F-35 looking more like white elephant

[frosti]

Since the PW F117 engine was the derivative of the civil PW2000 engine chosen to power the C 17 I fail to see your point...........

A 5th gen engine is a 5th gen engine. PW has demonstrated that they are more than capable of providing powerplants for the next gen fighter jet. The PW2000, F117 are all successful, what will make the F135 any different? Because there is only one of them?

I guess you have forgotten the used CF-101 Voodoos we got from the US. Before your time.

BTW, you very clearly think I'm stupid compared to you. I accept your rhetoric. What did you net last year? Since I am stupid, you obviously cleared more than I did.

That makes a difference how? You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Was there even a competition? Or did the government just bend over in return for some other back door deal?

Search.

[Tom H]

Frosti

Don't know you, don't post here much but I take some annoyance with this as I am ex military and have a kid in the application system...

If buying used hardware is such a great idea we would have done that already. Who cares about our pilots right? Let them fly the things until they break apart in the air, just so we can "save" a few bucks. The CF-18 is almost done, the wings are cracking and you can only stuff so much upgraded avionics in it.

Guess you didn't read this part, or ignored it...

Overhauling and custom tailoring them to our needs in Canada using Canadian Technology (we have the companies by the way), buying the licenses if needed and then putting them into service.

and these parts

and the ability to produce our own spares as required as well as continue to maintain and overhaul.

As well as rebuilding an important industry and technology.

Australia has re tubbed (main structure) and re winged it's F-18As effectively producing a new aircraft while keeping the jobs and dollars to the largest extent in Australia.

There is no reason we could not do the same thing and upgrade airframes, engines and avionics at the same time or for that matter. We have the expertise, the skills and the companies.

Gee we could actually wind up with a selection of aircraft to meet current and future mission profiles putting Canadians to work and keeping the money here.

Stealth, sorry I'll pass, there are already technologies under development that will use thermal tracking and wake turbulence tracking to defeat stealth.

Frankly I'd rather have no stealth on Northern and coastal patrols so they know we are watching and touring around.

In addition Canada has traditionally operated in support of NATO/UN missions, not been the aggressor and I don't believe we ever should be the aggressor. As such the first strike/stealth benefit becomes very limited as our southern allies will use theirs to deal withe radars etc, as per 2 Gulf Wars.

Sorry about the curt tone but frosti's opening shot set the stage.

Colonel Saunders
I remember the Voodoos if other don't and while they served us well they were a straight used piece.

I would rather we buy aircraft and go all the way through them tip to tail with new structure and mods as needed before they entered service.

That way we effectively wind up with new aircraft and our own upgrades we could market to other users of the same airframes around the world.

My highly opinionated 2 bits anyway

Tom

[Tom H]

While we are at it

We need a heck of alot more than 65 fighters...double, triple that number.

Tom

[flyincanuck]

This looks like a pretty serious discussion...not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but:

http://www.youtube.com/user/MercerRepor ... Gr5maEz5WI

[linecrew]

This looks like a pretty serious discussion...not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but:

http://www.youtube.com/user/MercerRepor ... Gr5maEz5WI

[ogopogo]

Was there even a competition? Or did the government just bend over in return for some other back door deal?

Our F-35 isn't following the traditional competitive procurement process. Canada, along with several other nations, is funding the development of the aircraft.

[trampbike]

You're right - it's not even worth doing a comparison, because we all know russian stuff is all junk. This is why whenever a western astronaut wants to go into space, he has to ride a russian rocket.

If we agree with your opinion that all russian stuff is junk, why would we need a good airplane anyways?

I never said it was junk. Il never implied it either.
I never said it was not worth a comparison.
I asked you 4 questions that I hoped you'd try to answer in a rational and straightforward way. Instead, you chose to just put words in my mouth and then continue to act as thought everybody was always attacking you.

[frosti]

Australia has re tubbed (main structure) and re winged it's F-18As

Which will eventually be replaced by the F-35. Sound familiar? We already replaced the centre barrel on ours.

We need a heck of alot more than 65 fighters...double, triple that number.

So you want to throw away money by keeping and old-ass fighter jet in the air for decades, but in the next post you want to spend double, triple to acquire more F35's.

http://www.youtube.com/user/MercerRepor ... Gr5maEz5WI

Simple jokes, for a simple crowd.

[Tom H]

Which will eventually be replaced by the F-35. Sound familiar? We already replaced the centre barrel on ours.

Wrong

So you want to throw away money by keeping and old-ass fighter jet in the air for decades, but in the next post you want to spend double, triple to acquire more F35's.

Quit drinking the Kool Aid dude. We need more aircraft, I never said F-35s (you did) and the advantage of what I am talking about is the ability to have more without breaking the bank.

Tom

[YYZSaabGuy]

We need a heck of alot more than 65 fighters...double, triple that number.

So you want to throw away money by keeping and old-ass fighter jet in the air for decades, but in the next post you want to spend double, triple to acquire more F35's.

I don't thinkTom H said anything about buying triple the number of proposed F35s - he said double or triple the proposed 65 fighters, and his argument was that achieving this would be much easier with a lower unit cost per aircraft, i.e. no F35s at all but rather by moving to F15s, F18s and F18E Super Hornets.

There is a general and widespread concern, I think, with whether 65 aircraft will be enough to see this model through its useful life given attrition through hull losses, etc. and this concern is probably warranted looking at the number of CF18s which have been lost since that model was introduced back in the mid-1980s (and the historical loss rates of any new high-performance aircraft used by pretty much any military, including the RCAF).

[flyincanuck]

http://www.youtube.com/user/MercerRepor ... Gr5maEz5WI

Simple jokes, for a simple crowd.

Are they jokes? Or is it the P/O you're referring to?

[frosti]

Which will eventually be replaced by the F-35. Sound familiar? We already replaced the centre barrel on ours.

Wrong

We never had center barrel replacements, our wings don't crack? What?

I don't thinkTom H said anything about buying triple the number of proposed F35s - he said double or triple the proposed 65 fighters, and his argument was that achieving this would be much easier with a lower unit cost per aircraft, i.e. no F35s at all but rather by moving to F15s, F18s and F18E Super Hornets.

So having an old fleet of used F15s (which are also having fatigue issues with age), F18's, and Supers will cost less to maintain, fly, have a parts support network, train people for three different types, than it will having a fleet of NEW 65-80 F35's. Some is drinking the Kool-aid indeed. Personally no, I don't think 65 of the F35 will be enough, but I'm not in charge of National Defense. Let the professionals do their jobs, it's what they are paid for, not some internet forum trolls who think they know better......

Are they jokes? Or is it the P/O you're referring to?

The RM video.

[frosti]

Anyways, back in the real world......

External weapons testing has begun.

[Tom H]

We never had center barrel replacements, our wings don't crack? What?

Putting words into peoples mouths is generally not the way to win a debate.

Tubs have had structure repairs and upgrades but have not been replaced as per Australia.

There have been wing cracks, never said there wasn't...you did.

So having an old fleet of used F15s (which are also having fatigue issues with age), F18's, and Supers will cost less to maintain, fly, have a parts support network, train people for three different types, than it will having a fleet of NEW 65-80 F35's.

Once again you don't read.

Guess you didn't read this part, or ignored it...
Quote:
Overhauling and custom tailoring them to our needs in Canada using Canadian Technology (we have the companies by the way), buying the licenses if needed and then putting them into service.

and these parts
Quote:
and the ability to produce our own spares as required as well as continue to maintain and overhaul.

Quote:
As well as rebuilding an important industry and technology.


Australia has re tubbed (main structure) and re winged it's F-18As effectively producing a new aircraft while keeping the jobs and dollars to the largest extent in Australia.

There is no reason we could not do the same thing and upgrade airframes, engines and avionics at the same time or for that matter. We have the expertise, the skills and the companies.

Gee we could actually wind up with a selection of aircraft to meet current and future mission profiles putting Canadians to work and keeping the money here.

So yes we can rebuild and reequip other airframes to new status or better, while we are at it we can standardize all the cockpits to make transitioning from one to the other easier.

Unless you think Canadians are not capable...I believe and industry shows we are.

Plus we keep the majority of the dollars and the jobs in Canada.

Let the professionals do their jobs, it's what they are paid for, not some internet forum trolls who think they know better......

So politicians are professionals in aerospace and defense? they make the decisions and set the policy.
After a comment like that I know who the troll is....

Anyways, back in the real world......

External weapons testing has begun.

With those nice big flat surfaces...so much for stealth.

IMO
Tom

[Colonel Sanders]

Tom: I wouldn't bother arguing with the arrogant, condescending politicians here.

They're going to blow billions of dollars we don't have, on junk that doesn't work, that we don't need anyways.

And if you dare to question them, they screech and honk at you that you are too stupid and aren't even worthy enough to ask a question.

And even if they did allow you to ask a question, they wouldn't answer it on the grounds of "National Security".

Reminds me of the Nixon thugs, who similarly tried to hide behind "National Security". I find when a thug starts to lecture me about "National Security", I find it illuminating to replace the word "National" in his rhetoric, with "My Job". Then his elliptical ranting starts to make sense.

As taxpayers, we can only hope that the USA pulls the plug on the F35. Looks like they're moving in that direction.

[trampbike]

They're going to blow billions of dollars we don't have, on junk that doesn't work, that we don't need anyways.

Could you please explain to us as to how you know that the F35 is junk and won't work, and why we don't need it?
I'm not a politician nor am I condescending. I'm just asking you to elaborate on what you propose. Is this really too much to ask?
So far you just act as thought the whole world is always stupid and against you (it might be close to the reality, but it's not exactly like that), so instead of arguing reasonnably, you prefer personal attacks and logical fallacies.
Pretty much everyone on this board knows you are much better than that.

And if you dare to question them, they screech and honk at you that you are too stupid and aren't even worthy enough to ask a question.

You are the one who doubts the authorities on the matter, therefore it would be normal to expect that you offer us some arguments, not some personnal attacks and half truths.

And even if they did allow you to ask a question, they wouldn't answer it on the grounds of "National Security".

You don't accept the fact that some information about military procurement might be classified for good reasons? I'm willing to read your explanations.

As taxpayers, we can only hope that the USA pulls the plug on the F35. Looks like they're moving in that direction.

Why do you think they're moving in that direction?
So far they only delayed the purchase of a tiny fraction of the airplanes they plan on buying.

I see you often point out everything that might seem bad for the F35. Things like the fact that Japan chose this airplane after an open competition, and said that the price was a big part of their decision, pass right through you don't they?

With those nice big flat surfaces...so much for stealth.

Nothing is perfectly stealth(y?). It's not either "I see you on my radar" or "damn you are invisible". It's much more like "If you are at X distance from me, I think I can see you".
For missions that need the maximum stealth, they'll carry what they need internally. For missions that need more armaments, they'll add pylons, which will indeed reduce the stealth(iness?), not negate totally the advantages of the design.



So CS, I'll try again to get you to elaborate. Previously, I asked you this:

CS, do you have any idea how expensive is the PAK-FA and how much it would cost to change the avionics and operate it? Notice how I don't say that you are stupid and that it is obvious that the F35 would be cheaper. I'm really just asking

Can you explain to us how the PAK-FA would be a better choice than the F35 for the role that Canada intends it to have? Notice how I don't say you don't know crap and that there is no way a Russian jet could do the job. I'm really just asking.

Given our total lack of knowledge about complex systems such as DAS, can you povide us with reasons as to why the PAK-FA would outperform the F35? Notice I don't say you never heard anything about military jets and that the systems of the F35 make it the best fighter in world. I'm really just asking.

Given the recently proven combat superiority (let's say since the F15 and F16 are operational) of western fighters against russian jets, what makes you think the PAK-FA kicks ass that much? Notice I don't say russian stuff is junk, I'm just pointing out that last decades combat records show a clear Western fighters domination. Is it the pilot, the airplanes or both? I don't even go there. I'm really just asking.

See, I really just want to read a good debate (my position on the F35 neither for it nor against it, my position is that we probably just can't know enough to have a clear cut opinion about it), and I know you are smart enough and have the knowledge to contribute to such a debate.

Thanks in advance

Olivier Savaria
PPL
2/3 of a meteorology degree
177h TT, on 6 different types of low performance SE airplanes
Most manoeuverable airplane ever flown: Grumman AA1c
Fire breathing dragon taildragger flown: Aeronca Champ

(see what I did there, I don't even hide behind a screen name (see here, I'm not even implying that you do that, I know very well who you are and everyone knows it too on this forum, partly because you make sure everyone hears about you and see picture of your nice inverted takeoff, partly because you contribute a lot to the forum and help a lot of people improve their flying skills), and I do not pretend I'm an awesome pilot with tons of experience.

[AuxBatOn]

A few things.... First, the price. The JSF is going to be CHEAPER, I say again, CHEAPER than most 4.5 Gen fighters (Super Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter).

Second, a few people talk about payload. I got news for you. Let's compare....

F/A-18 on a Strike mission carrying 2000 lbs class weapons:

3 External Fuel Tanks, 1 X AIM-120 AMRAAM, 2XAIM-9 Sidewinder, 1XSniper Pod, 2XGBU-10 Paveway II or GBU-31 JDAM. That's all you can carry, and you are hogged up, basically a pig in space. Your combat radius after refueling is roughly 400NM, with 17300 lbs of gas. 50 000 lbs all up weight. Trust: 32 000 lbs (so, trust to weight of 0.52)

F-35 on a Strike mission carrying 2000lbs class weapons:

0 external stores, 2XAIM-120 AMRAAM, 2XGBU-10 Paveway II or GBU-31 JDAM, 1XIntegrated Sniper Pod. All internally, with 18100 lbs of gas for 550 NM of combat radius. Did I say it does not carry any external stores? 53000 lbs all up weight. Trust: 43 000 lbs, so trust to weight of 0.81. With better avionics, better survivability, better everything.

Not to mention, not as draggy as a hogged up Hornet.

Someone said that the US will take care of the Air Defense Systems on the first day of the war. Sure, but there will always be SAMs here and there that are going to be active. Just look at Iraq 1, Kosovo and Libya more recently.

Maneuverability is not all that's needed anymore. Boyd had a great idea, when there was no reliable BVR missiles. Nowadays, tactics and the risk level accepted by the commanders are such that it would be amazing to actually see a full up dogfight. Being hard to see by sensors and having long range BVR capabilities is far more important than being able to turn at 20 degrees per second inside a 2000' circle.

Recycled 4th gen aircraft is not the solution. It would cost us more in the long run. Don't forget we need those fighters to last us for the next 35+ years.

[trampbike]

...the risk level accepted by the commanders are such that it would be amazing to actually see a full up dogfight. .

Care to elaborate on that?
Thanks

[AuxBatOn]

Care to elaborate on that?
Thanks

I'll pass.

[boeingboy]

At this rate - we won't be able to train anyone.....let alone defend anything.


"Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Tuesday opened the door for a possible cut in the number of F-35 fighter jets Canada will buy, after reports that the United States was scaling back its purchase plans.

"There's a budget for that and the government has been clear, we will operate within that budget," Harper said in parliament about the project."



http://www.canada.com/technology/Price+ ... story.html

[Big Pistons Forever]

A few things.... First, the price. The JSF is going to be CHEAPER, I say again, CHEAPER than most 4.5 Gen fighters (Super Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter).

AFAIK not one independent oversight/audit organization has endorsed the "official" cost projections and all sight the probability of significant cost increases due to the technological complexity of the F 35 program. So far the worst case scenario is a unit cost of $ 155 Million. The Canadian program cost of 16 Billion is based on a unit cost of $ 75 Million each......

Now that is just to buy them. Lockheed has not denied or refuted the US Inspector Generals report which forecast the operating cost of the F35 will be 25 % higher then the F 16

[xsbank]

I like the one that discombobulates and points its tail-pipe down better. That one looks like its worth the money.

Relax, its all OK, the gov'mint knows what its doing, spending billions on new airplanes when they have to cut everyone's (except the civil serpent's) pensions to pay for them. My wife has waited 6 months to see a neurologist to get some treatment for a herniated disc, but we'll have the latest fancy jet-planes for our shortest pilots to fly around over the North Pole and zip around to visit their families in. Or to nip down to Bermuda to ride scooters for the weekend... Just don't crash one because the government won't pay for your injuries, if you survive. Just ask the Afghan vets how good the disability plans are and how easy it is to get medical help for those missing parts. Doesn't matter that nobody has a clue what those snazzy jets will cost, we have lots of money, we can keep selling our oil to China (wait, they own it already). Just keep cranking up the taxes and squeeze the small part of the population that actually works, like Quebec, then we can all have $7 a day daycare while we eat our dog-food sandwiches and dream about health-care.

This country is fzck'd - I have no clue why it functions. None.

But we will have the shiniest jets. Seeing as how we won't be able to afford to run them, we can park them next to those EH-whatnot helicopters that we bought, the ones that are parked because we can't get parts for 'em. Maybe we can keep the whole shitteree at the same place the submarines are stored, you know, next to the catamaran ferries the BC government built? The old gun-registry building?

Give me strength.

[frosti]

Tubs have had structure repairs and upgrades but have not been replaced as per Australia.

You sure about that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_ ... -18_Hornet

"A fuselage Centre Barrel Replacement Project (for 40 of the upgraded aircraft)."

Wiki isn't a reliable source so I guess those replacements never happened, huh.

There is no reason we could not do the same thing and upgrade airframes, engines and avionics at the same time or for that matter. We have the expertise, the skills and the companies.

This is what we are doing with our CF-18s. We just finished upgrading ours to "Phase II", right here in Canada. Although I'd like to point out its pretty pathetic that we finally have the same capability as a 1980s US Navy C/D model hornet. Come 2020-2025 it's the end of the line for the CF-18s.

Gee we could actually wind up with a selection of aircraft to meet current and future mission profiles putting Canadians to work and keeping the money here. Unless you think Canadians are not capable...I believe and industry shows we are. Plus we keep the majority of the dollars and the jobs in Canada.

With the industrial benifits of the JSF that is exactly what will happen. $8billion worth of contracts are available for Canadian companies. Short of building our own fighter, which won't happen, this is as good as it gets.

So politicians are professionals in aerospace and defense? they make the decisions and set the policy.
After a comment like that I know who the troll is....

I said professionals, not politicians, you are the one putting words in my mouth. The JSF was chosen by the military for the military. This whole acquisition program should have been blacked out from the media in the beginning, like the F117. Military weapon details should not be splattered all over the internet.

With those nice big flat surfaces...so much for stealth.

You don't seem to understand when stealth is needed and for what.

Relax, its all OK, the gov'mint knows what its doing, spending billions on new airplanes when they have to cut everyone's (except the civil serpent's) pensions to pay for them. My wife has waited 6 months to see a neurologist to get some treatment for a herniated disc, but we'll have the latest fancy jet-planes for our shortest pilots to fly around over the North Pole and zip around to visit their families in. Or to nip down to Bermuda to ride scooters for the weekend... Just don't crash one because the government won't pay for your injuries, if you survive. Just ask the Afghan vets how good the disability plans are and how easy it is to get medical help for those missing parts. Doesn't matter that nobody has a clue what those snazzy jets will cost, we have lots of money, we can keep selling our oil to China (wait, they own it already). Just keep cranking up the taxes and squeeze the small part of the population that actually works, like Quebec, then we can all have $7 a day daycare while we eat our dog-food sandwiches and dream about health-care.
This country is fzck'd - I have no clue why it functions. None.
But we will have the shiniest jets. Seeing as how we won't be able to afford to run them, we can park them next to those EH-whatnot helicopters that we bought, the ones that are parked because we can't get parts for 'em. Maybe we can keep the whole shitteree at the same place the submarines are stored, you know, next to the catamaran ferries the BC government built? The old gun-registry building?

Nice rant. I like how you blamed your wife's medical issues directly on defence equipment.

[xsbank]

You think that's funny, eh? You have a funny sense of humour. You think there's a magical pot of money that exists only to buy militaria? Perhaps when you get your first cancer and you can't see the specialist for 4 months, while you wait you can fall back on your special sense of humour, then visit the closest military base and watch your wonderful jets fly just to pass the time - maybe you'll get it then.

I'm done here...

[tailgunner]

Xsbank,
Sorry for your situation, but frosti has a point.
Governments spend and allocate money at their discretion.Saving in one department does not mean spending on another.Remember the Libs promised us 2.2 billion dollars worth of safety with the gun registry. It was gonna save lives we were told. If they had spent that money on MRI machines instead think of how many real lives would have been saved. People would have had earlier cancer detection and treatment.....unfortunately cutting dnd, does not directly equate to more money for neurology.