Harper's F-35 stealth fighter purchase confirms Eisenhower's warning

Below is a letter I sent to Tony Clement. The Conservatives are out there touting these fighters as creating jobs for Canadians. We need to counter this myth!!!

January 15, 2011

 Hon. Tony Clement    Federal Minister of Industry Government of Canada

 In reply to your letter in the Delta Optomist of January  5. 2011.

 F-35 Job Opportunities Abound”

You mention that 350 million dollars have been awarded in contracts to firms making components for these fighters. You appear to think that is money that will flow into our economy from American contracts.

 I beg to differ. Yes at present jobs are being created for Canadians and they are being paid by American aerospace firms.

HOWEVER, when these planes are built and sold back to us (Canadians), it is our government who is buying these planes and our tax dollars that are being spent. Thus we are subsidizing these firms with our tax dollars and buying something that is really not needed.

 I would suggest that our tax dollars be used to stimulate the economy by creating jobs that build transport systems and jobs in education and healthcare. By spending our tax dollars in this way to create jobs, all Canadians would benefit and the money from taxes and the buying of goods and services would stay in Canada.

Does the Canadian Air Force need a new interceptor/ground attack plane?

If it does, then why didn't the government do more thorough research into which plane would best suit Canada's needs?

If one of the positive spinoffs is the jobs for industry and individuals that would be created for the maintenance of the plane, then in that regard the exact make and model of the plane wouldn't matter.

Yet another reason why the F-35 is not right for Canada and is a bad purchase:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/old-school-jet/

Does Herr Harper have plans to fight alongside the U.S.A. in a war against China or Russia or India or Pakistan or Iran, where such a plane might be useful?

There are many errors in the article:

CF-18s were used more than once to drop bombs, they also participated in Desert Storm, dropping 500lb non-precision bombs on Iraqi artillery positions and supply areas.  The CF-18 would have been sent to Afghanistan if they were modernized at the time, but they were not due to the previous government's lack of funding for the military.  The CF-18 is now able to work with our allies again, but we are withdrawing from the area, and as such will not be sending even more equipment. 

 "The plane's stealth and ground-attack capabilities make it ill-suited for patrolling the arctic."  False, the plane's stealth capability actually make it a great arctic patrol aircraft, as the weapons and fuel are carried internally cutting down on drag.  This will allow the aircraft to operate at greater ranges than the CF-18.  The sensors of the F-35 are also much more advanced than the CF-18 allowing the aircraft to scan a larger area and thus will cut down on patrol time. 

"The F-35 is made for Shock and Awe bombing missions abroad", - no this is not correct either.  Shock and Awe is a strategy as is Blitzkrieg, both employ aircraft but there has never been an aircraft designed specifically for Shock and Awe type missions.  Any aircraft can take part in this strategy and it is the overwhelming application of power to paralyze an opponent's perception of the battlefield and destroy his will to fight.  Heavy bombers such as a B-52, B-1B or B-2 bomber would be more beneficial in employing a Shock and Awe strategy, as they can carry many more bombs at one time for a concentrated attack.  The F-35 not so much. 

In the end the article is a good attempt to confuse the issue, the author leaves out information about the history of the CF-18 and mistakenly explains the F-35's abilities, all tied in to the famous military industrial complex speech.  It is a good try but lets skip to the facts: our CF-18s are wearing out performing their mission, we need a new aircraft, the F-35 was developed to replace the F-18/F-16/A-10 and Harriers.  The F-35 does everything the CF-18 is currently doing for this country it will just do it better and will last 40 years. 

They will sell 2500+ of these jets over the next few decades, Canadian firms should be apart of that business. 

Welcome to the new American terrorist state: Conservative Canada. God bless Harper and FEAR!

Your right CanadianPatriot. I am convinced. Let's participate in blowing up and destroying destitute third world nations so that our corporations cand desend like ravenous wolves on their resources. After all we will be giving them Democracy!! Greed, money and self interest should be our only considerations. Wow. You conservatives are such lovely Christian people. Bombs, death, destruction, fear. And while we are at it lets completely fuck up the planet. I am a believer Mr. Patriot. Maybe we should both go to the glorious USA. They are doing soooooo well with instituting their conservative policies. All hail America!

EcoCollectivist,

Who said anything about being a Conservative?  I'm just a someone who doesn't like people making decisions with incorrect information or listening to someone who knows the facts and spins them.  There were many errors in the article and my comments correct them. 

No one said anything about invading countries, corporations descending like ravenous wolves, f*&king up the planet.  Sounds like you are doing some fear-mongering to me.  

 Let us stay on topic please.

CanadianPatriot35,

There are many errors in your first post.

Frmrsldr, what errors are there in my first post?  Please explain.

The F-35 (like the F-22) was designed to be good at one purpose and one purpose only - that of stealth fighter.

As a stealth plane and specifically as a stealth fighter, it is a small aircraft. As a fighter, it only needs (in this case) to carry one crewman and weapons to shoot down other planes. Being small, it also makes it a harder target to hit when an adversary attempts to "sight it" either visually or electronically.

An essential component of what makes it a stealth aircraft is its geometric shape.

From the http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/old-school-jet/ link I provided above,

"The magic is all in the [F-15] Eagle's nose. Compared to the angular, stealthy F-22, [and F-35] the totally non-stealth F-15 has a more capacious nosecone that can carry a larger radar... The F-15 also routinely carries more fuel and missiles..."

Which makes perfect sense. As the F-35 is a small plane, this limits the amount of fuel, weapons, munitions and electronics it can carry. Unlike the F-15, F/A-18 or most other aircraft, the F-35 cannot carry external stores. For the F-35, fuel, weapons, electronics and other accoutrements can only be stored internally. The contours of its nose, wings, fuselage and tail surfaces cannot be altered to any significant degree to accomodate additional fuel, weapons, ammunition or electronics etc. The reasons for these conditions (internal storage and limited geometry or shape) is that such changes will degrade or defeat its stealth capabilities.

Given these parameters, the F-35 is both a limited ground attack aircraft and has a limited range. The last point doesn't suit it very well in the role of defending the vast region of Canada's north, the Canadian government's stated reason for choosing the aircraft.

As originally conceived, the purpose of the F-35 fighter is to enter enemy airspace with B-2 bombers undetected. When the enemy reacts to the B-2s bombing their military infrastructure and assets and they scramble their interceptors, the F-35 protects the B2s by sweeping the sky clean of enemy aircraft.

As the F-35 is an offensive air dominance/air supremacy platform, it along with the B-2, is unquestionably a "Shock and Awe" weapon and an integral part of that strategy.

The A-10 is a dedicated ground attack aircraft. It is a tactical weapon. It does what the famous Junkers Ju-87 Stuka, Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik and Aichi D3A 'Val' of WW2 fame did: take out tanks and AFVs, for the most part (the 'Val' was primarily used for pinpoint dive bomb attacks against ships. The Stuka also attacked ships, to a lesser degree.) This is close order combat (within hundreds of feet) where targets are more often sighted visually and taken out with guns and rockets rather than long-range guided missiles.

Often A-10s take harsh battle punishment. They are designed to withstand this. The F-35s are fragile and were never intended as dedicated ground attack planes.

The Harrier has VTOL/STOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing/Short Take-Off and Landing) capacities.

The U.S. Air Force, Navy and Army F-35s do not have these capabilities.

The U.S. Marine Corps' version will and is the most expensive of the F-35s.

Canada will not be purchasing the U.S. Marine Corps' version of the F-35.

The CF-18 is a "F/A" plane - a Fighter/Attack plane. As we now know, the F-35 is not an "attack" plane and thus it will be unable to "... do[   ] everything the CF-18 is currently doing for this country ... [only] do it better..."

Stephen Harper: "The F-35 is the best plane available for Canada's needs."

Given what we now know about the F-35, we realize that Harper's statement is supreme bullshit.

If the role of the next aircraft Canada seeks to purchase for its air force is to defend the Canadian north, upgraded CF/A-18s or F-15s or some other aircraft would be the most cost-effective means to accomplish this end.

Who are the "enemies" Canada needs to defend itself against?

The U.S.A., but the U.S.A. gets what it wants from Canada through low and high political pressure tactics. Going to war against Canada would be the last and least likely option.

Russia. Contrary to Harper's Cold War resurrection rhetoric, Russia is not an enemy of Canada. Even if it were, state of the art stealth fighters are not required to intercept and escort Russia's 1950s era technology lumbering "RBs" - Reconnaisance Bombers - away from Canadian airspace.

Since the stated purpose of these planes is to defend Canada's north but since no enemy with sophisticated airborne interception radar is immediately apparent, why then, would Canada need a stealth fighter to defeat its own radar?

Given what we now know about the F-35, it begs the question of what are Harper's real intentions?

Does he plan to involve Canada in a U.S. war against China or Russia or India or Pakistan or Iran?

No, Harper is like a spoiled rich kid at christmas: Not only does he have to have a very nice present - it has to be the most expensive, deluxe, luxury, top of the line, Gucchi, frivolous, envy inducing - "very nice present."

No, "the F-35 is not the best plane for Canada's needs."

Put simply, Canada does not need the F-35.

Frmrsldr, you might want to check your facts your post in probably less correct than Stephen Staples.  What is the title of the F-35? What is the program called? The Joint STRIKE Fighter. A Strike fighter is defined a what?

A strike fighter is a fighter aircraft used to attack surface targets of high value, including ships. It differs from a attack aircraft in that the aircraft remains a fighter, able to fight other fighters, whereas an attack aircraft typically has no, or very limited, capability in this regard. The definitive strike fighter is the US Navy's F/A-18 Hornet.

Just because it doesn't have an A in the designation doesn't mean it is not air to ground capable.  For example F-16, F-15E (Strike Eagle), F-111 and F-117 (the last two aircraft having no air to air ability), all are fighters that excel in air to ground missions.  I hope this helps.

-"As a stealth plane and specifically as a stealth fighter, it is a small aircraft." Wrong being a stealthy strike fighter means it is as big or bigger than the aircraft it is replacing, because of it's internal weapons bay. Size has nothing to do with being stealthy, the B-2 is as wide as a 767, but has little radar return.

- "The F-35 can't carry any external stores" - That is utter bulls*&t! It can and it combined with the internal stores can carry more than the aircraft it will replace. Look at this:

http://www.militarypictures.info/airplanes/F35_stores.jpg.html

I don't know if your confusing the F-22 Raptor with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but the F-35 is designed not as Air Dominance like the F-22.

"If the role of the next aircraft Canada seeks to purchase for its air force is to defend the Canadian north, upgraded CF/A-18s or F-15s or some other aircraft would be the most cost-effective means to accomplish this end." We don't call them them CF/A-18s they are Designated CF-188, or CF-18 for short. On buying new F-15s as a replacement it would be even more money for purchase and even more for maintaining as the F-15 has 2 large engines.

So as you can see the F-35 is the choice to replace our CF-18s, as like I said before it does everything the Hornet does just better, and is designed to last 40 years. Or as the PM said it is the best choice for Canada, the PM seems to have a better idea of the JSF capabilities than you do, much better.

As for enemies of Canada, well these jets are supposed to last 40 years, who knows what we will have to face. Did we know we would be in the Balkans or in Iraq when we bought the CF-18s in the 1980s? No we didn't, the F-35 JSF will allow Canadians the same abilities just with an increased survivability.

To clear up some confusion, the difference between an "Attack" aircraft versus a "Strike" aircraft is slight.

Some examples of WW2 "strike fighters" are the Focke-Wulf Fw-190D and G series, the Hawker Hurricane IID and IVD, Yakovlev Yak-7B and other more specialized Yak series and "bombed up" Corsairs and Thunderbolts. As fighters, these were superlative planes. As (ground) attack or strike aircraft, they could survive the punishment required that Messerschmitt 109s, Spitfires, LaGGs, MiGs, (Mitsubishi) Zero-Sens and Mustangs (although they were deployed in this role) - dedicated fighter/interceptors could not (so well.)

I never argued that size was a factor in stealth capabilities. What I am saying is that a stealth aircraft gets its stealth capacities from the materials of its components and from the geometry (shape) of its surface. If you're going to put all kinds of external stores crap on such an aircraft, you change its surface geometry. You create sound and radar wave "traps" and thus degrade/defeat the stealth characteristics. The F-111 is a "Jack of all trades." It has been used as a (ground) attack plane, bomber, recon. plane and for ECM - Electronic Counter Measures, something the F-35 cannot do (as you imply) because again, making it a 'christmas tree' with all sorts of external arials, wires and domes/dishes, etc., will defeat its stealth characteristics for the reason given above.

That web site you posted is a work of pure fiction. As I say above, a stealth aircraft cannot carry external stores because they degrade/defeat its stealth capabilities. It also contradicts your claim that the F-35 carries all its weapons and stores internally.

The B-2 is a dedicated bomber. So naturally, it's large. It's also a stealth aircraft. That is why all its bombs and weapons are stored internally - and again that is why it is large - so it can store all those bombs, etc. Even the way the engine is laid out on the B-2 - to diffuse its heat signature - is to maintain its stealth characteristics.

The F-35 is small. Compare it to the F-15. The F-35 is smaller. The F-35 is comparable with the size of the F-16 and F/A-18, etc. The F-35 is designed as the next generation F-117 and F-22. If you go to the wired/dangerroom site I posted, another role creep/sales pitch/justification for the F-35 is that the U.S. must not allow China to catch up to the U.S. in the military technology gap with its J-20 stealth aircraft. More resurrection of the Cold War bullshit to keep the military industrial complex money-making merry-go-round turning.

The B-2, F-117, F-22 and F-35 are expensive, hi-tech and extremely fragile aircraft. If their stealth capabilities are defeated and they are hit with anti-air or an enemy fighter gets them in its sights, these aircraft are toast. Once again, you are categorically wrong when you say that the F-35 can do everything the Hornet can, only better. You are dead wrong when you suggest the F-35 will replace A-10s.

Given your definition of a "Strike Fighter", a "Stealth Strike Fighter" is a contradiction. If a "Strike Fighter" is used to attack surface targets like high value ships or tanks or AFVs, this is usually done (as I pointed out in my above post) within hundreds of feet, i.e., within visual range. Such a plane WOULD NOT THEN NEED TO BE A STEALTH AIRCRAFT, right?

The fact that the U.S. military is blah, blah-ing that the F-35 is a "strike" aircraft is just an attempt to change the color of the 'white elephant' bill of goods it's trying to sell stupid and gullible people like Harper.

"On buying new F-15s as a replacement it would be even more money for purchase and even more for maintaining as the F-15 has two large engines."

Do a numbers check on the costs. You are wrong. The F-35 isn't even in production yet. The delays in production are causing cost overruns thus continuosly increasing the cost of the plane. At best, the cost for the plane are projections subject to change.

Another pitch Harper is using to sell the purchase is that the F-35 will provide jobs for the Canadian Aerospace industry. Wrong. The U.S.A. is pimping the F-35 to make money for Uncle Sam - jobs for Americans, not anyone else. F-35 technology has scores upon scores of patents. It's "secret." Do you think Uncle Sam is going to voluntarily give those secrets to other countries? Wrong.

The F-15 is a proven technology. It won't have all the problems and glitches that the F-35 will once it finally (if, in fact ever) makes production. It (or the CF-18 or other aircraft that have been around) will be more of a job creater for Canadians when it comes to maintenance because it doesn't have so many "secret" technologies and thus Uncle Sam will allow Jack Canuck's workers to work on them.

The F-15 has two engines. That's one reason why it has greater range than the F-35. The A-10, F-15, F-111 and F/A-18 all have two engines. They all are or have been used in the "Attack" or "Strike" role. There is a reason for this. If one engine is knocked out, the aircraft can still fly back home on the remaining engine. Think about it. Canada's north is a large, sparsely populated and (climate-wise) hostile area. If you have an aircraft that is supposed to patrol such an environment and the plane develops engine trouble in the middle of nowhere - well, it kind of sucks doesn't it?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/joint-strike-fighter-engine-boondoggle-die...

Frmrsldr, I see much confusion in your posts I will try to clear it up

And here is an article about the F-35 as the "next generation jammer" which you mentioned the JSF (again Joint Strike Fighter) would not be able to do.  So again you are wrong. 

Oh, so now all of a sudden you do a complete 180 and any mention of the fact that the F-35 is a stealth aircraft is no longer mentioned.

I never said the A-10 was a strike fighter.

"Low intensity conflicts where the enemy has no anti-aircraft", is a myth. In Gulf War/Iraq War I A-10s and other (ground) attack aircraft received damage from anti-aircraft fire when attacking Iraqi tanks and AFVs, etc. The reason why there hasn't been much damage to (ground) attack planes in Afghanistan and Iraq War II is because this time, neither Afghanis nor Iraqis have much in the way of tanks or AFVs. Bombing runs and drone attacks (particularly in Afghanistan) have been predominately characterized by the murder of innocent civilians attending weddings, child naming ceremonies and funerals.

Norway and Sweden are small countries, so if an aircraft goes down it won't take long to provide aid to the pilot. The USAF in Alaska has the personnel, equipment and infrastructure to overcome this problem.

Canada's north is much larger than the Arctic regions of Norway and Sweden and the State of Alaska and Canada has far less personnel, equipment and infrastructure in the north than the USAF.

Hmmm, let's see the U.S. has only a handful of nonproduction F-35 prototypes and you're telling me Canadian Aerospace already has $350 million worth of contracts to build components? Yeah, go ahead, sell me "The Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska while you're at it.

Your last post about a possible "low-observable" Electronic Warfare (EW) pod is future "pie in the sky" that may or may not even come into being. The pod doesn't even existence right now. The article (unsurprisingly) provides no picture of it. The article talks about blocks 5 and 4 of F-35 prototypes. Block 4 will/may come into existence by the end of this year. Block 5 is projected to come into existence in 2018.

What's becoming clear to me is you're probably a Lockheed-Martin representative trolling on this site to shill for the company and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC.) But hey, cheers back at you!

No I didn't do a 180, I still mention that the F-35 has stealth capabilities that are used when needed and conventional underwing stores abilities also, when needed.  High intensity conflicts would require the stealth configuration until a reasonable amount of safety can be assured, at this time the JSF would be configured to carry underwing pylons.  So the majority of the enemies air and ground defences would be neutralized or the enemy is too scared to use this equipment for fear of reprisal.  For example Desert Storm and the Balkans war, stealth aircraft bombed key targets before the more conventional aircraft were allowed into the airspace.  Instead of having different aircraft doing each different job the JSF will do every mission, it only has to be configured to do so.  This aircraft is that versatile. 

  "low intensity conflicts where the enemy has little or no anti-aircraft defence is a myth"  Wrong - what is Afghanistan?  As for the A-10s recieving damage in Desert Storm and later in Iraqi Freedom (Google Captain Kim Campbell, A-10) that is because the A-10 is designed to operate that close to the conflict.  The A-10 was designed to be durable because it is slow, and up until lately they could not use precision weapons (besides the Maverick), this require them to operate close to the action.  The F-16, F-18s, and F-15Es among others operated higher and would also recieve less damage.  The A-10 with the upgraded C model will also operate from a safer altitude, only using close attack tactics when required.

Canada's north is much larger, but survival times are the same, usually measured in minutes if the person does not have the ideal gear.  These countries operate fighters where rescue times are usually measured in hours not minutes.  A lot of good a rescue team is if they can not get to the crash site, depending on terrain and weather.  These countries have been flying these single engine jets for decades in the arctic.  Records show that the F-16 (single engine) is more reliable than the dual engine F-18.  So the one or two engine arguement is pointless.  2 engines just costs more time and money for maintenance. 

You are short sighted if you don't realize that production is ramping up for the F-35 and Canadian companies are already profiting from it.  Look up the Ottawa Business Journal and search for the article "F-35 contracts hinge on Canadian purchase".  It has a nice picture even of the F-35 and depicts what Canadian companies are buidling for the F-35 right now.  Lets see $150 million invested for a $350 million return, thats awesome how they doubled our money. 

Actually I have no connection with Lockheed Martin, I am just a Canadian citizen with a good understanding of aviation and business to realize we have a good deal if we buy the JSF. 

Hopefully this clears up some more of your misconceptions. 

Talk about misconceptions, there was no need for stealth aircraft during the Balkan conflict and during Desert Storm. Neither the Serbs nor Iraqis had radar and aircraft sophisticated enough to pose much of a threat to our conventional aircraft. The reason why stealth aircraft were used was to field test this new technology to see how they operated in combat conditions; and what their strengths were and to iron out the bugs. This was done at the cost of murdering thousands of innocent Serbs and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

The suggestion that stealth aircraft and other hi tech weapons were used to minimize our casualties and to maximize that of Serbs, Afghanis, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Somalis, Yemenis and others is morally abhorrent. I object to the message of this "sanitary" warfare and how video footage of this that makes war look like a computer game is used by American and Canadian governments and militaries to recruit our young people in the armed forces.

About the A-10, yeah no kidding. That's the reason why the F-35 with its single engine and lack of armor plating will never make a good attack plane and will never replace the A-10.

There is a reason why we have A-10s and attack helicopters: close order (air-to-ground/surface) combat is still exponentially more accurate (and cost effective) than using expensive so-called "precision" standoff weapons.

Example: Research into the known/verified persons killed by drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan has shown that only 2% of the intended persons were killed. The rest were either innocent civilians (the vast majority) or possible insurgents, but not the "Taliban" leader originally intended. Such "presicion" or "smart" weapons are only as "smart" as the Humint (Human intelligence) behind them and the operators who deploy them.

"Canada's north is much larger, but survival times are the same, usually measured in minutes if the person does not have the ideal gear. These countries operate fighters where rescue times are usually measured in hours not minutes." Could you rewrite this contradictory nonsense so that it makes sense?

"A lot of good a rescue team is if they can not get to the crash site depending on terrain and weather." Yeah, and thus wouldn't you want the extra "insurance" of having two, rather than one engine - just in case? I know I would. Also, in these regions when aircraft are sent out on missions or patrols, close attention is paid to the weather to minimize risk from that quarter. If a pilot was ever stranded on some treacherous mountain, for example - ever heard of helicopters doing "ground snatch" helivacs?

"Records show that the F-16 (single engine) is more reliable than the dual engine F-18." On the single engine F-16, the pilot has to rely on that single engine to work 100% of the time. When that engine fails, chances are, you're 'hooped.' On the F-18 and other twin-engined aircraft, your odds are better. Should an engine fail, you still have another and your chances of returning to base are much greater. So no, the single versus twin engine argument is very germaine and far from pointless.

Low intensity versus high intensity combat and warfare is irrelevant and is ultimately not the strategic factor used to develop and deploy stealth aircraft.

The ultimate "strategic" or determining factor for developing and deploying stealth aircraft is asymmetric versus (modern industrial state forces) conventional warfare.

As I said above, there is no need to use stealth aircraft and other hi tech weapons in asymmetric warfare other than to earm money for the arms industries and to field test such weapons.

As Osama Bin Laden said, it was his intention to trick the American Empire into economically destroying itself. During the Vietnam War, the American Empire fought an asymmetric war, using hi tech weapons against peasant farmer insurgents from a preindustrial society. The American Empire lost that war and hurt its economy.

In the Soviet-Afghan War, the Soviet Union fought an asymmetric war against peasant farmer insurgents living in a preindustrial feudal society. The Soviet Union not only lost that war, it was economically destroyed - these were the two most significant contributions to the ultimate end of the Soviet Union itself.

Currently, the American Empire is fighting an asymmetric war in Afghanistan against the same kind of peasant farmer insurgents living in a preindustrial feudal society the Russians fought against earlier. Fighting an asymmetric war against Afghanistan is absolutely unnecessary. Had the U.S. not started Iraq War II, and fought the Afghan War as a low tech military intelligence operation, its cost would be vastly lower and chances of success would be much greater.

With the American Empire fighting two wars through buying and using expensive weapons, weapon systems and armaments - to the tune of the Empire having a $1.5 trillion debt and deficit. Not only is the American Empire going to lose the Afghan war, it is going to economically destroy itself and drive the Empire into its grave. Thus it looks like Bin Laden has more than succeeded in his intent.

First, stealth aircraft (by their very nature) are offensive, not defensive weapons. Harper, by trying to sell Canadians a "bill of goods" on the F-35 by claiming that it is to defend Canada's north is lying to the Canadian people.

Second, the real purpose of stealth aircraft is to be used against countries that have radar, fighters and EW planes that are sophisticated enough that such stealth aircraft would be used closer to their full or real purpose/intent/potential. The Pentagon, the DOD, the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) and the arms industries are resurrecting the Cold War to add further justification for countries and governments to purchase such planes. The real targets for these weapons are Russia, China, India and possibly Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.

"Actually I have no connection with Lockheed Martin, I am just a Canadian citizen..."

"The F-35 good for the Air Force, good for the Aerospace industry and great for the Canadian citizen."

Bullshit.

Did you get paid to post that political advertizement for the Conservative Party of Canada/Pentagon/DOD/MIC/arms industries? If you didn't, that was foolish as I would have had I posted such obvious political partisan crap.

Look, you "walk your side of the street, I'll walk mine." Sell your bullshit somewhere else because neither I nor, I'm sure, any other rabblers are buying it.

Hope this clears up and disabuses you of any of your misconceptions.

High Intensity coflict - high performance technology vs high performance technology.  AKA  USAF F-117 vs Baghdad's air defence system.

Buddy, you need to read your history books,  in Desert Storm Baghdad was more heavily defended than any of the most heavily defended Warsaw Pact cities in the height of the Cold War.  The only aircraft to fly over Baghdad in the beginning of the war was the F-117 Stealth Fighter, all other would have been toast.  So your comment about Iraq not having a sophisticated system is complete bullshit.  Read any history book about it. 

So high intensity and low intensity conflicts determine the configuration of the F-35.  Like the F-117 the F-35 would be configured for Stealth type missions at the beginning of the war.  Our Canadian JSF would probably not do the very first missions as these are usually handled by the US, and Canada would only have 65 aircraft so would not like to lose any the first night.  Once the highest threat are taken out our F-35s would eventually join the conflict (using stealth to provide survivability against the remainder of the air or ground defences).  When the defences are subdued enough the F-35 would start carrying weapons externally.  See how that works?  This whole comment about the F-35 being only a stealth fighter is again bullshit. 

I hope I am making progress in these explanations, and I think I am as a couple days ago you never knew the F-35 could be non-stealthy and carry weapons externally.  You probably bought into the whole Stephen Staples spread misinformation that the F-35 is ONLY a Stealth fighter. 

 For the comment "where rescue times are in HOURS not MINUTES" let me explain a bit more you missed the point entirely.  In arctic conditions the survival time of a downed pilot could be mere minutes, rescue helicopters are much slower than jets, even if a helicopter is ready to go on a moments notice it might take them hours to get to a crash site.  The pilot is on his own until help arrives, seems like everyone should be flying 2 engines then right?  Added insurance seems correct, but yet we have Air Forces all over the world that fly single engine aircraft in the arctic hundreds of miles for base over water or desolate land.  Why is this?  Because reliability rates of engines are that good, they still have accidents yes, but many times it won't matter if you have one or two engines.  Fuel problem, control system problem, pilot error, it doesn't matter how many engines.  Other militaries have done the stats and fly single engine there is no reason we can not either. 

I not going into your rant about asymmetric warfare as it doesn't neccesarily pertain to this discussion about the JSF.  Except to say Canada if in an Insurgency type war should have more eqiupment to help the ground troops.  Armed predators for surveillance and surgical strikes and attack helicopters (Apaches or Cobras) which you said yourself are more effective in a low intensity conflict at times.  If we are in another Afghanistan type war in the future it is best for the troops to have all the tools they require. 

 All I can say about Stealth aircraft being offensive weapons is a good offence is also a good defence.  A stealth aircraft can be a great deterrent.   The F-35 in a stealthy configuration allows it to fly farther than the Cf-18 in the same configuration, its sensors will also allow greater situation awareness.  So again the F-35 does everything the CF-18 currently does only better and will last 40 years. 

Again I hope I have enlightened you with some actual facts and concepts, read some history from REPUTABLE sources and you might see outside of your nice little bubble. 

No you're full of shit. Baghdad was blind. Baghdad lacked sophisticated radar. Remember those scenes during the first days of Iraq War I when Iraqi anti-air was blindly spraying rounds everywhere? All Iraq had was small to medium caliber (13-20mm) automatic anti-air guns. No AA missiles. Anti-air guns can easily be defeated by flying beyond their range. ECM/RB-111s and B-52s would have accomplished the mission admirably. Talk of Iraq having sophisticated radar was bullshit the U.S. arms industry, DOD, and MIC used to justify field testing its F-117 hi-tech little toys in combat.

In spite of this, the U.S. military still had the gall to tell the bullshit story that obsolete Chinese radar used by Iraq was able to defeat the F-117.

"So high intensity and low intensity conflicts determine the configuration of the F-35." As you can see above and in my last post, that is bullshit.

"Our Canadian JSF would probably not do the very first missions as these are usually handled by the U.S.,..."

Why would the majority of Canadians want Canada to join and assist the American Empire in its dirty illegal wars of imperial aggression?

Canadian JTF2 soldiers are already involved with American Special Forces soldiers in the war crime of killing unarmed persons in Afghanistan. You want more of that? I don't.

The latest poll shows that a majority (56%) of Canadians are opposed to the Afghan War and want the troops out now.

Canada does not need the F-35.

Canada does not need its own MIC. That is what the OP is all about but you don't seem to get that.

"This whole comment about the F-35 being only a stealth fighter is again bullshit. I hope I am making progress in these explanations, and I think I am as a couple of days ago you never knew the F-35 could be non-stealthy and carry weapons externally."

No, I'm sorry, you're making absolutely no sense whatsoever. The reason why they tacked on this "attack" capability is Lockheed-Martin sales reps want to put lipstick on their F-35 pig to make it more "sell-able." Let me explain this by way of analogy: It's like a guy who buys a Cadillac because he not only wants to cruise down the road in comfort, luxury and style, but he also wants to use it as a golf cart on the driving range and go 4X4 offroading with it. How much sense does that make? Getting an aircraft to perform roles it was not originally designed to do and for which it is not very well suited is just as ludicrous from a practical military perspective.

"... but yet we have Air Forces all over the world that fly single engine aircraft in the arctic hundreds of miles for base over water or desolate land." The only countries other than Canada that have Arctics that have hundreds  of miles of water or desolate land are the United States (state of Alaska) and Russia. The Russians are a lot smarter and far less paranoid than we are. They patrol their Arctic with those lumbering 4 engined recon. bombers I mentioned earlier. Do a quick survey to see how the number of twin engined hi-performance aircraft vastly outnumber their single engined hi-performance counterparts.

"...reliability rates of engines [in regard to single engined aircraft] are that good." Like I say, if you have a singe engined aircraft, it has to work 100% of the time, if it fails your hooped. Also think about this, in order for a single engined F-35 to operate at the same performance level as the twin engined F-15s and F/A-18s (for example), the F-35's engine has to work that much harder, the other aircrafts' engines, being twins that share/distribute the work and stress, don't have to work as hard. This means that the F-35's engine will wear out faster and will require more labor hours and maintenance time.

"I'm not going into your rant about asymmetric warfare as it doesn't neccesarily pertain to this discussion about the JSF." If that's what you think, then you've completely missed the bus, buddy. Doesn't surprise me though, as all the shit you've posted here is Pentagon, DOD, MIC, arms industry, Lockheed-Martin talking points. You've drunk far too much of their Kool-Aid, buddy. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to sit back and while I eat some popcorn I'm going to watch the American Empire destroy itself. If Canada with its asshole Prime Minister Harper joins the American Empire in its self-destruction, well then, that's the best cure I know for stupidity.

"All I can say about Stealth aircraft being offensive weapons is a good offence is also a good defence. A stealth aircraft can be a great deterrent."

That's Bush's "Strike First Doctrine." That is what international law calls wars of aggression. Wars of aggression are illegal - Afghanistan, Iraq, the undeclared (covert) war in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and a possible future Iran war - are war crimes.

"So again the F-35 does everything the CF-18 currently does only better..." WRONG, you still can't seem to understand that the F-35 is an absolutely S-H-I-T-T-Y aircraft when it comes to the "Attack" role. Do some historical research into multirole (particularly fighter-bombers) aircraft and you will find only about two that are outstanding, though even these had their limitations. They are the Mosquito and Lockheed's P-38 Lightning from WW2. If you drop the fighter requirement, then you can include the F-111.

"...and [the F-35] will last 40 years." The F-22 was mothballed by changing requirements from potential future clients and gerrymandering from politicians until it was superceded by the F-35. Currently, production of the F-35 is being delayed by the same causes. I give it 20 years, max. If, that is, it ever gets into production. I'm afraid technological change progresses more rapidly than that. Each year, the rate of technological change progresses exponentially.

"... read some history from REPUTABLE sources and you might see outside your little bubble."

If I want to decide what the next military combat aircraft is best suited for Canada, I can quite easily pull up performance stats from the internet. Aircraft like F-5s, A-10s, F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, F-20s, F-111s, F-117s, B-1Bs, B-2s, B-52s, etc., are planes that have been in production for a number of years. They have seen regular service in the U.S. and (some types) other militaries. These aircraft have also seen combat.

There are only a handful of prototype F-35s. When it comes to performance data, all we have to go by are the manufacturer's RESEARCH TESTS, PROJECTIONS and ESTIMATES.

Yeah, the researchers, designers, engineers and sales reps at Lockheed-Martin are a reputable, reliable and impartial source of information for the F-35. By the way, what does that Kool-Aid taste like, anyhow huh? I bet you find it tastes real good.

Haha I laugh my ass off everytime I read your posts what alternate reality do you live in?  I know the guys in the Air Force are laughing at your posts too, I sent them a link.  But what would they know they just fly military aircraft, a couple were even involved in Iraq and Kosovo.   

Lets go over some of your wrong ideas/statements:  The F-35 carries no external stores, The Army is getting F-35s, in Desert Storm Iraq had no SAMS and small AAA guns, the F-35 is designed as an Air dominance fighter, the F-35 is not a good air to ground fighter, the F-35 was designed as a Shock and Awe weapon, F-35s escort B-2 into bombing areas, etc, etc. 

Really Baghdad had no SAMS in Desert Storm, - from Global Security "by the summer of 1990 Iraq possessed 16,000 radar and infrared guided surface to air missiles (SAMS), in addition Iraq had 7500 AAA pieces predominately 57mm to 37mm.  I won't comment on the rest of your F-117 theory over Baghdad as its so stupid and unsubstantiated that it doesn't deserve any more mention.

The single engine debate is null and void, just look at the the US Navy the strongest supporter of dual engine fighers.  They will almost always be operated over water but they recognize the F-35 will be that reliable and survivable, they are buying hundreds.  Case closed. 

I don't know why you are talking about WWII fighters, tactics and technology have changed since then.  For example jet engines and precision weapons are a good place to start to get you up to speed. 

You don't say why the JSF is bad in the attack role, is the CF-18 bad in the attack role too?  Please explain with some reputable sources. 

The F-22 is not mothballed, they will be in use for decades to come, Obama shortened the production run that is it.  It is the best fighter in the world right now the only problem is that no one besides the US can buy them, it is against US law to export them.  This is due to the technology incorporated into them, Japan and Australia would buy them at a moments notice if they were available. 

Not to correct you on your list of aircraft because of your excellant military knowledge (Sarcasm) but the F-5, A-10, F-14, F-20, F-111, B-1B, B-2, or B-52 are not in production any more and haven't been since the 1980s at the latest. 

The flight testing of the F-35 is progressing nicely (except the Marine version which is the most complex) and for the Air Force and Navy versions are actually ahead of schedule over the last year.  All test data shows the these aircraft to be meeting or exceeding operation requirements.  Since our version we are purchasing is the least risky, I would say we are in the clear.  The USAF will get their production version this year, lots of time to iron out the remaining bugs before our 2016 delivery date. 

Hope this helps!

Your superficial Rambo pop culture exposure/understanding of weapons and warfare, typical of someone who has never spent a day in the military, makes me laugh.

Apart from your stats on Iraq's AA during Gulf War I, your last post is the vaguest so far and you don't offer any further stats to substantiate your generalizations.

Your confidence has been shaken and you're questioning yourself to the point where you're now alleging that you're communicating with some flyboys.

"In arctic conditions the survival time of a downed pilot could be mere minutes, rescue helicopters are much slower than jets, even if a helicopter is ready to go on a moments notice it might take them hours to get to a crash site. A pilot is on his own until help arrives,..." What was the flyboys' reaction to your suggestion that if their plane goes down in the Arctic, they only have minutes to live and if they don't survive, oh well too bad, so sad, shit happens, get over it, adjust, adapt, overcome, 'they were expendable'? You do realize that the government (military) spends a lot of taxpayer money training pilots, the military isn't going to adopt an "Oh, well" attitude toward a pilot downed in the Arctic? You do realize that pilots when training, on exersize or flying patrol, don't fly solo? You do realize that planes stationed in the Arctic will be kitted out with survival gear, like MREs (or some equivalent of the Meal Ready to Eat), a lightweight heat source, a lightweight collapsible tent or tent like thermal shelter, etc?

"Not to correct you on your list of aircraft because of your excellent military knowledge (Sarcasm) but the F-5, A-10, F-14, F-20, F-111, B-1B, B-2, or B-52 are not in production any more and haven't been since the 1980s at the least."

The F-14 is still in service use with the U.S. Navy and the A-10, B1-B, B-2 and B-52 are not only still in service but saw combat in Iraq War I and the current Afghan and Iraq II wars. So what's your point?

"It [the F-22] is the best fighter in the world right now the only problem is that no one besides the US can buy them, it is against US law to export them. This is due to the technology incorporated into them, Japan and Australia would buy them at a moments notice if they were available."

[ETA]

So, if the F-35 is even more advanced than the F-22, why do you think the U.S.A. changed its policy concerning the sale of such technically advanced aircraft?

Do you think the state of the U.S. economy might have something to do with it? Uncle Sam is a whore who will sell anything just to make a buck.

What was it I said about the "production delay" of the F-22?

Ah yes, I remember, something about the F-22 being mothballed and superceded by the F-35.

I still haven't stated what I find about the F-35 that makes it a poor attack plane?

Well let me see, with all the money the program is sucking up (still no end in sight), the fact that it is the world's most technically advanced aircraft, the fact that it is an unproven and very fragile aircraft (see description of F-22 above) and the fact that in order to make it a better attack plane, it needs increased protective armor (you know, like the A-10) but this will increase its weight and the U.S. Marine Corps has put it on a diet to lose 3,000 lbs, not increase the weight.

If you wouldn't buy a brand new Cadillac, then enter it into a demolition derby, why would you toss the F-35's stealth capabilities (the only thing special about this aircraft) to the wind and have it attack tanks, AFVs, bunkers, hard points or some rag-ass renegades only to have it turn into a grease stain on the desert floor with a well-placed shot of a single 13mm or 20mm round to the engine?

What kind of hallucinogenic drugs were you taking when you came up with that ludicrous concept of nonstealth usages of the F-35 in "low intensity" combat situations?

"The flight testing of the F-35 is progressing nicely... and for the Air Force and Navy versions are actually ahead of schedule over the last year. All test data shows the these aircraft to be meeting or exceeding operation requirements."

Take my advice sonny, never go to a used car lot by yourself.

"All test data shows the these aircraft to be meeting or exceeding [our expected] operation requirements." That is ALL that is saying and NOTHING ELSE. No numbers or quantifiable statistics are even provided, at that. This tells us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how this plane will perform in combat. Instead of buying a 'pig in a poke', if Canadian enthusiasts of the F-35 had any brains in their heads, they would wait until Israel receives theirs. Wait the 12 to 36 months until Israel starts its next war with Gaza, Lebanon or possibly Iran and uses the F-35. Then you will see whether the F-35 performs as promised or not and the degree to which it exceeds or falls below expectations. And then decide whether it is suited for Canada's needs and whether to purchase it or not. Like I said, take my advice and never go to a used car lot by yourself and UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES go to a used car lot with a credit card, checkbook or money in your pocket.

"I don't know why you are talking about WWII fighters, tactics and technology have changed since then. For example, jet engines and precision weapons are a good place to start to get you up to speed."

I couldn't agree with you more. Follow your own advice junior, and look up the history of jet engines, jet fighters, jet bombers, infra-red technology, Airborne Interception radar, swept-back wings, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, non-guided and guided ground-to-ground, air-to-air, air-to-ground, air-to-surface, surface-to-surface and ground-to-air (AA) missiles, VTOL aircraft, the first helicopters used in combat, rocket motors, pulse jets, ram jets and ECM/EW. Look up the word "chaff" coupled with WW2. Look up scram jet and "Sanger" also spelled as "Saenger."

Form a mental picture in your head of the B-2. Got it? Now look up "Gotha Go-60" and "Gotha Go-229."

Then come back and in your next post, please inform us what you have learned.

Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Talking like 'one just fell off the turnip truck' is tragic and is so unnecessary.

Hope this helps!

Hello, just discovered this, and I wasn't even looking for it. The link was provided at antiwar.com:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/29/2806149/f-35-started-with-recipe...

Yep, that Kool-Aid you're drinking must taste reeeeaaaally gooooood. Slurp, slurp. Yum, yum.

Haha this is good, one of the guys said you must love abuse, because you are proved wrong in every post and you keep coming back for more.  We are a making progress though, and everyone at rabble can read through my facts clearing up a lot of misconceptions about the F-35 and military history in general.  For example you now know what F-117s were facing over Baghdad in Desert Storm, as you don't mention it any more or can't possibly find a reputable source to contradict it, I guess it must be true hey?  Thats good we are making progress and the rabble readers will benefit. 

Oh and I wouldn't say I've never done any time in the military, I know the CAF quite well.

So again some corrections from your post:

US Navy still uses the F-14 - WRONG - look up f-14 retirement

It wasn't the Gotha GO-229 and 60 it was Gotha HO-229, just so you know.

The comments about arctic survival are true read the post carefully, survival time COULD be mere minutes, look up Survival Training and the Rule of 3.  Our aircrew are taught these concepts during BSERE, you might want to look that one up too if you don't know it.  At no time was anyone suggesting the aircrew is on it's own once ejected and left to die without any help, they do have the ejection seat survival pack which is ok, but a better option is a SKAD could be dropped in. (you might want to look that one up too) The whole COULD comes from the possibility the pilot is injured or knocked out during ejection which means survival time could be mere minutes.  All pilots know this risk and yet there are no shortage of men who fly single engine jets over the arctic.  So as you see even in your post you describe some of things done to avert risk of working in the arctic.  The whole single engine or dual debate is pointless, the JSF single engine is that reliable if not the US Navy would not be buying them.

My point about your listing of military aircraft as possible options for Canada's next fighter just shows you have little understanding of current military aircraft.  You list heavy bombers which only the US can afford, aircraft which never made it into production, aircraft out of production for years if not decades.  All listed like possible alternatives to the F-35 yet to make your arguement more realistic you could have included current fighters being pushed by several nations as an alternatives for the F-35.  But you missed that opportunity and as such look like an uninformed idiot.  But judging from previous posts your knowledge about military aircraft and tactics are severely limited.  Here is an assignment list those aircraft that are possible alternatives to the F-35, off hand I count 5 at least. 

Talking about limited knowlege of air force tactics and history, you seem to think legacy fighters are armoured?  You think F-16s, 18s, and 15Es routinely fly at low levels and let every lone enemy with a gun shoot at them?  I would hate to have you designing tactics for my Air Force, I wouldn't have any aircraft left after the first day.  These aircraft use altitude and speed as survivability, the JSF will do the same, even strafing runs are conducted from some height and speed, with little probability of small-arms hitting the fighter.  The F-16, again single engine, has filled the attack role for the USAF for some time, the F-35 will do the same.  All these legacy fighters are unarmoured, the only reason the A-10 is so armoured is that it is so slow, and it is still only used in areas where AAA guns are minimal.  Now if your talking about the COIN (you keeping up with the military terms yet?) role the A-10s sometimes undertake, in the future this will be handled most likely by the AT-6B  (go look it up).

As for the F-35 being fragile, well the version we are getting can pull more G than our CF-18s.  CF-35 when in service will be able to withstand 9+ G, our hornets limited to around 7 (bet you didn't know that did you).  Wait, with your limited knowledge you probably don't know the advantages of pulling more G for air to air combat, or how robust an aircraft has to be to withstand that load.  I will let you research it and get back to me on how the F-22 and F-35 are "fragile"

Non stealthy use of the F-35 in low intensity conflicts?  You do know other countries use heavier aircraft (B-1B, B-52, F-15Es) in Afghanistan all the time, why wouldn't they use the F-35?  It is cheaper than those mentioned ulitmately.  You still seem to be stuck on this idea that it is a Stealth "only" fighter, don't buy the Stephen Staples bullshit line.  Anyone with any military knowledge will now know you are an idiot.  The plane was called the Joint STRIKE fighter even before the jet came together on the drawing board. 

For the performance of the F-35A (the version we are buying) it is way ahead in avionics testing compared to the F-22.  Look up Lockheed CATBird, and tell me why avionics tested is progressing nicely. 

Nice list of terms you came up with, did you google those?  What did you want to know about each?  The history, how tactics have changed? What?  Some of the terms don't even pertain to this discussion, 1st combat helicopters, ICBMs, Saenger?  They are good reads from an historical point of view but have little to do with this discussion.  Here are some terms more befitting to this discussion AESA, sensor fusion, RCS, AIM-9X, SBD, JDAM, affordable stealth, and net-centric warfare.  That might bring you into this century in terms of Air Force weapons and tactics. 

Hope this helps! 

PS my kool-aid tastes better than the crap you are drinking!

I couldn't care less how many SAMs there were in Baghdad during Operation Desert Storm. If I did, I would have done the research to have avoided that mistake. (I'd also be blogging on sites where guys like you spank off to that kind of prowar pornography.) The fact that there were no U.S. aircraft downed over Baghdad during Desert Shield renders it a moot point. What matters to me is that these unnecessary wars of aggression are vile, obscene war crimes.

(The) Horten (brothers) were the designers that made the models. Gotha was the company that manufactured the Go-229 prototypes. (I won't put too fine a point on it, but it's a bit immature to make such petit points btw. I guess that's what some people do when they lose arguments but cannot graciously concede quarter and instead stubbornly persist.)

Your Navy argument is another classic example of the ludicrous. The U.S. Navy is going to deploy the F-35 aboard aircraft carriers. The carriers will ferry the F-35s as close as possible to where their future airbase is, then they will fly (a distance within their range) to their airbases.

The F-35 is not going to be deployed as a VLR (Very Long Range) maritime patrol aircraft flying thousands of miles in the middle of the Pacific, thousands of miles from any humanity.

Just because the U.S. Navy enthusiastically endorses the F-35 the conclusion, of necessity, does not follow that this therefore proves that the F-35 was built to be a long range aircraft and that its single engine is what give it this capability.

The only aircraft that I said that would best suit Canada's needs was the ECM/RB-111 NOT THE OTHERS. (As for foreign aircraft that would meet Canada's needs, I did think of the MiG-29 but didn't mention it because it's easier and cheaper getting replacement parts etc., for the American aircraft i.e., the ECM/RB-111) I wrote about those other aircraft in entirely different contexts. Please read the appropriate sections again - I mean when you're OFF your psychadelic drugs.

The A-10 is a dedicated ground attack aircraft. Look at what its characteristics are.

The F-15, F-16 and F-35 are dedicated fighters. Look at what their charateristics are. (The F-16 is a pure fighter. It has never been deployed in combat in the attack role.)

Notice how the fighter and (ground) attack capabilities contradict each other? Yet you persist in your hallucinogen induced argument that the F-35 is the ultimate fighter-attack or "strike" aircraft. THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. The performance requirements for the two roles, as I said, are contradictory. When you try to improve the capabilites of one role in the same aircraft, you tradeoff or degrade the capabilities of the other role and visa versa. That is a fact of reality of the world we live in. If you still do not understand this simple and obvious concept, please let me know and I'll explain it further in my next post, I'll use your aviationweek link to do it.

"All these legacy fighters are unarmoured,..." WRONG! They all have armor plating around their (internal) fuel tanks, engines and cockpits, even the single engine, single seat day fighters of WW2 had that, FFS.

"The only reason that the A-10 is so armoured is that it is so slow." And why do you think it is so slow? Two reasons, genius:

1) The extensive heavy armor plating of the A-10 contributes (among other things) to its slowness.

2) As a (ground) attack aircraft, it is used after air dominance/supremacy has been achieved. The A-10 was not designed to engage enemy fighter/interceptors. Therefore, it doesn't need to be fast, have a high rate of climb, operate at high altitudes and be manoueverable, in contrast to the fighters (like the F-35.)

Air power alone does not win wars. After air dominance/supremacy has been achieved (what you call "high intensity" combat), troops need to move in and capture the ground - the phase you call "low intensity" combat.

As you seem to have no fucking clue as what an "attack aircraft" is, here's your clue:

Some synonyms for attack when referring to attack aircraft are "ground attack" and "close support" aircraft because that is what they are designed to do - attack targets on the ground in close support of the troops.

Aircraft that are not ground attack planes that knock out ground targets from high altitudes are used during what you call the high intensity phase of combat. The targets they take out are large, strategic targets. They are not used for the 'penny ante' stuff that ground attack aircraft take care of. Like individual or small groups of tanks, AFVs, bunkers, hard points and guerrilla fighters caught in the open. Another reason is that firing long range missiles and dropping bombs from high altitude runs too great a risk of causing casualties to one's own troops. That is why ground attack aircraft operate from close range. Unlike the strategic aircraft, ground attack aircraft have radio contact with the troops on the ground. The ground troops can direct a ground attack aircraft to a specific target.

"[The A-10] ... is still only used in areas where AAA guns are minimal." Yeah, no kidding genius. It is during what you call the "high intensity" phase of combat where the dedicated bombers have knocked out the strategic weapons like the larger caliber AAA guns.

Targets like tanks, AFVs, bunkers, hard points and insurgent fighters (if their command area is attacked) have small caliber AA, usually in the 13 to 20mm range. Do some research and see where a good portion the armor plating is located on the A-10. You will notice it is along the underside. That is to protect the A-10 from groundfire.

"... the COIN ... role the A-10s sometimes undertake,..." Oy-yoi-yoi, you really have no fucking clue what you are talking about, do you?

COunter+INsurgency=COIN. COIN is a doctrine that was put on paper by the military during the Vietnam War. In 2007 when the U.S. was losing the Iraq War II abysmally, CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus discovered it, dusted it off and started using bits and pieces of it here and there and employing it with his own personal spin. Gen. Stanley McCrystal when he was the top commander in Afghanistan started using it in 2009 - 2010. COIN is a theory/concept/doctrine of warfare that is more political than military. It is about "winning the hearts and minds", it is about cooperating with the locals, it is about reducing airstrikes, largescale military offensives and aggressive warfare and reducing civilian casualties.

When McCrystal was turfed out, Petraeus replaced him as top commander in Afghanistan. Petraeus is currently increasing the number of airstrikes and so far appears to be abandoning COIN. As a result, the number of civilian casualties has/is increasing, the number of coalition troop casualties is increasing, the level of violence is increasing and the regions of insurgent activity is spreading. The kind of warfare waged now is not Counter Insurgency (COIN), it's Counter Terrorism (CT.)

Concerning the "strength" of the F-35. G-forces put area pressure on structures, ammunition puts point pressure on structures. The F-35 surviving high G-forces yet being shredded by small caliber AA fire is, according to the laws of physics, entirely consistent. G-force area pressure and point pressure or stress are two completely different things.

To help you understand, here's a simple experiment you can try at home. Take a raw egg. Place your thumb on the bottom and your forefinger on the top. Now squeeze. Notice how no matter how hard you squeeze, you will never break the egg? That is area pressure. Now take a pin, needle, pen, pencil or nail. Press that object onto either the top or bottom of the egg. What your fingers couldn't do, the object accomplishes. That is point pressure or stress.

For the performance of the F-35A... it is way ahead in avionics testing compared to the F-22. Yes, my way of putting it was, if you recall, "The F-22 was mothballed and superceded by the F-35"

"Look up Lockheed CATBird, and tell me why avionics tested is progressing nicely." Well I'm very glad that avionics testing for the F-35 is progressing "nicely." I could give a FUCK and here is the reason why:

Imagine I am a combat general. A Captain comes up to me and says, "Sir, your troops' training is progressing ["nicely"] outstandingly, the progress of the troops is really stunning!" Upon hearing this my thoughts would be, "Yeah, but how will they perform in combat."

Classroom training and simulated war games are not the same as deploying the troops in combat on the battlefield. No matter how much classroom training and sim. battle training you put troops through, no one ever knows how they will ultimately perform in combat until they enter the live battlefield. Does this make sense?

"Nice list of terms you came up with,... What did you want to know about each?

... I don't know why you are talking about WWII fighters, tactics and technology have changed since then. For example jet engines and precision weapons are a good place to start to get you up to speed."

Let me rearrange the second part of your quote to present your argument as clearly as possible:

Premise 1: WW2 had certain kinds of fighters, tactics and technology.

Premise 2: Air war tactics and technology have changed since then.

Premise 3: Jet engines (and jet fighters and bombers, etc.,) and precision weapons (i.e., air-to-air guided missiles) are examples of technology that have changed after WW2.

Conclusion: Jet engines (and jet fighters and bombers, etc.,) and precision weapons (i.e., air-to-air guided missiles) did not exist in WW2.

The purpose of the google search I asked you to perform was to prove to you that your above argument is demonstrably false.

Technology doesn't exist in a vacuum. "New" technology doesn't just spontaneously appear out of nowhere.

Example, the genesis of the B-2 (flying wing) is the Gotha Go-229. The genesis of today's ECM/EW is the airborne interception radar of the nightfighters and the "chaff" of Allied bombers of WW2.

Think guided air-to-air missiles and standoff aerial warfare are post WW2 modern tactics and technology? Think again:

http://www.informationdelight.info/encyclopedia/entry/Live-action/X-4_mi...

Think the Lockheed-Martin Blackswift is a phenomenon possible only in the 21st Century? http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/06/blackswift-redu/ Think again. Work on rocket powered, supersonic, space entry Sanger "Amerika Bomber" in WW2 Germany is the Blackswift's forerunner.

OMG buddy, your third and fourth full paragraphs are completely disconnected not only from reality but also all rational and logical thought processes. Stop taking that hallucinogenic Kool-Aid. It's neither good for you or your brain.

Insanity is persistently clinging to beliefs and ideas after they have been repeatedly proven either demostrably or logically false.

I realize that the learning curve for you is very steep. If you are learning but won't publicly admit it on this site, then you have my apologies for making your brain hurt.

"Now if your talking about the COIN ... [author's definition: ground attack during low intensity combat] ... role the A-10s sometimes take, in the future this will be handled most likely by the AT-6B (go look it up).

Sorry I didn't have time earlier. Just looked it up.

You're joking, right?

If not, then HEAVENS NO, DEAR CHILD!

First, in the U.S. military official nomenclature for aircraft, do you even know what the "AT" stands for? The "A" in this case, does not stand for "Attack." The "AT" stands for "Advanced Trainer." As in its grandfather - the North American AT-6 Texan, for example.

If anything the Beechcraft AT-6B Texan II will be used to train American pilots how to operate A-10s. By no stretch of the imagination will the AT-6B ever take over handling ground attack combat missions from the A-10 by the U.S. military, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

It clearly shows the racism behind the American Empire.

Let's examine more closely:

The AT-6B only has armor plating around the (internal) fuel tank(s) and cockpit; standard armor for WW2 fighters.

It has a single inline piston engine. By contrast, a radial engine is more robust. All it takes is a single round (as small as 13mm) to hit the right spot in the engine and the plane and pilot become a grease spot on the desert floor.

In terms of gun armament, the A-10 has a 20mm or 30mm multi-barrel gatling gun as standard.

The AT-6B has a single .50 cal machinegun that is not standard. It is offered as an add-on in a detachable pod.

In an effort to "make a buck" Uncle Sam has painted lipstic on this pig and is offering it as a "light attack" aircraft to pre-industrial foreign countries. You can bet the DOD, the Pentagon, the MIC and Beechcraft are eyeing Iraq and Afghanistan for future sales. In this role its duty is described as "light combat" which would mean insurgents caught in the open armed only with AK-47s and RPGs, nothing heavier.

Apart from its avionics, it is a low tech/low cost aircraft.

Its avionics consist of the most state of the art early warning detection. It needs to be warned of approaching hostile aircraft or the existence of radar guided ground-to-air AA so it can leave the area as soon as possible. Should a missile or rocket ever hit the AT-6, it would be vaporized. Should the AT-6 be hit with a burst of gunfire, this "one shot lighter" would go up in flames like a gas soaked paper airplane.

Unfortunately, the U.S. supreme court has ruled that the U.S. military cannot be tried for the murder of U.S. military personnel in civilian courts. This is what the American Empire's military machine is: criminal murderers when they have people fly combat missions in the Beechcraft AT-6.

P.S. Were you making a comparison with the AT-6B and the F-35 when both are deployed as "non-stealth" aircraft in the ground attack role? If so, you really ought to apologize to the F-35. You've hurt its feelings.

As an aside, notice how the Beechcraft AT-6B resembles the D and H models of the North American P-51 Mustang.

Nice!  Now you know what the Allied (and it was an UN mandated mission, so don't give me that American war of agression bullshit) aircraft had to deal with in Desert Storm.  But again you dissapoint, because you think that no aircraft were lost due to the Iraqi's "crappy" air defenses.  WRONG - none were lost directly over Baghdad because of the destruction of the Iraqi's command and control centres (as well as AA installations).  They were too scared to turn on radar's in fear of reprisal, the only thing they could do was to blindly fire their AAA in hopes of getting a lucky shot.  Now you know, look another misconception is cleared up. 

You can thank me later about clarifying the whole single engine over the arctic deathtrap issue, as was mentioned the reliability of even older single engine fighters are great, and the new engines are even better.  This coupled with the training our pilots recieve make arctic patrol missions less risky.  - See isn't it nice to have Air Force friends to detail what training they do?  Oh and some say you are ret*&ded and obviously have no practical knowledge of any current military hardware or tactics.  You seem to be stuck in a time period before the 1980s.

Case in point, you are saying the F-16, F-18, and F-15s are armoured.  No they are not, if you can find any actual evidence they have armour plating in them you should go buy a lottery ticket.  I'll give you a hint, the original program to design what was to become the F-16 and eventually the F-18 for the Navy was called the Light-weight Fighter program.  The F-16 won this contest and due to significantly less weight (and better performance) than the YF-17.  The YF-17 would become the F-18 for the Navy, again designed to be lighter and more affordable than the heavy F-14s of the time.  Each of these aircraft carry no armour plating, but that doesn't mean they are not survivable, whole sections of wings and control surfaces can be lost and the aircraft can still make it back to base due to the nature of the redundant fire-by-wire system.  Each engine can take a significant amount of gun fire also and still operate.  Oh and just a hint about the original F-15s its motto was "not a pount for the ground".  Do you think they added armour for the F-15E Strike Eagle version?  nope.  Which brings us back to square one the JSF, which like I have been saying does every the CF-18 does just better. 

Another miconception: "the Navy will get their carriers as close to future airbases as possible and then ferry their aircraft to these airbases".  Again I laugh, you need look at your geography buddy is there any oceans close to Afghanistan?  You should measure the distance, in the beginning of Enduring Freedom carrier based Strike Fighters flew hours to get to their targets, aerial refueling (yes we have that capability now) along the way and returned to their carriers after.   Another indication of the reliability of single engine fighters - just look at the ferry flights of US F-16s over the ocean to bases in the middle-east, non-stop.  Seems pretty reliable to me.  These are very simple concepts but you seem to be having a very hard time understanding them, I can give more examples if need be. 

On to the A-10 you seem to think I am comparing the JSF, (and earlier F-16, 18, 15Es) in direct relation to the airframe construction of the A-10.  You have found out yourself it is a "dedicated" ground attack aircraft, the legacy fighters and JSF are multi-role.  Which means multi-role fighters or Strike fighters (look up the definition from an earlier post) conduct ground attack missions as well as air to air (as needed).  All these aircraft are quite efficient in attacking ground targets, the differance is in their tactics and weapons usage.  The A-10 flies slow to provide more loiter time, the other fighter being unarmoured fly faster and a bit higher to provide more safety.  All these aircraft have done strafing gun runs on targets in Iraq and Afghanistan, even the large F-15E.  All these aircraft presently and in the future will make better use of longer range weapons. 

"armour makes the A-10 slow", Wrong the aircraft's wing design makes it slow, a straight high-lift wing limits the top speed of the jet. You can have twice as powerful engines and it still will not be any faster.  The addition of armour is necessary for survivability of the slow A-10  See isn't that great you are learing even more, so when you are talking about these things to people who understand them you will not sound like someone from the Rideau Institute (AKA IDIOT).  A high lift wing is desirable for carrying lots of bombs, and a big gun with lots of ammo.  Which is the main strength of the A-10 it carries a big gun.  If your advocating that Canada instead should buy former US A-10s for ground attack and another for a dedicated air to air fighter you might find that a bit expensive.  No the mulit-role JSF will do fine for us. 

Still don't get it?  Close air support is not solely done by the the A-10 the world over, for example: in relation to CAS in Afghanistan "CAS relying on the use of GPS guided weapons has evolved into a devastating tactical environment.  B-1Bs and B-52s in the beginning of the conflict accounted for a large percentage of CAS missions.  Once airbases in Afghanistan were taken over, the CAS role fell to the multi-national force.  Participants include: Belgium (F-16), Denmark (F-16), France (Mirage 2000D), Netherlands (F-16), Norway (F-16), the UK (GR7s, GR9s, and GR4s), and the US (F-16, F/A-18 C/D/E/Fs, A-10, Harriers, F-14s and F-15Es)

Wow look at all those single engine fighters doing the CAS mission, according to your methodology that is impossible.  Of course your methodology is pretty dated.  You may be misunderstanding my comment "these fighters use speed and altitude to provide safety".  Safe altitude in a ground attack role could be as little as 1000ft, just above the range of small arms fire.  A-10s go lower but they of course do have armour.  One of the biggest capabilities needed for successful CAS is good situation awareness, a picture of where friendlies are on the ground and communication equipment to guide weapons onto a target.  The F-35 has the most advanced sensors and comm equipment coupled with the most efficient human interface will make the F-35 reportedly 4x more efficient than fighters it will replace.   Reread these last two paragraphs a couple times and tell my why the F-35 JSF will be a more capable Strike figher than the aircraft it will replace. 

Hey genius, there is no such thing as a ECM/RB-111.  I will let you look up the correct designation and you will also probably find no one flies these aircraft anymore either.  FYI

Well this is probably enough for now, as you are a slow learner, so I will let you read that over, research the new terms and ideas before correcting your latest post.