The F-35 is not dead

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

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

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

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by 2R »

Pom Poms.
If we are going to be cheerleaders, we need Pom Poms.
If we are going to be cheerleaders for the War without end,we will need POM POMS and short skirts.
If we have no intention of dominating our airspace,if we have no intention of defending our sovereignty ,or WINNING any wars,all we need are a good set of POM POMS.
The difficult choice will be what colours they should be or what colors' they should be ?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mach1
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:04 am

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Mach1 »

2R wrote:Pom Poms.
The difficult choice will be what colours they should be or what colors' they should be ?
Oh, that's easy. One Red, one White... except in Quebec. :D
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by AuxBatOn »

Caracrane wrote:what did I say previously.... F-18SH.... according from the news today, it would be the next.

I'd be delighted to read your case on why the SH and not the JSF. Please, entertain us.
---------- ADS -----------
 
2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4328
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by 2R »

Ever wondered why the stealth fighter bomber F-117 was retired early ?
---------- ADS -----------
 
teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2450
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by teacher »

AuxBatOn wrote:
Caracrane wrote:what did I say previously.... F-18SH.... according from the news today, it would be the next.

I'd be delighted to read your case on why the SH and not the JSF. Please, entertain us.
Come on AuxBatOn, you know the answer, it has 2 ENGINES!! :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Instructor_Mike
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Manitoba

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Instructor_Mike »

A few points I've made in previous threads.

1) I don't care how reliable the F-35 is supposed to be, if you have an engine failure, you are going down. In an F-18, you turn around and go home on the good engine.

2) When was the last time Canada ever shot down anything? Do we really need an air superiority fighter when a multi-role like the F-18 would do if we ever needed it?

3) For the sake of argument, if the US ever decided to invade Canada, they have more fighter aircraft that we have aircraft of all types in our air force. We shouldn't delude ourselves to think having a few top end fighters make us safer. Who else do we have to fear that would actually be that interested in us, and not going after the Americans at the same time?

4) To support NATO/UN action in other countries, all we really need is CAS. For that matter a squadron of A-10s would do an excellent job.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
kamikaze
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:56 am
Location: CYRO

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by kamikaze »

"Do we really need an air superiority fighter"

The F-35 is multi-role. The F-22 is the air supperiority fighter ...
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by AuxBatOn »

Instructor_Mike wrote:A few points I've made in previous threads.

1) I don't care how reliable the F-35 is supposed to be, if you have an engine failure, you are going down. In an F-18, you turn around and go home on the good engine.
It has been statistically proven that the odds of ejecting in a single engine fighter are the same of those of ejecting in a 2-engine fighter. I fly fighters for a living. I really won't mind flying the JSF.

Instructor_Mike wrote: 2) When was the last time Canada ever shot down anything? Do we really need an air superiority fighter when a multi-role like the F-18 would do if we ever needed it?
The JSF is a multi-role aircraft... You need a fire control radar and missiles to protect yourself while doing your mission. Our bread and butter is seld-escort strike.
Instructor_Mike wrote: 3) For the sake of argument, if the US ever decided to invade Canada, they have more fighter aircraft that we have aircraft of all types in our air force. We shouldn't delude ourselves to think having a few top end fighters make us safer.
Having a well equipped military is really helpful in order to maintain our sovereignty, especially in a Country where there is a LOT of ressources. You'd be amazed how much we go out to meet Ruskies up North.
Instructor_Mike wrote: 4) To support NATO/UN action in other countries, all we really need is CAS. For that matter a squadron of A-10s would do an excellent job.
In the 3 operational deployments CF18s participated (Iraq, Kosovo and Libya), 90% of the missions were self-escort strike, 8% DCA (defensive counterair or defendinf an area agaist Air Threats) and 2% was CAS. At home, we do DCA 100% of the time with NORAD.

I see you have a lot experience and you are very informed on the mater...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Rockie »

AuxBatOn wrote:It has been statistically proven that the odds of ejecting in a single engine fighter are the same of those of ejecting in a 2-engine fighter.
For reasons that have nothing to do with the number of engines perhaps. But how many ejections in a single engine fighter are caused by a single engine failure versus a two engine fighter?

C'mon...a six year old with no aviation experience at all let alone fighter time can figure this out. It's apparently worth repeating this very simple formula that used to be taught in Cold Lake and other aviation type training schools.

2 - 1 = 1
1 - 1 = 0
---------- ADS -----------
 
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by frosti »

It's ground hog day again.

Image

It doesn't matter what YOU think is right. You cannot change the fighter Canada picks.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Rockie »

frosti wrote:It doesn't matter what YOU think is right. You cannot change the fighter Canada picks.
Of course not. But I can try and de-program some of this bizarre brain washing some of you seem to have undergone thinking the F-35 engine will never quit, or that if it does you will somehow not fall out of the sky as if you had another engine.

What kind of math do they teach up there anyway?
---------- ADS -----------
 
teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2450
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by teacher »

Rockie wrote:
frosti wrote:It doesn't matter what YOU think is right. You cannot change the fighter Canada picks.
Of course not. But I can try and de-program some of this bizarre brain washing some of you seem to have undergone thinking the F-35 engine will never quit, or that if it does you will somehow not fall out of the sky as if you had another engine.

What kind of math do they teach up there anyway?
Do you still think we need 4 engines to cross the ocean.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DonutHole
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by DonutHole »

Do you find it odd that despite the statistics two engines are required for trans-oceanic flights?

You're so smart maybe you could give us the Mac endurance specs of a 747 with four engines out
---------- ADS -----------
 
teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2450
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by teacher »

Never claimed to be smart. Ever wonder why low altitude limits are based on what CARs you operate in? It's all about risk and potential number of casualties. Besides, last I checked 777s didn't have ejection seats nor is there an engine big enough to lift a wide body aircraft anyway.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by teacher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by frosti »

Rockie wrote:
frosti wrote:It doesn't matter what YOU think is right. You cannot change the fighter Canada picks.
Of course not. But I can try and de-program some of this bizarre brain washing some of you seem to have undergone thinking the F-35 engine will never quit, or that if it does you will somehow not fall out of the sky as if you had another engine.
Why do you care?
Do you find it odd that despite the statistics two engines are required for trans-oceanic flights?
Just where in the hell are you going to put a single engine large enough to power a modern airliner? Top of the fuselage? :rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------
 
DonutHole
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by DonutHole »

teacher wrote:Never claimed to be smart. Ever wonder why low altitude limits are based on what CARs you operate in? It's all about risk and potential number of casualties. Besides, last I checked 777s didn't have ejection seats nor is there an engine big enough to lift a wide body aircraft anyway.
You're the one who brought up airliners crossing the ocean

You want apples to apples don't bring up oranges
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Rockie »

frosti wrote:Why do you care?
A number of reasons. Why do you not care?
teacher wrote:Do you still think we need 4 engines to cross the ocean.
No, two will do nicely because if one of them quits the other one will finish the job. That ridiculously simple concept has been proven many times which is the whole point.

Since you brought it up though the whole concept of ETOPS (crossing the ocean with two engines) is actually based on the loss of one of them, not two continuously running. The civil authorities wisely assume engine failures will occur. From the TC ETOPS manual:

"The evaluation of failures and failure combinations must be based on engineering judgment
and acceptable fail safe methodology. The analysis should consider effects of operations with
one engine inoperative, including allowance for damage that could result from failure of the
first engine."
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Expat
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2383
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:58 am
Location: Central Asia

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Expat »

Rockie wrote:
frosti wrote:It doesn't matter what YOU think is right. You cannot change the fighter Canada picks.
Of course not. But I can try and de-program some of this bizarre brain washing some of you seem to have undergone thinking the F-35 engine will never quit, or that if it does you will somehow not fall out of the sky as if you had another engine.

What kind of math do they teach up there anyway?
I survived a crash landind of an MI-8 that lost an engine at high altitude, with full load, in a mountain range. I believe in the second one, to take you to the crash site. :smt040 :prayer:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Instructor_Mike
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Manitoba

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Instructor_Mike »

AuxBatOn wrote: It has been statistically proven that the odds of ejecting in a single engine fighter are the same of those of ejecting in a 2-engine fighter. I fly fighters for a living. I really won't mind flying the JSF.
RockyMade a point here and it was my point as well. It's not about total number of ejections, it's about an engine failure when you have an option of starting with one or 2.
AuxBatOn wrote: The JSF is a multi-role aircraft... You need a fire control radar and missiles to protect yourself while doing your mission. Our bread and butter is seld-escort strike.
Yes it is multi-role, my point was we don't need the leading edge technology for air superiority. Poor choice of wording on my part.
AuxBatOn wrote: Having a well equipped military is really helpful in order to maintain our sovereignty, especially in a Country where there is a LOT of ressources. You'd be amazed how much we go out to meet Ruskies up North.
That doesn't change my point. Having a few fighters to patrol the north is fine, The new 18's can do that. However even if we had a few dozen F-35s, it wouldn't stop hundreds of Russians fighters. If the Russians decided to invade we don't have the capability to hold them back by ourselves. Just like my point with the US, just south vs north.
AuxBatOn wrote: In the 3 operational deployments CF18s participated (Iraq, Kosovo and Libya), 90% of the missions were self-escort strike, 8% DCA (defensive counterair or defendinf an area agaist Air Threats) and 2% was CAS. At home, we do DCA 100% of the time with NORAD.
I'm not military and I admit that. I wasn't thinking in those terms. My comment on A-10s was supposed to be a little cheeky. They do carry sidewinders for air defense but they are obviously not suited as a primary fighter. Joking aside the Super Hornets can do those roles just fine and are already in deployment.

I didn't think we had anything to do with Iraq but you seem to be more informed than I am.
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by AuxBatOn »

Instructor_Mike wrote: RockyMade a point here and it was my point as well. It's not about total number of ejections, it's about an engine failure when you have an option of starting with one or 2.
It's about risk management. People that are paid to think about those things and that make way more money than I do think the risk is acceptable. So be it. I'll trust their judgement and from the information I have I am comfortable with it.

Instructor_Mike wrote: Yes it is multi-role, my point was we don't need the leading edge technology for air superiority. Poor choice of wording on my part.
It's more optimized for the self escort role. Sensor fusion is amazing and that's what the aircraft is really all about. Stealth is nice, you can get in closer before you are detected, so to speak, but the real improvements over a 4th gen aircraft is the array of sensors that the aircraft has and the integration of those sensors.

Instructor_Mike wrote:
That doesn't change my point. Having a few fighters to patrol the north is fine, The new 18's can do that. However even if we had a few dozen F-35s, it wouldn't stop hundreds of Russians fighters. If the Russians decided to invade we don't have the capability to hold them back by ourselves. Just like my point with the US, just south vs north.
It's not about stopping a full up invasion. It's about maintaining sovereignty. NORAD is not our only mandate and deploying in operations in an offensive role is a real possibility.

Instructor_Mike wrote: I'm not military and I admit that. I wasn't thinking in those terms. My comment on A-10s was supposed to be a little cheeky. They do carry sidewinders for air defense but they are obviously not suited as a primary fighter. Joking aside the Super Hornets can do those roles just fine and are already in deployment.
The SH can to that now sure. Now, it is more expensive than the JSF (150M$ a piece vs 85-90M$ a piece for the JSF), it can do less, the NAVY will stop supporting it in 2025 at the latest. What do we do after that? Set up our own support shop?? You want to talk about expensive?? The JSF is cheaper, does more, will be supported for longer and will be relevant longer than ANY of it's concurrents.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Rockie »

AuxBatOn wrote:It's about risk management.
It would be risk "management" if the people who are paid to think about those things and make way more than you do actually did something to manage and mitigate the risk. What exactly are they doing along those lines?

I'll save you the trouble...they aren't doing anything. What they have done is "accept" the risk on your behalf since they themselves won't be at any risk whatsoever. Then they somehow convinced you and a bunch of other people who should know better that there is no risk because the engine will never quit.

Peter Mackay said it himself to the press so it must be true.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Instructor_Mike
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Manitoba

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Instructor_Mike »

AuxBatOn wrote: The SH can to that now sure. Now, it is more expensive than the JSF (150M$ a piece vs 85-90M$ a piece for the JSF), it can do less, the NAVY will stop supporting it in 2025 at the latest. What do we do after that? Set up our own support shop?? You want to talk about expensive?? The JSF is cheaper, does more, will be supported for longer and will be relevant longer than ANY of it's concurrents.
That's a rather conservative estimated cost. Until the project is actually complete we don't really know what it's going to cost. Some estimates are as high as 200M per plane. When was the last time anything actually was on budget?

(From what I understood the SH were around 70-80 million each.)

My point about the SH is that since it's online already, the initial bugs are worked out and there is far less likely to be added surprises.

This is of course only comparing with the F-18s, I know other alternatives are out there like the Typhoon, but I honestly know nothing about them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by AuxBatOn »

Rockie wrote:
It would be risk "management" if the people who are paid to think about those things and make way more than you do actually did something to manage and mitigate the risk. What exactly are they doing along those lines?
Maybe it's because the risk is so remote that there is no need for mitigating measures? Flying is inherently dangerous. If we were to mitigate every single risk, we wouldn't be flying. We either get a more expensive 2-engine aircraft that will be obsolete in 10 years or a single engine aircraft (that is reliable) that will take us to 2050.
Instructor_Mike wrote:
That's a rather conservative estimated cost. Until the project is actually complete we don't really know what it's going to cost. Some estimates are as high as 200M per plane. When was the last time anything actually was on budget?
Estimates are for FMS (Foreign Military Sales) sales. We are part of the partners and get a deal out of it, as well as industrial offsets, which we will NOT get if we back out of the partnership. The 85M$ a piece value is more than what was originally planned and honestly, I don't think we'll pay more than that. Regardless, there is contingency money that, I believe, can see the price go up to 100M$ a we will still be on budget for the whole program...
Instructor_Mike wrote: (From what I understood the SH were around 70-80 million each.)
Sure. 70M$ for the airframe. Now, you want that radar? Engines? A stores management system? Oh wing pylons. Oh now you also want jammers and a dispenser? That's going to cost you... Yes, Australia bought SH for 150M$ a piece roughly.
Instructor_Mike wrote: My point about the SH is that since it's online already, the initial bugs are worked out and there is far less likely to be added surprises.
That's the problem. It will be obsolete AND unsupported in 10 years. Great idea if you want to waste money! The problems the JSF is going through are not much different from the problems the CF-18s go through RIGHT NOW in Test and Development (yup, after 30+ years, we are still doing Tests and Developments on the aircraft) It is normal in the T&E world. Doomsday media will try to make you believe it's the end of the world. It is not. Regardless of the aircraft we get, there will be issues with it. We still have issues with the CF-18.
Instructor_Mike wrote: This is of course only comparing with the F-18s, I know other alternatives are out there like the Typhoon, but I honestly know nothing about them.
Everything else is more expensive for less capabilities.
---------- ADS -----------
 
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by frosti »

Rockie wrote:
AuxBatOn wrote:It's about risk management.
It would be risk "management" if the people who are paid to think about those things and make way more than you do actually did something to manage and mitigate the risk. What exactly are they doing along those lines?

I'll save you the trouble...they aren't doing anything. What they have done is "accept" the risk on your behalf since they themselves won't be at any risk whatsoever. Then they somehow convinced you and a bunch of other people who should know better that there is no risk because the engine will never quit.

Peter Mackay said it himself to the press so it must be true.
If everyone thought like you did, NASA would have never landed on the moon and there would be no space shuttle program. Just too risky. There are people who realize and accept the risk and there are those who don't leave their basements because they are afraid of the world. You seem to be the type who walks around in public in a giant bubble wrap costume.
---------- ADS -----------
 
North Shore
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5621
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Straight outta Dundarave...

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by North Shore »

At this (late) juncture, I'd like y'all to have a read of this thread:http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... =3&t=86497 and try to keep it in mind when posting, please.

Thanks!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”