Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4101112131415 LastLast
Results 1,301 to 1,400 of 1489

Thread: Which Fighter Jet should Canada choose?

  1. #1301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    .. 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?
    Agreed. Though how we define 'best deal' could be the crux. That is a very subjective term.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  2. #1302
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    And that is my point, evaluate them all, try and pick the best for Canada's need.

    This reminds me of a return to the days of Vietnam's lob a missile at the enemy strategy, which the Ault Committee Report soundly criticized and resulted in the creation of Top Gun.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ault_Report

    If using poorly maneuverable planes and missiles it was a poor strategy in the 1960s, why is it a good strategy now? Yes I know the F-35 is more maneuverable than a F-4 but compared to a Su-37 the comparison is valid. And if you're going to use missiles as a primary weapon then why risk a pilot, use a drone.

  3. #1303

    Default

    ^if dogfighting is the main consideration, then Superhornet is actually a downgrade on the current CF18's. Superhornet is a dog fighting dog, its not what it was designed to do (bombing missions / CAS from aircraft carriers). By accounts of pilots though, who have flown latest versions of F35 (not earlier prototypes), F35 is an upgrade over F16 in many situations, and very close in others. The F16 was a very good dog fighter, much better than our CF18's, but the high angle of attack of F35 means it can point and shoot at opponent much faster than the opponent can. Like all aircraft, it will have strengths and weaknesses:

    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.”
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-06-2016 at 10:20 AM.

  4. #1304

    Default Denmark approves F35 purchase of 27 aircraft

    Funny, that like the Dutch, and UK, they didn't choose superhornets... but then, they had a competition, and found that the F35 could meet their needs for a lower price than Superhornet because its airframe will last longer:

    Denmark's federal government has ratified the purchase of a fleet of F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin.

    The Danish government said in a news release that it plans to gradually replace its existing F-16 aircraft with F-35 jets over a six-year period, beginning in 2021.

    The deal is worth approximately CDN$3.9 billion, according to the news release.
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/denma...jets-1.2938204

    The F-35 was the winner of four separate evaluations covering strategic, military, economic and industrial considerations. The Super Hornet—for which Boeing lobbied intensively in Denmark—was placed second in the latter three categories. In the military evaluation, the F-35 was the clear winner on survivability, mission effectiveness and future development possibilities. This was because of its low radar signature “as well as the application of advanced systems and sensors,” according to the evaluators.

    They estimated a life-cycle cost (LCC) of nearly $6.5 billion to operate 28 F-35s over a 30-year period. The Ministry of Defence developed an LCC calculation model in conjunction with consultants Deloitte. The model included “costs linked to procurement” as well as ongoing operations and sustainment and “quantifiable risks.” The LCC estimates for the Super Hornet and the Eurofighter were $9.3 billion and $10.9 billion, respectively. These were considerably higher than the F-35 because—according to the evaluators—more airframes would have to be procured since both types have a 6,000-hour life, versus 8,000 hours for the F-35. The number of Eurofighters required was calculated to be 34, and the number of Super Hornets was 38.
    http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...r-alternatives
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-06-2016 at 11:20 AM.

  5. #1305
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    The gloves came off Thursday after a group of companies involved in the F-35 project blasted the Super Hornet, and warned the Liberals that Canada’s aerospace industry will be permanently hamstrung if the government doesn’t stick with the stealth fighter.

    “Not selecting the F-35 will set off a chain of events that will see hundreds of millions of investment dollars lost, and high-tech jobs leaving Canada,” the Canadian JSF Industrial Group said Thursday. “It is doubtful that any other procurement would provide the same industrial benefits.”
    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ets-over-f-35s
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  6. #1306
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    Hundreds of millions of investment dollars lost, don't they mean, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars not wasted.

    They aren't even sure it will pass all the operational readiness tests until 2021
    http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/we...o-impress.html

  7. #1307

    Default

    They built a multi-billion dollar, "too big to fail" lemon and now it's everyone else's fault that people don't want to buy it.

  8. #1308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by River Valley Green View Post
    They built a multi-billion dollar, "too big to fail" lemon and now it's everyone else's fault that people don't want to buy it.
    You realize lots of people are buying it don't you? Its winning pretty much every international competition it has been entered in (no wonder the Liberals are afraid to let it compete). The Danes just evaluated its a cheaper option than the superhornet (not surprising, there are lot more F35's being manufactured now, than Superhornets). Over 100 are already flying, its combat ready for Marines, and will be combat ready for USAF by end of this year. Like any bit of new high tech equipment, its going to be continually improved and enhanced, it will be the backbone of USAF, USN, USM, RN, Dutch air force, Danish air force, etc. Thousands of these planes will be flying for the next 40 to 50 years, yet we are planning to sole source a prior generation aircraft on its last production run, which is every bit as expensive?

    Last edited by moahunter; 10-06-2016 at 09:02 AM.

  9. #1309

    Default Hornets will force Canada out of its own North

    LONDON — The most questionable aspect of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s quixotic decision to renege on the promise of an open competition for Canada’s next fighter jet and suddenly ram through the sole-source purchase of Super Hornets — a decision Postmedia News has revealed it is close to making — is that, by doing so, Canada will end up surrendering sovereignty of its Arctic air space to the United States Air Force in about 10 years.

    ...

    Worse than that, Washington will insist that Canada’s Super Hornets stay in the rear.

    The reason is clear. Four allied air forces operate in the Arctic. The U.S., Norway and Denmark, which defends Greenland and sometimes deploys fighter jets to a base they jointly operate with the USAF at Thule, will soon only be flying state-of-the art F-35s in the Far North. The other country, Canada, will not.

    The F-35 is revolutionary in that it will basically be a flying computer with sensor fusion. F-35s flying hundreds of kilometres apart will be able to create a common battle picture. Being stealthy, they will secretly patrol far more safely while collectively surveying vast amounts of territory for information that they can instantly share with each other, spy and command aircraft and ground stations.

    Once the Super Hornet is found, as it will be by a stealthy enemy, F-35s in the vicinity will become targets, too. That is why the U.S. will not want Canadian fighters operating anywhere near its warplanes in the north.

    ...

    That Canada is prepared to cede its defence and sovereignty over all three maritime approaches to the USAF is one of the many reasons that there is extreme disappointment and disbelief across the upper reaches of Canada’s military community about what has been decided. What makes them furious is the government’s refusal to discuss the matter.

    Finland has looked at the numbers that Denmark came up with after a competition in which it chose the F-35 over the Super Hornet. As a result, the Finns are believed to be close to deciding that they, too, will reject the Super Hornet in favour of the F-35. If Finland follows Denmark’s lead, it will become the 12th western-oriented air force in a row to choose the F-35 over the Super Hornet, with Canada the only exception.

    Canadians should ask themselves: Is everyone who made those decisions — including those confronting similar security challenges in the Arctic — stupid? What is it that makes Canada so unique that it feels it can ignore the collective wisdom of all its allies and friends?
    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...-its-own-north
    Last edited by moahunter; 13-06-2016 at 07:51 AM.

  10. #1310

    Default

    The JSF development contract was signed on 16 November 1996

    First Flight 15 December 2006

    Number built 171 as of March 2016

    Expected date F-35 may be operational November 2016

    Program cost so far US$1.508 trillion

    20 year old design before first operational use
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  11. #1311

    Default

    ^so what, if it was badly managed in development? That doesn't impact the quality of the plane now versus and even older design. F18 and Superhornet took time to develop also, and had all sorts of bugs when first entering service. If the F35 is almost as cheap now per plane, if not cheaper, and will be cheaper to maintain over time (highly likely as one engine, and will have a massive parts industry behind it), and like that article says, will be more effective, why not consider it, even if the US did waste a huge amount of their money designing it for us?

    Canadians should ask themselves: Is everyone who made those decisions — including those confronting similar security challenges in the Arctic — stupid? What is it that makes Canada so unique that it feels it can ignore the collective wisdom of all its allies and friends?
    Last edited by moahunter; 13-06-2016 at 08:11 AM.

  12. #1312
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,714

    Default

    There's some really odd quotes in that article:

    Quote Originally Posted by Globe and Mail
    Once this happens, and with threats from T-50-launched cruise missiles and Russian and North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-35 will be far more able to shoot down than Super Hornets, the reality is that the U.S. will do whatever it has to to defend itself.
    Since when is the F-35, or any other fighter jet, capable of targeting or engaging ICBMs? I don't know if that's clumsily worded, or what, but as far as I understand it missile defense is the province of ground and sea based interceptors that are essentially ICBM's themselves and has zero to do with fighter jets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Globe and Mail
    Once the Super Hornet is found, as it will be by a stealthy enemy, F-35s in the vicinity will become targets, too. That is why the U.S. will not want Canadian fighters operating anywhere near its warplanes in the north.
    Again, I'm not sure what the author is trying to say here. The Super Hornet will somehow expose or help identify the F-35's in the area? That makes little sense.

    That being said, I don't think that doing a sole-sourced purchase of the Super Hornet makes much sense, except perhaps politically as the Liberals spent a good part of the election campaign demonizing the F-35. Those two quotes just really stuck out to me as making little if any sense.

  13. #1313

    Default

    ^there is some odd grammar in it as well. But regardless, I think we agree, it doesn't make sense to sole source the Superhornet with no competition, anymore than it made sense to sole source F35. Its just odd to me, a large chunk of Canadian media has decided F35 is a waste of money (today, nobody is saying the development of it was well managed by Lockheed / US military arms), when its winning procurement competitions left right and center, and the costs per plane are starting to drop (aside from exchange rate, which impacts superhornet as well). If previous generation fighters had undergone same level of uninformed, or agenda driven, blog scrutiny, and media scrutiny, I'm sure many of them would have looked like a bust as well, before all their problems were ironed out.
    Last edited by moahunter; 13-06-2016 at 08:18 AM.

  14. #1314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The F-35 is revolutionary in that it will basically be a flying computer... information that they can instantly share with each other, spy and command aircraft and ground stations.
    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...-its-own-north
    Besides sabotaging the 'wonder fighter' while on ground (yes F-35 junkies, it still must spend some time on the ground), here's another concern; malware.

    Admittedly, I may not be the most informed but this one fighter for all thing just smells funny. Like political corruption funny.
    So dependent on electronics and gadjetry. Yes, alot of modern military equipment utilize computers but this F-35 is the worlds most expensive laptop with MMOFPS capability.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  15. #1315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    If previous generation fighters had undergone same level of uninformed, or agenda driven, blog scrutiny, and media scrutiny, I'm sure many of them would have looked like a bust as well, before all their problems were ironed out.
    Sorry but that's the age we now live in. Boo hoo LM. The F-35 doesn't get a free pass because its flaws (and assets) get exposed. And not every criticism is 'uninformed' or 'agenda driven'.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  16. #1316

    Default

    And the F-35 has not sufficient safeguards to prevent hacking.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-the-f-35-be-hacked/

    Imagine a fleet of F-35's being prepped for an attack and the on-board computers refuse to allow engine start because of some hacker in China.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  17. #1317

    Default

    ^how would they get access to the ALIS computer? It doesn't make sense, and you could make the same argument re existing military equipment / Link 16 communications, if you messed up a Superhornets aviation electronics, it would crash as well. As to the agenda driven, there are a lot. For example, the most quoted anti-F35 web site is by some Australians who want Australia to purchase F22, an air superiority plane that is much more expensive both to purchase, if it was available for sale / in production, and maintain (as bomber grade advanced stealth coatings, which is why the US won't sell it).

    Like it or not, F35 is winning all of the competitions being held by our allies, including those operating in the arctic - gosh, must be some grand conspiracy that all these nations are a party to, and the Liberals can supposedly see through (based perhaps on what their pals at Boeing are telling them)
    Last edited by moahunter; 13-06-2016 at 08:58 AM.

  18. #1318
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    The US nuclear missiles two code launch system had some major problems, all the codes were set to 00000000 for years, however to access that you had to go through a guard post with guys with guns, fences with various perimeter detection systems. unlock a door, more guys with guns and open a locked bank vault type door with more guys and guns inside. So while the code was super easy, you really couldn't get to it.
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-for-20-years/

    The air force will restrict access quite securely so even if the communications were not encrypted I doubt someone would be able to do much. You probably have to worry more about the security of drone piloting, as they need pretty much real time communication from the drone to the base.

    You also have to worry more about the size and weight of the helmet, than hacking it, there are issues with it being too big and heavy which can cause some ejection problems. In a few years the weight and size will come down as computers and displays get smaller, more powerful and lighter. Flexible OLED displays on the visor surface is likely to happen in 5-10 years.
    Last edited by sundance; 13-06-2016 at 10:04 AM.

  19. #1319

    Default

    Interesting reading the comments below Fisher's article.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  20. #1320

    Default

    This article seems quite balanced. Interesting quote here, dominating the most successful air superiority fighter ever built isn't a bad result for a multi-role fighter:

    A review of a test flight in January 2015 seemed to reinforce those findings. The unnamed test pilot said the stealthy jet was a “a distinct energy disadvantage” during a series of mock battles with a dated F-16D.

    The Air Force, Lockheed and foreign buyers have all pushed back against these claims. At the same time, the flying branch has stressed that traditional air-to-air dogfights are rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

    “Close-in combat typically visualized in movies like ‘Top Gun’ are not realistic in today’s combat scenarios,” Newell wrote. “The F-35 and the F-22 are premier ‘first look, first kill’ capable aircraft.”

    During the practice flights at Mountain Home, the F-35s seemed to continue this trend, dominating F-15E Strike Eagles from the 366th Fighter Wing in mock battles. “Pew, pew, pew,” the infographic’s designers added.

    In each of six “large force exercises,” at least four F-35s flew together, according to Newell. This makes sense, since one of the Lightning II’s main advantages is the ability to quickly share information between the jets.

    In theory, if one pilot saw his opponents, all four fliers should have been aware of the threat.
    https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-air-...131#.1a8eqdth7

    The F35 by all accounts impressed at Farnborough, all of the issues are being overcome one by one. I think by the time Canada needs to replace CF18 the F35 will be cheaper than Superhornet (it isn't far off already), and less costly to maintain (being single engine, with modern automated diagnostics).
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-07-2016 at 09:15 AM.

  21. #1321

    Default F-35 stealth fighter may finally be climbing above its problems

    Another good article on, from LA times:

    Aboulafia of the Teal Group said the idea of one plane with so many capabilities “created something that does a bunch of jobs, state of the art.”

    “But it is initially expensive and problematic,” he said. “So press ahead, end your production, deploy it, but also, ‘never again’ is a pretty good mantra.”

    In 2014, Lockheed Martin and its principal subcontractors Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems said they would invest $170 million over two years to reduce the cost of the fighter jet by investing in more efficient manufacturing processes.

    Lockheed officials said that should help reduce the cost of the most common jet variant from almost $100 million per plane to about $85 million by 2019.

    Building more jets will also drive down per-plane costs. Lockheed plans to increase production from four jets a month in its facility in Fort Worth to up to 17 a month by 2019. The company has delivered more than 170 operational jets so far.
    http://www.latimes.com/business/

    No-one disputes the development program turned into a mess (I think the biggest mistake was doing early production while still developing), but the ultimate plane once production is up and running with be well priced, and very powerful.

  22. #1322
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    ^^Love it whenever an article cites Carlo Kopp.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  23. #1323

    Default

    ^I thought it was interesting how it appears like to fly the planes in "fours" in these exercises, which is a traditional "flight", I guess two lead and two wingman. 65 planes purchased would give you about 16 flights, or four to five wings.

    Normal might be one wing with NATO, leaving three at home for NORAD (depending on how they structure it), perhaps.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-07-2016 at 01:22 PM.

  24. #1324

    Default

    More like 10 or 12 max. There are never the full inventory of fighters available due to servicing.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  25. #1325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    More like 10 or 12 max. There are never the full inventory of fighters available due to servicing.
    True, I don't know how they rotate it. Maybe within each Wing, there are three flights active, and one in maintenance (?). Not sure. That would give you 12 planes active overseas, and 36 at home, which could be tweaked to more overseas, maybe a 24-24 split, when needed.

  26. #1326
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    According to this article published in 2006 by a Canadian Forces major, we supposedly have a commitment of 36 fighters to NORAD which the officer surmises is not always met.

    Link
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  27. #1327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    More like 10 or 12 max. There are never the full inventory of fighters available due to servicing.
    True, I don't know how they rotate it. Maybe within each Wing, there are three flights active, and one in maintenance (?). Not sure. That would give you 12 planes active overseas, and 36 at home, which could be tweaked to more overseas, maybe a 24-24 split, when needed.

    I can sense the Russians must be very scared about our huge airforce patrolling Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.


    BTW, how many 5 airbases do we have north of 60 that are constantly maintained for fighter jet operations?

    Distance from Rankin Inlet, NU to Alert, NU 2,332 km
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 18-07-2016 at 02:44 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  28. #1328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    BTW, how many airbases do we have north of 60 that are constantly maintained for fighter jet operations?
    How many bases do the Russians have north of 60? Planes fly, you just need a few bases close to 60, with occasional deployment further north, which is what we have:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_base

    If you want to triple the cost of the air force though, build a permanent base further north...

  29. #1329

    Default

    How many bases do the Russians have north of 60?
    More than two dozen https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...viet_Union.svg
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  30. #1330

    Default

    ^most of those look exactly the same as the one you posted in Canada (and I note, the Soviet union doesn't exist anymore). A few well functioning proper serviced bases, like Cold Lake, are way more important than sending people north to twiddle their thumbs and take selfies with polar bears.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-07-2016 at 02:59 PM.

  31. #1331

    Default

    Really

    Here is a sampling of what Russia has above the Arctic Circle 66 degrees N


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

  32. #1332

    Default

    ^lets see some pictures of those bases, which show they are more substantial than the Canadian base you showed. And, please explain why you think a base at cold lake can't provide air dominance for all areas north of it within Canada. Do you really think NORAD is going to give up North American sovereignty?

    Canada has pretty maps too:



    http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-rep...ss-canada.page

    Alert is the most northerly military base in the world, with 55 Canadian staff full time stationed there.

    http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/8-wing/alert.page
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-07-2016 at 03:20 PM.

  33. #1333

    Default

    Most Russian military installations are in/near Closed Cities, so getting pictures is a bit of a challenge.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  34. #1334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^lets see some pictures of those bases, which show they are more substantial than the Canadian base you showed. And, please explain why you think a base at cold lake can't provide air dominance for all areas north of it within Canada. Do you really think NORAD is going to give up North American sovereignty?

    Canada has pretty maps too:

    http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-rep...ss-canada.page

    Alert is the most northerly military base in the world, with 55 Canadian staff full time stationed there.

    http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/8-wing/alert.page
    55 STAFF, WOW!

    Nice map of Canad a but I specifically stated NORTH of 60 degrees. Cold Lake is 3,438 km from Alert
    Compare this to Edmonton to Ottawa is only 2,837 km

    You seriously underestimate how big the Russian presence north of 60 that they have.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  35. #1335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    55 STAFF, WOW!
    WOW, the most Northerly Russian base is going to support 150 when its upgraded, that's three times the size, PRT had better panic about an invasion:

    http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150215/1018299655.html

    Satellite photographs of September 2015 show a new base without armored vehicles or air defenses. Instead, the base consists of a central structure, several supporting structures such as fuel depots and heating installations, old and new runways, as well as anchorages that allow for the delivery of construction materials and supplies.[1]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagurskoye_Air_Base

    Maybe you would like to implement Russian living standards as well?

    The workers at the”Severny Klever” in Kotelny have now sent a request to the prosecutor’s office in Tiksi where they report about a series of violations by employer company Zapsibgazprom-Gazifikatsia.

    We live in a delapidated building without proper sanitary factilities and accommodation condition, the letter reads, Voennoye.ru reports. Furthermore, the workers are supplied with only a minimum of food rations and payments are low and irregular, the news site informs.
    http://thebarentsobserver.com/securi...tic-army-bases
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-07-2016 at 03:36 PM.

  36. #1336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Maybe you would like to implement Russian living standards as well?

    The workers at the”Severny Klever” in Kotelny have now sent a request to the prosecutor’s office in Tiksi where they report about a series of violations by employer company Zapsibgazprom-Gazifikatsia.

    We live in a delapidated building without proper sanitary factilities and accommodation condition, the letter reads, Voennoye.ru reports. Furthermore, the workers are supplied with only a minimum of food rations and payments are low and irregular, the news site informs.
    http://thebarentsobserver.com/securi...tic-army-bases
    You mean like right here at home??

    Canadian Government apologizes after pay system fails 80,000 employees
    OTTAWA — The federal government apologized Monday for a mammoth problem with its new pay system that has impacted more than one-quarter of its roughly 300,000 employees, some who say they've been forced into dire financial circumstances.

    Elsipogtog facing overcrowding crisis due to housing shortage
    Elders, councillors say First Nation is facing a housing crisis as families are packed into small houses
    By Tori Weldon, CBC News


    Children treated for skin conditions on troubled Northern Ontario reserve
    KRISTY KIRKUP OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
    Thirteen other children were expected to be flown out for assessment and possible treatment, but physicians were able to assist them on the reserve.
    Charlie Angus, the NDP MP for the area, said he is pleased by the response, but there is remaining frustration in the community about deplorable living conditions.
    “The community is flooded out year after year, the houses are substandard because of the damage they’ve suffered,” Angus said.
    “This is what Third World poverty looks like when it is inflicted on children.”

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

  37. #1337

    Default F35 very "Raptorish", Adversery Pilot says

    ARLINGTON, Va. — An experienced fighter pilot who has flown in mock combat against the Marine Corps’ F-35B Lightning II strike fighter has described the F-35’s performance as similar to that of the Air Force’s F-22A Raptor air superiority fighter.

    “I was just flying at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort [S.C.] about three weeks ago against the F-35s,” said Jeff Parker, a former Air Force fighter pilot and now chief executive officer of Airborne Tactical Advantage Co. (ATAC) — a unit of Textron Airborne Solutions — that provides commercially operated adversaries, jet fighters that pose as enemy aircraft to train Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force fighter pilots. “The F-35Bs “are very ‘Raptorish’ in their training and the aircraft is a very capable airplane in the air-to-air arena.”

    Parker, speaking July 18 in a teleconference with reporters, also described the challenge of providing adversary services to fifth-generation fighter aircraft like the F-22 and F-35.

    “Fifth-generation aircraft have a generous appetite for bad guys — for bandits.” Parker said. “They need a lot of adversaries in order to challenge them because their systems are so spatially aware and limited only by the number of missiles that they carry. We have flown against Raptors on many occasions; they are a very impressive aircraft.”
    http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stor...60719-f35.html

  38. #1338

    Default

    https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...5-program.html

    Last sentence mentions the companies interested will give some details this Friday. Will this/these be made public?
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  39. #1339

    Default

    Pretty cool, the Marines have got the pod Gatling gun working on it:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/video...st-time-2016-7

    While the F-35 has fielded some criticism for its gun, which at 55 rounds per second can empty its entire magazine in under four seconds, the gun actually makes sense for the type of close air-support environment that the F-35 is expected to operate in.

    The much-loved A-10 Warthog, which holds 1,350 rounds, is ideal for flying low and slow, loitering in the sky, and delivering its precise fire to provide close air support. But this makes sense in only uncontested air space.

    The F-35's smaller magazine capacity reflects the future of close air support as military planners envision it. The F-35 will usher in an era of quick and precise strikes that leverage a suite of sensors, electronic-warfare capabilities, and stealth.
    The integrated gun on the version we would purchase, is also working now, it has 220 rounds:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-...on-test-2015-7

    Still, the F-35's cannon packs greater firepower than cannons on previous fighter aircraft.

    "The GAU-22/A uses a 25mm shell, which is significantly more powerful than what I've been used to in legacy aircraft, the F-16 the F-15E, F-15C — all those aircraft use a 20mm shell," Rollins said.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-...on-test-2015-7

    So much for all the concerns about the gun not working earlier in the thread... pretty much every supposed fatal flaw in this aircraft has been fixed, or is almost fixed. That's why there are development programs for new aircraft.



    http://www.maxim.com/news/f35-a-figh...-martin-2016-7

    If the U.S. military needed a single photo that says “don’t **** with us,” this is likely it.

    Lockheed Martin, everyone’s favorite purveyor of fine weaponry, has dropped an image of the F-35A fighter jet, and it’s...intense. The shot not only shows the very, very expensive aircraft (just under $110 million, Lockheed says), but also presents its devastating weapons suite, which could bring some serious death from above.

    “The F-35 can carry more than 35-hundred pounds of ordnance in Low Observable (stealth) mode and over 18-thousand pounds uncontested,” Lockheed Martin boasts on its webpage.
    To put that in context, that uncontested mode amount, is almost as much payload as a Lancaster bomber in WW2. Not bad for a single person single engine fighter.
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-07-2016 at 03:18 PM.

  40. #1340

    Default US Airforce certifies F35 for combat

    That is a remarkable achievement in a business where the cost of fighter aircraft seemed to double with each successive generation after the advent of jet engines in World War Two. The F-35 is what's known as a fifth-generation aircraft, which means it integrates advanced stealth, sensor fusion, digitally-optimized flight performance, net-enabled operations and automated logistics in a multirole aircraft far superior to anything that has come before.

    How superior? Compared with a Cold War fighter, the F-35 will be six times more effective in air-to-air combat, six times more effective in suppression of enemy air defenses, five times more effective in destroying ground targets, and four times more effective in evading enemy air defenses. It will need all of those gains to sustain U.S. global air dominance in the decades ahead, because potential enemies have not stood still in their own military investments.

    ...

    The joint program office also deserves credit for keeping its industry team on track and pushing back against naysayers who didn't understand the complexities of such an undertaking. Because contractor and customer worked together to make the F-35 program successful, the Air Force is now able to operate what Senator (and former naval aviator) John McCain has said "may be the greatest combat aircraft in the history of the world." The Air Force has a real winner here, so it should stick with the plan to buy the full complement of planes it needs.
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...mportant-17203

    It will be interesting to see if it goes into action in Syria or northern Iraq. Trudeau lied a couple of months ago, saying the planes don't work and won't be working anytime soon...

    Last edited by moahunter; 02-08-2016 at 02:36 PM.

  41. #1341

    Default

    New Canadian 6th generation fighter plane does barrel rolls around US Navy fighter jet.

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

  42. #1342
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    It will be interesting to see if it goes into action in Syria or northern Iraq. Trudeau lied a couple of months ago, saying the planes don't work and won't be working anytime soon...
    An oversimplification on his part but then most of the public won't know the difference or all the nuances regarding the plane's capabilities or timetable. You'd think that DND would have told him that the USAF was going to declare IOC or that the Marines were already as well.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  43. #1343

    Default

    F-35s touch down in Canada for first time at Abbotsford Air Show:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/f-...show-1.3720062

  44. #1344
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    ^Nice pictures, they don't look very stealthy though...
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  45. #1345

    Default

    The T-X is about to be revealed by Boeing / SAAB.

    If we really want to go cheap, but don't want to pick up a plane designed 30 odd years ago (Superhornet), the T-X, which is a trainer (but might be capable of being a bomb truck / CAS aircraft), could be an interesting option, if it wins the competition in the US:

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...rainer-428709/

    Last edited by moahunter; 23-08-2016 at 01:39 PM.

  46. #1346
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    ^If we had some sort of rational assessment of what our strategic objectives were then maybe we wouldn't have to go cheap. Perhaps we would even justify spending 2% of our GDP were we to undertake such an exercise.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  47. #1347

    Default

    ^I think as part of NATO, we should go with the fifth generation aircraft that our NATO partners are choosing. I note Israel, who are widely regarded as the best air force in the world, have also chosen the F35. That's what our military wants based on their strategic assessments, and I trust them. It has become politicized though, hence all the "hate" for the F35, and the need now to look at inferior alternatives. The F-X program is interesting, especially the Boeing / SAAB entry, because it is supposedly based to some extent on the Gripen, which has been pitched as an option for Canada. You could do a production run then in tandem with the US, if it was to win the F-X trainer, and presumably if it is based on Gripen, it could be militarized quite easily. Although, Boeing of course, would prefer to sell the Superhornets as they are desperately trying to generate one more production run of this old aircraft.

    Like other military decisions Canada has made, e.g. the Sea King replacement, this isn't going to be based sadly on what is best for Canada, but rather, what politicians think will win them the most votes in the short term.
    Last edited by moahunter; 23-08-2016 at 02:43 PM.

  48. #1348
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    ^Your last paragraph sums up what has been broken in our procurement process for so long. If the politicians could say that we are spending less here and for less capabilities here because our pirnary objectives lie elsewhere I could live with that. Trudeau said he wanted to focus on building a stronger navy but so far we haven't seen much evidence of that yet. Nor is there any evidence of a commitment to enhance Arctic sovereignty. If we intend our air force to have a lessor or different role in future coalition operations then say so. Otherwise we need to recognize our international commitments and spend accordingly.
    Last edited by norwoodguy; 23-08-2016 at 03:00 PM.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  49. #1349

    Default Russian scientists besiged by 10 polar bears

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Most Russian military installations are in/near Closed Cities, so getting pictures is a bit of a challenge.
    They are having polar bear issues as well (maybe they are Canadian polar bears on a secret long range mission?):

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/wo...te-arctic-post

  50. #1350

    Default

    Air Force grounds 15 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters because of ‘peeling and crumbling’ insulation
    From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ng-insulation/
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  51. #1351

    Default

    Air Force grounds 15 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters because of ‘peeling and crumbling’ insulation
    From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ng-insulation/
    Less than two months after declaring the controversial F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ready for combat, the Air Force on Friday announced that it was temporarily grounding 15 of the jets after it discovered that insulation was “peeling and crumbling” inside the fuel tanks.

    Meanwhile, back in Canada...

    Liberals again considering sole source purchase of Super Hornet fighter jets to replace CF-18s
    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...replace-cf-18s
    A Liberal government proposal to buy Super Hornet fighter jets as a replacement for the air force’s aging CF-18s is back on the table.

    But whether it will move ahead is still unclear.


    In June the government proposed the purchase of Boeing Super Hornets as an interim measure, but that option disappeared as it faced intense criticism from the aerospace industry and opposition MPs.


    Aerospace industry officials say they believed the Liberals were moving towards an open competition for a fighter replacement. But the option to buy the Super Hornets on a sole source basis and forgo a competition until around 2030 has again resurfaced, industry sources now say.


    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office, with advice from Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, has been pushing the option, despite opposition from some leaders in the Royal Canadian Air Force, sources add.


    Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for Sajjan, said Thursday that no decision has been taken yet on replacing the CF-18s. Sajjan has repeatedly stated there is a need to immediately replace the CF-18s but his comments have been undercut by air force officers who point out the aircraft can keep flying until at least 2025.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  52. #1352
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Today could be a final decision as which planes to buy to replace aging F-18.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liber...soon-1.3170988
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  53. #1353
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,843

    Default

    Apparently they are going to sole source a purchase for 18 Super hornets as a stop gap until they can do a proper evaluation and decision on a full replacement.

  54. #1354

    Default

    ^I hope not, Kuwait is paying $335m a piece average price for Superhornets, that's three times current projected cost of F35 which is not a 30 year old design on its final production run.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle32972343/

  55. #1355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by River Valley Green View Post
    They built a multi-billion dollar, "too big to fail" lemon and now it's everyone else's fault that people don't want to buy it.
    Sounds like General Motors.

  56. #1356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Like other military decisions Canada has made, e.g. the Sea King replacement, this isn't going to be based sadly on what is best for Canada, but rather, what politicians think will win them the most votes in the short term.
    Then there is nothing to complain. Voters get what they want and what they deserve. Democracy at work.

  57. #1357

    Default

    Well it's announced, a sole source contract with Boeing, no open or fair competition. I wonder how big the donation kick backs will be to the Liberal party? Wonder if it will cost 335 per plane, three times the F35 cost, what Kuwait has paid, once all the costs are factored in?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/figh...ment-1.3862210
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-11-2016 at 12:36 PM.

  58. #1358
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,843

    Default

    Sounds like it'll cost 70-90mil a plane. It almost sounds like they'll be renting or selling them once the new, final planes start showing up.

    They have no choice but to purchase now due to dilly dallying of this govt and the one before it. The current planes have about 7-8 yrs life in them. Buying these planes right now, means they can start retiring the oldest CF18s in a few years. Run the competition fairly and properly takes 5 years, then another 3 to start the first deliveries. It'll be 10-15yrs before the full fleet of 'final' planes is delivered, at which time the superhornets will have 5-10yrs flight time on them. Probably good enough for the second hand market

  59. #1359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Sounds like it'll cost 70-90mil a plane. It almost sounds like they'll be renting or selling them once the new, final planes start showing up.

    They have no choice but to purchase now due to dilly dallying of this govt and the one before it.
    Really? The CF18's have been life extended, and are perfectly fine aircraft (they can dogfighter better than a superhornet, which is basically just a naval bomb truck), additionally, we would have planes on order if the Conservatives had been allowed to complete the purchase they intended. If Harper had announced this purchase you would have been screaming about the evil sole source contract - funny how the worm turns when its your hero whipping out the F18's. Mark my words, these planes are going to cost an awful lot (why no competition? There are plenty of alternatives), for a plane that is virtually obsolete on its last production run. Just like the second hand submarine purchase, or the sea kings, another horrible Liberal military decision done based on political calculation not military needs. Such brilliance announcing you will sole source an aircraft before you have even negotiated the price... I'm sure that price just went up...
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-11-2016 at 01:58 PM.

  60. #1360

    Default

    While I tend to agree with moa that the liberals are once again breaking promises and dancing about I also believe there is a capability gap.

    We originally bought 130 +/- CF-18s (actual designation CF-188 IIRC), we now have 75 +/-.
    We have lost about 20 +/- due to accidents, the others no longer in service are a combination of aircraft that became unfeasible to upgrade (structural/mechanical/other), plain worn out beyond overhaul.

    - Many of these have since been cannibalized for parts, turned into training aids with a very few going to museums (after having serviceable equipment replaced with worn out equipment/none capable of returning to flight.

    With the NORAD and NATO commitments and a % of aircraft down at anytime for maintenance and repair we have far too few aircraft ... a problem that will magnify with only 65 replacements eventually being forecast.

    So the Ministry of Defense has a real concern ... but even 18 with no open bid/competition is just flat wrong. A transparent open bid/competition for the 18 would have been the proper thing to do and if only currently in production/service aircraft being considered it could have been done quickly, weeks not months.

    So while I believe they are needed, the way it has been done is just flat wrong.

    IMO

  61. #1361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    While I tend to agree with moa that the liberals are once again breaking promises and dancing about I also believe there is a capability gap.

    We originally bought 130 +/- CF-18s (actual designation CF-188 IIRC), we now have 75 +/-.
    We have lost about 20 +/- due to accidents, the others no longer in service are a combination of aircraft that became unfeasible to upgrade (structural/mechanical/other), plain worn out beyond overhaul.

    - Many of these have since been cannibalized for parts, turned into training aids with a very few going to museums (after having serviceable equipment replaced with worn out equipment/none capable of returning to flight.

    With the NORAD and NATO commitments and a % of aircraft down at anytime for maintenance and repair we have far too few aircraft ... a problem that will magnify with only 65 replacements eventually being forecast.

    So the Ministry of Defense has a real concern ... but even 18 with no open bid/competition is just flat wrong. A transparent open bid/competition for the 18 would have been the proper thing to do and if only currently in production/service aircraft being considered it could have been done quickly, weeks not months.

    So while I believe they are needed, the way it has been done is just flat wrong.

    IMO
    The F 35 has been a fiasco since day 1, including the Conservatives misinforming Parliament about the cost, production delays, quality issues and cost over runs. There is not much to be done about the first problem at this point, but I suppose there was only so long Canada could wait for the other problems to be resolved before it would have to take some action on an interim basis.

    I assume the CF 18's are being replaced now because the military has advised the government this should not be delayed further. Based on past history, I doubt any government body these days could make a procurement decision through open bid/competition in weeks or months.

  62. #1362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I assume the CF 18's are being replaced now because the military has advised the government this should not be delayed further. Based on past history, I doubt any government body these days could make a procurement decision through open bid/competition in weeks or months.
    The military has consistently said the F35 is the best plane for the job, they should already be on order, and will likely end up cheaper to purchase and operate over full lifecycle than the Superhornets, which just sold for $335m per plane.

    We are going to end up being stuck with 18 overpriced and outdated Superhornets, that will be the entire fighter fleet by 2025 as the only planes flyable by then, and a Liberal government competition that will last a decade or two. Its silly, we need to place a proper order now. If its Superhornet, so be it, but at least buy a proper amount of them as they are on their last production run.
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-11-2016 at 02:53 PM.

  63. #1363
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    If Harper had announced this purchase you would have been screaming about the evil sole source contract - funny how the worm turns when its your hero whipping out the F18's. Mark my words, these planes are going to cost an awful lot (why no competition? There are plenty of alternatives), for a plane that is virtually obsolete on its last production run. Just like the second hand submarine purchase, or the sea kings, another horrible Liberal military decision done based on political calculation not military needs. Such brilliance announcing you will sole source an aircraft before you have even negotiated the price... I'm sure that price just went up...
    Cool your jets and the partisanship and point out where I said it was a good or bad idea.

    Harper sole sourced the C-17's. Ironically, also a platform on it's last production run.
    Addressed an immediate capability gap with a proven plane. Good purchase.

    (they also sole sourced the C-130J purchase which allowed them to retire their older models)
    Last edited by nobleea; 22-11-2016 at 02:58 PM.

  64. #1364

    Default

    Dave ... First off do realize I am not a fan of the F-35. Not that it won't be a good aircraft when developed, just I don't believe it is the right aircraft for Canada.

    But to your comment:
    I assume the CF 18's are being replaced now because the military has advised the government this should not be delayed further. Based on past history, I doubt any government body these days could make a procurement decision through open bid/competition in weeks or months.
    In the time it takes the Government in Power to:
    a) define the specific equipment they want (not the aircraft but the add ons such as radios/radar/aux fuel tanks etc)
    b) negotiate the price and conditions

    There is no functional reason that they could not:
    c) define the specific equipment
    d) review the statistics of the in production suitable aircraft
    e) call an open tender with the desired equipment
    f) make a decision

    As an interim aircraft I don't disagree with the Super Hornet, good aircraft, solid record, easy transition for both flight crews and maintenance and a small fleet of 18 would cover our NATO/UN commitments.

    But if anyone thinks this will be a short service aircraft they should look at a little history. Everytime any Canadian Government in power has purchased an aircraft as "interim" we have ended up with it for 20+ years.

    To me that is why an open bid/tender process is required in this case.

    IMO

  65. #1365

    Default

    ^I think it also sets in place the next order, if there ever is one. If we get Superhornets now, it probably makes sense to buy the same planes for maintenance reasons on any future tender. The fear here, is that in 2025 the Forces will have 18 Superhornets, and that will be it. The Liberals will get some UAV's, and that will be our fighter fleet. That's what I am afraid of. Also, it must be cheaper, you would think, to order one decent sized batch, than two small ones. If the Liberals think Superhornet is the way to go, order 100 of them, and be done with it. Its not my favorite choice, but its OK. The open and fair competition they promised would have been nice though.

    Oh, and further to that, it seems these 18 Superhornets, an interim fleet (which will probably become our entire fleet), will cost more than $10b to acquire. Whereas Harper wanted to buy an entire fleet for the next 50 years of F35's, for $16b. Go figure... pennywise now but stupidly pound foolish go forward.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle32977364/
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-11-2016 at 04:51 PM.

  66. #1366
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I think it also sets in place the next order, if there ever is one. If we get Superhornets now, it probably makes sense to buy the same planes for maintenance reasons on any future tender. The fear here, is that in 2025 the Forces will have 18 Superhornets, and that will be it. The Liberals will get some UAV's, and that will be our fighter fleet. That's what I am afraid of. Also, it must be cheaper, you would think, to order one decent sized batch, than two small ones. If the Liberals think Superhornet is the way to go, order 100 of them, and be done with it. Its not my favorite choice, but its OK. The open and fair competition they promised would have been nice though.

    Oh, and further to that, it seems these 18 Superhornets, an interim fleet (which will probably become our entire fleet), will cost more than $10b to acquire. Whereas Harper wanted to buy an entire fleet for the next 50 years of F35's, for $16b. Go figure... pennywise now but stupidly pound foolish go forward.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle32977364/
    I don't think that article has been finished editing yet. The only $10b number I can find on the web is the price Kuwait paid for 40 SH, including weapons, etc. I can't believe we'd be paying 555mil per plane.

  67. #1367

    Default

    ^paragraph 11. We get about one third of the number of planes for more than half the price. Brilliance.

  68. #1368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^paragraph 11. We get about one third of the number of planes for more than half the price. Brilliance.
    Remember ... the prices quoted are being referred to as "life cycle costs" where other countries are generally quoting acquisition costs ... if I remember correctly the $16B originally quoted for the F-35 was an acquisition cost ... then the games started with "life cycle costs"

    Personally ... we should be looking at "system acquisition costs" (aircraft plus required equipment to operate) as opposed to "life cycle costs" (total costs of personnel, fuel, maintenance, repairs and the aircraft with equipment to operate) as we have no idea, not even a best guess, as to what is going to happen world wide over the aircraft life cycle and it makes it almost impossible to compare against what other countries are actually paying.

    IMO

  69. #1369
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,954

    Default

    As far as I know the actual system acquisition costs are significantly lower for the F-18 Super Hornets as compared to the F-35's. One question that has been debated over and over but I am still wondering about is the advantages/disadvantages of single engine vs. twin engine.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  70. #1370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    As far as I know the actual system acquisition costs are significantly lower for the F-18 Super Hornets as compared to the F-35's. One question that has been debated over and over but I am still wondering about is the advantages/disadvantages of single engine vs. twin engine.
    I believe from what I have read in many sources ... same equipment to same equipment ... the F-18 Superhornet has a lower acquisition cost. Yes if you buy the Growler version (electronic warfare) it is far more expensive than the regular Superhornet and possibly even the base F-35A, but that is not a fair comparison.

    As far as single engine vs dual ... the single biggest advantage is survival. If you have a single engine and it is damaged, ingests a bird or has a mechanical problem that makes it quit you lose the aircraft and depending on where it happens the crew. If you have a dual engine aircraft and an engine that quits you will get back with the aircraft and the crew. Lots of debate on the thread about single vs dual, modern engines vs older technology but that is the long and the short of the story and the reason the Eurofighter, the Rafele, China's latest fighter (which even looks like a twin engine F-35) and most Russian fighters have (2) engines. Draw your own conclusions and moa should be here in a second to argue about it (lol).

    IMO

  71. #1371
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    Basically kicking the can down the road and deferring a lot of spending to a later date. Not surprising with all the spending the government is undertaking, not to mention the need for new ships. At least on that front the government is moving forward and is set to launch the ship building program by soliciting bids. The exact cost of that program is still a big unknown.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  72. #1372

    Default

    ^its better than more years of nothing I guess. I would have much preferred though, an order 100 planes, perhaps phased over a longer period. At least the military would have some certainty. I guess though they don't want to kibosh all those F35 industry contracts. There won't be much coming our way re Superhornets.
    Last edited by moahunter; 23-11-2016 at 04:58 PM.

  73. #1373
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Liberals may have blew their chances to buy F-35 because the cost to buy might be reduced to $ 85 mil by 2019.

    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...n-by-2019.html
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  74. #1374

    Default More than 200 officials forced to sign lifetime gag orders

    What are the Liberals trying to hide?

    OTTAWA - The Liberal government is facing questions over why more than 200 federal civil servants involved in replacing Canada's aging fighter jet fleet have been forced to swear not to discuss the project for the rest of their lives.

    The permanent non-disclosure agreements were implemented in January but only revealed in records tabled in the House of Commons this week in response to a question from the opposition Conservatives.

    National Defence says 235 officials were required to sign agreements as a reminder to employees of their obligations to keep secrets.

    But two former military procurement chiefs, including one who oversaw the F-35 stealth fighter project for seven years, say they have never seen such a move and that existing security measures are already stringent.

    Conservative defence critic James Bezan, who asked the question, alleges the Liberals want to keep officials from revealing that their plan to buy 18 Super Hornet jets is entirely politically motivated.

    The government says it needs the Hornets to address an urgent shortage of warplanes until a competition to replace all 77 of Canada's CF-18s can be finished — a process it says could take up to five years.

    Critics say the air force has enough planes at the moment and the decision to buy Hornets now and punt a competition to later is part of a larger Liberal plan to avoid buying the controversial F-35 stealth fighter.
    http://www.brandonsun.com/national/b...136.html?thx=y

    Its becoming more and more clear the Liberals didn't want a competition, because the F35 would have won hands down:

    Two former officials who handled military purchasing are condemning the Trudeau government’s plan to buy 18 Super Hornet fighter jets.

    Alan Williams and Dan Ross call the purchase a a questionable waste of billions of taxpayer dollars.

    Such a need is one of the few exceptions in the federal procurement law that allows the government purchase new military equipment without a full competition.

    But Williams and Ross say they don’t believe there is an urgent need, since the government could pick a new fighter jet through an open competition in two years or less.
    http://globalnews.ca/news/3087090/tr...-deal-critics/

    We need some of those staff under gag orders to reach out to wikileaks I think, so we can learn the truth...
    Last edited by moahunter; 24-11-2016 at 02:33 PM.

  75. #1375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    What are the Liberals trying to hide?

    OTTAWA - The Liberal government is facing questions over why more than 200 federal civil servants involved in replacing Canada's aging fighter jet fleet have been forced to swear not to discuss the project for the rest of their lives.

    The permanent non-disclosure agreements were implemented in January but only revealed in records tabled in the House of Commons this week in response to a question from the opposition Conservatives.

    National Defence says 235 officials were required to sign agreements as a reminder to employees of their obligations to keep secrets.

    But two former military procurement chiefs, including one who oversaw the F-35 stealth fighter project for seven years, say they have never seen such a move and that existing security measures are already stringent.

    Conservative defence critic James Bezan, who asked the question, alleges the Liberals want to keep officials from revealing that their plan to buy 18 Super Hornet jets is entirely politically motivated.

    The government says it needs the Hornets to address an urgent shortage of warplanes until a competition to replace all 77 of Canada's CF-18s can be finished — a process it says could take up to five years.

    Critics say the air force has enough planes at the moment and the decision to buy Hornets now and punt a competition to later is part of a larger Liberal plan to avoid buying the controversial F-35 stealth fighter.
    http://www.brandonsun.com/national/b...136.html?thx=y

    Its becoming more and more clear the Liberals didn't want a competition, because the F35 would have won hands down:

    Two former officials who handled military purchasing are condemning the Trudeau government’s plan to buy 18 Super Hornet fighter jets.

    Alan Williams and Dan Ross call the purchase a a questionable waste of billions of taxpayer dollars.

    Such a need is one of the few exceptions in the federal procurement law that allows the government purchase new military equipment without a full competition.

    But Williams and Ross say they don’t believe there is an urgent need, since the government could pick a new fighter jet through an open competition in two years or less.
    http://globalnews.ca/news/3087090/tr...-deal-critics/

    We need some of those staff under gag orders to reach out to wikileaks I think, so we can learn the truth...
    The military actually wants to keep information secret? Stop the presses - this is news ? This has never happened before?

    Our allies or suppliers want some confidence that secret technical information will not leak out if given to our government.

  76. #1376

    Default

    From the article:

    "But two former military procurement chiefs, including one who oversaw the F-35 stealth fighter project for seven years, say they have never seen such a move and that existing security measures are already stringent."
    There is nothing militarily secret about the logic behind the contracting. Nice try though, if Harper had signed civil servants to such secrecy agreements, you would have gone through the roof.

  77. #1377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    From the article:

    "But two former military procurement chiefs, including one who oversaw the F-35 stealth fighter project for seven years, say they have never seen such a move and that existing security measures are already stringent."
    There is nothing militarily secret about the logic behind the contracting. Nice try though, if Harper had signed civil servants to such secrecy agreements, you would have gone through the roof.
    I'm surprised he didn't. It would have been a wise move, but perhaps he wasn't as careful with military info as people thought. I seem to remember he did a photo shoot with military personnel or something in Afghanistan and there was some secrecy violation there he got criticized for.

    In any event personally, I don't think it is a good idea for military people to blab about contracts. They could easily give out information that could hurt Canada's interests whether intentional or not. I suspect most already know and respect that well, but perhaps a few need a reminder.

  78. #1378
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,016

    Default

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/five-...lyst-1.3172362
    A five year search..? Rolls eyes, what a farce

  79. #1379

    Default

    ^basically, instead of doing a proper analysis and replacing our whole fleet, they are wasting 10b on an interim solution that wouldn't be needed if they did the right thing, because that's cheaper in the short term (much more expensive long term). No wonder they are forcing civil servants to be silent about it. I wonder if they will ban the Auditor General from auditing the contract? Wouldn't be surprising for this secretive and highly controlling PM.
    Last edited by moahunter; 24-11-2016 at 04:12 PM.

  80. #1380
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    Has anyone in this thread been a fighter pilot, let alone a pilot? Just wondering if there is substance to some of the words here or if it is facts/supposed facts from the internet and further politicization/partisanship of the issue?

    I've heard some pretty strong arguments from friends of mine that are commercial pilots or other pilots with significant hours, as to why two engines makes sense for Canadian planes that patrol within Canada. On the contrary, they have also said it would matter less in many war zones to have two engines, due to the distance one is flying on a given sortie. I guess the thing was environmental hazard(s) versus the potential of simply getting shot down in a combat zone. You're more likely to lose an engine here in Canada whereas in combat, you'll probably just lose the whole plane, if anything does happens of that nature.

    Personally, I've no idea what the ratio of hours is for patrol vs. combat zones on the current air frames, but those in the know would probably take that into consideration.

    I just hope the Government does something for the military as opposed to doing absolutely nothing. Don't want the military driving/flying another proverbial coffin. I think we can all agree that we want out military to at least be flying something that is safe from mechanical failure (won't get into that historical discussion here).

    Maybe they use the superhornets for patrol here in Canada and deploy the F-35 in the future for combat zones, instead of choosing one or the other. I'd like to think there is a compromise to be had.

  81. #1381

    Default

    ^I think a lot of those attitudes by pilots are dated by new technology though. It used to be that a two engine commercial jet was unreliable, now they are perfectly safe (the 777 is dominating long distance routes). In the same way, it is now proven the F16, a single engine jet, had less accidents, than the F18 with two engines, which our forces have. While two engines gives some redundancy on bird strike (its not immune though), its also more complex which makes it more likely for a mechanical error. The Swedish airforce fly single engine Gripens in arctic conditions no different from ours, its really moot, all fighter jets are infinitely safer than the models of 30 years ago be they single engine or double. Having two types of fighter aircraft on the surface sounds nice, but it also means double the pilot training costs, double the maintenance / spares required, double the complexity for engineers. A large air force can sustain that, but we will never have a large air force. I can accept the choice of the Superhornet, I don't think its the right one, but so be it. But I can't accept the choice of this tiny purchase for an outrageous 10b, perhaps followed by a tiny F35 purchase, it makes no sense at all, as the analysts have pointed out.
    Last edited by moahunter; 24-11-2016 at 04:27 PM.

  82. #1382
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,016

    Default

    That 10 b is going to be so much more moa, so much.

  83. #1383

    Default

    Has anyone in this thread been a fighter pilot, let alone a pilot?
    Pilot yes, for bout 40 years, fighter pilot no but have known and know dozens. They are split as well but (from my conversations) mostly for different reasons than you see on this thread.

    it is now proven the F16, a single engine jet, had less accidents, than the F18 with two engines
    Yeah and you still don't acknowledge that F-16s don't and can't fly from carriers where as an extremely high percentage of F-18s have and do ... point being having a higher accident rate when operating from a far higher risk environment (which flying from aircraft carriers is)

    For those that really want to know read through the thread there is a literal ton of information and opinion on this thread ...far too much to beat the horse to death again.

    IMO
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 24-11-2016 at 07:34 PM.

  84. #1384

    Default

    Moodib

    Maybe they use the superhornets for patrol here in Canada and deploy the F-35 in the future for combat zones, instead of choosing one or the other. I'd like to think there is a compromise to be had.
    In your scenario it would actually be the other way around ... current updated CF-18s for domestic duty and the 'new' Superhornets for NATO/UN missions. reason will be simple, the Superhornet is a better bomb hauler as it is 30% (+/-) bigger and will have the latest communication systems making it more compatible with our NATO/UN allies.

    As far as a compromise ... not likely, as polarized as moa and I are the politicians are far more so and this will be a purely political decision IMO. Same as the CF-18s, the CF-101 Voodoos, the CF-5 and on and on.

    A large air force can sustain that, but we will never have a large air force.
    Aw come on read some history ... Canada has traditionally had a large air force (in the many hundreds of aircraft) and there is no reason we shouldn't have now for many practical reasons starting with defense and going from there. The amount of GDP Canada spends on it's military, never mind just the air force, is incredibly small compared to the vast majority of developed and Western Nations, we rely far, far too much on our friends to the south and they are getting tired of it.

    IMO
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 24-11-2016 at 07:33 PM.

  85. #1385

    Default

    What exactly would the Americans be tired of? The. conflicts the US get into is for their agenda and expects everyone to help foot the bill to further their attempts to conquer the world. Their interest in the middle east is the oil and resources using terrorism- which they finance- as the reason to attempt invasions of other countries.

  86. #1386

    Default

    What exactly would the Americans be tired of?


    Oh I expect it has little to do with your comments and more to do with the fact that they cover somewhere over 75% (last I read) of the cost of NATO which is really the defense of Europe and an even higher percentage (again last I read) of the costs NORAD which is North American Air Defense to which Canada was supposed to be an equal partner (haven't lived up to that since the 50s).

    Edit added after: Matter of fact neither Europe or Canada could even hope to defend themselves without the American subsidy.

    IMO
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 24-11-2016 at 07:17 PM.

  87. #1387

    Default

    Which basically is their their way of discretlly forcing their allies to buy their products to help them conquer the world. As per europe, France, Britan, Italy, Germany and a few other countries would not be able to unite together to defend themselves? France, Britan, and Germany are not exactly weaklings. NATO is controlled by the Americans for their agenda in the propaganda war when they see fit for themselves, so im fine with them paying 75% of the cost.

  88. #1388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Which basically is their their way of discretlly forcing their allies to buy their products to help them conquer the world. As per europe, France, Britan, Italy, Germany and a few other countries would not be able to unite together to defend themselves? France, Britan, and Germany are not exactly weaklings. NATO is controlled by the Americans for their agenda in the propaganda war when they see fit for themselves, so im fine with them paying 75% of the cost.
    Your anti American rhetoric aside this is going off topic fast and you might want to do a little reading.

    Long and Short of the point in my prior post ... Jane's analysts(per several recent radio reports) are predicting major financial pull back by the USA so we need to be able to take care of ourselves in the air, on land and at sea.

    IMO

  89. #1389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    [/COLOR]
    A large air force can sustain that, but we will never have a large air force.
    Aw come on read some history ... Canada has traditionally had a large air force (in the many hundreds of aircraft) and there is no reason we shouldn't have now for many practical reasons starting with defense and going from there. The amount of GDP Canada spends on it's military, never mind just the air force, is incredibly small compared to the vast majority of developed and Western Nations, we rely far, far too much on our friends to the south and they are getting tired of it.

    IMO
    I will agree with you there, but that's not going to happen sadly. I think we can probably both agree, that given they have chosen Superhornets (whether we think that is the right plane or not, and whether we think it makes sense to have another fighter, or not), they should have ordered more. 18 for 10b is an awfully expensive purchase, I'd far rather they purchased 60 for 30b, or 100 for 50b spread over the next two to three decades (get that new Advanced Superhornet that has been proposed- enhanced engine, conformal fuel tanks and an open architecture cockpit) - there have to be some significant economies of scale if a larger order was placed with Boeing (also more influence over the order - it is a huge boost for Boeing as Superhornet production runs were about to close). Now it goes back into the political football - a long extended competition, followed by more controversy and more delays (I am sure there will also be various controversies over this current order when the Auditor general looks at it - the F35 order the Conservatives wanted to place with Lockheed looks like bargain now, and the auditor general didn't like that one). I genuinely fear in 2025, those 18 Superhornets will be all we have operational, and there will be nothing else on order. Given that's more money to spend on other non-military priorities, it wouldn't surprise me if that is the real goal of the Liberals here.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-11-2016 at 08:30 AM.

  90. #1390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Which basically is their their way of discretlly forcing their allies to buy their products to help them conquer the world. As per europe, France, Britan, Italy, Germany and a few other countries would not be able to unite together to defend themselves? France, Britan, and Germany are not exactly weaklings. NATO is controlled by the Americans for their agenda in the propaganda war when they see fit for themselves, so im fine with them paying 75% of the cost.
    Your anti American rhetoric aside this is going off topic fast and you might want to do a little reading.

    Long and Short of the point in my prior post ... Jane's analysts(per several recent radio reports) are predicting major financial pull back by the USA so we need to be able to take care of ourselves in the air, on land and at sea.

    IMO
    Im not anti American- to the average folks- just anti government mentality. If they are cutting back their expenses then good; perhaps the world could be at peace.

    As per the fighter jets required, we need planes that can protect our soveignty and that should be it. As per type of planes in detail, im as naive as a new born in this category. Howevet, i do enjoy reading perspectives from fellow forumers such as yourself on this topic.

  91. #1391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    [/COLOR]
    A large air force can sustain that, but we will never have a large air force.
    Aw come on read some history ... Canada has traditionally had a large air force (in the many hundreds of aircraft) and there is no reason we shouldn't have now for many practical reasons starting with defense and going from there. The amount of GDP Canada spends on it's military, never mind just the air force, is incredibly small compared to the vast majority of developed and Western Nations, we rely far, far too much on our friends to the south and they are getting tired of it.

    IMO
    I will agree with you there, but that's not going to happen sadly. I think we can probably both agree, that given they have chosen Superhornets (whether we think that is the right plane or not, and whether we think it makes sense to have another fighter, or not), they should have ordered more. 18 for 10b is an awfully expensive purchase, I'd far rather they purchased 60 for 30b, or 100 for 50b spread over the next two to three decades (get that new Advanced Superhornet that has been proposed- enhanced engine, conformal fuel tanks and an open architecture cockpit) - there have to be some significant economies of scale if a larger order was placed with Boeing (also more influence over the order - it is a huge boost for Boeing as Superhornet production runs were about to close). Now it goes back into the political football - a long extended competition, followed by more controversy and more delays (I am sure there will also be various controversies over this current order when the Auditor general looks at it - the F35 order the Conservatives wanted to place with Lockheed looks like bargain now, and the auditor general didn't like that one). I genuinely fear in 2025, those 18 Superhornets will be all we have operational, and there will be nothing else on order. Given that's more money to spend on other non-military priorities, it wouldn't surprise me if that is the real goal of the Liberals here.
    Yes I do believe we will not agree on mission or type moa, but will agree on needing a vastly larger force. As far as the 10b for what we are getting, tough call. If it is a lifecycle cost (which is what the closing numbers on the F-35 deal were) it is likely not a bad deal depending on how many years they are forecasting. If it is a straight acquisition deal then I agree with you it is a raw deal.

    This whole fighter acquisition has b een such a political game with numbers altered and publicized to prove pet points that the auditor really needs to step in for the Public. The government should be telling us what the actual per aircraft cost is, what the supporting equipment costs are and skip the life cycle crap.

    This is not an airliner where you can project routes, frequency, passenger load, number of takeoffs and landings etc. with some reasonable accuracy. These are weapons that yes will be used for expected training, patrols and domestic uses.

    But ... they will be used to react to the conditions in the world that affect Canada which anyway you cut it will be erratic, short notice and political. None of which are the least bit predictable.

    IMO
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 25-11-2016 at 09:58 AM.

  92. #1392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post

    Im not anti American- to the average folks- just anti government mentality. If they are cutting back their expenses then good; perhaps the world could be at peace.

    As per the fighter jets required, we need planes that can protect our soveignty and that should be it. As per type of planes in detail, im as naive as a new born in this category. Howevet, i do enjoy reading perspectives from fellow forumers such as yourself on this topic.
    Well ... the last time the USA became isolationist we eventually came into a world war costing the lives of 50 to 70 million people depending on whose estimate you use. There are many things I disagree with in how the United States has deployed it's military and the US governments objectives. But facts are they have been the backstop of Western defense since about 1955 and European defense since 1945.

    If the analysts are correct (at least they are not pollsters) we are moving into a time when China is pushing its boundaries with eyes on island assets in the South China sea, Russia has shown it is in expansion mode and small nation wars, civil wars and terrorism (by evidence) continue.

    If this is the case and with the defacto policeman backing off every nation will be needing to move into major build ups of all forces. Peace IMO will be the least likely outcome.

    As far as our own sovereignty, this is no slight to our armed forces personnel as I admire them greatly, we cannot defend borders land/sea or air with the current numbers of personnel or levels of equipment without major assistance from the USA and other allies.

    So if the goal is to be able to maintain/patrol/defend our borders at the most basic level from the air we are going to need 300 fighters (of whatever type) as well as the equipment and personnel to operate them.
    BTW ... that will just be a start, then there are other aircraft needed for patrol and transport, possibly a large contingent of UAVs to assist in the patrol mission. Then the ships required for our maritime service and then we can start on creating a ground force and bases to match.

    It is my guess that if the world is changing as it seems to be it will be getting more violent not less and Canada needs to do what is needed to protect ourselves.

    I'd much rather be wrong ... but the evidence and history seem to be indicating the direction.

    IMO

  93. #1393

    Default Majority of CF-18s will fly beyond 'certified safe life': internal report

    Its like the Sea Kings all over again. Instead of doing a competition now, and placing a proper order for a new fleet in 2025 (which is what the Conservatives planned), we are getting an expensive interim order for a tiny number of planes, on the unsafe theory that we can fly CF18's well past that 2025 date:

    The Liberal government's plan to keep a number of its CF-18 fighters flying through the 2020s — possibly up to 2032 — is a "high-risk" and "costly" option, according to an internal government report obtained by CBC News.

    The technical engineering assessment was written for the material group at National Defence in the run-up to the former Conservative government's decision two years ago to extend the life of the front-line jets until 2025.

    It raises questions about the serviceability and survivability of the aging fighters at the crucial transition time when the Liberal government hopes to bring a replacement on line.

    The report takes on fresh relevance in light of the government's decision last week to postpone holding an open and transparent competition for a new fighter. Bidding is not expected to start until next year after the new defence policy has been released and could take up to five years.

    The analysis has the Opposition Conservatives wondering why the Liberal government is not proceeding directly to the competition it promised in the last election.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/figh...risk-1.3876365

    Why does it take 5 years to do a competition, when Denmark did it in 11 months?

    Conservative defence critic James Bezan said the Liberals are stalling.

    "We know Denmark just did a competition in 11 months. Norway did theirs in about a year and a half. Japan did theirs in a year and 11 months," he said. The Liberals "could do an open and fair competition right now and get a plane faster than they can in five years' time."
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-12-2016 at 10:33 AM.

  94. #1394

    Default 16 Airbus C-295 aircraft announced by ministers, head of air force at CFB Trenton

    So, on search and rescue, instead of choosing the plane that the military wanted, and that the Conservatives wanted to execute (but were stalled over), the Liberals, like with fighters, has chosen something the military don't want:

    Commenting on the issue of new fighter planes, he said, "I have no doubt the air force wants the F-35. I can understand that. I have no doubt the air force wanted the C-27J. I can understand that, too.

    "But that's why it's incumbent on the assistant deputy minister of materiel, the deputy minister and the minister to safeguard the process and protect the military — actually — from themselves."

    Former defence minister Peter MacKay said in December 2008 that the search planes were his top procurement priority, but the effort bogged down and it was eventually referred to the National Research Council for analysis.

    The council agreed the military's specifications were far too specific and needed to be broadened in order to ensure competition.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fixe...anes-1.3885653

    C27J made way more sense, given our experience in flying Hercules (its basically a mini version). But, because the Conservatives proposed it, the Liberals have to go another way... Airbus are notorious for cost over-runs for military aircraft, I'm sure this won't be the deal its made out to be.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-12-2016 at 09:33 AM.

  95. #1395
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    So, on search and rescue, instead of choosing the plane that the military wanted, and that the Conservatives wanted to execute (but were stalled over), the Liberals, like with fighters, has chosen something the military don't want:
    So, to recap...sole source a fighter contract, bad. Sole source a SAR replacement, good.

    The C-295 is almost 40% cheaper.

  96. #1396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    So, on search and rescue, instead of choosing the plane that the military wanted, and that the Conservatives wanted to execute (but were stalled over), the Liberals, like with fighters, has chosen something the military don't want:
    So, to recap...sole source a fighter contract, bad. Sole source a SAR replacement, good.

    The C-295 is almost 40% cheaper.
    I've followed both these contracts and their individual games pretty close ... in short closed door sole source bad. Don't care what government is in power.

    For the SAR there were several Canadian made solutions put on the table, (1) of them very popular with the aircrews and service personnel. All were killed very early on.

    Previous government choices boiled down to spanish or french. Both good aircraft but had different long term issues in operations and different benefits.

    Operations personnel preferred the C27 for a number of very good operational reasons. Now we have the Airbus solution the C295.

    Because ALL of the program ran behind closed doors and restricted information the public ... especially those that followed it closely ... will never really know if it is a good decision of a bad.

    But in the SAR case it is particularly disturbing to me that the size, type and mission definition for the aircraft needed falls well within the realm of aircraft that are in Canadian production or have been in Canadian production yet we could not have a Canadian solution.

    IMO
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 08-12-2016 at 05:25 PM.

  97. #1397

    Default Superhornets grounded

    Two pilots injured by canopy malfunction (I wonder if linked to ejection seat?). The new models are also having issues with oxygen (which is interesting, there were problems with F22 oxygen systems as well):

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...before-takeoff

  98. #1398

    Default How Trump Can Fix The F-35 Fighter Program Without Hurting American Warfighters, Workers Or Allies

    Interesting article by a former F35 consultant - basically says they need to cut stupid government military regulations (like excessive testing), and start building it in bulk, then the price will plummet:

    Lockheed Martin promised years ago that it would get the price of each F-35 down to what the latest version of Cold War fighters cost. That's pretty impressive when you consider that the F-35 is five or six times more effective in performing key missions than the legacy planes, and invisible to radar.

    But the year the price-tag of each F-35 actually matches that of legacy fighters keeps slipping into the future because the Pentagon hasn't increased production to an economical rate. How can you expect to get a good price on planes if you produce them like Bentleys rather than Ford F-150s?

    President Trump can fix this problem real fast by raising the rate and, once development is completed next year, move to multiyear contracts for planes and engines. That one step would save billions of dollars in a few years.

    As for the joint program office's plan to extend development seven more months and spend an additional $500 million on completing the test program -- forget it! That's a waste of money too. The F-35 is already operational with two of the three military services that will use it. The program office needs to get off auto-pilot and use money for building planes rather than doing more testing.

    ...

    The bottom line here is that President-elect Trump is on to something in complaining about what the F-35 fighter costs. Senator McCain got it right when he said F-35 may be "the greatest combat aircraft in the history of the world," but that doesn't mean it has to cost more than past fighters.

    As President, Trump will have the power to turn the Pentagon into a smart buyer by getting rid of dumb regulations and buying a much-needed weapon at economical rates. Putting a hard-charging New York businessman at the top of the federal government could be just what America's military needs. From now on, it's all about getting results.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorentho.../#747d9cb630bd
    Last edited by moahunter; 21-12-2016 at 08:38 AM.

  99. #1399

    Default History shows military stopgaps like the Super Hornets often get discarded

    There is one question that remains stubbornly unanswered — or at least decidedly hazy — following all the coverage this year of the Liberal government's plan to replace the CF-18s.

    What happens to the 18 Super Hornet fighters — being acquired as a sole-source stopgap — when the new permanent fleet arrives?

    The short answer is: Wait and see.

    The long answer is more complex and full of qualifications, maybe even a bit of obfuscation.

    "The interim fleet is there for the interim period," Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told CBC News in a recent interview.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inte...jets-1.3908113

  100. #1400

    Default

    ^
    We do what Australia is planning to do with some of their Super Hornets eventually; convert them to Growler Electronic Warfare fighters.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia Growler Article (see link above)
    On 27 February 2009, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced that 12 of the 24 Super Hornets on order would be wired on the production line for future fit-out as EA-18Gs. The additional wiring would cost A$35 million
    Growlers would be useful for providing extra electronic radar/radio cover for our existing CF/18s, and would also still be useful with F35s in "bomb truck" mode, ie laid out with external bombs/missiles/fuel tanks; external stores compromise the stealth of the F35. The Growlers could also be used with NATO partners to protect their aircraft.

    You don't need a whole lot of them, so eighteen ordered should be about right to complement whatever fighter is finally procured. We need them as straight fighters right now, so we'd order them wired up as Growlers, but purchase the Growler upgrade later, since we could then purchase the latest ECM suites available in the future; if we get them now, they'll be out of date by the time we need them.
    Last edited by Ustauk; 22-12-2016 at 01:43 PM.

Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4101112131415 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
  •