Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415 LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,300 of 1484

Thread: Which Fighter Jet should Canada choose?

  1. #1201

    Default

    USAF ? LM hasn't got an answer to an enemy simply taking out their wonderjet while its on ground.
    USN ? Subs can go undetected to launch torpedoes to take out a carrier before the jets can get away.

    The F-35's wizardry cannot prevent these things.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  2. #1202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    USAF ? LM hasn't got an answer to an enemy simply taking out their wonderjet while its on ground.
    USN ? Subs can go undetected to launch torpedoes to take out a carrier before the jets can get away.
    So the US should stop buying / designing planes to fight in hostile environments?????? You do realize that surrounding Aircraft carriers are constant patrols of ASW pickets and submarines to prevent subs coming close don't you? How many US carriers have been sunk in the last three decades? But yeah, sure, a nuke could take it all out... OK.... whatever.
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-11-2015 at 02:20 PM.

  3. #1203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    So the US should stop buying / desingning planes to fight in hostile environments??????
    No. Not saying that at all. The US doesn't design them, LM does. The US should stop placating to ONE manufacturer that is selling magic beans. But it's too late for that. For them. Canada doesn't have to follow suit.

    It's a plane. Using combustion thrust engines devised in the 40's. Using timeless methods of lift etc. The rest is gadgets and hype. A pilot can just turn his head and the weapons system responds accordingly? Great, why bother with agility? Just make it go fast in a straight line and look where you want to shoot. You want cutting edge? Come up with anti-gravity or a propulsion system not 80 years old. (oh wait, LM will say they're in testing with that and it will be in the F-35 shortly)
    Last edited by bpeters; 04-11-2015 at 02:31 PM.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  4. #1204

    Default

    According to Foxtrot Alpha, Israel is requesting production of the stealthy F-15 "Silent Eagle" variant.[/URL]

    Quote Originally Posted by Foxtrot Alpha
    The F-15SE concept included conforming internal weapons bays, V-shaped tails, radar baffles over its engine-fan faces, radar absorbent coatings, along with other enhancements used to lower the jet’s radar signature, especially from the forward hemisphere. It also would feature many of the options found on the latest F-15 Strike Eagle derivatives today, including fly-by-wire controls, a wide-screen cockpit, updated electronic warfare and radar warning systems, an infrared search and track system (IRST) and the most powerful fighter-based AESA radar in the world.
    ...
    The idea was that an F-15SE could be outfitted in a stealthy configuration with conforming weapons bays for “first days of war” operations. Once the enemy’s air defense have been degraded, the jet can be quickly reconfigured to the hard-hitting enhanced Strike Eagle configuration with many external stores configurations. This flexibility is an enticing capability mix for what is already a highly proven and low-risk platform.
    Several commentators in the article pointed out how this is a better overall platform then the Super Hornet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Foxtrot Alpah Commentator Fredgiblet
    I’m personally of the opinion that the Canucks would be better off with the Eagle, either regular or Silent. Fact is they’ve got a LOT of airspace to cover and the Eagle has better range. The Super Hornet has some commonality, but my understanding is that it isn’t as great as you’d think. They LOOK alike, but there’s a LOT of differences under the hood.
    Quote Originally Posted by Foxtrot Alpah Commentator AmateurHour
    Much better off with a ‘Not one pound for air-to-ground” update than lugging a landing gear and folding wings they don’t need around in a dog-fight they’ll lose because they didn’t show up with a 4-ship interceptor or CAP flight sporting 64 AMRAM missiles.

    I wanted to double check before posting this, but YES, while the Super Hornet actually weighs slightly MORE than the SE, it’s MTOW is a whopping 15,000lbs LESS. That’s a LOT of missiles, fuel or bombs.

    For a country that has exactly ZERO aircraft carriers I think this makes the arguement for the SE overwhelming.
    The one disadadvantage is we'd need to modify our tanker aircraft.

    Quote Originally Posted by Foxtrot Alpah Commentator BuzzKillington
    The refueling receptacle for the Eagle is on it’s back. Trying to get a probe designed into the airframe would require significant changes.

    To be honest, it would probably be cheaper and easier to just add booms to the Canadian tanker aircraft.
    Again according to Foxtrot Alpha, Boeing is also working on a 16 air-to-air missle configuration for the Strike Eagle.[/URL]

    It'd probably cost more then the Super Hornet, but it sounds like a more capable platform, and maybe some of the costs could be offset by going in with Israel on the order. The Super Hornet may still be a better choice, but it sound like the Eagle might make an interesting competitor to add to our fighter competition.

  5. #1205

    Default

    ^the F15 was looked at when Canada purchased the CF18s, it was too expensive, and that hasn't changed. Its an amazing air superiority aircraft and decent bomb truck, but Trudeau isn't going to buy something more expensive than the F35. Boeing, which manufactures the Superhornet and F15, is pitching Superhornet. That's what we will probably get. Only other relaistic choices are Gripen (cheap but single engine and linked to Boeing who want to sell superhornets), Eurofighter (too expensive, and limited roles), and Rafalee (great aircraft but not cheap, and different munitions).
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-11-2015 at 08:57 PM.

  6. #1206
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Do we really need a fighter jet at all?

    What purpose could Canada having a fighter jet really serve? We could spend our entire national budget on fighter jets, and we would still be steamrolled by Russia or China instantaneously.

    Face it, Canada having an expensive new jet is just ego-stroking. We don't need it for anything, we won't use it for anything, and it is a complete waste.

    A better military investment would be to spend the same amount on Northern development and properly arming and training the rangers. That would do more to protect our sovereignty than anything.

  7. #1207

    Default

    ^so you would just let Russian bombers fly over us willy nilly for the Rangers to point their little rifles at? Ok... I wouldn't ...

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadi...ctic-1.2772440

    There is a reason Putin doesn't fly over the Baltic nations anymore... It has to do with our CF18s and a NATO mission... This isn't ego, it's real, Russian planes were constantly breaching the airspace of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, before this mission, and they would constantly breach ours in the Arctic if we didn't have fighter jets working as part of NORAD.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle20296776/
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-11-2015 at 11:20 PM.

  8. #1208
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    Not garbage, but the various military factions would be better served by single purpose planes that do one thing very well rather than a multi-purpose plane that does nothing well.

  9. #1209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Not garbage, but the various military factions would be better served by single purpose planes that do one thing very well rather than a multi-purpose plane that does nothing well.
    Those days have long gone, you end up with planes sitting idle or flying with little to do most of the time. That's why the US modified the F15 to also perform bombing missions, and its why Germany and the UK are spending a fortune trying to make the Eurofighter do more than short range interception missions (something its sister plane, the Rafale, was designed for earlier in the process, the French got it right). I'd argue the F-15 does everything well, and CF-18's also did everything reasonably well. Any of the affordable choices will do a sufficient job for Canada, albeit, its unclear for how long.

    An air-superiority aircraft like F15 will cost too much, and there is no long range interceptor aircraft that the Liberals could buy, the only modern one flying today, is the MIG 31 (unsuitable for NATO munitions and targetting pods which we have, and of course, all sorts of supply problems, and political ones). So that leaves, low cost multi-role aircraft. This is what most airforces effectivley use, and Canada effectivley used with the CF18's (which performed a lot more missions than our prior single role aircraft - its better to have Canadian pilots providing combat support to our troops). The superhornet will fit the bill I guess, not an exciting choice, and maybe not a long term choice, but an easy upgrade one from the CF18's.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-11-2015 at 10:52 AM.

  10. #1210
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^so you would just let Russian bombers fly over us willy nilly for the Rangers to point their little rifles at? Ok... I wouldn't ...

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadi...ctic-1.2772440

    There is a reason Putin doesn't fly over the Baltic nations anymore... It has to do with our CF18s and a NATO mission... This isn't ego, it's real, Russian planes were constantly breaching the airspace of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, before this mission, and they would constantly breach ours in the Arctic if we didn't have fighter jets working as part of NORAD.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle20296776/


    Again, we could spend every cent in the entire national budget on planes, and it wouldn't deter the Russians if they had made up their minds to invade us. What spending money on northern development and the Rangers does is secure a legal claim to the north in treaty discussions, which is what actually matters in a globalized world.

    Canada is not even a blip on the radar of global military powers when referring to realpolitik.

    Personally, I like it that way. Reserve our "might" for supporting peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. Don't fall for delusions of grandeur in which we believe selecting a fighter jet will have any impact on the decision making of global powers.

  11. #1211

    Default F35 might be back in the running

    Surprise surprise, I guess it makes sense, it was a Liberal government after all who decided to enter into the F35 project:

    http://ca.reuters.com/article/domest...0TA02X20151121

    http://ca.reuters.com/article/busine...0TA0SE20151121

  12. #1212
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,473

    Default

    F-35 fighter pilots are gearing up for the new planes virtually.

    http://bgr.com/2015/12/14/f-35-fight...nes-virtually/
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  13. #1213

    Default

    Glad to see the US dollar is up to $1.37. Now the F-35's are such a better bargain!
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #1214

    Default

    ^same with Super hornets.

  15. #1215

    Default

    Except the Super Hornet costs about 2/3rds and at least comes with an engine.


    Last time I checked, a F-35 glider makes for a poor fighter aircraft.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  16. #1216
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    Yet another bad F-35 news report, hmm I wonder if Thales was involved in the software?

    The Pentagon's New List of F-35 Bugs Is Predictably Awful

    The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is the most expensive military program in the world, so it should be no surprise that the F-35 aircrafts are loaded with powerful weapons controlled by powerful computers. Unfortunately, the guns don’t fire yet, and the computers still don’t work right.
    ...
    http://gizmodo.com/the-pentagons-new...wfu-1756826707

  17. #1217

    Default

    ^the software has always been the main issue, not the performance of the plane itself. I think it will be figured out in time, at the end of the day, this is going to be the US main workhorse for the next 30 to 40 years. Once the software is figured out, that won't impact the costs moving forward, it becomes a sunk cost.

    Cool photo here, you can see the different wing size on the F35 C (Navy variant left), b (Marines/RAF variant center) and A (Air Force variant right):



    http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-setback-2016-2

  18. #1218

    Default

    More delays = more $$$$

    But Moa will continue to push the idea that costs are actually going down.


    Other bugs included the fact that the F-35 doesn’t know whether it’s using new or old parts. The aircraft’s computer “incorrectly authorizes older/inappropriate replacement parts” according to the document. The fighter jet also doesn’t know when it’s moving too quickly: “The Integrated Exceedance Management System, designed to assess and report whether the aircraft exceeded limitations during flight, failed to function properly.” So that sounds pretty bad, too.

    Perhaps the worst of all the bugs is the fact that the F-35 will likely kill you if you try to eject from it. “Recent discoveries that require design changes, modifications, and regression testing include the ejection seat for safe separation, wing fuel tank over‑pressurization, and the life-limitations of the F-35B bulkhead. For these specific reasons and others, further program delays are likely.”

  19. #1219

    Default

    ^Like every other primary fighter jet ever developed for the US, cost will go down, once the initial development phase is over, provided production starts ramping up. The F35 has been a development nightmare, but once the tranches are set and the bugs ironed out, after that, its just going to get cheaper and cheaper.

  20. #1220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ...the initial development phase .....
    Any thoughts on when this initial development phase will be over? anyone?

    Using Oct 2001 as the beginning of the JSF program (purposely overlooking the prior 4 years that LM was one of only two Co.'s selected to participate in the procurement 'bake off'. One would think during this time LM was working on some of the wizardry they felt necessary for a 5Gen fighter. Isnt that what Skunkworks does?), that puts the JSF program at 14yrs and counting...for a jet fighter....using propulsion (jet) that's had 70 yrs of refinement and advancement....
    For comparison, using May 1961 as the beginning of US manned space flight, a man walked on the moon 8 yrs later. In this time developing and inventing completely brand new technologies and theories. Sometimes 'on the fly'. A 'development phase' that included the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. 8 yrs.

    The F-35. All that wizardry and $$$$$$$ for a jet fighter.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  21. #1221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ...the initial development phase .....
    Any thoughts on when this initial development phase will be over? anyone?
    Well, as a comparison, the most successful fighter jet ever, to date, is the F15, with more than 100 kills to 0 losses. It started development in 1967 and entered into service in 1976. Perhaps not as long as the F35, but still, quite a period. The F22 started in 1981 and entered into service in 2005 which is 24 years. It never entered into full production, although much of its technology has transferred to the F35.

    The difference today, is that back during the cold war all the development costs were hidden due to "national security". Now everything is picked over in detail. Every modern fighter went through long painful development phases, and each generation is more and more complex.
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-02-2016 at 03:41 PM.

  22. #1222
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    The presumption is that software can be figured out. A lot depends on what the nature of the problems are. I have seen software projects get so far into the weeds the only solution was to start over again or modify workflows to work around the bugs. The latter wouldn't really be an option for a fighter jet.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  23. #1223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    The presumption is that software can be figured out. A lot depends on what the nature of the problems are. I have seen software projects get so far into the weeds the only solution was to start over again or modify workflows to work around the bugs. The latter wouldn't really be an option for a fighter jet.
    Very true Paul.
    LM watched Clint Eastwood's Firefox too many times.....(yeah I was a teenager when that movie came out. I thought it was pretty cool.)
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  24. #1224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    The presumption is that software can be figured out. A lot depends on what the nature of the problems are. I have seen software projects get so far into the weeds the only solution was to start over again or modify workflows to work around the bugs. The latter wouldn't really be an option for a fighter jet.
    I think the original plan was that there would be different tranches / Blocks of software. It seems to have gone off the rails though, with patch after patch.

    https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/software

    Block 1A/1B – Block 1 comprises 78 percent of the more than 8.3 million source lines of code required for the F-35’s full warfighting capability. Block 1A was the ready for training configuration while Block 1B provided initial multi-level security.
    •Block 2A – Block 2A is currently released to the F-35 fleet. It provides enhanced training including functionality for off-board fusion, initial data links, electronic attack and mission debrief. With Block 2A, nearly 86 percent of the required code for full warfighting capability is flying.
    •Block 2B – Block 2B provides initial warfighting capabilities, including but not limited to expanded data links, multi-ship fusion and initial live weapons. The U.S. Marines will declare IOC with Block 2B. With Block 2B, more than 87 percent of the required code for full warfighting capability is flying.
    •Block 3i – Block 3i provides the same tactical capabilities as Block 2B. The principal difference between 2B and 3i is the implementation of new hardware, specifically the updated Integrated Core Processor. The Air Force will declare IOC with Block 3i. With Block 3i, 89 percent of code required for full warfighting capability is flying.
    •Block 3F – Block 3F provides 100 percent of the software required for full warfighting capability, including but not limited to data link imagery, full weapons and embedded training. Mission Systems Block 3F software development is 98 percent complete.
    I'm guessing its probably about the most complex software system in the world today.
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-02-2016 at 04:39 PM.

  25. #1225
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    Tricky to measure software complexity but if we're talking lines of code it's well behind the pack. All major desktop OS's are over 50 million lines. The LHC is 50m. Facebook is over 60m. Apparently modern high end cars clock in at over 100m.

    http://www.crunchyfriday.com/wp-cont...s_of_code5.png

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  26. #1226

    Default

    ^My bad. I think this might be a case where they rushed the code initially to get those early prototypes flying. And now, paying for that rush - i.e. perhaps they didn't have proper documentation / controls.

    don't know, just speculating.

  27. #1227
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^My bad. I think this might be a case where they rushed the code initially to get those early prototypes flying. And now, paying for that rush - i.e. perhaps they didn't have proper documentation / controls.

    don't know, just speculating.
    No worries, I get that, it's all I'm doing as well.

    I would say if this is the case they could have a huge problem on their hands. The initial foundation stage of coding is critical even if it delays the the point at which you have a working product. Ideally once you start building the front facing part you don't want to be touching the foundation layers if at all possible. Every change there can cascade problems up through the system.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  28. #1228
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    I'm amazed they are still flying A-10s, but with the F-35s being not ready the choices are limited.
    ---
    A-10 to fly until 2022 as DOD test chief warns against F-35 “block buy”
    In the Department of Defense's budget request for 2017, the Air Force has conceded what to many has been obvious—that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will not be ready to take the place of the A-10 Thunderbolt II (also known as the "Warthog") in close air support missions any time soon. In its budget request, the Air Force is seeking funds to keep the A-10 flying, and DOD officials say the aircraft will remain in service until at least the 2022 fiscal year...
    http://arstechnica.com/information-t...-35-block-buy/

  29. #1229

    Default

    ^its a little bit strange. I think the A10 has really been replaced with drones, not the future F35.

  30. #1230
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    It was interesting reading the comments that they contracted Boeing to build new sets of wings for the A-10 over the years to keep the fleet flying.
    http://www.boeing.com/defense/suppor...ram/index.page

  31. #1231

    Default

    ^That is interesting. Boeing is in a bit of bother at the moment re government aviation. With the Superhornet and F15 lines coming to a close in the next few years, and not winning the new bomber contract (went to Northrop), there is a big question mark over its military arm.

  32. #1232
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^its a little bit strange. I think the A10 has really been replaced with drones, not the future F35.
    While drones are helping with close air support they are not capable enough yet to the primary source of it. The A-10 was built for CAS and is still the most effective aircraft in that role the U.S. has.

    Interesting Quora piece on this:

    Are Close Air Support (CAS) aircraft like the A-10 and Su-25 obsolete?

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  33. #1233

    Default

    ^if it has to be maned, then rather than A-10 which is stupidly expensive for the limited role it plays (it can only fly in areas after the heavy lifting of SAM removal is done by planes like F35 in future), IMO they should go for A-29 Super Tucano's which can loiter even longer term in combat zones:

    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow



    I think CAS will eventually be all drones, but I guess its still a transition time.
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-02-2016 at 01:44 PM.

  34. #1234
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Considering that the primary benefit of this plane was supposed to be in smart features, the fact that the software doesn't work seems like more than a little problem.

  35. #1235

    Default

    There is an interesting article here from Dutch F16 pilots, trialing the F35:

    http://airheadsfly.com/2016/01/26/du...tning-testers/

    But did the Dutch F-35 pilots perhaps have a hard time ‘killing’ Dutch F-16s in simulated air combat manoeuvring (ACM) over Edwards? After all, the inability of a US F-35 to finish off a F-16 – either because it lacks sufficient maneuverability or thrust from its Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine – was much reported.

    “The F-35 will have a large advantage going into the visual arena against fourth generation or aircraft like the Su-35, due to its advanced sensors, stealth and datalink capability and resulting increased situational awareness. We have already seen this during testing at Edwards”, says ‘Gladys’, one of the RNLAF pilots at Edwards.

    The visual fight will most likely already be decided before the adversary knows it’s in a dogfight, continues Gladys. “Even so, slow-speed and high angle-of-attack performance is much better than many fourth generation fighters like the F-16. High angle of attack testing has been an eye-opener for previous F-16 pilots, who are not used to very good slow speed performance. Straight line acceleration is also much better. At higher speeds, the F-16 has the sustained turning advantage (as it does over many aircraft like the F-18 ), but only when fighting in training configurations without any missiles or bombs. When flying in combat configs, even the high speeds sustained fight becomes much closer.”

  36. #1236
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    Because this thread could use a little levity:

    Canadian Forces’ BattleMech procurement program $500 trillion over budget

    “Our main role as a middle power will be to support our allies in counter-insurgency operations,” said auditor Ferguson as he rubbed his temples in exasperation. “I don’t see how a 15 storey fusion powered robot that can go completely invisible will help us gather intelligence or take out individual terrorist operatives without massive cost overruns and civilian casualties. Also, is it really necessary that it be able to hide in the sun?”

    Ferguson added that giving the exclusive contract for manufacture to Bombardier, who had never before attempted to make death machines on such a grand scale, was “completely devoid of accountability,” and that, even if the machines were made on time, there was only man qualified to operate the battlemechs: retired astronaut Chris Hadfield.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  37. #1237
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,473

    Default

    F-35 jet back on Ottawa’s radar screen

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...ar-screen.html
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  38. #1238

    Default

    ^if you read that old quote of Trudeaus, you realize the nonesense he talked at the last election. "Scrapping the F35 will free up 10s of billions for the Navy". No it won't, which ever fighter jet we choose is going to be very expensive, there is no option that is 10s of billions cheaper, other than not having fighters, which would allow Russian bombers to fly over our cities as they choose. Over its lifetime, choosing a twenty year old design that's more observable so easier to locate and shoot down, rather than the F35, may very well end up just being more expensive as it will obsolete much sooner. The Liberals know this, it's why they originally joined the F35 project and it's why we are still likely going to purchase it.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-02-2016 at 04:14 PM.

  39. #1239
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,098

    Default

    ^Trudeau was probably thinking of buying RC model planes armed with fire crackers.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  40. #1240

    Default

    In a hot war, our few F-35's would last about an hour IMHO
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  41. #1241
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,473

    Default

    I hear that F-35 were having no problem so far in Israel but they use F-15 most of the ttime when they strike back at Hamas's targets in Gaza.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  42. #1242

    Default

    Talk about an unequal fight. Hamas and Gaza has no planes and almost stone age weapons against F-15's
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  43. #1243

    Default New Bomber looks like old Bomber

    No slow down in stealth. B52's days may finally be ending, the B21 looks like its basically a newer and perhaps cheaper (just a half billion or so per plane) version of the B2:

    http://arstechnica.com/information-t...mber-the-b-21/



    At first glance, maybe it should be named the "Deja Vu." The B-21 appears to bear a strong resemblance to the last bomber that Northrop Grumman built, the B-2 Spirit that was designed during the Cold War and introduced in 1997. The B-2 was a moonshot project for its time. Its high cost ($44.7 billion overall) and the end of the Cold War led to a dramatic reduction in the number built—from an original order of 132 to a final total of 21.

    The LRS-B program, on the other hand, was intended to be based on tried-and-true tech, not a moonshot. The goal was to embrace innovation to reduce the overall development cost of the bomber. James explained that this is why the B-21 looks so much like its predecessor. "The B-21 has been designed from the beginning based on a set of requirements that allows the use of existing and mature technology,” she said.
    It will likely use some of the same technology as the F35, including a couple of the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine's. The U.S. is basically trying to build a common parts/technology platform for all their aircraft with a view to driving down costs longer term.
    Last edited by moahunter; 26-02-2016 at 01:41 PM.

  44. #1244
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Talk about an unequal fight. Hamas and Gaza has no planes and almost stone age weapons against F-15's
    when it's your neighbor or the person beside you on a bus or a sidewalk, stone age weapons are more readily delivered and just as deadly.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  45. #1245

    Default

    So quick quiz....

    Of all the modern operations, except the 2nd Gulf War in which case Stealth was used offensively, where has Stealth been an advantage?

    Even in the Bosnian/Serbian conflict with the very limited use of the F-117 they lost one.

    T

  46. #1246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Of all the modern operations, except the 2nd Gulf War in which case Stealth was used offensively, where has Stealth been an advantage?
    Stealth has always been an element of combat, right from WWI where the person with the best eyes / able to spot someone coming in from the sun survived. The US researched in Vietnam what resulted in most combat losses, and they found in most instances, it was because pilots did not detect the enemy - they were killed before there was even a dog fight / or by a SAM. That's when stealth research was decided on as the way forward, although it was by no means new (the U2 and Blackbird were early stealth planes).

    http://www.flightsimbooks.com/f19ste...th_History.php

    The F117 is obsolete now, the one that was shot down was detected when the bomb bay opened disturbing its stealth profile. Its fine to say "stealth isn't a big deal", but a plane that has stealth, will always detect a plane that doesn't have stealth, first, with modern electronics. Even if the stealth plane can be detected, it will be detected further out, giving it an advantage. In a location like Ukraine, a plane like a Su 25 (A-10 equivalent), is a sitting duck to SAM's, but a stealth aircraft is survivable in that environment. That's going to be the future more and more, its why the Russians and Chinese are both heavily invested in stealth, its why there are stealth blackhawke helicopters for Spec Ops, and new naval ships have stealth designs, its why the US is moving forward with the bomber program, why most of our NATO allies are choosing the F35, and why I think, the Liberals are changing their minds back to their original decision - to proceed with the F35. Stealth isn't going away, but non-stealth will, except in the safest of environments.
    Last edited by moahunter; 26-02-2016 at 03:56 PM. Reason: Su 25 not 24

  47. #1247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Talk about an unequal fight. Hamas and Gaza has no planes and almost stone age weapons against F-15's
    when it's your neighbor or the person beside you on a bus or a sidewalk, stone age weapons are more readily delivered and just as deadly.
    Agreed Ken. That's why Tel Aviv and Gaza are indistinguishable due to war damage. Both are blasted ruins.

  48. #1248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Of all the modern operations, except the 2nd Gulf War in which case Stealth was used offensively, where has Stealth been an advantage?
    Stealth has always been an element of combat, right from WWI where the person with the best eyes / able to spot someone coming in from the sun survived. The US researched in Vietnam what resulted in most combat losses, and they found in most instances, it was because pilots did not detect the enemy - they were killed before there was even a dog fight / or by a SAM. That's when stealth research was decided on as the way forward, although it was by no means new (the U2 and Blackbird were early stealth planes).

    http://www.flightsimbooks.com/f19ste...th_History.php

    The F117 is obsolete now, the one that was shot down was detected when the bomb bay opened disturbing its stealth profile. Its fine to say "stealth isn't a big deal", but a plane that has stealth, will always detect a plane that doesn't have stealth, first, with modern electronics. Even if the stealth plane can be detected, it will be detected further out, giving it an advantage. In a location like Ukraine, a plane like a Su 25 (A-10 equivalent), is a sitting duck to SAM's, but a stealth aircraft is survivable in that environment. That's going to be the future more and more, its why the Russians and Chinese are both heavily invested in stealth, its why there are stealth blackhawke helicopters for Spec Ops, and new naval ships have stealth designs, its why the US is moving forward with the bomber program, why most of our NATO allies are choosing the F35, and why I think, the Liberals are changing their minds back to their original decision - to proceed with the F35. Stealth isn't going away, but non-stealth will, except in the safest of environments.
    Ah Moa if you're going to try and refute something at least get it right....

    The F117 that got shot don was by a 1950s SAM system that the battery commander (a fan of Tesla...the scientist) adjust the frequency on. You see stealth only works n certain bands.

    Wonderful story on the interweb of the meeting of the battery commander and the F117 pilot....check it out.

    BTW get a better souce that flight sim for you other anologies...the reason for losses in Vietnam was poor tactics and trying to dogfight at close range with Migs (the small subsonic Mig 17 and Mig 19) when flying heavy F4 Phatoms.

    Led to the establishment of the Top Gun school and the Airforce School in Arizona/Nevada.

    Robin Olds (one of the top Mig killers) book is a great source or darn near any decent source on the net.

    The rest is old argments rehashed.

    T

  49. #1249

    Red face

    ^I provided a source. But yeah, I get it, you are right, and the militaries of the US, Russia, China, UK, Israel, etc, are all wrong in pursuing stealth technology. And yes, I know some bands are better at detecting less advanced stealth (S and l bands), but they are huge, short range, also light up the skies with noise / are easy to take out with radar honing weaponary. ps lots of things were learned in Vietnam, not all of them were shown in the movie Top Gun. Watch at about 5 minutes on this video on history of F22, most aircraft in Vietnam were killed by aircraft they hadn't seen, which was backed up by WWII and Korea data:

    Last edited by moahunter; 26-02-2016 at 09:29 PM.

  50. #1250

    Default

    Russia backed off on concentrated stealth designs and biased to performance, you already know that. Russia has also led the tech in combining the multiple signals of their computer systems to detect and track Stealth aircraft. The program came as an offshoot of their cold war sub detection programming.

    China is accomplishing the same using a combination of thermal detection and vortex/wake turbulence detection.

    Wave length variation has been in development for some time and has advanced long past Bosnia.

    Sources...flight sim website, really.

    Try some primary source, gee they happen to mostly be books.
    Full circle by Johnnie Johnson
    Mig Ace by Robin Olds, also a nice guy met him at his museum in Bellingham WA.
    History of the USAF available at the NMUSAF website, Smithsonian has some great resources as well.

    Stealth is a tool whose time is, while not past, is passing in aviation. Large fixed or slow objects (fixed assets/ships) that are already in the radar wake will use the capability to a larger extent as a anti missile assist for some time to come but in just the time this thread has been going the game has changed again....and the mission.

    But enough...if it ain't on da internet moa don't care and the argument is circle and irrelevant.

    T

  51. #1251

    Default

    ^we will agree to disagree then, Stealth will never go anymore than jet engines will go. Even if a radar is capable of detecting a stealth aircraft, it will detect a non stealth aircraft sooner and more accurately. That's a huge advantage, see first, kill first, per the lessons of history.

  52. #1252

    Default

    We will agree to disagree...and the ultimate lesson of history is the one with the greatest skill wins, not technology.

    From Alexander the Great to von Richtofen in the first world war, Buzz Beurling in the second, Canadian infantry holding off the Chinese in Korea, the Canadian ground troops at the Battle of Medak pocket in the Bosnian campaign it is not the technology that ultimately wins. It is the strategy, tactics, determination, dedication and skill of the people that determines the survivor.

    When it comes to Canada's next combat aircraft...with NATO and UN missions we are not first in, we are supporting bomb trucks. No stealth advantage needed.

    For continental defense...larger numbers and placement outweigh any advantage of stealth and tiny numbers.

    Trudeau has sent the message of where we are headed on international missions and minimized the need for the bomb truck role.

    That only leaves the role of continental defense as a priority at this time. Numbers and placement become more important.

    Night
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 26-02-2016 at 11:22 PM.

  53. #1253

    Default

    ^i think you will find, a lot of the pilots with the best skill were the pilots with the best eyes. Radar today are those eyes, and stealth simply makes their vision a little harder. In a decades time I doubt there will be any military fighters in production that don't incorporate stealth. It will no longer be a world beater, it will just be an essential, so choosing something now that doesn't incorporate what every design in process today in Russia, US and China is incorporating, while perhaps saving a few bucks now, I fear will just cost more longer term. As to the, we should get an interceptor or air dominance fighter rather than a multi role fighter, that assumes the government never again decides to enter a NATO mission providing air support over our troops, but more importantly, would cost a lot more, so it won't happen. The Liberals will choose a multi role fighter (Superhornet, Gripen, Rafale, or F35), and if they delay the choice long enough (which I expect given the record of previous Liberal governments), the only one in the West in large scale production will be the F35, and accordingly, might be every bit as cheap if not cheaper than the other options. They don't want to be the government that spends even more than the price of an F35 for something that becomes obsolete sooner - that's why the Liberals have backed down on their election pledge, it made nice politics short term, but made little military sense and has the potential to bite them politically longer term.
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-02-2016 at 04:22 PM.

  54. #1254

    Default

    i think you will find, a lot of the pilots with the best skill were the pilots with the best eyes.
    Contrary...while all pilots are required to have exceptional vision the top aces of WW1/WW2/Korea etc has comparitively average vision with select exceptions such as Canadian Buzz Beurling who had frighteningly phenomenal vision.

    But his advantage and what made him an exceptional fighter pilot was his understanding of the formula's of deflection shooting (which he keep in a small book and memorized) and his ability to use the aircraft as a gun platform.

    Billy Bishop was much the same with the understanding of using an aircraft as a gun platform.

    As far as what aircraft to get...define the primary misson, the method and number of aircraft requird to achieve it, the budget and purchase the one that best fits. Period

    If we are not to be first strike stealth is not a number one priority.

    Example: The A-10 after nearly 40 years is arguably the best aircraft for it's purpose.

    Mission was clearly defined, method of achieving mission and numbers required defined, budget defined, a clear competition held and a design selected/purchased put into use.

    T

  55. #1255

    Default

    Norwegian pilot, who has actually flown both F16 and F35 in dog fight training, describing how the F35 (recent model, not one of the early prototypes that some of the critical blogs were based on experiences of), allows him to be more aggressive and successful than in the F16 due to the much better angle of attack. In short, it's much easier for an F35 to point the nose at F16 and Fire in a dog fight, than vice versa:

    http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01...-hand-account/

    Note - an F16 will smoke a CF18 or Superhornet in a dog fight, so given the F35 is performing as well as or better than F16, it would be a significant upgrade for our forces, more than adequate for air defence role, which is impressive given its ground attack abilities, electronics suite and stealth. It also has a better range than CF18 when comparing like with like (ie if strap fuel tanks on both, full weapons load or don't).
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-03-2016 at 10:08 AM.

  56. #1256
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    I wonder if they are running Windows ME for it's internal OS (Yes I know not likely), with massive systems with millions of lines of code there are bound to be errors and eventually they'll work out the worst of the bugs.

    The F-35 Has Big Radar Problems and the Fix Is Hilarious
    ... What would happen is they’d get a signal that says either a radar degrade or a radar fail—something that would force us to restart the radar. ...
    http://gizmodo.com/the-f-35-has-big-...iou-1763497550

  57. #1257
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    I wonder if they are running Windows ME for it's internal OS (Yes I know not likely), with massive systems with millions of lines of code there are bound to be errors and eventually they'll work out the worst of the bugs.

    The F-35 Has Big Radar Problems and the Fix Is Hilarious
    ... What would happen is they’d get a signal that says either a radar degrade or a radar fail—something that would force us to restart the radar. ...
    http://gizmodo.com/the-f-35-has-big-...iou-1763497550


    http://arstechnica.com/information-t...oot-in-flight/
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  58. #1258

    Default

    ^nice Northorp Grumman sales video on there:



    It's interesting the earlier tranche worked, seems they already know the fix. The planes still in development, also interesting to read the F16 has similar issues.

  59. #1259

    Default

    Interesting...

    A commitment to 2070 seems to reflect a very static view of a technology driven world that I thought was supposed to be changing at an ever faster rate.


    F-35's $1 Trillion Support Cost Ticks Up as More Flights Seen
    Bloomberg Business

    "The trillion-dollar cost to operate and support Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet through decades of flight has increased by about $107 billion from last year, according to Pentagon officials.

    The latest estimate -- $1.12 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars -- reflects new assumptions by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps that their versions of the fighter will fly more and last longer, according to Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, the F-35 program’s manager. The cost was originally estimated at $900 million in 2009. ..."

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...e-flights-seen

  60. #1260

    Default

    I thought that moa said that the costs were going to come down and everyone will be able to buy them at Dollarama?

    You know the good thing about estimating costs out to 2070 is that the consultants and salesmen will all be retired with their buckets of cash on a beach somewhere and someone else will still be paying the bills.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  61. #1261
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,166

    Default

    $900M to $1.12 trillion? Wtf? That's insanity.

  62. #1262
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    $900M to $1.12 trillion? Wtf? That's insanity.
    That's a typo. It was supposed to be 900 billion.

  63. #1263

    Default

    What's 220 billion these days anyway? Chump change I tell you! Chump Change!
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  64. #1264

    Default Cost till 2070

    ^did you read the article? That's total support cost of the main US fighter until 2070. It will be in service 6 years longer than planned (hence the higher cost), because it only needs to fly 250 hours each year, not 300, largely because of how effective it is (does more jobs with fewer hours than anticipated).

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...o-2070-423536/

    Of course, if we ever buy an aircraft, it will make so much more sense to spend a few million less upfront buying a plane will likely be obsolete by 2030...
    Last edited by moahunter; 26-03-2016 at 07:20 AM.

  65. #1265

    Default

    Just 250 hours a year?

    What is it doing the other 8,510 hours? Maintenance?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  66. #1266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Just 250 hours a year?

    What is it doing the other 8,510 hours? Maintenance?
    Or keeping it out of the sky because thousands of low cost "self-driving" drones developed in 10, 20, 30 years time, or say even 40 years time, could overwhelm it.

    I suspect that in 20 years time it will be totally obsolete unless totally refurbished.

  67. #1267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Just 250 hours a year?
    The CF18s have flown an average of 212 hours a year. At 27 years old, they had 5,733 hours. So this would be more flight time than our current aircraft:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle18860555/

  68. #1268

    Default

    Well then, let's just buy two and use them more. LOL
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  69. #1269

    Default

    ^which has been the plan, buy fewer aircraft than current ones, but use them more. Less pilot training, less maintenance (half as many engines to maintain per plane as well), but still just as capable.

    Anyway, there is no money in the budget for any replacements, so we are going to see the CF18s flying less, and less, and our ground troops instead, to make up our international obligations, doing more and more.

    If we do decide to go with a very cheap manned fighter, the TX training plane program in US might produce something interesting. Boeing and Saab for example, are teaming up for the competition, and Lockheed is submitting an F16 based Korean trainer / light attck aircraft (T50A):

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-X_program

    The Boeing Saab project is particularly interesting, as there is talk of an aircraft that sacrifices speed and maneuverability for agile long range weapons. That sounds a bit like a modern version of an interceptor aircraft, that will also provide close air support:

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-under-420044/

    Boeing desperately needs a win, with Superhornet line closing down, little interest in new F15 models, and loss of bomber competition, it's military presence is drying up.
    Last edited by moahunter; 26-03-2016 at 08:25 AM.

  70. #1270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^which has been the plan, buy fewer aircraft than current ones, but use them more. Less pilot training, less maintenance (half as many engines to maintain per plane as well), but still just as capable.

    Anyway, there is no money in the budget for any replacements, so we are going to see the CF18s flying less, and less, and our ground troops instead, to make up our international obligations, doing more and more.

    If we do decide to go with a very cheap manned fighter, the TX training plane program in US might produce something interesting. Boeing and Saab for example, are teaming up for the competition, and Lockheed is submitting an F16 based Korean trainer / light attck aircraft (T50A):

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-X_program

    The Boeing Saab project is particularly interesting, as there is talk of an aircraft that sacrifices speed and maneuverability for agile long range weapons. That sounds a bit like a modern version of an interceptor aircraft, that will also provide close air support:

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-under-420044/

    Boeing desperately needs a win, with Superhornet line closing down, little interest in new F15 models, and loss of bomber competition, it's military presence is drying up.
    I still think unmanned aircraft will be the future. All hacking aside. I imagine that if you take out the pilot, the design becomes imminently more flexible and versatile. By say, 2030 I bet someone somewhere will have already created aircraft superior and deadly to manned jets.

    As for offensive weapons, basically flying smartphones carrying one bullet each - with someone's name on it. Or even just laser pointers since they seem to be enough to disable, disorientate pilots. Millions of the little suckers swarming everything. Long and short range missiles taking out everything else - ancient manned aircraft still in the sky, infrastructure, you name it.
    Last edited by KC; 26-03-2016 at 09:29 AM.

  71. #1271

    Default

    Maybe we should cut out all the hardware and look at a software solution to waging war.

    A Taste of Armageddon


    "A Taste of Armageddon" is a first-season episode of the original Star Trek. It was first broadcast on February 23, 1967,

    Set in the 23rd century, the series follows the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and the crew of the Federation starship Enterprise. In this episode, the crew of the USS Enterprise visits a planet whose people fight a computer-simulated war against a neighboring planet. Although the war is fought via computer simulation, the citizens of each planet have to submit to real executions inside "disintegration booths" to meet the casualty counts of the simulated attacks. The crew of the Enterprise is caught in the middle and are told to submit themselves voluntarily for execution after being "killed" in an "enemy attack".
    Nearing the planet, the Enterprise receive a message from Eminiar VII warning them not to approach under any circumstances. Fox orders Captain James T. Kirk to enter orbit anyway. Kirk, First Officer Spock , and additional security personnel beam down to the planet, where there are met by representatives Mea 3 and Anan 7 ). Anan 7 reminds them they should not have come, as their city had just been struck by a Vendikar fusion bomb which has killed half a million people. The city shows no such damage, and Kirk inquires how this was possible. They are shown that Eminiar VII and Vendikar, as part of a treaty, participate in simulated war games to avoid destroying either civilization or ecology, but those that are considered "killed" must report to disintegration chambers within 24 hours. The landing party is told that the Enterprise has been calculated to have been struck by a tri-cobalt satellite, and its crew now considered "killed", demanding Kirk order the crew to the disintegration chambers.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon

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

  72. #1272

    Default

    I don't interact on this thread, but read comments. Although I've seen arguments over facts and the tangibilities of the fighter jets, how many honestly think Russia will invade us? Understandably, we require fighter jets that will encompass speed and range to protect our sovereignty as a symbolic means. Do we need the most expensive fighter jets in the world and for what? To help the Americans invade and rape countries that are rich in natural resources. If, per se, Russia invaded us, The Americans and Europeans will intervene on opposing sides as they would not allow that to happen. The whole argument that we need F35 is nothing more than pressures from interest groups that already have a strangle on the world's economics, so that they become wealthier.

  73. #1273
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,694

    Default

    Well my choice for a replacement is the F-18 Super Hornets. For one thing they are a whole lot cheaper than the F-35's.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  74. #1274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post

    Of course, if we ever buy an aircraft, it will make so much more sense to spend a few million less upfront buying a plane will likely be obsolete by 2030...
    and there in lies the rub, who knows what military aviation's use, role and future will be like in 2030? Look at the tech advancements in any industry including the military that happen every day, week, year.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  75. #1275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    For one thing they are a whole lot cheaper than the F-35's.
    We don't know that, the upfront price between the two is getting closer and closer. The Superhornet may not even be available soon, at most, it is going to have one more production cycle, as it isn't winning any procurement competitions anymore, being a very old designed aircraft. F35 only has one engine to maintain / replace over time, has automated diagnostics (once they get it working), and is going to have every fighter parts supplier in the Western world bidding to work on it, given the size of the order the USN, USM, and USAF are making. The lifecycle cost of any fighter is a lot more than the upfront price today, its also incorporating future technology (which the F35 will always get being the US main aircraft), pilot training, and maintenance. This could very well be a classic case of penny wise today, pound foolish for the next 50 years.

    On the other hand, I think deferring the decision isn't so bad, in that the F35 will get cheaper as production ramps up, and other options might become available like from the T-X program or advances in drones. I hope we don't rush out and buy a bunch of superhornets because its the final production, and its "cheap", only to regret it for decades.
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-03-2016 at 10:15 AM.

  76. #1276
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,473

    Default

    Suitability for Arctic defence, lower cost may put F-35s on Liberals’ radar


    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...fence-strategy
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  77. #1277

    Default Industry Canada bureaucrats briefed Liberals

    Seems the F35 may be much more valuable for Canadian aerospace than has been let on. Basically, already 700m in contracts, which could turn into tens of billions as production ramps up and maintenance requirements in the US soar:

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...-election.html

  78. #1278

    Default

    Protection of Canadian citizens by aircraft of paramount importance.

    IMHO, instead of the F35, the Canadian government should be considering building more Canadian designed bombers to protect Canadians.

    Screw stealth, we need water bombers!

    This plane is probably older than the two pilots.



    Watch this

    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 05-05-2016 at 09:26 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  79. #1279

    Default

    Well I agree with your sentiment but there is a lot of gray hair in those cockpits I know some of them, the Electra (the water bomber airframe) dates back to the late 50s/early 60s...Canadians know the basic aircraft better as the military Aurora.

    Yes we need to increase the water bomber fleet, but I doubt there is the political will to make it happen. It's all about money till there is a disaster.

    But that is a topic for after the Fort Mac crisis is over...

    Till then...yes we need new fighters and we need to invest in more and higher capacity water bombers.

    We have the ability to do the later here in Alberta with private sector companies that have the technology, the experience, the expertice and the ability....talk about diversification.

    IMO

    T

  80. #1280
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,473

    Default

    Liberals plans to buy Super Hornet F 18 before making decision on F-35

    The Pentagon has said the cost of each F-35 has dropped to US$100 million from $145 million and is expected to dip to about $80 million by 2019.



    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...5s-sources-say
    Last edited by jagators63; 05-06-2016 at 05:30 PM.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  81. #1281
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,473

    Default

    First female pilot of F-35

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zALYVbjTnU
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  82. #1282
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,282

    Default

    ^^A dozen for a billion? Drop 5B on it Justin and we'd have 60 nice fighters. Gonna need them with WW3 approaching. Ah heck, make it 120 for 10.

  83. #1283
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,473

    Default

    I hope they buy a couple of F 18 then buy 30-40 F-35 in 2019
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  84. #1284

    Default

    Per this article, the Liberals will put in a Superhornet order as an "interim" step:

    Suggesting there is an urgent need to replace the CF-18s, and then describing any purchase of Super Hornets as an interim measure could be one way for the Liberals to make good on its promise not to buy the F-35, without sparking a costly legal battle. The government could maintain that it still plans to hold a full competition to replace the CF-18s at a later, undetermined date.

    There have long been suspicions that the Liberals have wanted to buy the Super Hornet. Aside from ruling out the F-35 during the election, officials have indicated that Canada all but has to buy an American-built plane, given the importance of joint continental defence with the U.S.

    That leaves the Super Hornet as the only alternative, given that the F-35’s other competitors — the Dassault Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Saab Gripen — are all European.
    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...5s-sources-say

    I'm guessing will be like the Superhornet order Australia made, say, 24 planes. The downside from the militaries perspective is it might be in for a very long wait to get an aircraft upgrade for the bulk of the fleet, the CF-18's undergoing upgrades. If the Liberals scrap the existing CF18s undergoing upgrades and downsize the air arm, that will be very bad news for the military.

    The positive side is the F35 can come into service in larger numbers, and become proven / have its costs reduced, before an F35 order, while hopefully we can maintain the lucrative F35 contracts that our suppliers have.

    More of a political decision than a military one, but a reasonable approach I guess, subject to the details on whether the superhornets will replace the CF18's partially (e.g. 20-60 planes), replace them fully (e.g. 60-80 planes), or supplement them (e.g. 20-50, while maintaining 20-60 of the best remaining CF18's). I hope they select some Growlers in the order (electronic warfare variants), as those planes would have a lot of synergistic benefit to any future order of a different plane.
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-06-2016 at 12:34 PM.

  85. #1285

    Default

    ^further to that, now the Liberals might end up facing the same criticisim that the Conservatives faced. Various reports that Boeing has been lobbying them hard. But how is sole sourcing the Superhornet any better than sole sourcing the F35? Wasn't there supposed to be an open competition?

    https://ipolitics.ca/2016/06/07/repo...jet-contracts/

    The Liberal government was warned late last year that a sole-sourced contract for military equipment like fighter jets was bound to drive up costs in the absence of an open competition.

    The report delivered to Public Services and Procurement Canada in late December found that choosing one company to provide equipment should be a “subordinate option” to a competitive process so taxpayers receive value for money.

    The report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the access law, raises a host of problems with the government’s procurement processes amid reports that the Liberals are prepared to go with a sole-sourced contract to purchase Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing as an interim solution to the aging fleet of CF-18s.

  86. #1286

    Default

    At least they know the Super Hornet works. That is the difference. I don't think many people would be complaining about the F-35 if it wasn't thought of by many as an ultra-expensive white elephant with defect after defect.

  87. #1287

    Default

    ^In fairness, the Conservatives purchased C17's without tender, which turned out to be one of the best purchases ever made for our military / humanitarian missions. I think its ok if they do this as an interim step, especially as like the C17's, the Superhornets are almost on their last production run, but it is counter to everything the Liberals have been saying.

    The other risk is that the Superhornets really are on their last legs, its a very old designed plane and it might have a much shorter effective life than F35's would, its really just a Naval bomb truck (aside from the Growlers, which would cost a lot more). Although that's what we have mostly used our fighters for in actual combat - bombing / close air support (as opposed to arctic interceptions which haven't lead to combat).
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-06-2016 at 09:33 AM.

  88. #1288

    Default Imaginary capability gap

    Yet the head of the Royal Canadian Air Force said in April that the current fleet of 77 CF-18s will last until 2023, perhaps longer, thanks in part to a $2.6-billion project to modernize the aircraft.

    Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood said the air force would need replacements coming on line starting in 2025.

    “I know that some aircraft will end their useful life before that date, starting perhaps in 2023. Others could last longer,” Hood told the Commons’ defence committee.

    “I’m confident that if a decision were taken, certainly in the next five years, we’ll be in a comfortable position changing that aircraft,” Hood said at the time.

    In the Commons Tuesday, the Conservatives accused the Liberals of creating an “imaginary capability” gap and warned the government against giving the contract to Boeing, makers of the Super Hornet, without a competitive process.

    “The Liberals have fabricated a false narrative to sole-source the Super Hornet,” said Conservative MP James Bezan.
    https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ter-warns.html

  89. #1289

    Default Superhornet purchase will saddle Canada with "wrong aircraft forever".

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...rcraft-forever

    A recently retired senior air force officer says he knows of no emergency that would require Ottawa to buy Super Hornets as a stopgap.

    “This gives Canada the wrong aircraft forever, or certainly for the next generation,” says the veteran who spent decades flying fighter jets.

    “The fact is that there is no urgent need to bolster the fighter force right now.”

    By deciding to buy the Super Hornets without a competition, Ottawa is not waiting for the findings of a defence policy review that was supposed to seek input from Canadians about the country’s strategic needs and procurement priorities.

    Even if new fighter jets were urgently needed, there is still time to hold an open and fair competition, says the former officer, who flew CF-18s and CF-104 Starfighters in the High Arctic and Europe before holding key staff positions.

    ...

    “I assess the situation as entirely political,” the retired officer said. “Nobody will even have this discussion a year from now.”

    This is because with nearly 200 F-35s already flying and solutions being found for initial technical problems with the software and high-tech pilot’s helmet, “it is becoming more and more obvious every day that it is the best aircraft.”

    ...

    “If you do get the Super Hornet in 2016 that would be an upgrade on our CF-18s. Nobody would argue with that,” the officer said. “But it is not going to be updated. The manufacturing process is shutting down and pretty soon the Super Hornet will be frozen in time.

    “The F-35s will have parts and be maintained for five decades. The beauty of the F-35 is that 15 to 20 countries are getting it. Many of them will be working on better radars and more stealth.”
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-06-2016 at 01:12 PM.

  90. #1290
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    Frozen in time, where is he coming from? Even Jay Leno is fabricating his own car parts using 3D printing, I doubt parts will be much of a problem in the future. In addition Canada has upgraded avionics many times before on many planes in Canada. CF-5s, CF-18s and C-130s all were upgraded.

    You'd think Trudeau was talking about buying F-111s or something, the F-35 has very little advantages (a bit more stealthier, range) over the Super Hornet and a lot of disadvantages (cost, maneuverability, speed, 1 engine).
    http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.c...g-ii-saab.html

    Man this guy offers more spin than a Tilt-A-Whirl.
    Last edited by sundance; 08-06-2016 at 01:28 PM.

  91. #1291

    Default

    ^there will be parts, but it won't undergo any further upgrading, that is freezing in time. The capabilities it has today, are what it will have in two decades time, the Superhornet is at the end of its cycle, nobody is going to spend a fortune developing weapons for it, but it will be easy to develop or F35 because there is a huge market to sell to. Every new fighter jet weapon advance the US, UK and various EU nations make in the next three to four decades is going to be designed primarily for the F35 (just like F18's and F16's used to be the biggest market, so got all the upgrades over the last few decades). Its extremely expensive to integrate new weapons on fighters, take for example Eurofighter which still can't do a lot of what our CF18's do, because of cost constraints re weapons integration, we didn't have to worry about that because the US did it all for us re their F18's.

    Not to say Superhornets won't be a decent aircraft, they will do just as well as the CF18's at dropping bombs in Afghanistan, Iraq or similar against backwards opponents in controlled airspace, although they might in time not be as accurate as the F35, which will in the future have better sensors / electronic warfare suite.

    There isn't any rush here, its interesting Lockheed are saying that they have had no opportunity to engage with the Liberals, but that Boeing is meeting with them regularly. Great, it seems politics and lobbying is what's behind this, not what makes the most sense for the military, and not what is most transparent (an open competition). History repeats, its the Sea Kings replacement all over again.

    Jack Crisler, Lockheed Martin’s vice-president of F-35 business development and strategic integration, said the company plans to support the Canadian procurement process, but believes its plane can compete with and beat the Super Hornet for any contract.

    When asked if the company would sue the federal government if blocked from competing for the fighter jet contract, Crisler said the company would look at all of its options.

    “Right now, all we want to do is to be able to compete,” Crisler said in a telephone interview.

    “So if we get told that we’re not allowed to compete, then we’ll go and evaluate all of our alternatives at that point. But right now all we’re asking to do is be able to compete in a fair, open, transparent and requirements-based competition for the replacement of the CF-18s.”
    http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com...urface-169740/
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-06-2016 at 02:21 PM.

  92. #1292
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,473
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  93. #1293
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    Of course the CEO of Lockheed Martin would say this, what would they say? Oops we made a dud, buy somebody else's plane.

    Yes the price will go down, but some problems remain. The fact the F-18 had 2 engines was a major selling point over the F-16 when Canada was making it's decision in 1980. Canada has many miles of wilderness, and with a single engine plane if one fails you are bailing out. The F-35 doesn't have 2 engines, never will, regardless of improvements that come out with newer variants.

  94. #1294

    Default

    ^the two engine issue has completely gone now, engines have totally different reliability than two decades ago. Its why all the airliners are moving mostly to two engine planes from four for long distance, it has been proven to be safe. The F16 (single engine) had a better reliability and safety record over its life than the F18 (double engine), and countries like Sweden fly single engine jets (Gripens) over the arctic with ranges just as long as our F18 flies, perfectly safely. If it was so dangerous do you really think former pilots like Matthew Fisher and current pilots would be lobbying for the F35?

    Put it to a competition though - let the evidence be evaluated fairly based on military evaluation of actual proven specs (which F35 has already built up a lot of), not just based on F35 haters on the internet / political trolls / basement analysts.
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-06-2016 at 09:30 AM.

  95. #1295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Not to say Superhornets won't be a decent aircraft, they will do just as well as the CF18's at dropping bombs in Afghanistan, Iraq or similar against backwards opponents in controlled airspace, although they might in time not be as accurate as the F35, which will in the future have better sensors / electronic warfare suite.
    So.....why do we (or anyone FTM) need 'better sensors/electronic warfare suite' (to the tune of trillions of $$$) to engage 'backward opponents'? Given our role, the 'dump truck' method seems to work. We've come around on this topic before, who or what is the F-35 designed to engage? Russia? China? Splinter groups in the Iraqi desert? Empire forces on Hoth? ALL of this entire thread can be brought back to Thomas Hinderks postings on 'define our role and get the appropriate equipment for that role' (btw, this could mean spend more on naval vessels, or helicopters, or other types of aircraft)
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  96. #1296

    Default

    ^why not if it costs the same or similar? Why not get the best technology for the money? Why not have a single engine to maintain instead of two given its just as safe and range is just as good, that will also have an automated diagnostics system (being worked on)? Why not get the benefit of any new technology the US is working on, like direct energy weapons? That's why you have a competition, the Superhornet might be cheaper per unit (but not by much it appears re latest numbers) up front, but what will its lifecycle cost be, versus a plane that is going to produced, and is already now being produced, in much greater numbers?

    Its absolutely clear we need a manned fighter jet right now to stop Russian bombers flying at will over our territory (one day UAV's may do that for us). But every jet available can achieve that today. So its a matter of what price do we want to pay, and what is the best jet we can get for that price. Without a competition, I don't know how anyone can conclude that is the Superhornet ahead of F35, ahead of Gripen, or whatever. The only reason I can think of why the Liberals don't want a competition, is they, and their pals at Boeing, don't like what the outcome would probably be.
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-06-2016 at 10:13 AM.

  97. #1297
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    And the define your role get the proper equipment is the basic flaw of the F-35. It was designed to fit all roles, so in the end it fits all a bit, but does nothing great. Most people say the Gripen is the best for our purposes, but I doubt Canada will seriously consider it.

    The truth is the F-35 isn't the best except in stealth, every other area they have made compromises to make it try to fit all roles.

    With decent enough missiles Canada could still successfully fly the F-111s (assuming the airframes weren't fatigued), and it probably has the radar signature of a Model T Ford. Drones are being used more and more, they aren't the fastest, stealthiest, but they can do the job of delivering bombs and missiles. It makes no sense for Canada to spend many billions on the F-35.

    Against the Russians and you're in a F-35 your best hope is your missiles not manueverability or speed.
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...who-wins-13855
    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...igh-1714712248

  98. #1298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^why not if it
    Third word into your response. IF. Its always 'if'. This 'if' is by no means a certainty. In fact the whole F-35 debate is predicated on the cost coming down. Yet LM trot out new excuses about 'this is cutting edge tech', 'this tech didn't exist before and doesn't come cheap', 'this tech is the be all/end all of aviation tech'......
    We're paying for 'todays' tech that could be superseded in months let alone years.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  99. #1299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The only reason I can think of why the Liberals don't want a competition, is they, and their pals at Boeing, don't like what the outcome would probably be.
    I love this though. I'll rewrite your quote:
    "The only reason I can think of why the Conservatives don't want a competition, is they, and their pals at Lockheed Martin, don't like what the outcome would probably be."
    I don't remember a competition when McKay planted his butt in a F-35.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  100. #1300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    I don't remember a competition when McKay planted his butt in a F-35.
    Agreed, although originally it was the Liberals who signed on to F35. The Conservatives backed down, contracted to extend the life of the CF18's, and decided to have a competition. Interesting that's being reversed now... why no competition? There are four or five planes which can achieve all requirements Canada has (Rafale, Superhornet, Gripen, F35, Eurofighter), so why not evaluate them all based on price / capability, so that we know we get the best deal?
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-06-2016 at 10:50 AM.

Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415 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
  •