I like the take off and then pull up into verticle around 4:30
Also some of these turns are tighter than an F-16.

https://youtu.be/oce69c5TU2w

Well, there are reasons for backing out.. Years late, unsafe, not reliable, for double cost..
You don’t keep your promises I don’t keep mine.. simple as that..

Then get out, and let someone have the contracts. But you cant have both.

did not know that they joined in 1997.

If I had a job with lockheed. I would request an F-35B land right on the parliament lawn.

1. Why is the 700+ CR such a stretch? You do realize that the Absolute true radius is likely classified right?

2. External tanks haven’t even been tested the CR can only get better.

3. Using the 100nm jsm would extend the planes strike range even further.

The Lockheed Martin law suit will be EPIC.
*grabs popcorn*

Aww common Msphere. We are having a little fun at your expense. No hard feelings.

Actually history states that the U.S. had plans before WWII for an invasion of Canada AND Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red?wprov=sfla1

I’d advise against rejoicing until they actually sign a contract. Among other hurdles, the RCAF is yet to weigh in. They put out/leak a statement saying they don’t need an interim fighter and would prefer to buy a single type post-competition in time for the Hornet retirement and it would make it dman hard for the Canadian govt to sneak in the SH on grounds of operational urgency.

That apart, its a pretty odd stand from you. I thought you’d have been all eager to finally see a ‘fair’ competition where the F-35 can publicly get its comeuppance, and in the process also prove you right. Little bit of malicious joy aside should pale in front of the opportunity for complete vindication.

And yet the Liberal govt (if the report is accurate) seems to be shying away from a competition, despite having spent years howling for just such a thing. Clearly something has changed, some realizations have set it having finally received the keys to power (and information).

Theories?

If this goes through, Msphere will need a cold shower.
Bad lockheed news is the new June swimsuit issue apparently, LOL.

A whole lot of “likely” and “might”.. Which in reality spells out as rubbish.
Why would LM even want to Sue Canada for contract breach?? What contract???
What Billion of dollars????
If you could read and understand what you just posted..

You didn’t read the original article?

*edit I’m having trouble pasting the link 1 sec*

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-planning-to-buy-super-hornet-fighter-jets-before-making-final-decision-on-f-35s-sources-say

“Meanwhile, the Liberals have also refused to publicly rule out buying the F-35 since winning the election. It’s believed that’s because they have realized that the U.S. aerospace giant responsible for building the stealth fighter, Lockheed Martin, could hit the government with a massive lawsuit.”

It says LM could hit them with a lawsuit.

Is it then year dollars counting in an inflation adjustment for for money alteady spent as well or is it money spent accumulated + estimated cost at completion taking inflation estimates into account?

VLO ofcourse costs a price, though I doubt that it accounts for the bigger chunk in the F-35’s development cost. The technology is more mature these days and LM has extensive experience in that field. The STOVL capability is granted, but that’s actually a key point here. It apparently costs at least as much to develope 3 noticably
different variants based on an otherwise common type as it costs to develope three distinctively different types that btw all come in single and twin seat variants and in one case in a carrier variant as well.

That’s an invalid comparison as the Viggen and Mirage 2000 are earlier generation aircraft that share no commonality with their successors. The F-22 and F-35 are aircraft of the same generation and a number of technologies of the F-35 are directly based on those utilized by the F-22. I agree that additional investment was required and that the final systems are not exactly the same, but one would expect some cost efficiency here. The F-135 retains the F-119’s core for example. The AN/ASQ-239 is based on the AN/ALR-94, utilizing some more advanced technologies, the EOTS is based on the Sniper TGP etc. It’s fair to say, however, that there were some similar synergies for the ECDs in particular the PS-05A and ECR90 radars that took advantage of the Blue Vixen radar developef for the Sea Harrier FA.2. The Gripen utilized some more existing technologies such as the engine and that’s apparently one of the reasons why the development costs were apparently quite low.

Differences at Block 3F:
1) SEAD the F-35 lacks a dedicated ARM with the range, speed and thus reaction time to surpress airdefense systems. The F-35 can nonetheless perform this mission in general and take out airdefences combining its advanced ESM, target coordinate generation capabilities and INS/GPS guided weapons.

2) Naval strike. The F-35 lacks a credible anti-ship capability, a mission performed by F/A-18s for example.

3) Nuclear strike. If I’m not mistaken Block 3F doesn’t include the integration of a tactical nuke, like the B-61, which is also a mission performed by its pre-decessors.

4) Stand-off strikes using ACLMs as named by you already.

5) Video reconnaisance, albeit theoretically possible utilizing EOTS, there’s no indication of relevant software development in that field and the capabilities of certain podded systems are unlikely to be matched.

I think that’s enough to illustrate that the F-35 is by no means special in this aspect. It lacks certain mission roles/capabilities at the time it’s being declared as FOC, just as other types did before it, incl. the ECDs.

Isn’t JASSM scheduled to be intergrated?

For now 8 or more SDB 2 dropped on a surface combatant would wreck pretty badly.

“

Successfully Completes IOT&E Flight Testing

ORLANDO, Fla., May 13, 2013 – Lockheed Martin’s [NYSE: LMT] Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM®) Extended Range successfully completed U.S. Air Force Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) flight testing, scoring 20 successes in 21 flights, a success rate of 95 percent.
The JASSM-ER missiles demonstrated their effectiveness against a wide variety of operationally representative targets. The missiles were employed in all of the operational flight modes at the full range of release conditions. These missions were designed to validate the full operational capability for the B-1B/JASSM-ER weapon system.
“These flight tests demonstrate the operational effectiveness, suitability and overall mission capability of the JASSM-ER system,” said Dave Melvin, long range strike systems program manager at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “The successful completion of the testing program was the final milestone before a planned full-rate production decision, expected later in 2013.”
The successful completion of IOT&E testing follows several JASSM program milestones including:
Completion of Lot 6 baseline missile reliability assessment flights
Letter of offer and acceptance from the Republic of Finland to integrate JASSM onto its F/A-18 C/D aircraft
The U.S. Air Force Lot 10 contract award and integration on the U.S. Air Force F-15E.
JASSM is an autonomous, air-to-ground, precision-guided standoff missile designed to meet the needs of U.S. and allied warfighters. Armed with a penetrator and blast fragmentation warhead, JASSM cruises autonomously, day or night, in all weather conditions. The missile employs an infrared seeker and enhanced digital anti-jam GPS to find specific points on targets.
JASSM is integrated on the U.S. Air Force’s B-1, B-2, B-52, F-16 and F-15E. Internationally, JASSM is integrated on the F/A-18A/B for the Royal Australian Air Force. Future integration efforts will focus on the U.S. and international versions of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft and other international platforms such as the Finnish F/A-18 C/D.”