The F-35 is not dead

[AuxBatOn]

For the record, we didn't build the Hawk trainers.

Designing and building a commercial airliners and a fighter aircraft are two different endeavours. We have the knowledge and expertise to build airliners. Not fighters anymore.

[Tom H]

For the record, we didn't build the Hawk trainers.

Designing and building a commercial airliners and a fighter aircraft are two different endeavours. We have the knowledge and expertise to build airliners. Not fighters anymore.

I stand corrected on the Hawk and instead insert the F-18A retub program for the Australians.

If we have the knowledge to build airliners then we have the knowledge to build any airframe.

Please...describe to me the difference in manufacturing methods between the construction techniques of building a fighter airframe, example...CF-188, and a business jet or airliner such as the new CS series.

Thanks in advance

[Beefitarian]

Not bad Tom but the argument is not for an airframe. It's for the fancy secret stuff on an F-35. I agree with both sides. You and I who want to build some fighters for patrol and the people with unlimited funds from tax payers that want F-35s.

My concern with buying F-35 is that much like when we bought the CF-188s we could not afford the entire order and they ended up parked while guys were barely staying current on them.

[Tom H]

Morning Beef

Not bad Tom but the argument is not for an airframe. It's for the fancy secret stuff on an F-35.

Which is why I was specific to a domestic use 4th Gen or similar and a limited number of 5th Gen.

BTW

The fancy secret stuff and integration is contracted as is the engine and many other sub systems so to a very very large extent this is about the airframe.

In my highly biased personal opinion
Thanks

Tom

[Rockie]

If we have the knowledge to build airliners then we have the knowledge to build any airframe.

We don't have the knowledge to build a stealth airframe like the F22/F35 and it would cost too much to acquire it. In fact it's proven too expensive to buy it off the shelf from anybody else either with the F-35. How much do we want to pay for technology that will be obsolete in 10 years on a jet we'll have for 40? Plus the airframe is only a part of the package as mentioned.

My concern with buying F-35 is that much like when we bought the CF-188s we could not afford the entire order and they ended up parked while guys were barely staying current on them.

I was fairly early in the CF-18 program and I don't remember any of them parked for lack of money. Our flying rate back then was such that we were not only qualified but at least fairly proficient at every role we were given, and very proficient at some. That's opposed to today where they maintain the qualification but real proficiency is hard to come by without a focused work up.

[Beefitarian]

It certainly could have been an exaggeration when I was told guys were barely staying current in the mid 1990s.

Then again you're saying that is happening now and we theoretically have more money because we have not sent it to another country in trade for their new planes.

[AuxBatOn]

I flew 300 hrs a year in the last 3 years. I consider myself proficient in all aspect of our missions and very proficient at our main missions.

[Tom H]

Morning Rockie

We don't have the knowledge to build a stealth airframe like the F22/F35

Ok for the sake of the debate I'll give you that...but boy I could argue it.

That said, it is also why I was suggesting we buy a limited number of 5th Gen to meet the international commitments and license build (or create) a 4th Gen to service the majority of our needs which are domestic.

Based on the evidence we definitely have the ability to do that!

In fact it's proven too expensive to buy it off the shelf from anybody else either with the F-35.

I will agree with that to the extent that we cannot buy a sufficient quantity to maintain current mission levels let alone improve them.

How much do we want to pay for technology that will be obsolete in 10 years

Again we agree for the most part...

But I do not want to send Canadian crews into international commitments where they do not have the equipment they need to defend themselves or integrate with our allies.

Which is why I am suggesting a limited number to fulfill those commitments.

An International Expeditionary Force if you will.

But for the rest of our uses, from the mission discussion previously, do not require the same level of integration/stealth technology and a 4th Gen fighter we can build here certainly looks more economical and practical with the ability to have more overall aircraft available.

My suggestion of a program such as Australia's F-18A overhaul/rebuild, with the addition of new build, would mean using in country existing technology on an airframe we are already using and knowledgeable with as far as operations, life expectancy, capability, training etc.

A domestic defense force meeting home needs and missions while increasing overall numbers.

In my highly biased personal opinion

Thanks

Tom

[AuxBatOn]

Aussies F-18A are going to be retires when the JSF arrives.

Canada had a similar program (IMP) that ended in 08 or 09. Upgrades and control points are still being made (by L3 MAS). The airframe cannot go much past 2020... It has beem investigated already, need not worry...

[Rockie]

I flew 300 hrs a year in the last 3 years. I consider myself proficient in all aspect of our missions and very proficient at our main missions.

Our YFR back then was 240/year. What is it now and how did you get that much?

[Tom H]

Aussies F-18A are going to be retires when the JSF arrives.

Canada had a similar program (IMP) that ended in 08 or 09. Upgrades and control points are still being made (by L3 MAS). The airframe cannot go much past 2020... It has beem investigated already, need not worry...

Yes I have read the publicly available information on both programs and the Australian one was/is much more in depth.

As to this specifically...

The airframe cannot go much past 2020

Which is why I commented (bolding added by me)

a program such as Australia's F-18A overhaul/rebuild, with the addition of new build

Tom

[tailgunner]

Tom H,
The F 104S that the Italians flew were completely useless in a very very short time. The Italian airforce quickly discarded them and leased f16s to fulfill their air defence role.
I am pretty sure the Hawk trainer is an English design....
We once designed and built the Tutor...and only Malaysia bought some......another sales flop.
Can we in Canada design a pretty good turboprop? Yes. Can we design a world class fire bomber? Yes. But a clean sheet 5th gen air fighter is going to be beyond our means. It is just a fact. The English have teamed up with the Germans and Italians to design their Eurofighter because very few nations can now go it alone

[Beefitarian]

My main complaint is we will never build anything if we don't try. Let's get on it.

Buy some F-35s to go bomb poor people with your NATO pals if you want but we need to build frigging buffaloes to SAR the pilot's that lose the single engine.

How about Canadian helicopters, cobras and griffins. If we can't build those it's because we're not trying not because they have secret decoder hats and possibly stealth.

I hope you gumbys are happy. You went on so long I've joined the thread. Suffer the consequences!

[2R]

We should just wait and buy the newer sixth generation fighters


Anyone care to guess what they will look like ?

[Rockie]

I flew 300 hrs a year in the last 3 years. I consider myself proficient in all aspect of our missions and very proficient at our main missions.

Our YFR back then was 240/year. What is it now and how did you get that much?

AuxBatOn

Could you please expand on how you got 300 hours per year for 3 years running? On an operational squadron in the 90's our YFR was 240/year, and I know it is less now. With the normal day to day requirements on a squadron with secondary duties and the time required to plan, brief, execute and debrief one flight a day, even 240 hours was sometimes hard to achieve considering time away for vacation, courses, administrative duties etc. I never saw 300 hours in one year happen back then on an operational squadron so it's difficult to see how it could be done today in one year much less three in a row.

Are you including simulator time? Are you an instructor on the OTU?

[frosti]

Could you please expand on how you got 300 hours per year for 3 years running?

With a properly manned and experienced squadron its not hard to fly 20 lines a day. Canada only has one at the moment.

[Rockie]

Could you please expand on how you got 300 hours per year for 3 years running?

With a properly manned and experienced squadron its not hard to fly 20 lines a day. Canada only has one at the moment.

I don't doubt you for a second, but that has nothing to do with the yearly flying rate (YFR) allotted to the pilots. Back in the day it was 240/year...now it is much less if what everybody has been telling me is anywhere near correct. 300 flight hours per year back then was extremely difficult and the guy would hear about it from his superiors and peers. In the present day it seems an impossibility unless there are extenuating circumstances which doesn't seem likely three years in a row.

[AuxBatOn]

YFR is not alloted to a pilot but to a unit. Between upgrades, Libya and FWIC, I managed to squeeze 300 hrs a yr in the last 3. Time in the aircraft only, at a line unit.

[Rockie]

YFR is not alloted to a pilot but to a unit.

It was the same for us and it worked out to 240/year per pilot. That's why if someone got 300 they were up for the pole hog of the year award. Three years running and something's wrong. Things have sure changed.

Would you say that's typical for a guy these days?

[AuxBatOn]

250-275. Probably gonna change soon with the cuts. We have the "unfortunate" problem of too many planes, not enough pilots to fill them, so I am just at the right time, right place..

Most years we also take some of 409s YFR in the end feb/march timeframe, when they can't all fly their assigned YFR..

[Rockie]

Well that hasn't changed at least...burn everything up before the end of the fiscal year.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Out today:

Boeing expects its F/A-18 production line in St Louis, Missouri to keep humming for the foreseeable future, despite mixed signals from the US Navy about acquiring additional aircraft.

"I can easily envision the production line going beyond 2020," says Michael Gibbons, vice president and programme manager of Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler aircraft. "I could envision, easily, several more years of buys by the US Navy".

The USN is currently "looking for their best options for procuring jets", he adds, while Lockheed Martin continues development of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which may not reach initial operational capability with the service until 2019.

Gibbons made his comments on 9 December at NAS Patuxent River in Maryland, following a USN ceremony marking the 35th anniversary of the F/A-18, which first flew in 1978.

Production of the fighter is currently scheduled to end in 2016, when Boeing completes the last aircraft currently on order by the navy. Those aircraft are being procured in the current fiscal year 2014, which ends next September.

Super Hornets cost $51-$52 million each including warfare systems and General Electric F414 engines, while the electronic warfare-roled Growler costs about $9 million more, according to Gibbons.

He insists Boeing has no plans to shut the production line, which currently completes four aircraft per month, but which will slow to three monthly by 2016. Production could ultimately slip to two aircraft monthly and remain financially viable, according to Gibbons.

The Super Hornet has 80 % of the capability (conservative estimate) for half the cost of the F 35 and is available now........sure works for me.

[AuxBatOn]

55-60 millions is laughable. Closer to 100-120 millions. Look at how muh the Aussies paid for theirs.

The SH has 80% of the JSF capabilities! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

[North Shore]

^ Considering that the JSF has yet to demonstrate all of its capabilities (she's not yet operational..) it's not really a stretch to say that the SH has 100% of the JSF's capability..


Wow, that sounds like a politician! Vote for me?

[AuxBatOn]

Even in its current state, it has way more to offer than the SH. Naturally, most of it holds a security level such that we can't talk about it here.