3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

Larbre34

It sounds like a fairly serious job needed to rectify the alignment, back in the shed maybe?

Id say theres a bit of a sweat on now, as Malta are due to to take Aoife off our hands in a month and the Government have just committed a ship to the EU humanitarian task force in the the Med

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/migrant-crisis-state-to-contribute-ship-to-rescue-operations-1.2186617

You would imagine Sam, Róisín or Niamh?

Silvera

Larbre34 wrote: »

It sounds like a fairly serious job needed to rectify the alignment, back in the shed maybe?

Id say theres a bit of a sweat on now, as Malta are due to to take Aoife off our hands in a month and the Government have just committed a ship to the EU humanitarian task force in the the Med

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/migrant-crisis-state-to-contribute-ship-to-rescue-operations-1.2186617

You would imagine Sam, Róisín or Niamh?

Eithne?
Largest rear deck space (+ hangar) on/in which to transport migrants

Larbre34

Silvera wrote: »

Eithne?
Largest rear deck space (+ hangar) on/in which to transport migrants

True. Is the hangar vacant? Is she worked up for a long deployment after asbestos-gate?

Ren2k7

These sorts of missions highlight the need for vessels with heli pads serving in a search and rescue roll. That's why I was suggesting acquiring the three River Class, the ones under construction if a deal could be arranged between the Irish and UK governments.

But if we cannot source those vessels we should look at acquiring ships with heli capabilities.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

These sorts of missions highlight the need for vessels with heli pads serving in a search and rescue roll. That's why I was suggesting acquiring the three River Class, the ones under construction if a deal could be arranged between the Irish and UK governments.

But if we cannot source those vessels we should look at acquiring ships with heli capabilities.

The ones under construction are over twice what we paid for the 3 Beckett's, short of substantially increasing the procurement budget there's no chance. Not too mention since we're unlikely to get back into the helicopter ops there's not going to be a build up of experience in supporting those operations.

Markcheese

Silvera wrote: »

Eithne?
Largest rear deck space (+ hangar) on/in which to transport migrants

didn't think eithne had a hanger ? I thought that was part of the reason they dropped using them -,
Would it take much to get it back usable for someone else's helicopters ?

a/tel

Larbre34 wrote: »

It sounds like a fairly serious job needed to rectify the alignment, back in the shed maybe?

Id say theres a bit of a sweat on now, as Malta are due to to take Aoife off our hands in a month and the Government have just committed a ship to the EU humanitarian task force in the the Med

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/migrant-crisis-state-to-contribute-ship-to-rescue-operations-1.2186617

You would imagine Sam, Róisín or Niamh?

Aoife is decommissioned so wouldnt be counting her a a ship in the fleet. Better to get Joyce's problems fixed rather than take her and have issues down the line that may effect operations. If i was a guessing man id say Eithne from the space point of view

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

didn't think eithne had a hanger ? I thought that was part of the reason they dropped using them -,
Would it take much to get it back usable for someone else's helicopters ?

No she has a hanger, think they use it for storage now, the deck is obstructed now by the crane so I'd say zero chance.

pilatus

Markcheese wrote: »

didn't think eithne had a hanger ? I thought that was part of the reason they dropped using them -,
Would it take much to get it back usable for someone else's helicopters ?

No she has a hanger alright. It can accomadate a Dauphin/lynx type helicopter, the helipad itself could accomodate a Bell 212/412 but that's nearly pushing it. All the helicopters listed are in use with the German/French/Italian/Portuguese/Spanish/Dutch/Norwegian navies all of which will more than likely be taking part in the operation.

On another note, given the area they will be operating in, they could be vulnerable to air attack. The Libyan air force is still operational and if ISIS happen to capture some Jets, an 80m long ship filled with evil Christians could prove a very appealing target. Remember they did say Europe was a target.

Peregrine

Markcheese wrote: »

didn't think eithne had a hanger ? I thought that was part of the reason they dropped using them -,

sparky42 wrote: »

No she has a hanger, think they use it for storage now, the deck is obstructed now by the crane so I'd say zero chance.

pilatus wrote: »

No she has a hanger alright.

As above.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Best_29_(9185555312).jpg

IrishTrajan

pilatus wrote: »

On another note, given the area they will be operating in, they could be vulnerable to air attack. The Libyan air force is still operational and if ISIS happen to capture some Jets, an 80m long ship filled with evil Christians could prove a very appealing target. Remember they did say Europe was a target.

I am quite sure that Egypt's air force will either take or destroy Libyan planes if it seems like ISIS will get near them. If not, the US-led coalition might knock it out.

Ren2k7

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I am quite sure that Egypt's air force will either take or destroy Libyan planes if it seems like ISIS will get near them. If not, the US-led coalition might knock it out.

Apparently ISIS have used captured aircraft in Syria/Iraq previously. But like you said any attempt by Islamic State affiliated fighters to utilise Libyan aircraft would be stomped out fairly quickly by Egypt and the US.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Apparently ISIS have used captured aircraft in Syria/Iraq previously. But like you said any attempt by Islamic State affiliated fighters to utilise Libyan aircraft would be stomped out fairly quickly by Egypt and the US.

That's not too mention given the years of issues Libya has had at this stage what the actually operational readiness of their remaining aircraft actually are. Haven't the UAE for example been able to bomb targets without being stopped?

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

That's not too mention given the years of issues Libya has had at this stage what the actually operational readiness of their remaining aircraft actually are. Haven't the UAE for example been able to bomb targets without being stopped?

I believe so. Given the years of neglect of the Libyan military by Gaddafi, paranoid about a possible coup against him by the armed forces, as well as continuous civil war and strife in Libya there can't be much left of any Libyan Air Force at this stage. Not to mention a lack of pilots as well. Still, it only takes one aircraft, piloted by one Jihadist, that could potentially hit EU naval vessels in the Med in a Kamikaze strike. The danger to our men and women joining the joint European task force off the Libyan coast is very real.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I believe so. Given the years of neglect of the Libyan military by Gaddafi, paranoid about a possible coup against him by the armed forces, as well as continuous civil war and strife in Libya there can't be much left of any Libyan Air Force at this stage. Not to mention a lack of pilots as well. Still, it only takes one aircraft, piloted by one Jihadist, that could potentially hit EU naval vessels in the Med in a Kamikaze strike. The danger to our men and women joining the joint European task force off the Libyan coast is very real.

While that's pretty much a risk in any deployment around the Med/Middle East at this stage, consider that the RN ranked the threat of attack so low during the actual civil war that they sent one of the 23's into a close deployment with only 4 Sea Wolf missiles carried. They clearly didn't rate the threat condition highly then.

Larbre34

It does go to show, there is a critically low number of aircraft carriers among NATO and EU states. Attack helicopters off a landing transport dock are no compensation for that.

IrishTrajan

Larbre34 wrote: »

It does go to show, there is a critically low number of aircraft carriers among NATO and EU states. Attack helicopters off a landing transport dock are no compensation for that.

Just wait for the F35 to reach full production, we'll see Europe's air forces get revitalized. Or, at least, I should hope so.

Maybe we can buy some second hand fighters from the countries that are replacing theirs. F16Ds would be nice, but I'm not picky.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

It does go to show, there is a critically low number of aircraft carriers among NATO and EU states. Attack helicopters off a landing transport dock are no compensation for that.

Not really, it's just the powers that be don't rate the potential threat highly enough to spend the money needed to support fast jets to patrol the area. And let's be honest they most likely have a MUCH firmer grasp on what the condition of the aircraft is rather than us here.

If they wanted to the could (though France has already commitments for the De Gaulle), they could base fast jets out of Malta if there's need for it but I'm betting it won't happen. Yes the fast jet fleets are much less than what they used to be, but they could easily deal with the bare dozen old gen fighters if they were an issue.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

While that's pretty much a risk in any deployment around the Med/Middle East at this stage, consider that the RN ranked the threat of attack so low during the actual civil war that they sent one of the 23's into a close deployment with only 4 Sea Wolf missiles carried. They clearly didn't rate the threat condition highly then.

Except during the Civil War the conflict was between two parties facing off against each other. Since the death of Gaddafi we are now seeing multiple actors emerging, each with their own agenda, many of them Jihadists, including Islamic State. The risk of attack on European shipping and naval vessels is greater since the collapse of central government authority in Libya turning the country into another Somalia. And we've seen the dangers caused by lawlessness off that country's coast.

Larbre34 wrote: »

It does go to show, there is a critically low number of aircraft carriers among NATO and EU states. Attack helicopters off a landing transport dock are no compensation for that.

There's far too much duplication and inefficiencies among the many militaries of the EU. There needs to be a unified command structure linking all nation's forces together, with common weapons and equipment procurement for all member states. Also there should exist a single EU force that owns and operates large naval vessels like aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships where national forces able to utilise them for missions. A bit like the UK-France defence agreement that allows each others facilities being made available to the other, such as Britain using the De Gaulle until its own carriers are ready.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Just wait for the F35 to reach full production, we'll see Europe's air forces get revitalized. Or, at least, I should hope so.

Maybe we can buy some second hand fighters from the countries that are replacing theirs. F16Ds would be nice, but I'm not picky.

The F-35 is a massive overpriced lemon that will end up reducing the operational capabilities of those countries that have foolishly adopted it. Countries who have ordered them should cancel their orders and instead opt for de facto 5th Gen fighters like the Super Hornet.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

There's far too much duplication and inefficiencies among the many militaries of the EU. There needs to be a unified command structure linking all nation's forces together, with common weapons and equipment procurement for all member states. Also there should exist a single EU force that owns and operates large naval vessels like aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships where national forces able to utilise them for missions. A bit like the UK-France defence agreement that allows each others facilities being made available to the other, such as Britain using the De Gaulle until its own carriers are ready.

The F-35 is a massive overpriced lemon that will end up reducing the operational capabilities of those countries that have foolishly adopted it. Countries who have ordered them should cancel their orders and instead opt for de facto 5th Gen fighters like the Super Hornet.

The joint procurement idea has been tried for decades, and no matter how much it should make sense, the reality is that at best it ends up overpriced and vastly behind schedule, at worst it ends with the nations throwing their hands up blaming the others and walking away. This is shown from MBT's,missiles, helicopters, fighters, transports, SSK's, Frigates. It never works out. No nation is going to put it's own workforce out of a job by allowing one of the other nations take over the lead (for example, France and the UK WILL NEVER dojoint SSN's even though the price tag should suggest it, or if you take the SSK's we have about 4 different designs on the go in Europe all competing for exports, which dockyard would agree to let go their design staff and let another nation do all the high value work (Germany should be doing all the design as they have the best exports, but France, Spain, Sweden would never agree to that)).

There has been very limited joint operational ownership (C-17 and AWAC's come to mind), but they are US hardware that NATO is running, not something the EU is involved in.

As to the 35 yeah it's going to be an over priced stone on everyone's neck (what the hell was the UK thinking about going with the but the US has put HUGE diplomatic and organisational pressure on getting nations to buy it, some nations were made offers they couldn't refuse.

Silvera

sparky42 wrote: »

As for the 35 yeah it's going to be an over priced stone on everyone's neck (what the hell was the UK thinking about going with the but the US has put HUGE diplomatic and organisational pressure on getting nations to buy it, some nations were made offers they couldn't refuse.

I'm curious, what kind of offers were given, and to which countries?

sparky42

Silvera wrote: »

I'm curious, what kind of offers were given, and to which countries?

From what came out from Wikileaks, Norway for example had the US Defence Secretary and several generals "visiting" and telling them if they didn't order the 35 then the US would "question" their commitment to NATO. Same hard sell they gave the Finns to buy the F18 when they wanted the cheaper SAAB option (though in that case it was the threat of restricting the Sidewinder models that the Finns could buy from them if they didn't).

It's nowherenear the first time the US has pulled these type of tricks (or any of the other major defence nations), for example the F 104 sales to Western European countries that turned out to be based on bribes from the contractor.

IrishTrajan

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The F-35 is a massive overpriced lemon that will end up reducing the operational capabilities of those countries that have foolishly adopted it. Countries who have ordered them should cancel their orders and instead opt for de facto 5th Gen fighters like the Super Hornet.

Not this meme again.

The F35 suffered in the beginning from having to constantly redesign itself to fit each nation's needs. Hell, the USAF and USN couldn't even agree on what they wanted, nevermind the British, Norwegian, Canadians and Australians.

That said, it has overcome those problems, and is performing well. Its thrust to weight ratio is high enough to allow the British to operate it from their catapult-less carriers, it can utilize VTOL to some extent, it is set to be ~$85m or so, cheaper than its competitors. Its stealth capabilities are second only to the F22, which isn't being manufactured, and makes sense seeing as how the F35 is a multirole fighter, compared to the stealth-fighter that is the F22.

Its avionics and radar are top of the line, and it will have significant anti-ship capabilities once the Norwegian JSM is ready (the NSM is quite destructive considering its payload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJuoqu62K-4).

The F18 has greater range than the F35, but it's larger (meaning it will be more easily seen on radar). The F35 has over double the trust, and is around 1300kg lighter. It can carry slightly more in total payload (8100kg vs 8050kg) and just as wide a variety of choice. The operating cost is $31,000 p/hr for the F35 vs $24,500 p/hr for the F18.

Its only real competitors are years from being produced. The Pak-Fa has suffered from sanctions against Russia so much, that the Indians decided to order from the French. The J20 suffers from the same handicap as most Chinese harware. Copy cat design without the metallurgical skill to compete.

I must sound like a shill for Lockheed, but make no doubt. The F35 isn't a waste.

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

As to the 35 yeah it's going to be an over priced stone on everyone's neck (what the hell was the UK thinking about going with the but the US has put HUGE diplomatic and organisational pressure on getting nations to buy it, some nations were made offers they couldn't refuse.

They said the same thing about the F16 when that was coming out (which is why his comments about the F35 are deliciously ironic).

They chose the F35B because their carriers won't have catapults. The F35C is a CATOBAR variant.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

They said the same thing about the F16 when that was coming out (which is why his comments about the F35 are deliciously ironic).

They chose the F35B because their carriers won't have catapults. The F35C is a CATOBAR variant.

The project team has already admited that one of the many issues, is that they've had to redesign the bomb bay as the new bombs designed for the F 35 don't fit, making all the current IOC unit's even less capable (and that's after moving several of the design goals) That's outstanding Project managment right there.

As for the Brits, the point is they have created true lemon's of carriers just to get BAE the B variant contract. The limits include having to build one off Merlins for AWACs that are always going to be inferior to the Hawkeye that even France manages to have on a smaller carrier, they've gone for the most expensive and limited variant of the 35 and there was no pressing need to do so. They could have built a CATOBAR QE without much greater expense/difficulty and shared the Fords new Cat design, instead they get a carrier that currently is planned only to have surge capacity, normally having less than 2 dozen 35's. And that is after gutting the rest of the RN to pay for it (not too mention that they have no idea how to pay for the SSBN program (though neither does the USN to be fair))

Ren2k7

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Not this meme again.

The F35 suffered in the beginning from having to constantly redesign itself to fit each nation's needs. Hell, the USAF and USN couldn't even agree on what they wanted, nevermind the British, Norwegian, Canadians and Australians.

That said, it has overcome those problems, and is performing well. Its thrust to weight ratio is high enough to allow the British to operate it from their catapult-less carriers, it can utilize VTOL to some extent, it is set to be ~$85m or so, cheaper than its competitors. Its stealth capabilities are second only to the F22, which isn't being manufactured, and makes sense seeing as how the F35 is a multirole fighter, compared to the stealth-fighter that is the F22.

Its avionics and radar are top of the line, and it will have significant anti-ship capabilities once the Norwegian JSM is ready (the NSM is quite destructive considering its payload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJuoqu62K-4).

The F18 has greater range than the F35, but it's larger (meaning it will be more easily seen on radar). The F35 has over double the trust, and is around 1300kg lighter. It can carry slightly more in total payload (8100kg vs 8050kg) and just as wide a variety of choice. The operating cost is $31,000 p/hr for the F35 vs $24,500 p/hr for the F18.

Its only real competitors are years from being produced. The Pak-Fa has suffered from sanctions against Russia so much, that the Indians decided to order from the French. The J20 suffers from the same handicap as most Chinese harware. Copy cat design without the metallurgical skill to compete.

I must sound like a shill for Lockheed, but make no doubt. The F35 isn't a waste.

A meme?! Lol, no it's called reality. The F-35 programme is now envisaged to end up costing more than 1 TRILLION dollars. In war game simulations it has been shown that the F-35, in a hypothetical conflict in the Taiwan Straits, would be destroyed by current gen Chinese fighters. And I'm sure I don't have to point out that there's no such thing as "stealth", not unless LM have figured out a way to make the damn thing invisible........

And let's hear from one of the chief designers of both the A-10 and F-16:

The USAF are now looking at extending the lifespan of the extremely impressive A-10 because of delays and massive cost overruns with the F-35.

It really has been a complete disaster, all involved really should cut their losses and go with the incremental design of the Advanced Super Hornet that offers much of what the F-35 claims to do. Had Obama any balls he would have cancelled this porktastic defence programme the moment he became President, like he did with Constellation.

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

The project team has already admited that one of the many issues, is that they've had to redesign the bomb bay as the new bombs designed for the F 35 don't fit, making all the current IOC unit's even less capable (and that's after moving several of the design goals) That's outstanding Project managment right there.

As for the Brits, the point is they have created true lemon's of carriers just to get BAE the B variant contract. The limits include having to build one off Merlins for AWACs that are always going to be inferior to the Hawkeye that even France manages to have on a smaller carrier, they've gone for the most expensive and limited variant of the 35 and there was no pressing need to do so. They could have built a CATOBAR QE without much greater expense/difficulty and shared the Fords new Cat design, instead they get a carrier that currently is planned only to have surge capacity, normally having less than 2 dozen 35's. And that is after gutting the rest of the RN to pay for it (not too mention that they have no idea how to pay for the SSBN program (though neither does the USN to be fair))

Like I said in my previous post, it was plagued by warring desires from the outset. Even having to redesign it, it will outperform its rivals.

Yeah, I don't know what the British were thinking when they designed it with two towers. They didn't include catapults for the same reason they didn't include nuclear reactors. To do so would increase the cost of building the ships domestically. And, to be quite fair, the De Gaulle is hardly the best argument. It was too expensive for the French to buy two, so they are left without carrier capabilities for six months of the year.

However, if the F35 was a colossal feck up, then you wouldn't have had the Canadians and Australians offering to buy them in bulk batches of 100. Say what you would about the US allegedly bullying Norway, but I don't believe they had to coerce the Canadians into refitting their rusting air force, or bully the Australians who have embarked on their own armament campaign with political linkings (Abbot wanted to offer the Japanese the Collins-replacement contract to strengthen ties, I believe).

The UK has already plans to replace it with Successor, after their elections, no? I'm not sure if they've started investing yet, but didn't some US analyst say their decision to invest already was a bad idea?

IrishTrajan

Ren2k7 wrote: »

A meme?! Lol, no it's called reality. The F-35 programme is now envisaged to end up costing more than 1 TRILLION dollars. In war game simulations it has been shown that the F-35, in a hypothetical conflict in the Taiwan Straits, would be destroyed by current gen Chinese fighters. And I'm sure I don't have to point out that there's no such thing as "stealth", not unless LM have figured out a way to make the damn thing invisible........

Are you really going to trust the Chinese? The same people who had software glitches in their war games, and claimed it was superior Chinese tactics? Or some dude using C/MANO as a basis for his argument?

It's like when people shill for the Rafale and quote a Swiss comparison, saying the Rafale is better than the Eurofighter... Omitting the fact the Swiss use a trainer jet for the Eurofighter, and a combat jet for the Rafale.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

And let's here from one of the chief designers of both the A-10 and F-16:

Like I said. It is entirely ironic that he criticises it as a flop, when people said the exact same thing about the F16.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The USAF are now looking at extending the lifespan of the extremely impressive A-10 because of delays and massive cost overruns with the F-35.

Yes. Delays and overruns from having to cater to several different nations, when the USAF and USN couldn't even agree on a role for it. The A-10 is easily a good choice for air support. Not so much for air-to-air combat.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It really has been a complete disaster, all involved really should cut their losses and go with the incremental design of the Advanced Super Hornet that offers much of what the F-35 claims to do. Had Obama any balls he would have cancelled this porktastic defence programme the moment he became President, like he did with Constellation.

"Cutting their losses". What sort of an investment is that? Just as it is reaching low-rate production, they cancel their orders? That doesn't seem entirely likely. The Canadians have Super Hornets, and they're buying 100 F35s, I believe. Do you know better than the Canadian Defence Forces? Or the British, the Norwegians, the Danish, the Australians?

Ren2k7

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Like I said in my previous post, it was plagued by warring desires from the outset. Even having to redesign it, it will outperform its rivals.

Yeah, I don't know what the British were thinking when they designed it with two towers. They didn't include catapults for the same reason they didn't include nuclear reactors. To do so would increase the cost of building the ships domestically. And, to be quite fair, the De Gaulle is hardly the best argument. It was too expensive for the French to buy two, so they are left without carrier capabilities for six months of the year.

However, if the F35 was a colossal feck up, then you wouldn't have had the Canadians and Australians offering to buy them in bulk batches of 100. Say what you would about the US allegedly bullying Norway, but I don't believe they had to coerce the Canadians into refitting their rusting air force, or bully the Australians who have embarked on their own armament campaign with political linkings (Abbot wanted to offer the Japanese the Collins-replacement contract to strengthen ties, I believe).

The UK has already plans to replace it with Successor, after their elections, no? I'm not sure if they've started investing yet, but didn't some US analyst say their decision to invest already was a bad idea?

The Canadians acquisition has been a total f**k up from day one. Not only were costs significantly understated but the Canadian Govt had already decided to back the F-35 before the tendering process had even begun! The aircraft is a dud but because of American pressure on its allies to adopt the plane, along with effective spin by LM we now have an aircraft that will result in air fleets going backwards in capabilities, not forward.

Anxious to avoid having to put the purchase out to competitive bids, as is usually the practice, Defence officials hit upon the scheme of drafting the requirements in such a way that only the F-35 could meet them — needlessly, as I mentioned, as the government agreed to go ahead with the purchase a month before the requirements were delivered: that is, before they even knew what the planes were supposed to do, let alone whether they could do them.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-the-f-35-affair-is-a-fiasco-from-top-to-bottom

Anyway, we're drifting off topic.....

IrishTrajan

Here's the criticism the F16 got.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The Canadians acquisition has been a total f**k up from day one. Not only were costs significantly understated but the Canadian Govt had already decided to back the F-35 before the tendering process had even begun! The aircraft is a dud but because of American pressure on its allies to adopt the plane, along with effective spin by LM we now have an aircraft that will result in air fleets going backwards in capabilities, not forward.

JTF2 was operating in Iraq without Parliamentary knowledge, can you blame that on the Americans too?

The aircraft is not a dude. I just posted its capabilities compared with the F18, and the F35 blows it out of the water every time. What's the alternative, buy a bunch of F18s and wait for the Russians to develop the Pak-Fa and the Chinese to develop the J20, before rushing to play catch up?

I do agree, the Canadians are terrible with procurements usually. I feel the only reason they invested was because they seen the Brits and Aussies doing so.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Anyway, we're drifting off topic.....

I hope the mods will allow this discussion, I find the F35 pretty interesting.

It's thrust to weight ratio makes it more agile than every other competitor except for the F22 and Su-35S when carrying 4500kg of fuel.

It's RCS is estimated to be around 0.001m^2, which is better than the B2.

Hell, their countermeasures (the ASQ-239) is an upgraded version of the F22's, and its missile approach warning is on par with the F22 (if you believe some specifications, its better). The datalink between F35s is also more resistant to jams. It is absolutely phenomenal in SEAD/DEAD and CAS, and with a heavier payload than the F18 Super Hornet, it outperforms it in strike bombings.

It's AAM's the Aim120D has 50% more range than previous ones, meaning it has an 85%+ chance of hitting a target at 180km, when the F35s RCS means most jets will only pick it up coming in close to 20km.

The F35 will knock a plane out of the sky before they even see it coming.

Yes, the F35 had problems, yes there was probably corruption (like there is in every arms deal since the dawn of time), but the F35 is a good fighter. A great fighter, actually, and it will boost the capabilities of those who have it, so long as they pay to maintain it and not let it waste away.