F-35 looking more like white elephant

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4328
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by 2R »

The F-35 may have some great abilities and may be a slight game changer in a war against a first world enemy.But we are not fighting a first world enemy.We have been at war with a bragand of third world criminals and their criminal enterprises since before the end of the cold war.The enemy just laughs at these expensive toys and will win the fight because we have put to much faith in the boys and their toys in the Pentagon.
Many people did not think that the Red Army and the Kremlin could be defeated,with all its toys..........The same enemy that defeated the Red Army now has the Pentagon in its sights.
And the same enemy has got passed our gates.
The FAA air traffic controllers are not the only government workers asleep on the job in North America.
The F-35 will bankrupt and nueter any effective fighting ability of our forces.

How many A-10's could we get for half the money ?
An A-10 could be much more effective in a SAR role being capable of hunting rabbits at six hundred miles an hour means it may just be able to find a lost ski-dooer in the north very quickly,and if that ski-doo was part of an invading hoard it could be destroyed as well :shock:
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8133
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by iflyforpie »

Moose47 wrote:<<<Harper not opening the books up would seem to support their position. And as for 'lefties', please. Wasn't it 'lefties' that supported Canada's only indigenous operational jet fighter in its entire history? One-dimensional politics doesn't even work in highschool.>>>

G'day Pie

We had two home-grown jet fighter types of which only one reached operational statuts

(1) Avro CF-100 Canuck *

(2) Avro CF-105 Arrow

Cheers...Chris
It was the CF-100 that I was referring to. The CF-105, though a great aircraft, was nowhere near operational status and is often viewed through rose-coloured glasses because no operational challenges were ever faced by it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
Mostly Harmless
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:10 am
Location: Betelgeuse

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Mostly Harmless »

I just want to summarize my understanding of this discussion;

So, many years ago, the Liberal government brokers a deal... we give large sums of money to the US government to help develop the F-35 so that we have access to bid on the airplane when it enters service. This allows us to bid on contracts here and there to develop technology for the airplane and manufacturing of certain, unspecified parts.

Closer to the present, the leadership has changed hands and the Conservatives are now the PTB's. So, they continue with a deal started by the Liberals and are planning on buying the F-35 at discounted prices because we (under the Liberals) already invested a bunch of money into this project. But, because the Liberals are no longer in charge of the government, the plan that they initiated is now a horrible idea, and they want to cancel it.

We need a competition, goes the cry of the day... all of this sounding historically familiar. The military picked a helicopter to replace the Sea King. Everyone clamored it was the wrong helicopter for the job. The government of the day changed hands and the Liberals cancelled the helicopter deal. We (yes, we the tax payers of this nation) paid almost half the value of that contract to the helicopter company in question and received nothing. Pretty damn good deal if you build helicopters... get paid over a billion dollars to do nothing. Then the mighty competition to right all wrongs was held and the winner was, the helicopter we had a contract to buy in the first place. Only now, being years later, the price had gone up and the level of equipment we were going to get had gone down. Or, in simpler terms more money for less helicopter. So, now we couldn't afford to buy as many helicopters as we could the first time around, meaning we had to keep the Sea King in operation while only buying a few helicopters that we could have had years earlier for less money. A helicopter so nice, we paid for them twice. I'm now certain that is how two for one is supposed to work, pay for two, get one... but that is what we did.

Yet, once again the call to competition is sounding from the rooftops. Let us buy a 30 year old design because I like it better... goes those in the F-18 crowd. It doesn't matter that the US won't be ordering any more of those off of the production line, nor will many, if any other nations. That won't make parts and stores more expensive as the F-18 line will disappear because there will still be one whole customer. You all know how easy it is to make money off of one customer. Buy the Griphen or the Eurofighter... the Mig or the Sukhoi... Anything but the one you have picked. Perhaps, they will meet the roll needed, perhaps not. I know that Europe has a different issue with airspace protection than we do, they need to climb up to meet the enemy quickly. However, range and endurance aren't big issues in a small space. Do these fighters have the range and endurance that we need? I don't know, perhaps some of our 'experts' do. What kind of maintenance will these fighters need and can we get the parts for reasonable prices? My guess here is that if you get this competition you are asking for, you will find that the winner is going to be the F-35. There will be howls of outrage from camps on all sides that their favourite model didn't win and that the competition was rigged, but we will have spent years of time, millions of dollars and arrived back where we were with the Cormorant. Paying more money for less aircraft.

"We don't need planes, we need ships", you say. Ships cost a tad more than an airplane and history seems to show time and again that a plane can sink a ship for a reasonably cheap price. Planes even do a very nice number on submarines.

Make everyone serve a year in the forces... goes the next cry. Soldiers take home wages, they have uniforms, housing and food costs. They need weapons... hard to have a fighting force with little more than brooms. Where will all the money for these soldiers come from. I assure you that the savings from welfare will not cover all the expenses of a full sized military. It would be nice if the world were really that simple.

All of this taking me back to one thing and only one thing. Having a military is expensive. If we have one, it should be capable of actually fighting, and even better, winning. Preferably with the least amount of casualties on our side of that equation. It should be capable of helping the civilian's of this country in times of natural disaster. That means that our military has to have resources on hand. The modern battlefield is expensive... and getting more so every day. It seems to me that the argument isn't whether we need the planes, or this plane in particular. The argument is really do we want a military? Are we willing to accept the risks associated with not having a military? Do we fully understand the consequences of having a functioning armed force, or giving it all up and hoping someone comes to our aid when we become the damsel in distress? So many of you are whining about the price tag but, the military has been the budgetary whipping boy so long that we are finally at the point where it cannot go on. We have to decide, armed forces or not. If you want them, they need to be updated and that takes money. If you don't, be ready for the consequences of that decision. The one upside I can see of buying new fighters, ships, guns, etc is that I can actually see something in return for my tax dollars instead of hearing it went out to bribe a bunch of well off Quebec advertising executives. That last one really makes me mad about paying taxes. It isn't the military that has you lined up at the hospital, it is the corruption that has you lined up at hospitals. In my own riding the MP gave his buddy 400,000 to write reports he never wrote... the people here re-elected this asshole!! Nothing was ever done to recover that money... all that happened was an apology was issued. If I lived in BC, I would be wondering "where the hell does all of that money go?" Second highest taxes in Canada and no better levels of service than any other province. At least in Quebec (highest taxes) you get benefits like free child care and university. My point, before I drift too far off course, what do you want from your government? If you want a military, it is going to cost you. The longer you put it off the more it will cost you. If you don't want a military, stop complaining about one program and come outright and say it... no military. Because at the end of the day, the alternatives to this jet are not going to be any cheaper and there are no perfect solutions.
---------- ADS -----------
 
moyo26
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 12:05 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by moyo26 »

Well said and I agree with every point Mostly Harmless.
---------- ADS -----------
 
winds_in_flight_wtf
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by winds_in_flight_wtf »

For the last year, I have been trying to find the words to say it "exactly" as you just did. I posted on the Toronto Star (idiot Harper haters - with no solutions just criticisms), Why is it never mentioned, that the LIBERAL GOVERNMENT GOT US INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT AND IN AFGHANISTAN ??? I am shocked that Harper has not jumped on this actively because it will send Mr. Ignatieff back to the States and Mr. Layton back to his hole in the ground. So everyone has a criticism , who has a solution? Be prepared to explain why Canada should not arm itself with the basic elements of a developed countries fighter force? As stated, the F15-SE's are a possible alternative but the costs involved would actually be more than the F35! But if the proposal was made by the liberal govenment to jump on that band wagon, well hell the F15 would be our saving grace.

The hypocrisy in this country is nauseating. I voted liberal for years and quite frankly I lost the drive once the Government crossed the line and proved it could and would not, take the necessary steps to assure National Defense into the 21st century. On May 2nd, I am voting for a Government who is not afraid to actually do something for their country despite the displaced population who still believe we are "Peacekeepers" .
---------- ADS -----------
 
TheCheez
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 410
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Trenton

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by TheCheez »

Mostly Harmless wrote: We need a competition, goes the cry of the day... all of this sounding historically familiar. The military picked a helicopter to replace the Sea King. Everyone clamored it was the wrong helicopter for the job. The government of the day changed hands and the Liberals cancelled the helicopter deal. We (yes, we the tax payers of this nation) paid almost half the value of that contract to the helicopter company in question and received nothing. Pretty damn good deal if you build helicopters... get paid over a billion dollars to do nothing. Then the mighty competition to right all wrongs was held and the winner was, the helicopter we had a contract to buy in the first place. Only now, being years later, the price had gone up and the level of equipment we were going to get had gone down. Or, in simpler terms more money for less helicopter. So, now we couldn't afford to buy as many helicopters as we could the first time around, meaning we had to keep the Sea King in operation while only buying a few helicopters that we could have had years earlier for less money. A helicopter so nice, we paid for them twice. I'm now certain that is how two for one is supposed to work, pay for two, get one... but that is what we did.
I was pretty young when that all went down but IIRC the Cormorant won the SAR competition to replace Labs and the wheels were moving on this differently from the Sea King replacement. The Sea King replacement which you're referring to from 1994 went to the S92. For that particular helo we are the only military customer, the only one to use it off a ship, requiring a number of unique modifications, and they're 3+ years late on delivery with more in cost overruns than we paid to cancel the Cormorant. The contract was won by the S92 largely because there was no way that the sitting Liberal government could possibly go back and buy the 101 after winning the 1994 election on the promise of, and delivering the cancellation of the contract. Even in the face of the 101 being a clearly superior bid and the benefits of sharing a platform with the SAR community.

As far as the politics, libs and lefties all say they support the troops but when the tough decisions need to be made on defence spending and policy it's back to their own agendas, and DND is nothing more than a big juicy budget to be pilfered.
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8133
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by iflyforpie »

TheCheez wrote: I was pretty young when that all went down but IIRC the Cormorant won the SAR competition to replace Labs and the wheels were moving on this differently from the Sea King replacement. The Sea King replacement which you're referring to from 1994 went to the S92. For that particular helo we are the only military customer, the only one to use it off a ship, requiring a number of unique modifications, and they're 3+ years late on delivery with more in cost overruns than we paid to cancel the Cormorant. The contract was won by the S92 largely because there was no way that the sitting Liberal government could possibly go back and buy the 101 after winning the 1994 election on the promise of, and delivering the cancellation of the contract. Even in the face of the 101 being a clearly superior bid and the benefits of sharing a platform with the SAR community.
Long before the Comorant was selected to replace the Labradors, the EH-101 (of which a Comorant is a watered-down version) was selected by the Mulroney Government to replace the Sea King. This was cancelled by the Chretien Government in 1993 with massive cancellation penalties and the abandonment of any economic spin-offs.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

*bangs table*
Here here Mostly!

How many twin engined turbo prop intecepters can we build to watch our vast boarders for the cost of a single F-35? Why have we diminshed our Radar coverage shutting down distant early warning installations instead of improving them?
---------- ADS -----------
 
hawker driver
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:49 pm

F 35 Engines not included in price

Post by hawker driver »

Canada’s F-35s: Engines not included

Government will be required to provide powerplant for stealth fighters, documents show

BY DAVID PUGLIESE, THE OTTAWA CITIZENAPRIL 17, 2011


The multi-million dollar F-35 stealth fighter that the Conservatives want to purchase comes with all the accoutrements of a high-tech aircraft — everything, that is, except an engine.

The government will be required to provide engines for the 65 planes to be delivered by U.S. manufacturer Lockheed Martin, according to newly released Defence Department documents.

The proposed F-35 purchase, estimated to cost between $14 billion and $29 billion depending on what figures are used, has been controversial. Opposition parties are calling for a review or cancellation of the program, while the Tories have made it a key part of their defence policy.

The DND documents, which outline answers to questions about the F-35, also note that the stealth fighter could be used in a secondary role for search-and-rescue.

The records, obtained through the Access to Information law by peace activist Tamara Lorincz, are from a series of meetings last fall when defence bureaucrats and military officers toured the country to promote the F-35 deal.

“Engines are provided as gov’t furnished equipment,” noted the documents.

The term “government furnished equipment” signifies that the engines are being provided separately by Canada.

It is unclear how much extra the engines will cost or whether there would be additional costs for installing the power plants into the fighters.

In an e-mail late Friday, DND stated that Canada is purchasing the least costly variant of the F-35.

But DND did not provide an explanation about why the government is required to provide the engines.

It also did not provide any details on the price tag of the engines or the cost to install them.

But the e-mail suggested the cost of the engines is included in the overall price.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has labelled the F-35 as a good deal for Canada and notes that the aircraft will cost around $75 million per plane.

The Conservatives say the entire purchase will cost around $14 billion but a report from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page puts the number at $29 billion.

The Government Accountability Office, the U.S government’s equivalent of the auditor general, has also warned about serious ongoing problems with the aircraft and rising costs. Mike Sullivan, a senior official with the Government Accountability Office, estimates that the F-35 model that Canada is buying will cost between $110 to $115 million.

U.S. defence specialist Winslow Wheeler, who has also raised concerns about the F-35, has warned that the extra cost of an engine could boost the price of an aircraft for Canada to around $148 million.

“If Canada’s government can get an F-35 for the mid-70 million dollars per airplane, well they should sign a contract right now and get it delivered,” said Wheeler, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington. “Because I can promise you nobody on this earth will ever get a flying F-35 for $75 million per copy. It’s pure fantasy.”

But former chief of the defence staff, retired Gen. Paul Manson, a strong supporter of the F-35 and a former chairman of Lockheed Martin Canada, has challenged Wheeler’s viewpoints in a letter to the Citizen. According to Manson, the F-35 project is progressing well and the plane is the right one for Canada. He said Wheeler lacks credibility because he is associated with a “left-wing” organization in Washington.

Wheeler, who was asked to testify last year before a Commons committee, has spent the last 30 years working on defence issues for Republican and Democratic politicians. He was an analyst for nine years with the Government Accountability Office, working on studies concerning defence procurement and military aircraft.

The DND records highlight the F-35’s capabilities, pointing out that it will be easy to fly and the purchase will provide contracts for Canadian aerospace companies.

During the tour, the issue of whether the F-35 could contribute to search and rescue (SAR) missions also came up. “Fighter aircraft (are) not a primary SAR asset, but can play a secondary role — and would,” the documents state.

But Steve Staples, a vocal critic of the F-35 purchase, calls that claim ludicrous.

He said the billions of dollars earmarked for the fighter jets have helped delay other more important projects such as the air force’s much-delayed plan to buy fixed wing search and rescue planes.

“The concern here is that the F-35 eats everybody’s else’s lunch and there will be no money left,” said Staples, president of the Rideau Institute. “The search and rescue aircraft are a casualty, so instead we’ll get some supersonic stealth fighter trying to find hikers lost in the woods.”

According to the DND presentations from the documents, the first F-35 will be delivered to Canada in 2016. The final delivery will take place in 2022.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

Isn't Pratt&Whitney in Canuckistan still? This is a good thing. I'd rather see the whole thing built here but this could be a start. I know what the young people will be thinking though. "Let's see if we can get something cheaper from Wal-mart or somewhere."
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by AuxBatOn »

Beefitarian wrote:I'd rather see the whole thing built here but this could be a start.
In your dreams... Canada haven't been involved in the development of a fighter aircraft in oh, 50 years? We don't have the industrial knowledge or infrastructure to build out own. Give us 30+ years and we'll be able to... If we start now.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Going for the deck at corner
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

That's the problem, 28 year old Canadians these days are buying iphones from China. In the 1950s they were building unproven Arrows.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ogc
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:52 am

Re: F 35 Engines not included in price

Post by ogc »

hawker driver wrote:Canada’s F-35s: Engines not included

Government will be required to provide powerplant for stealth fighters, documents show

BY DAVID PUGLIESE, THE OTTAWA CITIZENAPRIL 17, 2011

Liberals digging up more garbage.... Already being refuted of course.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... nsist?bn=1
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Rockie »

No party, Conservatives included, can claim politics do not play a huge role in capital equipment expenditures. All those bashing the Liberal "lefties" have a valid point of course because few PM's were as good at political interference as Chretien. But don't let Harper off the hook either because he paid attention to what Chretien was doing, and learned from it at the same time he was railing against it. He is the new master of the dark side.

Global warming is opening up the northwest passage, and despite the Conservatives dismissal of the whole idea they are busy ramping up to take advantage of it. Does anybody remember a photo op up north with a frigate, submarine, flight of CF-18's and our venerable PM all in one picture frame? The government's position is that the single engine on the F35 is not a factor because it will never quit (Defence Minister Peter MacKay), and the military of course agrees with him because...well...he's the Defence Minister. In defending the single engine a certain Conservative candidate who also happens to be an Air Canada pilot claims that Canada maintains a state of the art SAR capability up north in case the unthinkable should happen. A bald faced lie as anybody on this board will admit.

Despite the engine issue however, the big thing is the Conservatives refusal to pony up the true cost of the program. Claiming they get a discount because of earlier minor investment in the program is absurd, and if you recall the failure to admit the true cost was a factor in the government falling due to contempt of parliament.

If this was such a good deal then the government would not shy away from stating the real cost.
---------- ADS -----------
 
shitdisturber
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by shitdisturber »

2R wrote:The F-35 may have some great abilities and may be a slight game changer in a war against a first world enemy.But we are not fighting a first world enemy.We have been at war with a bragand of third world criminals and their criminal enterprises since before the end of the cold war.The enemy just laughs at these expensive toys and will win the fight because we have put to much faith in the boys and their toys in the Pentagon.
Many people did not think that the Red Army and the Kremlin could be defeated,with all its toys..........The same enemy that defeated the Red Army now has the Pentagon in its sights.
And the same enemy has got passed our gates.
The FAA air traffic controllers are not the only government workers asleep on the job in North America.
The F-35 will bankrupt and nueter any effective fighting ability of our forces.

How many A-10's could we get for half the money ?
An A-10 could be much more effective in a SAR role being capable of hunting rabbits at six hundred miles an hour means it may just be able to find a lost ski-dooer in the north very quickly,and if that ski-doo was part of an invading hoard it could be destroyed as well :shock:
Simple answer to your question; you can't buy what isn't available. The A-10 has been out of production since 1984 and they're slated to be replaced by; drum roll please, the F-35.
---------- ADS -----------
 
shitdisturber
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by shitdisturber »

Mostly Harmless wrote:

In my own riding the MP gave his buddy 400,000 to write reports he never wrote... the people here re-elected this asshole!! Nothing was ever done to recover that money... all that happened was an apology was issued. If I lived in BC, I would be wondering "where the hell does all of that money go?" Second highest taxes in Canada and no better levels of service than any other province. At least in Quebec (highest taxes) you get benefits like free child care and university. My point, before I drift too far off course, what do you want from your government? If you want a military, it is going to cost you. The longer you put it off the more it will cost you. If you don't want a military, stop complaining about one program and come outright and say it... no military. Because at the end of the day, the alternatives to this jet are not going to be any cheaper and there are no perfect solutions.
That's what you get for living in a province where the sheep, err voters, consistently vote for the same party with little regard for the consequences of their actions.
---------- ADS -----------
 
winds_in_flight_wtf
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by winds_in_flight_wtf »

shitdisturber wrote:
2R wrote:The F-35 may have some great abilities and may be a slight game changer in a war against a first world enemy.But we are not fighting a first world enemy.We have been at war with a bragand of third world criminals and their criminal enterprises since before the end of the cold war.The enemy just laughs at these expensive toys and will win the fight because we have put to much faith in the boys and their toys in the Pentagon.
Many people did not think that the Red Army and the Kremlin could be defeated,with all its toys..........The same enemy that defeated the Red Army now has the Pentagon in its sights.
And the same enemy has got passed our gates.
The FAA air traffic controllers are not the only government workers asleep on the job in North America.
The F-35 will bankrupt and nueter any effective fighting ability of our forces.

How many A-10's could we get for half the money ?
An A-10 could be much more effective in a SAR role being capable of hunting rabbits at six hundred miles an hour means it may just be able to find a lost ski-dooer in the north very quickly,and if that ski-doo was part of an invading hoard it could be destroyed as well :shock:
Simple answer to your question; you can't buy what isn't available. The A-10 has been out of production since 1984 and they're slated to be replaced by; drum roll please, the F-35.
Wikipedia says 2028 and I believe that date is correct. Even if the F35 comes online, they will still use that bloody ugly but amazing a10. There is no real replacement for it. The F35 is not a flying armored car capable of carrying nearly a majority of the US arsenals ordinance
---------- ADS -----------
 
shitdisturber
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by shitdisturber »

winds_in_flight_wtf wrote:Wikipedia says 2028 and I believe that date is correct. Even if the F35 comes online, they will still use that bloody ugly but amazing a10. There is no real replacement for it. The F35 is not a flying armored car capable of carrying nearly a majority of the US arsenals ordinance
No argument here, having witnessed a practice mass attack on the base in Baden the manouverability of said tanks is amazing! I also severely doubt the F-35's ability to absorb the punishment that the Warthog can take and still keep fighting. My point was in response to 2R who was advocating buying lord only knows how many Hogs to fight terrorists or whoever. The simple fact of the matter is we couldn't buy them if we wanted to because they haven't been in production for twenty-seven years.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Moose47
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1348
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:45 pm
Location: Home of Canada's Air Defence

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Moose47 »

G'day Beefy

<<<Why have we diminshed our Radar coverage shutting down distant early warning installations instead of improving them?>>

We have excellent coverage with the North Warning System and the Canadian Coastal Radars.

We've got the U.S.A.F. in Alaska as well with ground based radars and A.W.A.C.S. airborne 24/7.

If any of you are coming though North Bay, give me a few days notice and I will arrange a tour of the Ops Centre (Sgt. David L. Pitcher Building). Arctic Radio (North Bay) is in the same complex for any of you 'freeze dried flyers' transiting through the Gateway City.

Cheers...Chris
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

So the equipment is better providing better coverage with less stations? I'll retract the statement.

I still want to see us build something. How about we make our own A-10 knock offs. Alas I agree this is correct.
In your dreams...
---------- ADS -----------
 
2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4328
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by 2R »

A-10'ssss lots of them,with at least nine of them for the snow birds display team
:wink: :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Spokes
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1057
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:22 pm
Location: Toronto, On

Re:

Post by Spokes »

Beefitarian wrote:So the equipment is better providing better coverage with less stations? I'll retract the statement.

I still want to see us build something. How about we make our own A-10 knock offs....
So then you have some a10's, but still no fighters.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wahunga!
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by frosti »

Rockie wrote: The government's position is that the single engine on the F35 is not a factor because it will never quit (Defence Minister Peter MacKay), and the military of course agrees with him because...well...he's the Defence Minister.
Even with our current fighters, the F404 doesn't just quit. It takes A LOT of damage for a fighter engine in general to stop producing thrust. The crash in Lethbridge last summer was due to an engine issue obviously, but not because of complete failure. I've also never heard of a modern fighter jet engine quit during cruise or patrol - which the F35 will be doing a lot of up north. Is reliability 100%? No, nothing is, but with current jet engine technology that reliablilty goes up exponentially.
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by AuxBatOn »

frosti wrote:
Even with our current fighters, the F404 doesn't just quit. It takes A LOT of damage for a fighter engine in general to stop producing thrust. The crash in Lethbridge last summer was due to an engine issue obviously, but not because of complete failure. I've also never heard of a modern fighter jet engine quit during cruise or patrol - which the F35 will be doing a lot of up north. Is reliability 100%? No, nothing is, but with current jet engine technology that reliablilty goes up exponentially.
I'm pretty confident Rockie knows a thing or two about the F404 in the Hornet!

But you are right, the 404 doesn't normally just quit. In 2007, a fairly junior wingman on squadron got a big surprise when a whole LPT assembly departed the fix and severed a few hydraulic lines on the way out putting the FCS in DEL mode with a whole stab X'ed out on the FCS page. (I assume you flew the Hornet) He was RTB to Bagotville from Greenwood and made it all the way home on 1 engine, caught the cable and became a good lesson learned without further incident. I can't say for sure the aircraft flew again, but if not, I'm sure it was used for parts. The outcome would have been a bit different. If it has been designed by humans, it is maintained by humans and flown by humans, it will eventually fail. Sometimes for not apparent reason.

Now, I am entirely for the JSF. Yes, single engine is a risk, but like anything in aviation, we manage an mitigate the risk. Someone, somewhere with all the information that was presented, decided that it was an acceptable level of risk. And I am okay with that. Because the JSF brings us amazing capabilities that we can only dream of at this point in the CAF.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Going for the deck at corner
alctel
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:57 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by alctel »

So it is currently already over twice the price originally quoted, doesn't come with any flippin engines anyway and isn't even fully in production yet.

Not to mention of extremely questionable use for what we need it for.

And all this awarded on a no-bid contract, good stuff.


Honestly, if this Harper government tried half the shit it's done in the last 5 years back in my home country of the UK, it would have been torn to pieces and destroyed. Instead, they completely get away with virtually everything and people STILL vote for them! Either the Canadian media is terrible or Canadian's just don't give a shit. I think it's probably a mixture of the two.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”