dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
25622

FaxCap
join:2002-05-25
Surrey, BC

FaxCap to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs

Re: How many engines on the interceptors?

My God!!! They managed to get 4 in the air at the same time!!!

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· MtclDj1g


FaxCap

Mark
I stand with my feet
join:2009-07-11
Canada

Mark

Member

I'm *shuddering* at the man-hours that probably took, could probably service every Saab Gripen ever produced for an entire year for the same tally.

horsey
@eastlink.ca

horsey

Anon

said by Mark:

I'm *shuddering* at the man-hours that probably took, could probably service every Saab Gripen ever produced for an entire year for the same tally.

Yea it is a DOG.... cant even afford the rainbow smoke after all that cash,,,,
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

1 edit

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

The U.S. Navy has reduced its planned buys of the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter by almost one-third over the fiscal 2016-2020 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), while committing almost $800 million to new standoff weapon developments and canceling the only missile program that was primarily dedicated to the F-35C. All the new developments are part of the fiscal 2016 presidential budget proposal and constitute the first move by a U.S. service to slow down its JSF procurements.

This year’s budget buys four F-35Cs, including two added late in 2014 by the lame-duck Congress. The Navy now plans to buy another four aircraft each in FY2016 and 2017. The rate ramps up slowly in the final three years of the FYDP, peaking at 12 aircraft in FY2020 and buying 38 F-35Cs in the plan period. The FYDP includes 83 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, unchanged from earlier years.

Under 2015 plans the Navy would have bought 54 F-35Cs in the FY16-20, with F-35C production reaching 20 per year in 2020. 19. The JSF Program Office states that “the Navy’s commitment to the program remains strong” and that it expects hopes like hell - Praised be Mary, Mother of God the Navy’s cutbacks to be offset by international JSF procurements ("or we're totally fucked").”

The Navy says that the reduction is budget-driven. In fiscal 2020, each of the 12 F-35Cs has a gross weapon system unit cost of $144 million (44% more than the Air Force’s F-35A) and a flyaway cost of $131 million. The weapon system unit cost of the F-35B averages $147 million at its full 20/year production rate. In total, 2020 the Navy expects to spend $4.7 billion for 32 F-35s in 2020. In 2013, the service spent $3.7 billion for 49 new fighters, comprising 37 F/A-18E/Fs and 12 EA-18Gs.

------

Slower procurement rates drives up the ultimate cost of the aircraft.

Seriously, if Canada was concerned about sovereignty protection in the North and contributing to NATO efforts (outside of ground attack), we'd buy a bunch (10 or so) AWACS types for OTH longwave anti-stealth aircraft detection/tracking.

We'd also get 20 Boeing 787's (@about $200MM each) (or better yet late-model Airbus A340's - buy 40 of them used for .LT. $50MM each and use a bunch for spare parts) and convert them into BVR missile launching platforms carrying 50-100 air-to-air missiles (long range anti-aircraft/anti-missile) and/or air-surface (Harpoons, etc..) each, and a few extra refueling tankers.

One such converted B-787 or A340 could loiter on-station for hours after reaching its Arctic patrol area. At FL40 with the correct radar frequencies it could 'see' stealth aircraft at huge distances due to the enormous output power the radar could generate, and the missile load of one plane would equal that of a squadron of F-35's
(costing about 10x as much in capital cost alone). Even though the converted airliners aren't stealthy, it can stay over friendly territory, detect/track/launch from great distances, and we can let the Americans provide close-in (under 100km) defensive coverage with their stealth aircraft (NORAD anyone?).

Heck, even add some 'tanking' capacity to one of these 'missile trucks' and you can then have a pair of EA-18G's (active jamming aircraft) tag along each flight. Bingo - a giant anti-stealth radar in the sky with massive attack/defense capability, and a pair of close-in jammers to protect the missile truck from any 'leakers'.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

said by MaynardKrebs:

Seriously, if Canada was concerned about sovereignty protection in the North and contributing to NATO efforts (outside of ground attack), we'd buy a bunch (10 or so) AWACS types for OTH longwave anti-stealth aircraft detection/tracking.

We'd also get 20 Boeing 787's (@about $200MM each) (or better yet late-model Airbus A340's - buy 40 of them used for .LT. $50MM each and use a bunch for spare parts) and convert them into BVR missile launching platforms carrying 50-100 air-to-air missiles (long range anti-aircraft/anti-missile) and/or air-surface (Harpoons, etc..) each, and a few extra refueling tankers.

One such converted B-787 or A340 could loiter on-station for hours after reaching its Arctic patrol area. At FL40 with the correct radar frequencies it could 'see' stealth aircraft at huge distances due to the enormous output power the radar could generate, and the missile load of one plane would equal that of a squadron of F-35's
(costing about 10x as much in capital cost alone). Even though the converted airliners aren't stealthy, it can stay over friendly territory, detect/track/launch from great distances, and we can let the Americans provide close-in (under 100km) defensive coverage with their stealth aircraft (NORAD anyone?).

Heck, even add some 'tanking' capacity to one of these 'missile trucks' and you can then have a pair of EA-18G's (active jamming aircraft) tag along each flight. Bingo - a giant anti-stealth radar in the sky with massive attack/defense capability, and a pair of close-in jammers to protect the missile truck from any 'leakers'.

interesting proposition...can't say i necessarily disagree with it either...however, there is more to our forces than just protecting our sovereignty...we also have NATO obligations to meet...i am not sure how such a combination would work in that part.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

4 edits

1 recommendation

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by dirtyjeffer0:

...however, there is more to our forces than just protecting our sovereignty...we also have NATO obligations to meet...i am not sure how such a combination would work in that part.

It would work exactly as it does in other NATO areas with us:
We belong and are active participants in NATO even though.....
- we have a small navy
- we don't have any aircraft carriers
- we don't have nuclear subs that launch ICBM's (or anything right now for that matter)
- we don't have beach assault hovercraft to land troop/equipment

We have a little of most things, none of some things, and specialize in nothing.

Heck, with all the money we save doing something like I suggested, we'd even have leftover money to buy a boatload of Cormorant SAR helicoptors to rescue all those US pilots shot down in their "Can't turn. Can't climb. Can't run." F-35's.

Or instead of the big AWACS planes, we get Bombardier to build 100+ expendible drones similar to the Northrop Grumman X-47B. Pack them full of passive radar sensors in the skin, AESA radars and optical cameras and IRST for tracking/targeting, and fly them @ FL80+ over 'enemy territory' or @ the 12-mile limit, or a couple hundred miles ahead of our missile trucks. Even make some jammer models. The drones really don't have to be all-aspect stealthy at that altitude - mostly head-on and from below.

----

As to the 'missile truck', here's a recent development that can prove interesting....
SM-6 missiles just being rolled out by the US Navy. It's an unholy hybrid of the long-range rocket motor from the SM-3, the agile aerodynamic body of the SM-2, and the nose of an AMRAAM air-to-air missile, normally carried by fighter planes. It’s the borrowed AMRAAM components in particular that let the SM-6 pick out tricky targets like a cruise missile maneuvering at low altitude and low speed over land. Even in the desert, the land is never as smooth and flat as the sea, so a low-flying target can hide itself amidst the “ground clutter” of natural features — hills, rocks, buildings — that also show up on radar. But the AMRAAM seeker also works just fine against supersonic aerial targets too.
When fired from a ship, it has about a 250km range. If air launched from FL40 it's range might be as much as twice as far.

We could even build batteries of electromagnetic rail guns around the Arctic, a relatively low cost item ('cept for getting fuel for the generators there), which could fire low-cost AA munitions 50-100 miles, ie. boost a 50lb. rocket to FL60 using the rail gun then let the rocket motor kick-in and let the seeker head find the target from there. It's our own version of the Maginot Line.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to FaxCap

Premium Member

to FaxCap
Forget the 4 planes, while it doesn't affect us directly , whose paying for this? Many football games have these flyovers, and yet they criticize Russians and North Koreans for their "parades"

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

said by elwoodblues:

Forget the 4 planes, while it doesn't affect us directly , whose paying for this? Many football games have these flyovers, and yet they criticize Russians and North Koreans for their "parades"

i'm guessing here, but i suppose it would be possible to co-ordinate said flyovers with regular flight training drills...meaning, the flyovers don't really cost anything, since the pilots would be flying anyway (just somewhere else).
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1 to elwoodblues

Premium Member

to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

Many football games have these flyovers, and yet they criticize Russians and North Koreans for their "parades"

The American aerial demonstration teams (Blue Angels and Thunderbirds) as well as others (Canada's Snowbirds, RAF's Red Arrows) serve many purposes.

Morale within the military branch involved, aspirations of pilots who want to serve in the units, development and maintenance of advanced flying techniques, recruiting tool....

-----

These teams demonstrate finesse and skill.

By contrast, if the Russians put a big missile on a big truck and parade it through Red Square, that's more a demonstration of brute force and overall prowess, as well as driving the truck.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by PX Eliezer1:

said by elwoodblues:

Many football games have these flyovers, and yet they criticize Russians and North Koreans for their "parades"

The American aerial demonstration teams (Blue Angels and Thunderbirds) as well as others (Canada's Snowbirds, RAF's Red Arrows) serve many purposes.

Morale within the military branch involved, aspirations of pilots who want to serve in the units, development and maintenance of advanced flying techniques, recruiting tool....

-----

These teams demonstrate finesse and skill.

By contrast, if the Russians put a big missile on a big truck and parade it through Red Square, that's more a demonstration of brute force and overall prowess, as well as driving the truck.

So I guess if they actually erected the missile in Red Square during the parade and launched it, that would be more on par with what you say the Thunderbirds do?
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

said by MaynardKrebs:

So I guess if they actually erected the missile in Red Square during the parade and launched it, that would be more on par with what you say the Thunderbirds do?

1) Don't forget your own Snowbirds.
»www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.c ··· dex.page

2) Depends on where they aimed it.
BrianON
join:2011-09-30
Ottawa, ON

BrianON to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

So I guess if they actually erected the missile in Red Square during the parade and launched it, that would be more on par with what you say the Thunderbirds do?

No the Russian Knights do what the Thunderbirds do.

Mass parades of military strength like Victory Day parades in Red Square have little in common with performances by acrobatic demonstration teams.
MichelR
join:2011-07-03
Trois-Rivieres, QC

MichelR

Member

They also have the Russian Swifts.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to BrianON

Premium Member

to BrianON
said by BrianON:

said by MaynardKrebs:

So I guess if they actually erected the missile in Red Square during the parade and launched it, that would be more on par with what you say the Thunderbirds do?

No the Russian Knights do what the Thunderbirds do.

Mass parades of military strength like Victory Day parades in Red Square have little in common with performances by acrobatic demonstration teams.

Yeah, but the missile exhaust plume incinerating Red Square would be a sight to behold. I'd like my Lenin extra crispy, please.
MaynardKrebs

3 edits

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

The Arrow

Get/read all the articles here before they disappear from view

»aviationweek.com/blog/19 ··· en-arrow

"When Aviation Week reported on the fighter's rollout, in October 1957, the magazine called it "a serious contender for the top military aircraft of the next several years"

"But the Arrow was extraordinary, .........."

"The CF-105 was a different kettle of fish entirely, designed to shoot down Soviet jet bombers over the Arctic, long before shorter-legged U.S. interceptors could touch them. Key requirements were a big radar, large missile load, long range and high speed, and agility at high speed and altitude. Translated: get out a long way quickly and accomplish multiple engagements before returning to refuel."

"Technically, it went quite well. The first four Arrows proved fast, even with interim J75 engines that delivered only three-quarters of the Iroquois' thrust: on the seventh test flight, the first CF-105 accelerated through 1,000 mph in a climb at 50,000 feet."

"Would it have worked? The late Bill Gunston, technical editor of Flight in the 1950s and a shrewd reader of programs, believed that it would have done, particularly with British support (and the existence of Typhoon today shows how wrong the British government was in 1957). Even with the Soviet Union's backing away from strategic bombers in favor of missiles, the Arrow would have been very useful in Western Europe for defense against Tu-22M regional bombers."


Edit: Not until the 1970's F-15 Eagle was a Western fighter available with a thrust:weight ratio of greater than 1.

I weep for my country and the dolt Conservatives who have/continue to wreak havoc on it.

BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium Member
join:2004-04-13
Canada

BonezX

Premium Member

Don't just blame the Cons, the Libs have done some SERIOUSLY stupid moves in terms of defense spending(helo contract anyone ?, and we turned around and bought a different one that does the same thing for more money and we STILL don't have them.)
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

said by BonezX:

Don't just blame the Cons, the Libs have done some SERIOUSLY stupid moves in terms of defense spending(helo contract anyone ?, and we turned around and bought a different one that does the same thing for more money and we STILL don't have them.)

Yes, I agree ... to a point.
The biggest difference is that the Arrow would have jumpstarted an even bigger technological & innovative manufacturing base in this country that would have seen us more than just a resource-based economy for decades.

The CH-149 Cormorant helos were designed/built elsewhere. All we do is maintain them with mostly foreign-built parts.However I also agree that we should have purchased these as originally intended - the Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone substitute purchase is a big mistake (again almost all foreign-sourced).
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned)

Member

said by MaynardKrebs:

The CH-149 Cormorant helos were designed/built elsewhere. All we do is maintain them with mostly foreign-built parts.However I also agree that we should have purchased these as originally intended - the Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone substitute purchase is a big mistake (again almost all foreign-sourced).

That's hilarious because the whole reason we ended up with the whoefully inadequate CH-148 Cyclone is because of Liberals and other clueless commentors decided to re-write the procurement requirements, completely ignoring the requirements identified by the Department of National Defence in the process. The result is that we still don't have an operational maritime helicopter to replace the Sea Kings.

Even the subs haven't taken as long to reach operational status.

And now the same morons want to do the same damn thing again with the CF-18 replacement.
booj
join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

booj

Member

>completely ignoring the requirements identified by the Department of National Defence

Got a link to those requirements?
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

One other issue often overlooked with the F-35 is that of aerial refueling.
Our tankers use "probe & drogue" (like the US Navy), whereas the USAF uses the "flying boom".
So how does that affect us?

The F-35A (USAF version) uses the flying boom.
The F-35B (US Marines VTOL version) is a flying pig and uses probe & drogue.
The F-35C (US Navy) uses "drogue & probe".

We have no tankers which support the F-35A.
We aren't buying the F-35B.
The F-35C (navalized version) is heavier and has a shorter ranger than the F35A. How's that gonna work in Canada without more tankers?
The F-35B/C are also much more expensive than the F-35A

A probe & drogue equipped tanker can refuel 3 fighters simultaneously. A flying boom tanker can only refuel one fighter at a time.
One probe & drogue tanker can refuel a squadron of 12 fighters in about 20 mins. (approx 3-5 mins. each fuel flow time)
One flying boom tanker can refuel a squadron of 12 fighters in about 45 mins. (even though a flying boom can deliver more fuel/minute), by which time the first refueled fighter will be only 50-70% full.

So, are we also committing to buying a new much larger fleet of tankers to support F-35A's - either Airbus 330MRTT's or the forthcoming Boeing KC-46A, at $300MM+ USD each?
Or are we going to have to rely on USAF tankers all the time, everywhere?
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned) to booj

Member

to booj
said by booj:

>completely ignoring the requirements identified by the Department of National Defence

Got a link to those requirements?

I'm pretty damn sure the Department of National Defence doesn't do business over the internet, especially when the classified characteristics of a controlled good are concerned.
booj
join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

booj

Member

But somehow you pretend to know that the government ignored them. When it was Liberal government at least.
Now that the government is Conservative it doesn't ignore the requirements laid out to buy new jets. Instead it sole-sources in the best interest of Canada.

Sound about right?

Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium Member
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS

Anav to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

to MaynardKrebs

Re: How many engines on the interceptors?

Clearly, somewhere between what is required and what is contracted, occurs a significant disconnect. Perhaps short term satisfaction of potential voter areas overrides a strategic insurance policy and the right tools to do the job. Perhaps, keeping business cronies content is more important, the ones who donate gobs of money your way and or have your back when you get back to the business side of life, or the many intangible benefits one never sees (unlike loud Duffy). Perhaps demonstrating that a political promise can be kept, damn the consequences (haha just noted con in consequences), rules the day!

It does seem at the end of each gong show (aka procurement), a sorry result for those actually doing the job is the best we can hope for. :-(
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned) to booj

Member

to booj

Re: The Arrow

said by booj:

But somehow you pretend to know that the government ignored them. When it was Liberal government at least.

Oh I don't know, maybe because that's what they said they did back then, in the '90s. It was in their fucking electoral platform in 1993. I can't help it if you have no clue what you're talking about.
said by booj:

Now that the government is Conservative it doesn't ignore the requirements laid out to buy new jets. Instead it sole-sources in the best interest of Canada.

Sound about right?

There was a competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin to develop the JSF, Lockheed Martin won. As such they're the only company developing a next-gen fighter for western allies.

neochu
join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON

1 edit

neochu

Member

said by IamGimli:

said by booj:

Now that the government is Conservative it doesn't ignore the requirements laid out to buy new jets. Instead it sole-sources in the best interest of Canada.

Sound about right?

There was a competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin to develop the JSF, Lockheed Martin won. As such they're the only company developing a next-gen fighter for western allies.

A contest of which Canada had no part in designing, or dictating the critical elements of said design as a country. Only of that which made us a Teir 2 or 3 supplier so that "Made in Canada only" provisions could be by-passed. Otherwise the rules can be impossible at times.

This same issue happened when we bought the CF-18s as well. Now there are only two NAFTA approved contractors building military fighters and they call the shots of pricing and specifications.

Beyond that we could always throw out our mutual defence pact with the USA and NATO (like what was threatened with the CF-105).

As said before the fact that the Current government--due to political pressure from unrealistic expectations about a 100% Canadian made air-force--has basically shut down ALL military procurement until the rules are re-written by an already understaffed procurement team.

The Canadian Tax payer does not want to spend the 12 billion dollars to make a new fighter that will meet the DnD's specified military requirements and we have no political power to dictate those kinds of costing. We do not want to spend the money on building new infrastructure or increasing the size or depth of the Air Force as well to get out of our hotbox.

With "Lockheed" being shafted by our re-nig (and breach of legally signed contract) we have become the laughing stock of the world again. It will be hard to do buisness for any military procurement if things continue the way they are.

(This is one area where unless you have the money or facilities to supply, then the "competitive bidding" process does not work. You pay what the market offers or you don't acquire the product. Politics will not fix that and it has caused insane difficulty in this country in ALL aspects of military acquiration).

I suspect that the issue will be pushed to the next government in power. October is coming soon and its a no-win situation when there are other issues at hand.

Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium Member
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS

Anav to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

to MaynardKrebs

Re: How many engines on the interceptors?

What the short sighted politicos cant seem to get is that its not about hardware, its about software. ITAR and restrictive rules simply make a strong case that we should have nothing to do with procuring US military products and should be looking overseas. Other companies seem much more willing to have the customer witness all software testing and let us have a copy of the source code. AND FOR FAR CHEAPER!!!! I wouldnt trust any weapon system where I do not have 100Knowledge of what the code is doing. Anything we buy now and into the future will be controlled via processors or circuit boards (to a lesser extent) that are being run by millions of lines of code.

Xstar_Lumini
join:2008-12-14
CANADA

1 edit

Xstar_Lumini to Ian1

Member

to Ian1
LOL at all those people here that were rooting for the F-35 as Canada's next gen jetfighter!!

»The f-35 fighter program reportedly not going so well

Unsafe at any airspeed? The high-tech stuff that was supposed to make the F-35 among the most advanced war machines ever built pose serious safety risks. For example: The fuel tank system "is at significant risk of catastrophic fire and explosion in combat," according to POGO. The plane isn't adequately protected against lightning strikes (in the air or on the ground); it's currently prohibited from flying within 25 miles of thunderstorms. That's a major problem for a plane training program based in the Florida panhandle.

Flying blind: The F-35's fancy helmet-mounted display system, which is supposed to show pilots an almost 360-degree view that includes panel controls and threat information, has "high false alarm rates and false target tracks." Its unreliability, combined with the plane's design, make it impossible for pilots to see anything behind or below the cockpit.

Wing drop: The DOD report points out an ongoing problem with "wing drop": When maneuvering at high speeds, the F-35 may drop and roll to one side. This issue has been known to designers for years, and they've tried designing add-on parts to address the problem. The fixes, unfortunately, will "further decreas[e] maneuverability, acceleration, and range," according to POGO.

Engine trouble: For years the F-35s engines have suffered design and performance problems, and these problems have never been fully solved. Last summer these problems resulted in one engine ripping itself apart and destroying one of the planes. At the time, officials said this was a one-time occurrence, but a permanent fix has yet to be determined and the plane may not be airworthy, according to Department of Defense regulations.

Software bugs: The plane's software includes more than 30 million lines of code. Problems with the code are causing navigation system inaccuracies, false alarms from sensors, and false target tracks. The operating system is so cumbersome that it requires the "design and development of a whole new set of…computers." The software glitches also affect the plane's ability to "find targets, detect and survive enemy defenses, deliver weapons accurately, and avoid fratricide."


dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

nothing to LOL about...based on what we were told, the F35 looked like a promising and capable option...unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case now...IMO, the issue is trying to make the aircraft be a jack of all trades...the Navy wants their version, the Air Force wants their version, and other nations want their version (we want the regular basic model)...when taking a specialized product like this, and try to modify it to become "everything", you end up with problems...making so many versions was the issue here...they should have simply stuck with a regular one.

it's ok though, we haven't bought any so we aren't on the hook for any money right now, and the government is looking to reopen the bid and explore other options...and no, we won't be buying 1970s Brazilian aircraft, despite your suggestion last time on it.

FaxCap
join:2002-05-25
Surrey, BC

FaxCap to MaynardKrebs

Member

to MaynardKrebs
I really think Harper had best take a closer look. This is getting stupid.

F-15SE for home defense and F-18 Super Hornets to work with our NATO obligations.
Most of our NATO stuff seems to be strike rolls so the Super Hornet should work out just fine.

FaxCap

Xstar_Lumini
join:2008-12-14
CANADA

Xstar_Lumini to dirtyjeffer0

Member

to dirtyjeffer0
Blah bkah blah eh Dirtyjeffer? Just admit that you and your lot were wrong. I knew this F-35 jetfighter was nothing but an over-hyped, over-priced white elephant.

At this point even the brazilian Super Tucanos look attractive eh?