Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,100 of 1485

Thread: Which Fighter Jet should Canada choose?

  1. #1001

    Default

    By Kyle Meema
    Defence Watch Guest Writer

    Intro:

    The F-35 is the wrong choice for a sole-sourced replacement for Canada’s aging CF-18 fighters. It is also the wrong choice for any air force using a single plane for all its fighter needs. This is because of one simple fact: it was never designed to be used in such a way.

    The F-35 was designed from the very start to be a strike aircraft; to drop bombs on enemy ground targets. It was never designed to be an air-to-air combat powerhouse. Its air-to-air combat abilities, as limited as they are, were designed for limited self-defence purposes. It was never meant to be a front-line air-to-air fighter taking Super Flankers and the T-50 head on; that was always meant to be the task of the vastly superior F-22. Gen. Michael Hostage, head of Air Combat Command and a staunch supporter of the F-35 programme, even admitted that “if I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, then the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant.”
    http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...-canada-part-1


    Comments Moahunter?

    What fighter will we use to protect the F-35 in Canada?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  2. #1002

    Default

    ^it was designed to be a strike aircraft, just like our CF-18's are a strike aircraft, Canada seemed to do fine the last few decades without a true air superiority plane (i.e. the F15), the primary role the CF18s actually flew in combat was strike for NATO. And, the F35 will be far from a weak plane air-to air, with the best electronics suite / radar, Lo, BVR, and fantastic maneuvouribility for missile avoidance (per everyone who has flown it). Posting the same old, same old articles from people who don't like this plane, doesn't negate that the Canadian Air Force today, not some old fuddy duddy on his rocking chair or armchair analyst, want this plane, as they know its the best. The guy who wrote this article, I bet, would have picked the Mirage over the Harrier re the stats, but look which plane won.
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-07-2014 at 12:30 PM.

  3. #1003

    Default

    This unusual width makes the F-35 experience higher than normal drag which negatively impacts, acceleration, speed, fuel efficiency, and range. To make matters worse, the lift-fan means that the pilot is unable to see behind the aircraft, a severe disadvantage when engaging enemy aircraft and a fatal flaw that can and will get pilots killed.

    The F-35 attempts to compensate for this lack of visibility by incorporating a helmet mounted display system that allows the pilot see a virtual image of what is around the aircraft. However, this is inadequate as it is much lower resolution than the human eye and generally inadequate for detecting distant or low-contrast objects. To make matters worse, this helmet mounted display system, as inadequate as it is, is far from being ready for testing, let alone being fully functional and combat-ready.
    http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...-canada-part-3

    Here is a counter argument to your "vision"
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  4. #1004

    Default

    ^listen to the pilot at that airshow, its new technology, its had glitches, but its starting to work. As to resolution, there is no source in that article to back up the claim, per the pilots who have flown it, the helmet allows them to see further than anything else has.

  5. #1005

    Default

    ^^^Then they should call the F-35 the A-35

    Compare the F-35 to the T-50

    F-35 Performance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee...5_Lightning_II

    Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[253] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61)[371]
    Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
    Combat radius: 584 nmi[536] (1,080 km) on internal fuel[537]
    Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,240 m)
    Wing loading: 107.7 lb/ft² (526 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)
    Thrust/weight:
    With full fuel: 0.87
    With 50% fuel: 1.07
    Maximum g-load: 9 g[N 11]

    T-50 Performance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA)

    Maximum speed:
    At altitude: Mach 2.3 (2,440 km/h, 1,520 mph)
    Supercruise: Mach 1.6 (1,700 km/h, 1,060 mph)
    Range: 3,500 km (2,175 mi) subsonic[80]
    Ferry range: 5,500 km (3,420 mi) with one in-flight refueling[132]
    Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,000 ft)
    Wing loading: 330–470 kg/m2 (67–96 lb/ft2)
    Thrust/weight:
    Saturn 117: 1.06 (1.19 at typical mission weight)
    Izdeliye 30: 1.24 (1.41 at typical mission weight)
    Maximum g-load: +9.0 g[97]
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  6. #1006

    Default

    ^that speed counted a lot for those fast Argentinians. How to you explain the F-15's 100-0 win ratio despite it often not being the fastest plane? Or the Harriers 20-0 despite it being subsonic? Maybe it had something to do with the F15 being a massive radar with wings that totally outclasses anything the Russians have electronically?

  7. #1007

    Default

    You are confusing the weapon with the decision to use it, a soldier calling in a UCAV Strike has way more monitoring on them and on their target than any other weaponry from the past, its all there on video forever, not like Vietnam when whole villages would be wiped out by artillery or napalm on a footsoldiers whim that there was a shot from there. There has never been more awareness of what is happening on the battlefield than there is today.
    Not confusing anything...

    The wedding is not the only Friendly fire, might remember not that long ago (year or two, maybe a tickle more) the whole use of UAVs in theater was under discussion because of the number of friendly fire incidents.

    The F-16 that struck the Canadians is a perfect example of poor judgement (not knowing who was in the area and other issues) and the reliance on sensor data.

    Certainly technology has its place, but to put it in the position of precedence (as with the F-35 and the increasing use of deadly UAVs) is an increasing issue and goes right back to...who is going to be responsible and accountable in the end.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  8. #1008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^that speed counted a lot for those fast Argentinians. How to you explain the F-15's 100-0 win ratio despite it often not being the fastest plane? Or the Harriers 20-0 despite it being subsonic? Maybe it had something to do with the F15 being a massive radar with wings that totally outclasses anything the Russians have electronically?
    Nah...more like extensive air to air combat training, practice at drawing your enemy into your flight envelope not theirs (specifically in the Falklands), disparity in underwing weapons technology.

    In the case of the F-15s...gee knocking down, out numbered poorly trained second/third world pilots operating inferior aircraft does rack up the numbers.

    The Western World, until recently had the finest most extensive air to air, dis similar air to air engagement, air to ground training schools and facilities in the world as wells as the budgets that allowed flight crew to actually practice enough to stay current in not just flying the aircraft but the tactics and technology. Now they are cut to ribbions and in some cases completely gone and the flight crews are scrambling to stay even marginally current.

    Now we are being sold the F-35 with tech that means we don't need all that and one school in Florida will supply our training.

    Yep seems like we are going in the right direction (sarcasm)

    Might want to look up why the US Navy started Top Gun back in the 60s.
    History repeats...the price of learning it again is very high.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  9. #1009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Might want to look up why the US Navy started Top Gun back in the 60s.
    Canadian pilots want the F35 because don't want to be sitting ducks at Maple Flag.

  10. #1010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Yep seems like we are going in the right direction (sarcasm)

    Might want to look up why the US Navy started Top Gun back in the 60s.
    History repeats...the price of learning it again is very high.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    You are very correct, again.

    The F-4 Phantoms had superior weapons technology, better radar and OP. a huge thrust advantage (something the F-35 does not have) but it was useless in a dogfight because it could not maneuver and had no guns. The only solution was better training, understanding the limitations of the aircraft and use speed to your advantage with high speed attacks and then scooting away and turning around for a second pass, all the time, keeping out of a turning engagement where the big F-4's scrubbed off too much speed and were unable to get on their tails.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  11. #1011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Might want to look up why the US Navy started Top Gun back in the 60s.
    Canadian pilots want the F35 because don't want to be sitting ducks at Maple Flag.
    Opinion

    Unless of course you are counting the former pilots that now work for related contractors or have prime positions in the test/acceptance program.

    Seeing as they are the only ones that have had any experience with the early run and unfortunately, doesn't matter if their opinion is real they are in biased positions.

    From the recently retired ones I know, that are not contracted to anyone, it is likely most Canadian Fighter Pilots would be happy with aircraft that are younger than they are and a budget that would let them fly enough to be current functionally, but more importantly, be able to fly enough to be tactically combat ready.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  12. #1012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Might want to look up why the US Navy started Top Gun back in the 60s.
    Canadian pilots want the F35 because don't want to be sitting ducks at Maple Flag.
    Might also want to consider that our Canadian Pilots, flying 30 year old aircraft now, are not sitting ducks to anyone including F-15s at Maple Flag.

    Inspite of out of date equipment they do spectacularly against all the forces at Maple Flag every year as aggressor or defender.

    Exceptionally dedicated, well trained passionate people doing an important job with high expectations and lousy funding.

    Given something capable they will be next to untouchable.

    Unless of course we continue to cut budgets, reduce flying times and continue to keep reducing the incentives to stay.

    Then we just won't have any.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  13. #1013

    Default

    Well said Thomas!

    The pilot's skill and training is the key!

    A case in point. Biplane Fighter Aces from the Second World War

    http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/aces.htm
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 22-07-2014 at 01:45 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #1014

    Default

    ^Yeah technology doesn't matter today, lets just give them biplanes, good training, and save some "bucks", because Canadian pilots are so amazing they will still be able to compete.

  15. #1015
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    That isn't what Thomas is saying, in fact he said "Given something capable they will be next to untouchable". But a F-35 in most dog fight simulations fell short most of the time, however if Canadians keep their current level of training they should still be able to come out ahead.
    https://medium.com/war-is-boring/can...t-95462ccd6745

  16. #1016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    That isn't what Thomas is saying, in fact he said "Given something capable they will be next to untouchable". But a F-35 in most dog fight simulations fell short most of the time, however if Canadians keep their current level of training they should still be able to come out ahead.
    https://medium.com/war-is-boring/can...t-95462ccd6745
    Yes sundance you get my point, but it doesn't have to be an F-35 and would prefer any number of other options for reasons I have stated many times previously.

    There are other capable, multi engine, aerodynamically and performance superior aircraft that would fit the mold.

    As far as our pilots and superior training and skill defeating less capable personnel in superior equipment.

    Combat and Actual Flying exercises are littered with examples.

    And more aircraft is better, 65 of any option is worse than a joke as is losing our training capabilities in Canada.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  17. #1017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    More aircraft is better, 65 of any option is worse than a joke as is losing our training capabilities in Canada.
    Thomas I'm curious, based on your experience and contacts approximately out of 65 how many would be rotating actively, not in the hanger or grounded.

    Pilot and ground-crew training out of one temperate locale is short sighted, this isn't 1960's NASA.

  18. #1018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    More aircraft is better, 65 of any option is worse than a joke as is losing our training capabilities in Canada.
    Thomas I'm curious, based on your experience and contacts approximately out of 65 how many would be rotating actively, not in the hanger or grounded.

    Pilot and ground-crew training out of one temperate locale is short sighted, this isn't 1960's NASA.
    From what I know and the ex RCAF characters (both in an out of the museum) I know and their experiences I would expect 1/3 to 1/2 would be down for inspections, maintenance etc. at any given time regardless of aircraft type.

    Every aircraft (regardless of type) has inspection times and normal service/ maintenance requirements.

    Typically every attempt is made to keep as few on the ground at anytime as possible.

    But every aircraft tends to build time at a different rate and (regardless of type of aircraft) stuff happens.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  19. #1019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    More aircraft is better, 65 of any option is worse than a joke as is losing our training capabilities in Canada.
    Thomas I'm curious, based on your experience and contacts approximately out of 65 how many would be rotating actively, not in the hanger or grounded.

    Pilot and ground-crew training out of one temperate locale is short sighted, this isn't 1960's NASA.
    From what I know and the ex RCAF characters (both in an out of the museum) I know and their experiences I would expect 1/3 to 1/2 would be down for inspections, maintenance etc. at any given time regardless of aircraft type.

    Every aircraft (regardless of type) has inspection times and normal service/ maintenance requirements.

    Typically every attempt is made to keep as few on the ground at anytime as possible.

    But every aircraft tends to build time at a different rate and (regardless of type of aircraft) stuff happens.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Thanks, interesting this makes 65 look even more like a sick joke. I wonder if the Avionics on the F-35, the lift-fan, plus other components/systems if it would be the Audi of the air.

  20. #1020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Wilson View Post
    Thanks, interesting this makes 65 look even more like a sick joke. I wonder if the Avionics on the F-35, the lift-fan, plus other components/systems if it would be the Audi of the air.
    More like the Edsel of the air
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  21. #1021

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Wilson View Post
    Thanks, interesting this makes 65 look even more like a sick joke. I wonder if the Avionics on the F-35, the lift-fan, plus other components/systems if it would be the Audi of the air.
    More like the Edsel of the air
    Wouldn't go that far

    Lockheed has a reputation for sorting things out:
    - P38 was a mess when oit first came out, engine, turbo charger and aerodynamic problems.

    - P-80, the first American jet into combat and service went through similar issues.

    - Starfighter had a mess of issues

    and others from their line and in the end they all turned into powerful, serviceable aircraft (often not for the mission they started out on, but that is not unusual)

    I am convinced the F-35 will get sorted out (V/STOL might be an even bigger problem child) and will find a mission (don't think it will be the current all encompassing one) and go on to a decent production run (again I think much smaller than forecast)

    But I have faith in Lockheed and expect it will be a success in time.

    It is simply not the right aircraft for Canada's needs as I see it.

    The problem started with the U.S. Department of Defense concept of building a "one does everything for everyone" aircraft.

    When attempted in the past the efforts failed.

    There have been very few successes when trying this concept and all have been by accident not design. (In the jet age the Phantom II is the best example of the idea but it was specifically designed as a NAVY Fighter).

    So while I still oppose the F-35 for the Canadian mission and environment, I still have faith in Lockheed.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  22. #1022

    Default

    The Edsel was not such a bad car compared to the many other troublesome cars of its day but the similarities to the F-35 development are there.

    The issues with the Edsel were that the car was hugely over-the-top marketed and grossly over hyped for its time. They made the car sound like it ran on a nuclear turbine.

    It was under powered, too many gadgets and priced well above comparible models even within the Ford brands.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  23. #1023

    Default

    The F35 is going to be virtually the only manned fighter produced in the US once its production runs ramp up in a few years time. To the extent it has deficiencies (and every new aircraft does), they will be addresssed through the different traunch improvements. Its costs will signficiantly reduce as production numbers increase, as has been the case with every other fighter ever developed by the US. I'd like to see Canada try and hold off for the later traunches if it can, also gives time to evaluate the plane and see how it performs in the real world, which will happen over the next 5 or 6 years. The challenge is to do that, yet keep the US sufficiently happy to enable Canadian companies to continue to win large contracts building components for that huge US order, like GATOOPS is trying to do:

    In the Ottawa suburb of Gloucester, a small company called GasTOPS is one of Lockheed Martin's 70 Canadian suppliers. Having developed a specialized sensor for another stealth fighter — the top-secret F-22 — GasTOPS now makes an updated version for the F-35. It's an early-warning system that checks the oil flow for microscopic pieces of metal which might indicate a looming engine failure.

    Although the devices are worth $5,000 each, the F-35 production line is still not rolling at full speed and Lockheed Martin has only bought 500 of the sensors so far. But GasTOPS has expanded into a much larger market for the same sensor: for wind turbines, which are in use all over the world.

    Dave Muir, the CEO of GasTOPS, says "the key thing is these are knowledge-based, what you would call highly qualified, professional jobs. These are jobs that are hard to come by. They're hard to create."
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35...-jet-1.2577234

  24. #1024

    Default

    In the Ottawa suburb of Gloucester, a small company called GasTOPS is one of Lockheed Martin's 70 Canadian suppliers. Having developed a specialized sensor for another stealth fighter — the top-secret F-22 — GasTOPS now makes an updated version for the F-35. It's an early-warning system that checks the oil flow for microscopic pieces of metal which might indicate a looming engine failure.

    Although the devices are worth $5,000 each, the F-35 production line is still not rolling at full speed and Lockheed Martin has only bought 500 of the sensors so far. But GasTOPS has expanded into a much larger market for the same sensor: for wind turbines, which are in use all over the world.

    Dave Muir, the CEO of GasTOPS, says "the key thing is these are knowledge-based, what you would call highly qualified, professional jobs. These are jobs that are hard to come by. They're hard to create."
    But Moa you said the engines would never fail! (lol)

    But seriously, technology like this developed in Canada is fantastic to see, though I would doubt (haven't read the link yet) it was specifically developed for the F-35.

    I would also hope the company, through its contracts with LM, is not restricted in being able to market it wider.

    I would expect Pratt and Whitney Canada, GE, SEMNAC and many others as well as the airframe (Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier/Canadair and the helicopter companies) and avionics manufacturers are snapping it up.

    It is also another example of the technology that is here that could lead to larger home grown airframe opportunities.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  25. #1025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    But seriously, technology like this developed in Canada is fantastic to see, though I would doubt (haven't read the link yet) it was specifically developed for the F-35.
    Developed for the F-22 originally. As the article mentions, there are more than 70 companies like this in Canada - this is where the big dollars are for Canadian industry, supplying those huge US defense contracts, when they can then use the technology for other purposes, that's gravey. If nothing else, Canada's participation in F35 program to date (something the Liberals signed up on), has generated a lot of money, and a lot of tax, and a lot of jobs, whether we do, or don't, buy the F35. If we say no at some point, I'm not sure if that will change.

  26. #1026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    But seriously, technology like this developed in Canada is fantastic to see, though I would doubt (haven't read the link yet) it was specifically developed for the F-35.
    Developed for the F-22 originally. As the article mentions, there are more than 70 companies like this in Canada - this is where the big dollars are for Canadian industry, supplying those huge US defense contracts, when they can then use the technology for other purposes, that's gravey. If nothing else, Canada's participation in F35 program to date (something the Liberals signed up on), has generated a lot of money, and a lot of tax, and a lot of jobs, whether we do, or don't, buy the F35. If we say no at some point, I'm not sure if that will change.
    I've never argued with the original buy in with the F-35.

    Gave us input at the table and the industrial opportunity.

    My issue is what it has developed to.

    The industrial gains are a different discussion as opposed to the choice of aircraft.

    But you have to look at what IS here.
    L-3 Building tubs and wings for the F-18A/B/C for other countries
    Company in BC building F-35C wings
    PWC building engines
    Etc. etc.

    Brings me back to the point...time we stopped buying others

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Sensors, Avionics

  27. #1027

    Default

    Canadian companies can compete in the world stage. We getting F-22 related work even though we are not buying a single plane. If we buy aircraft from another manufacturer, they will share contracts and we still will get portions of the F-22 and F-35. Buying a European jet may gain us more business than alway focusing just south.

    We cannot build an Arrow II but we certainly do not need to be sucking on the teat of the US. Look at Bombardier, they have so much business coming their way from all over the world. We should look at a willing partner that shares a common goal of building a significant amount of jet fighter parts and systems here in Canada. Lockheed and the US government only lets us chew on the bones.

    The F-35 production numbers could be drastically scaled back or could be canceled as the costs rise, as more exposure to problems come out and as the down graded specifications make this fighter a loser as time marches on while other manufacturers products eclipse Lockheed's IMHO
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  28. #1028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The F35 is going to be virtually the only manned fighter produced in the US once its production runs ramp up in a few years time.
    If correct, this is a good thing? how? Because its the best? That's been proven to some degree to be incorrect. Because it has the ability to constantly evolve and be upgraded? The F35 hardly has the monopoly on that but if one believes the propaganda......
    My biggest issue with the F35 is this notion (brought to you by the fine folks a Lockheed) that we (Canada, the world, et al) can't live without it and your air force will be inferior without it.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  29. #1029

    Default

    While the thought of this sickens me severely...

    If we are going to decimate our air defenses to the point of irrelevance by only buying a total of 65 fighters, contract our training to another country and be completely reliant on singing "kumbaya" and the charity of others as a method of defense and security...whats the point?

    There are areas like search and rescue that could use the $$$ to be able to actually cover the areas of the country currently badly serviced.

    If we are going to set up our national defense system to allow just anyone walk in why bother having one at all?

    I can't imagine we will remain a sovereign country long, but the way we are treating things we are just extending the misery and the joke.

    Alberta might want to think about its own defense network to protect the Provinces oil resources though...someone will need to.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 24-07-2014 at 09:30 AM.

  30. #1030
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    There are areas like search and rescue that could use the $$$ to be able to actually cover the areas of the country currently badly serviced.

    If we are going to set up our national defense system to allow just anyone walk in why bother having one at all?

    I can't imagine we will remain a sovereign country long, but the way we are treating things we are just extending the misery and the joke.
    Boy this really strikes a chord. We've got to either come to grips with the limited resources that we have and not p i s s that away or commit to spending more money.

    And we seem to always leave major equipment replacement until the very last moment or drag out the process interminably as in the case of the Sea Kings. One of our Tribal Class destroyers was recently found to have severe rust in its hull and the ship is no longer seaworthy which raises doubts about the integrity of the two other remaining destroyers. The replacement for this class of ships should have been coming on line by now but instead the ship building program is not slated to start until 2016 at the earliest which means that a replacement probably won't come into service until 2018.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  31. #1031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The F35 is going to be virtually the only manned fighter produced in the US once its production runs ramp up in a few years time.
    My biggest issue with the F35 is this notion (brought to you by the fine folks a Lockheed) that we (Canada, the world, et al) can't live without it and your air force will be inferior without it.
    I don't think that's correct, there are plenty of fighters Canada could choose, but they all have different pros and cons, and they all have different implications for our industry. If the Liberals hadn't entered into the intial agreement on the F35 to be part of the consortium, our industry wouldn't have received as much as they have. That doesn't bind us to pick it.

    I think the F35 might be the right plane despite all its problems (not something new for a new fighter jet, at all, the F22 had way more problems and cost - hence it was cut short on the production lines, but its development was shielded by Cold War spend), but I don't think there is a rush, and it seems, the Conservatives don't either. The CF18's are still very capable planes, whether they are in 10 years time is another question.

    Personally, I think we should keep a fighter arm (although I'm ok if we go with a cheap short term option, given how technology is changing so fast). If nothing else, it enables Canada to live up to its NATO obligations rather than having to always send troops on the ground. In a future Bosina, Afghanistan or whatever (who knows what the future holds), I'd rather we have pilots flying over, than soldiers dying from IEDs. Canada isn't going to leave NATO under the Conservatives or Liberals anytime soon, so the idea that NATO missions won't be the biggest combat role for whatever plane we choose, is just nonesense (its the only combat role our planes have flown for many decades, no teritory interceptions have lead to combat).
    Last edited by moahunter; 24-07-2014 at 10:13 AM.

  32. #1032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    There are areas like search and rescue that could use the $$$ to be able to actually cover the areas of the country currently badly serviced.

    If we are going to set up our national defense system to allow just anyone walk in why bother having one at all?

    I can't imagine we will remain a sovereign country long, but the way we are treating things we are just extending the misery and the joke.
    Boy this really strikes a chord. We've got to either come to grips with the limited resources that we have and not p i s s that away or commit to spending more money.

    And we seem to always leave major equipment replacement until the very last moment or drag out the process interminably as in the case of the Sea Kings. One of our Tribal Class destroyers was recently found to have severe rust in its hull and the ship is no longer seaworthy which raises doubts about the integrity of the two other remaining destroyers. The replacement for this class of ships should have been coming on line by now but instead the ship building program is not slated to start until 2016 at the earliest which means that a replacement probably won't come into service until 2018.
    Norwood guy

    While I agree with your overall post I have trouble here...
    Boy this really strikes a chord. We've got to either come to grips with the limited resources that we have and not p i s s that away or commit to spending more money.
    We don't have limited resources...we allocate limited resources.

    We seem to have money to fritter away on dead rabbits in trees, odd expensive sculptures, extended studies that never give results, foreign aid that never gets to the people that need it and never ending events, meetings and trips that provide no tangible results.

    I am sure everyone could add to the list.

    To be a sovereign country of our size with our natural resources and our population takes commitment, dedication, planning and effective use of $$$$.

    We don't want a Department of National Defense? Then don't.
    (makes me sick to even consider)

    Bur stop blowing resources pretending and playing politics, its a joke and we are truly playing with peoples lives irresponsibly.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 24-07-2014 at 10:24 AM. Reason: changed word

  33. #1033
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    We don't have limited resources...we allocate limited resources.
    Semantics, but we're both saying the same thing, the end result is that the defence budget is constrained. Very frustrating.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  34. #1034

    Default

    ^^Tom, I 100% agree with you that we don't spend anywhere near enough on the military as a % of GDP. I also think Canadians on the whole, IMO, don't provide the military with the respect it deserves, I was quite shocked when I arrived in Canada to see people working on Remeberance day. That would never happen on ANZAC day downunder during the morning (when it is public holdiay).

  35. #1035

    Default

    Moa
    The CF18's are still very capable planes.
    Do you really believe that?

    Some are still capable, others (many) have not had any upgrades, others are at the point they are restricted on the number of "Gs" they are allowed to pull (nicknamed 3g birds is what I hear).

    They were capable...this process SHOULD have happened a decade ago.

    What we have now is another Sea King mess.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  36. #1036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    We don't have limited resources...we allocate limited resources.
    Semantics, but we're both saying the same thing, the end result is that the defence budget is constrained. Very frustrating.
    Agree....

  37. #1037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    What we have now is another Sea King mess.
    I don't think so at all, the current life is 2017 to 2020, the AIM 120's, it handles PGMs very well, and electronic warfare suits are excellent, unlike the Sea Kings they have been constantly upgraded with major investments. There doesn't appear to be any increase of late in the accident rate. I think the life could be extended reasonably cost effectivley if need be.

  38. #1038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    What we have now is another Sea King mess.
    I don't think so at all, the current life is 2017 to 2020, the AIM 120's, it handles PGMs very well, and electronic warfare suits are excellent, unlike the Sea Kings they have been constantly upgraded with major investments. There doesn't appear to be any increase of late in the accident rate. I think the life could be extended reasonably cost effectivley if need be.
    IIRC Rough numbers CF-18

    Bought............... 138
    Lost in use..............8-10
    Into Museums......... 2-3 (Yes I'm jealous)
    Currently operating 70 +/- (Not all received upgrades, including G restricted)

    50 +/- in storage that have had squat, many being used for parts

    And you think we are ok for close to another decade?

    Really

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  39. #1039
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,119

    Default

    ^The life left in the airframes could be an issue if we are ever involved in another protracted air campaign. In Kosovo we sent 18 CF-18s and they dropped a large amount of ordnance relative to the number of aircraft. In Libya we sent 6 + 1 spare. I wonder if we could make another Kosovo sized commitment again and if we did would we burn out those airframes?
    Last edited by norwoodguy; 24-07-2014 at 11:04 AM. Reason: typo
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  40. #1040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    ^The life left in the airframes could be an issue if we are ever involved in another protracted air campaign. In Kosovo we sent 18 CF-18s and they dropped a large amount of ordnance relative to the number of aircraft. In Libya we sent 6 + 1 spare. I wonder if we could make another Kosovo sized commitment again and if we did would we burn out those airframes?
    Good questions and very important concerns.

    It's past time to deal with the issue, if left much longer it will solve itself and that would not be good.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  41. #1041

    Default

    If they go with the F35 (a big "if" given how unpopular), this is the timeline:



    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...hornets-05739/

    The option of extending the life of the CF18's was considered in the 2013 review, its something the Conservatives could still choose to do.

    If we go with the F35, per that article, future contracts for industry on the F35 program in the US are in excess of $9 billion (its interesting to see the suppliers, everything from lasers to bearings).



  42. #1042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    IIRC Rough numbers CF-18

    Bought............... 138
    Lost in use..............8-10
    Into Museums......... 2-3 (Yes I'm jealous)
    Currently operating 70 +/- (Not all received upgrades, including G restricted)

    50 +/- in storage that have had squat, many being used for parts
    Thomas, is there any reason why 50 are in storage other than insufficient funding or are these aircraft frames in bad condition?

    I have always wondered why the Snowbirds are still flying 50 year old CT-114's
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  43. #1043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    IIRC Rough numbers CF-18

    Bought............... 138
    Lost in use..............8-10
    Into Museums......... 2-3 (Yes I'm jealous)
    Currently operating 70 +/- (Not all received upgrades, including G restricted)

    50 +/- in storage that have had squat, many being used for parts
    Thomas, is there any reason why 50 are in storage other than insufficient funding or are these aircraft frames in bad condition?

    I have always wondered why the Snowbirds are still flying 50 year old CT-114's
    As I understand it...

    It started (if my memory serves correctly) with the defense budget cuts in the late 80s, early 90s. Flight hours, pilot flight hours and recurrency training were reduced to the point a large portion of the fleet was parked to save money (these same restrictions continue to a large extent). The intent, originally, was to rotate the aircraft in and out of storage to keep flight hours down.

    Best laid plans...as the need to update and modernize the CF-18 came apparent (and within continuing budget restraints) only part of the CF-18 fleet (lowest time, best condition) received the modernizations and upgrades. The ones that didn't stayed in storage, didn't receive modernization or upgrades and basically became irrelevant as they could no longer be rotated due to equipment differences.

    Then as budgets continued at unsustainable levels parts started to be removed from them...and the cycle (as I see it) continues.

    To the Snowbirds...

    Yes the Snowbirds need newer aircraft but I do not believe that is going to happen in my lifetime. More likely they will be discontinued, which has been proposed by both liberal and conservative governments at various times in my memory, as the cost of decent, newer jet powered aircraft is seen as too expensive.

    The Hawks we use for advanced fighter training are leased and not permitted to be used for public aerobatics I have been told and to buy them is many millions each.

    Much of the Snowbirds dramatic show and phenomenal success is from using the Canadair Tudor. It is (for a jet) a low powered, economical, very agile and easy to fly aircraft that allows for tight precision performances right in close to the crowds...which is what is soooo cool about the Snowbirds, they are always in your face.

    As one of only 2 (if memory serves) 9 ship aerobatic teams in the world their tight formation aerobatics to carefully choreographed sound tracks is unrivaled..everywhere including the U.S.

    CF-18s could not provide anywhere near the same performance, dramatic in the crowd show or the economics that have allowed the Snowbirds to be a success.

    The -18 is too big, too fast, too powerful and needs too much room to perform in a formation.
    (Great single ship show though and the RCAF demo teams are awesome)

    The Snowbirds are scheduled to remain on the Tudor till 2020 I believe or when the parts run out.

    The team currently has its team aircraft (I think 11), some spares at Mountainview Ontario and a number of aircraft (bunch but can't remember how many) that are cannibalized for parts to keep the rest in the air safely.

    The parts will likely run out before the time line...if I remember right the last Tudor was built in 1966 or 1967.

    No replacement is scheduled or in discussion.

    Kids today are very possibly the last generation to see the Snowbirds fly.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

    BTW...

    Snowbirds...Smoke On

    See them in Camrose while you can August 1-2-3

    Complete with autograph sessions
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 25-07-2014 at 02:36 PM.

  44. #1044

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    The -18 is too big, too fast, too powerful and needs too much room to perform in a formation.
    (Great single ship show though and the RCAF demo teams are awesome)
    The Blue Angels do a good show though flying in formation with F/A 18's, I hope maybe some CF18's could be stripped down and retained for this purpose once whatever aircraft we get enters into service. You are probably right though, I expect any party doing this would face criticisim for "wasting" money, sadly.



    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...dron/13023191/
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-07-2014 at 03:16 PM.

  45. #1045
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    It looks like Augustine's 16th law "the cost of military aircraft has continuously risen at an exponential rate over the history of aviation" might force major changes in the future.
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...iting-on-wall/

  46. #1046

    Default

    Interesting article, how at Red Flag, the US Air Force training academy, they are finding the 5 generation jets (F35 and F22) are so powerful, they are needing to train more in virtual simulation rather than live:

    The latest generation of US Air Force fighter jets are smarter, stealthier, and more lethal than their predecessors, but they present an unexpected hurdle: The new jets are too powerful to unleash their full potential during training exercises. One general believes that training pilots in virtual reality is the solution.

    Fifth generation jets like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II boast weaponized high technology like supersonically launched guided missiles and a wealth of sensors that provide full situational awareness to the pilot, simplify decision-making, and allow for advancements like automated targeting. In short, they’re pretty scary and lethal as hell.

    ...

    “I personally believe the differences between live and simulation will continue to blur. Live or simulation? What’s the difference?” said Colonel Franz Plescha, the agency’s recently instituted Commander, near the start of his tenure. “What we call simulation today will become so real, it may actually influence our enemies in the future. Just imagine how that could change combat in the future.”
    http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/re...herboardCanada

  47. #1047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Interesting article, how at Red Flag, the US Air Force training academy, they are finding the 5 generation jets (F35 and F22) are so powerful, they are needing to train more in virtual simulation rather than live:

    The latest generation of US Air Force fighter jets are smarter, stealthier, and more lethal than their predecessors, but they present an unexpected hurdle: The new jets are too powerful to unleash their full potential during training exercises. One general believes that training pilots in virtual reality is the solution.

    Fifth generation jets like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II boast weaponized high technology like supersonically launched guided missiles and a wealth of sensors that provide full situational awareness to the pilot, simplify decision-making, and allow for advancements like automated targeting. In short, they’re pretty scary and lethal as hell.

    ...

    “I personally believe the differences between live and simulation will continue to blur. Live or simulation? What’s the difference?” said Colonel Franz Plescha, the agency’s recently instituted Commander, near the start of his tenure. “What we call simulation today will become so real, it may actually influence our enemies in the future. Just imagine how that could change combat in the future.”
    http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/re...herboardCanada
    Yep...

    Said similar in the 50s with the introduction of Jet fighters.

    Said it again in the early 70s.....

    In the Reagan star wars era it came back again and the US Air Force Academy actually did a research project training 1/2 a class up to the T-38 Talon on sims and the other 1/2 conventionally...then pitted them against each other.

    Promptly returned to conventional training after the research project.

    Here we go again

    Meantime the Canadian Forces, which has actually made money training foreign pilots for other air forces as part of a NATO training pact had to send Canadian Air Force Pilots to the US for training due to equipment problems.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07...ome-documents/

    What a load of crap

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 13-08-2014 at 08:34 AM.

  48. #1048

    Default

    Looks like it's down to two.

    (Reuters) - Canada is likely to choose between two major U.S. firms when it buys a new fleet of jet fighters, excluding two European competitors, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter.

    The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter and Boeing Co's F-18 E/F Super Hornet were deemed more suitable for the variety of tasks the military has laid out.

    The source said that while the F-35 had scored well on the various tests laid out by the military, the Super Hornet was almost as capable and had the advantage of being cheaper.


    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0GZ2MC20140904
    And an article calling for the Super Hornet over the F-35

    Up until a couple of years ago, the Harper Government attempted to fast track the purchase of the troubled F-35 to fill the Hornet's shoes until it was so clear that the math regarding fielding an all F-35 force was a square peg trying to fit into much smaller round fiscal hole. The entire process was eventually halted under a barrage of accusations and controversy after a crushing independent audit basically said what many in the defense world had been saying for years, Canada's F-35 numbers don't add up and the capability the F-35 provides at a great cost may not even be necessary or even relevant to Canada in the first place.

    It is quite logical that Boeing's Super Hornet, especially in its "International Roadmap/Super Hornet Advanced" configuration would be the right aircraft for Canada to replace their aging "legacy Hornets" on their tight budget.

    The F/A-18E/F, and the type's electronic warfare variant that has almost entirely replaced the Navy's venerable EA-6B Prowlers, named the EA-18G Growler, have a ton of commonality with their CF-18 Hornet predecessors. The Super Hornet design was created with great commonality with the first generation Hornet in mind. This includes similar maintenance procedures, training doctrine, avionics and especially pilot familiarity. The similarities between the two aircraft have even allowed VFA-122, the Navy's prime West Coast Fleet Replenishment Squadron that trains new Hornet pilots and refreshes old ones alike, to have instructors that were dual-qualified to train students in both the Super Hornet and the Legacy Hornet types at the same time.

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...t-t-1587492909
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 07-09-2014 at 01:23 AM.

  49. #1049

    Default

    ^It makes sense industrially as well, the US is a much bigger military market (customer and producer) than all of Europe combined, the more our aerospace industry builds ties as suppliers to Lockheed and Boeing, the better.

  50. #1050
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Leduc, Alberta
    Posts
    314

    Default

    I still think that ultimately the F-35 is the better choice but not the way it's going at the moment. It can be addressed down the road or add to the fleet when it has matured. Not only do I suggest a one for one Rhino replacement, around 80 or so, but get some wired for the EW Growler, look into some block III features and possibly negotiate some P-8's and E-7's on top of that.

  51. #1051

    Default

    Rafales in action again (doing what the Euro fighter still can't - strike missions):

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...0ed_story.html

  52. #1052

    Default Canadian fighter jets intercept Russian bombers in the Arctic

    Canadian fighter jets intercept Russian bombers in the Arctic http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadi...ctic-1.2772440

  53. #1053
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    U.S. company says backing out of F-35 deal will cost Canada
    The U.S. company that makes the controversial F-35 fighter is publicly warning that Canadian industry stands to lose as much as $10.5-billion in spinoff contracts if the federal government ends up not buying the warplane.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle14324026/

    10 billion ... I doubt it, but yes cancelling the contract will cost Canada millions, but it may save much more in the long run with something like the F18 Super Hornet. They will be spending money to upgrade the CF-18s to keep them operational for a while longer .

    Canada to funnel money into upgrades to keep CF-18 fighter jets flying

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle20852764/
    Last edited by sundance; 01-10-2014 at 09:49 AM.

  54. #1054

    Default

    Nice little video on the CF-18's and their acomplishments (many) - a very sucessful plane for Canada, performing a highly valuable role as part of NATO:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video...ticle21163142/

  55. #1055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    U.S. company says backing out of F-35 deal will cost Canada
    The U.S. company that makes the controversial F-35 fighter is publicly warning that Canadian industry stands to lose as much as $10.5-billion in spinoff contracts if the federal government ends up not buying the warplane.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle14324026/
    Actually this one made me look

    Pulled the original buy in deal from back in the 2000s (hard copy) from my files at home and unless something has been changed...we won't lose anything.

    When we bought in to the devlepment program (for several hundred million dollars) it guaranteed priority on contracting.

    In short we already paid for the privilege.

    So if the deal hasn't changed...

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  56. #1056
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    I agree Thomas, while some companies would not get F-35 spinoff contracts, they would probably get spinoff contracts from whatever plane is finally purchased in large quantities.

  57. #1057

    Default

    ^possibly, but keep in mind the potential for F35 work is vast compared to any other fight jet, nothing else is going to be made with anywhere near the quantities that it will be made (for the U.S. Navy, Airforce and Marines) in the next couple of decades, more than a thousand aircraft and on going spares for them, not 100 or so. Not great tactics by Lockheed though, I'm sure Boeing are getting more confident. I wouldn't call it an empty threat though, Lockheed can contract with whomever they choose to going forward, unless something is locked in.
    Last edited by moahunter; 23-10-2014 at 06:53 AM.

  58. #1058
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    The vast contracts and work is probably the major reason the F-35 will never receive the orders they initially planned. There are about 100 now, I'd say at the end they will be no more than 1,000 at the end of production. Most countries just can't afford the huge pricetag of them.

  59. #1059

    Default

    ^I think it will be about 1,500 which is around the minimun that the US will need, that is still a massive order, with a lot of $. Not just up front either, you talking potentially 40 years of replacement parts for that fleet and various modernization programs.

  60. #1060
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    My guess is US will scale back their orders go with something like the Super Hornet, not sure about Canada, Harper is pretty bull headed sometimes to the point of utter stupidity (and I am conservative), however we do have a federal election in about a year, I'm guessing both Liberals and NDP will dramatically scale back or cancel the contract outright.

    The problem with multi-purpose planes is they end up compromising so much they end up being good for very little.

  61. #1061
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    The vast contracts and work is probably the major reason the F-35 will never receive the orders they initially planned. There are about 100 now, I'd say at the end they will be no more than 1,000 at the end of production. Most countries just can't afford the huge pricetag of them.
    they said the same thing about the f16 whose production over the 40 years since it was introduced is now well over 4,500. the f35 may not reach that but it will likely be far in excess of your projection of no more than 1,000.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  62. #1062
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    Time and politics will tell, the F-16 costs about $15 million the F-35 about $140 million per plane. There are currently about 100 F-35s there are about 4,500 F-16s.

  63. #1063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Time and politics will tell, the F-16 costs about $15 million the F-35 about $140 million per plane. There are currently about 100 F-35s there are about 4,500 F-16s.
    The F-16 is way more today for the last series built...but your point is a good one as they are still dramatically less expensive than the F-35.

    Bear in mind as well that Lockheed has been very good with allowing "licence building" of their aircraft.

    In short allowing other countries to build their own from their own sources.

    Eventually I believe they will be doing the same with the F-35 simply from a market perspective.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  64. #1064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Time and politics will tell, the F-16 costs about $15 million the F-35 about $140 million per plane. There are currently about 100 F-35s there are about 4,500 F-16s.
    The F-16 didn't cost $15m in today's dollars when it was first built, all planes start out very expensive, and decrease in price as manufacturing is refined, production volumes increase, techncial issues are solved, and eventually, the R&D not sought to be recouped. An F35 won't cost over $100 million in 5 years time, and is likely in time to cost less than Superhornet does today - it is a single engine jet after all, once all the computer software, structure issues and electronics are figured out, there won't be such a high price. It has also been designed from the outset to be an easy aircraft to maintain (although that's tempered to some extent by stealth issues, but much easier than the F22 which is incredibly expensive per flight hour).
    Last edited by moahunter; 23-10-2014 at 09:26 AM.

  65. #1065
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    F-35s will drop in price if they hit a large production run, but to drop to Super Hornet prices ... I doubt it more likely to around $100 million per plane. A Super Hornet is about $67 million per plane.

  66. #1066

    Default

    ^Lockheed has long said they expect the F35 to drop to $70m. Keep in mind Superhornet is on what is likely to be its very last production run. It will be a few decades before the F35 is on its last run, it will be very easy to make by then.

  67. #1067

    Default

    Surprise, surprise, surprise </Gomer>

    Harper’s dishonesty on display in latest Pentagon papers on F-35

    According to a Canadian Press story by Murray Brewster based on a Pentagon leak, the Harper government plans to buy four F-35s and slip the acquisition into the current fiscal year. In order to get the controversial jet by 2016 or 2017, Canada has to provide the F-35 Project Office with a letter of intent by mid-November. All this is documented in a U.S. Department of Defense slide show. Not a peep in Ottawa.
    Sooner or later, it is going to sink in that it doesn’t matter what this prime minister says. All that counts is what he wants. Harper’s dictatorship of marketing is picking up speed as we get closer to a federal election and our central institution, Parliament, is playing a profoundly minor role in the affairs of the nation.
    Conservative MPs seemed in the dark about the back-door procurement, while the Opposition was blindsided.

    http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/11/09/h...apers-on-f-35/

  68. #1068

    Default

    ^what a silly article, even if the Conservatives do buy a few F35s to try them out (I don't know if true or not), how is that dictatorship, given they are the democratically elected party? How would putting it to a vote be any different given they have a majority? How else are military purchases supposed to be made - even if Trudeau wins at some point won't he have to make a "dictatorship" decision on the plane to buy,especially if he plans to override what the ministry of defense prefers? Was it a dictatorship decision when he Liberals sent soldiers to Afghanistan? Dumb.

  69. #1069

    Default

    By catching the opposition and even his own party off guard. It's to like taking a car out for a test drive, we'll own them, lock, stock & barrel. If not for the leak from the US we'd still be in the dark.

  70. #1070
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    Now I get the fact of painting fuel trucks white or silver, but yet another F-35 problem, the F-35 uses its fuel as a heat sink to cool off other systems, if the fuel is too hot some systems will overheat

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...-sa-1668120726

  71. #1071

    Default

    Should not be a problem in Canada, we serve our jets with icy cold jet fuel. The downside is with trucks will get lost in the blizzards.

    Let me guess, in Canada they will have to heat the fuel or they won't be able to fly the F-35's because the fuel is too cold.

    Sounds like a 3 bears story.

    During WWII the Germans made the best pistols but they jammed if they got too cold or dirty. The cheap Russian guns worked flawlessly even after falling in the mud. During the Vietnam Was, the first M-16's were so unreliable for the same reason.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  72. #1072
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Now I get the fact of painting fuel trucks white or silver, but yet another F-35 problem, the F-35 uses its fuel as a heat sink to cool off other systems, if the fuel is too hot some systems will overheat

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...-sa-1668120726
    not being that close to how/when front line war planes are refueled, i'm not sure proportionately how much refueling is done "on the ground" and how much is done "in the air" where presumably this would be a non-problem. i would also presume it's a non-problem for those planes which are carrier based regardless of where they are being refueled.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  73. #1073

    Default

    Canada's got carriers?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  74. #1074
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Canada's got carriers?
    i thought you noted already that if this is a problem it won't be a problem in Canada?

    and no, as far as i know we don't have any carriers. but that doesn't mean that lockheed martin won't still be going ahead with the f35b stovl variant. and that variant is being looked at for helicopter pad equipped ships as well as carriers so it may well end up in canada's arsenal as well as italy's and australia's.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  75. #1075

    Default

    ^the F35b's will go ahead, the UK need it for their new QEII aircraft carriers, and the US marines want it also for their helicopter / assault carriers. I don't think Canada will ever buy, even if we pick up those French Mistral class assault carriers destined for Russia, that probably won't happen though (politically unpopular even though it would be a bargain, as not "built in Canada"). I'm sure the fuel thing will be solved, virtually every new fighter jet has hundreds if not thousands of problems to resolve, at least they are finding all the problems now rather than later. I guess its clever little design features like this which explain why the F35 has such a terrific range for its size.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-12-2014 at 05:10 PM.

  76. #1076

    Default

    The F-35 project is a hyper expensive boondoggle and the faults are still coming at a fast rate. The Government of Canada's military procurement system for aircraft, helicopters, icebreakers, supply ships, frigates, vehicles and just about everything else is mismanaged, riddled with political interference from the PMO's office and are fiscally untenable. It was said that during the Vietnam War, the Generals could not bomb an outhouse without the approval of Pres. Johnson. In Canada, it looks like they cannot buy stealth toilet paper with the meddling from Harper and his cronies.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 09-12-2014 at 06:10 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  77. #1077
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,119

    Default

    Finally some sanity from DND. And confirmation of what some of us have already said here.


    Globe and Mail

    “The mission needs analysis undertaken as part of the evaluation of options makes clear that Canadian engagement in future state-on-state conflicts will be highly unlikely,” a report called The Evaluation of Options for the Replacement of the CF-18 Fighter Fleet says.
    When it comes to continental defence, Canada is jointly responsible with the United States, which has the might of the air force at its disposal.
    “Historically, domestic and continental operations have accounted for at least 90% of the use of the Canadian fighter fleet,” the report says.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  78. #1078

    Default

    ^it would be a nice "black eye" to Obama in respect of Keystone if we left the F35 project. The extension of the CF18's to 2025 is clever though, it gives to time to "see" where the F35 ends up / if prices on it drop as production ramps up.

  79. #1079

    Default

    ^ even if we got the F-35's for free, do we want them? The cost of maintaining them and the many operational issues make them a highly questionable choice IMHOAIANTH.

    Reminds me of the UK subs that we got for a "bargain" price.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  80. #1080
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    New U.S. Stealth Fighter Jet Can't Fire Its Gun Until 2019
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...medium=twitter

  81. #1081

    Default

    ^There are reasons to not like the F35, but this delay isn't one. Yes guns were important back in Vietnam, when the US did not have them on Phantoms, yet that was before missle technology was adequate. They are completely uneccesary in air to air combat today and are most likely to be used only for straffing ground targets or cheaply taking out helicopters:

    This would be a particular problem when the aircraft is being used to support ground troops as a gun is more precise than dropping a small bomb — with the latter more likely to cause friendly-fire casualties.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ntil-2019.html

    Its been more than a decade since a plane was shot down with guns in actual combat (they have basically been obsolete since the F15 in the late 1970's / early 80's started destroying opponents consistently with missiles), AIM 120's are fully adequate for the air defense needs of this aircraft (which is an attack bomber first, air to air fighter second), and while this is a capability deficiency in respect of some ground targets, 2019 isn't that far away.
    Last edited by moahunter; 31-12-2014 at 01:46 PM.

  82. #1082

    Default

    What a stupid fighter jet that cannot use its guns to protect itself. It cannot fire its guns till 2019 because of a software issue??? Are these the same idiots who are doing our LRT?


    What a freaking joke.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  83. #1083

    Default

    One issue is that by 2025 when the CF18s will likely be out of service (unless another life extension), the Superhornet, Eurofighter and Rafale will all likely be out of production, there will be no western twin engine fighter jets in production. That leaves just the Grippen E/NG (which SAAB hasn't offered) and the F35. By about 2020 when I am guessing an order decision would be needed by there should be much better information on the cost / performance of both.

    http://www.janes.com/article/46967/c...acement-report
    Last edited by moahunter; 01-01-2015 at 08:48 AM.

  84. #1084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    One issue is that by 2025 when the CF18s will likely be out of service (unless another life extension), the Superhornet, Eurofighter and Rafale will all likely be out of production, there will be no western twin engine fighter jets in production. That leaves just the Grippen E/NG (which SAAB hasn't offered) and the F35. By about 2020 when I am guessing an order decision would be needed by there should be much better information on the cost / performance of both.

    http://www.janes.com/article/46967/c...acement-report
    I wouldn't be surprised if a decade from now drones aren't equal or more capable than manned aircraft.

  85. #1085

    Default

    ^they are getting closer. One of the attractions of the F35 is it has been designed from the outset to be capable of working in unison, and of controlling, UAVs. The U.S. Navy is planning to use their F35Cs this way. That variant is doing extremely well, it recently had a successful landing on the USS Nimitz (so much for the critics going on about the tail hook issues, all fixed). With bigger wings, it has a longer range than the F35A the U.S. Air Force will get (I think it looks better to, next top gun movie should be very cool).



    By the time Canada has to make a buying decision there may be more than a 1,000 F35s flying around the world, in the RAF/RN, USAF, USN, and USMC. The bugs will be fewer and fewer and the production lines in full swing. It's highly likely by then the price will be comparable to 4th generation aircraft today, around 85m, but if not, at least a different decision can be made then.

    Last edited by moahunter; 01-01-2015 at 03:00 PM.

  86. #1086
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    While this is a shortcoming, guns are not that important, stealth technology and long range accurate missiles means the average fighter will not even come within gun range. As well the amount of bullets they can carry mean the guns will have essentially one burst of gunfire. I suppose if the gun trigger is synced with the radar you could hold fire if there is nothing in range.

    In the big picture this isn't the hugest of problems, but just yet another strike against the F-35 has.

    Now if this had a short range ground attack role (A-10 Warthog, AH-64 Apache) this would be a critical problem.

  87. #1087

    Default

    Twenty or thirty years from now - dirt cheap drones of all kinds of variations, low cost super fast missiles that out fly any jet designed decades earlier... I don't know what the future will be for jets but I'd hate to have to rely on one, relatively un-diversified defence strategy to ward off an enemy that has been able to study your every weakness and has numerous alternative technologies to deploy to overwhelm your one-size-fit-all strategy.

    I'd sure be temped to buy used aircraft with current technology to have greater numbers available right now. Buy used and change them up more frequently so you don't get the huge time lags in capabilities and the funds go far further. then don't waste years and incredible manpower hours making long delayed decisions and those savings can be redirected towards better preparations.

    I don't know if this cpmaprison works but basically, the people that I know that buy new cars keep them forever to recoup their initial outlay and so for many years have really dated technology whereas those that trade off on 2-3-4 year old cars never have the very latest but then don't have the oldest technology either and pay less up front for it too boot. So if having the latest technology is critical, then being continuously close to new vs alternating from the latest to the oldest, in my mind, puts you at a larger strategic disadvantage.
    Last edited by KC; 02-01-2015 at 02:53 PM.

  88. #1088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    While this is a shortcoming, guns are not that important, stealth technology and long range accurate missiles means the average fighter will not even come within gun range.
    That's especially the case with the F35, its intended primarily as a BVR fighter in terms of air defence (although it will have the neat helmet targetting system, simply look - even through the floor, lock and shoot). I believe the Navy and Marines varients only have the option of a gun in a weapons pod if needed, rather than integrated in. The main reason for a gun though is ground attack, with the A10 about to be phased out, they will need to get this working, although UAV's are taking on more and more of the ground attack role (the US also has those big Hercules gunships). Oddly, new generation targetting pods are making guns more important for ground attack, as they allow highly accurate fire without the collateral damage risks of a laser guided bomb (gun fire is cheaper as well). Probably not such a big issue for Canada though, and by the time any planes will be delivered the software will probably be written. Interestingly, there is some talk that a solid state laser is in development for the F35, the US Navy now have one working that can disable drones and small gun boats.
    Last edited by moahunter; 02-01-2015 at 02:57 PM.

  89. #1089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^they are getting closer. One of the attractions of the F35 is it has been designed from the outset to be capable of working in unison, and of controlling, UAVs.
    BZZZT. Wrong.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...lder-jets.html

    When the Pentagon’s nearly $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter finally enters service next year after nearly two decades in development, it won’t be able to support troops on the ground the way older planes can today. Its sensors won’t be able to see the battlefield as well; and what video the F-35 does capture, it won’t be able to transmit to infantrymen in real time.
    It's actually a step backwards compared to what the US is fielding now. The F35 also lacks the infrared laser marking system that's integral to precise drone strikes.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  90. #1090

    Default

    ^they made a decision to "stop" and use an EOTS pod available at that time for the design, you have to put some limits on technology creep to get an aircraft working. This is easily overcome by simply carrying a modern EOTS pod under wing. Downside is you lose stealth, but perhaps not an issue typically for these missions for close support. I expect the internal EOTS will be updated in a future traunch (although a bit tricky as its internal), its not the highest priority though when you can just put one under wing for those missions where the historical one isn't sharp enough.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-01-2015 at 02:28 PM.

  91. #1091
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,485

    Default

    Israel is buying up 14 F-35 to bring it to 33 so far , so why can't Canada get some of those high tech fighter jets ??

    http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Isr...er-jets-391789
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  92. #1092
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,485
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  93. #1093

  94. #1094

    Default

    With the U.S. F-35 Grounded, Putin’s New Jet Beats Us Hands-Down


    With the U.S. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter still in limbo over reliability problems, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s administration on Monday said it would begin regular production of its newest fighter jet, the T-50, next year.
    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/0...fingtonpost-ca
    Maybe we should look at buying the T-50 instead of the F-35...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  95. #1095

    Default

    ^The T-50 will be up against the F22, not the F35. Just like we didn't buy F15's, we arent going to buy F22's, we need a multi-role jet not an air superiority jet.

  96. #1096

    Default

    They also talk about the problems with the F-35. Both the F-35 and F-22 are in serious trouble.

    Estimated cost of the T-50, $50Million USD.

    An air superiority fighter at a bargain price half that of the F-35...
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 06-05-2015 at 09:23 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  97. #1097

    Default

    ^we aren't buying a Russian plane, we are part of NATO and use NATO munitions. Every time a new weapon comes out in Russia there is hype about how great it is, until it enters the battlefield and the assessments change. Its all BVR now, and the best electronics / missiles are with NATO.

    Rafale is doing very well at the moment, starting to rack up some sales in the middle east. I have always thought that would be a good choice to consider. More modern design than superhornet, twin engine (not that I think its essential), and already multi-role (unlike Euro fighter). We have some interesting historical connections to France as well.

  98. #1098
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    Delays in costly ‘white elephant’ F-35 leave British skies ‘vulnerable’
    http://rt.com/uk/257361-f35-jet-delay-uk/

  99. #1099

    Default

    ^the RN made a big mistake, IMO, with the QEII class carriers. They started off with jump jet design, changed to traditional (which provides much more flexibility), got worried about the cost, and are now back to jump jet. I don't think RT is the best source though (pretty biased), the euro fighters the RAF has are more than capable of air defense against any Russian threat. They do need a strike replacement for the Toronado, but unitil the F35 comes, they can probably make do with Euro fighter which has mixed use upgrades occuring.
    Last edited by moahunter; 12-05-2015 at 10:12 AM.

  100. #1100

    Default

    The point is that the F-35 may never be in full production and then what shall we do as a replacement for the CF18S?

    You put much to much faith in the F-35 program IMHO.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •