.businessinsider.com/unite...embargo-2012-6

"Brent R. Wilkes, a California defense contractor and prominent GOP campaign contributor, was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison yesterday for lavishing a Republican congressman with money, prostitutes and other bribes in exchange for nearly $90 million in work from the Pentagon." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021902456.html)

"ITT Corp. has agreed to pay a $100 million penalty for illegally sending classified night-vision technology used in military operations to China and other countries, U.S. Attorney John Brownlee announced Tuesday. ITT, the leading manufacturer of night-vision equipment for U.S. armed forces, will plead guilty in U.S. District Court on Wednesday to two felony charges, Brownlee said at a news conference. One count is export of defense articles without a license and the other is omission of statements of material facts in arms exports reports." (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17814559/n.../#.Vf2qMJdxNOY)

And I'm not questioning the ethics or patriotism of the rank and file company managers and employees (ok, maybe some), just making the case that the corporate system has no loyalty (unless regulated via the gov't, "we the people" in the US).

~S~

AKA Knutsac

Any one can find the exceptions to the rule, no individual or company being perfect. But, the exception usuallly proves the rule.

In your "research", did you find any examples of contractors doing good work, on budget, and on schedule? Where did the F-14, 15, 16, 18, 22, and Abrams tank come from? To name just a few examples.

It seems your position has been very finely reduced to saying only that the corporate system has no loyalty. A opinion, rather than a proven fact. I'm going to assume, then, that you have acknowledged being either wrong about everything else, and/or can find no rebuttal to what I have experienced.

Now, let's stop this verbal duel, and go back to having fun flying CloD.

badfinger

[AKA_Knutsac]

"...you have acknowledged being either wrong about everything else, and/or can find no rebuttal to what I have experienced"

LOL...I concede nothing of the sort.

"Now, let's stop this verbal duel, and go back to having fun flying CloD."

Roger, I think we're going in circles anyway.

Cheers and

~S~

AKA Knutsac

[Incog]

well europe is doing well enough in this regard i guess

you can't win 'em all, surely another design will come out from American hangars which will be more than great.

to be fair, the current need for these kinds of aircraft is relatively limited..

[rowns]

Link to a dutch website, but the video is in english. It is about the F35.
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6668...ma=straaljager

I don't know if it is true or not.

[JV44Rall]

Link to a dutch website, but the video is in english. It is about the F35.
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6668...ma=straaljager

I don't know if it is true or not.

The video is apparently from RT. I don't know if what they're claiming is true, but I'm reasonably sure the content was approved by someone close to Vladimir Putin.

[rowns]

The video is apparently from RT. I don't know if what they're claiming is true, but I'm reasonably sure the content was approved by someone close to Vladimir Putin.

Oke I don't know what RT is I am The Netherland and I just watch vids on that website.

[baronWastelan]

It all comes together, eventually. This is weapon system a credit card with unlimited spending limit gets you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I7TC1TTlQ0

[Catseye]

My dream aircraft for Canadian acquisition would be: A sukhoi product such as the PAK-FA with American Avionics and other technologies.

Dream on!

[Baffin]

To think that this entire thread began with a CNN.com report. That about sums things up. Lets move on before this starts to get really political. The yanks are only going to take so much bashing before someone gets their feelings hurt in rebuttle.

[ATAG_Flare]

My dream aircraft for Canadian acquisition would be: A sukhoi product such as the PAK-FA with American Avionics and other technologies.

Dream on!

That would be great. Although my No. 1 choice for Canada would be something like the Gripen. That thing is one nifty bird.