Derek 2.0

UAV/UCAVs are of very limited use in both polar regions........The Americans don't operate them there for a reason.......you can blame the curvature of the Earth and not my stock portfolio.

Cost versus capability.......prior to losing to the Liberals, Labor's favored approach for their long range strike requirement was procuring upwards of a dozen submarines, armed with cruise missiles, built in South Australia, which happens to be a ALP bastion........

Why wouldn't they? Said program was already spoken to in this thread.

Didn't notice your post........said motion, put forth by the Greens and only carried by Labor is pure partisan politics.......Australian Labor supports (and purchased the current RAAF F-35s), the context of the debate is the replacement of the Super Hornet fleet.........with additional F-35s. As noted in past threads, the Australian Liberal party (current Government) intends to replace the current Super Hornet fleet with F-35Bs, to operate in conjunction with the RAN FAA aboard the Canberra class LHD, as their stated option to meet the requirements of the RAAF's long range strike mission........ In the past, Labor favored a version of the F-22 in said role, but on forming the previous Government, dropped the notion when reality set in.

Your unfounded personal dig aside, who do you think is and will build future generations of UCAVs?

There is nothing "extended" about the life cycle of the F-35........hence why a Canadian purchase, combined with through life support costs over ~35 years is over 40 billion.........~2025 + 35 = ? And as stated earlier, based on the 6th generation concepts released by Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop (LRS-, manned flight won't be surpassed by unmanned technology prior to the middle of the century.

Thompson isn't offering his opinion, but retelling information from the DoD. The US military and industry can't, so I don't know how I would........as I said, based on the early information, made public by said parties, the 6th generation fighters (that will replace the F-15/F-22/Super Hornet) will still be manned, likewise the recently signed bomber program (LRS- ........the next generation UCAV program that will enter service in the later 2020s, though far more advanced than the current crop (like Reapers), will still be limited in its niche roles.......

Simple, the joint program office is projecting a 55 year service life with the United States military........~2010 + 55 = ?

Sure, and the advent of 3-D technology will make said numbers further moot.........maybe, addressing the actual problems that result in violence is the way forward......be that mental health, poverty, education etc etc..... The talk of "gun control" in the United States only results in one thing: Further gun and ammo sales.

Said polls don't add up.......The NRA's "power" is derived from its membership and supporters, if the majority of Americans wanted "stricter gun control" it would happen........American politicians are elected by the American people, not the NRA.

As are the ownership of standard capacity mags in California.....and owning non-neutered (bullet button) AR-15s..........but then, the ownership of AK-47s in France is prohibited......

Without a doubt........their revolution was fought and won with 3% of the population....3% of American gun owners would equate to somewhere between 3-5 million people, larger than the World's largest army (China), comprised of not only hillbillies living in trailerhoods, but serving and retired members of the United States military (see Oathkeepers) and law enforcement (there are already countless county Sheriffs that refuse to enforce gun control) and likely receiving open support from not only small local Governments, but various States....... It won't happen.

Right you are, and said awareness will be furthered by technology developed for the F-35.........then the next hurdle becomes secure, faster, bandwidth/communications. Right now, the largest, most advanced military on the planet, only has the ability to operate ~24-30 medium/large UAVs, in highly restricted airspace, at anyone time.......... Then the next question, as you mentioned, is lag.......slight lag talking to someone on Skype or playing a video game is one thing, in a combat environment, its life or death.........then after that, is secure communications........can you imagine your air force being grounded because it was hacked or jammed? These are all hurdles that will have to be overcome. As to timeline, look no further than the proposed 6th generation of military aircraft.......still have seats in them.....I don't doubt, as I've said numerous times, UAV/UCAVs will become more commonplace, and will supplement manned flight in certain roles, but they won't replace manned flight for generations.

Odd that you cite a dated article, the very same day the head of the RCN lays the blame on: ------ None the less, the CBC interview touches upon several points I made several years ago in this thread: From the CBC: Contrasted with what I said just over two years ago: And the result, per the CBC: Contrasted with my comments from several years ago: I'll wait by the phone for the Government to offer me the position of procurement Czar.......

The Sea Kings didn't have a career pulling 5 Gs (~7 for the double solos).....

Not likely.....there continued use would be akin to a police force today still using '68 Galaxies........they've been able to be used for so long simply by the then large numbers of Tutors we bought decades ago, providing a large attrition reserve once we retired them as trainers.

For Canada or the entire program? For Canada its been a common practice for a large single purchase, versus say the British (that have already) that will purchase their F-35Bs in various blocks.

If Lockheed were precluded by name/product, I've no doubt there would be a legal/trade challenge, if not just by Lockheed, but by the United States Government. I don't understand the rest of your allegation....... Not offhand, but I think there was a cited pdf in one of the earlier threads.......IIRC, the Canadian investment commitment was just under 1 billion through production, and opened ended with through life support/ upgrades.

As I said, the technology could be available in that timeline (~2050), which would coincide with the eventual replacement of the F-35........but that does little good for us now. As to a F-35 lifespan in our service, based on our current Hornet's service life, ~2025-2060 isn't unreasonable.......our Hornets will be approaching 40 years service once they are retired. There could be a "list", but I don't know what purpose it would serve.....

48 is the hard figure for operational squadrons, the remaining 17 aircraft are for sustaining the operational aircraft (training/deep maintenance/attrition), but as noted in past F-35 threads, prior to the end of production, there would likely have to be an additional buy of attrition replacements.......based on our loss rate of the Hornet, one could assume an additional 5-10 aircraft would be eventually needed.....Something that would also have to be factored into selection of a legacy aircraft going out of production....... ----------- Here's another idea, used as a stick before, offer up the Snowbirds .........their replacement would equate to 6-8 additional fighters, likewise their annual operating budget. I know the RCAF has floated the idea in the past (as did the RCMP with the Musical Ride) when faced with funding shortages, just as the USN did with the Blue Angles and the USAF with the Thunderbirds........pisses off the voting public and embarrass the Government.

I'm not so sure they could reduce the fleet size without screwing with our NORAD requirements........They will need 48 operational aircraft regardless........maybe a small initial order, 24-30 aircraft, and spread out the usage of the remaining Hornets for the remainder of the requirement until they start dropping out of the skies in the later 2020s?????? The cost of operating a mixed fleet would increase though, but perhaps offset by spreading out the purchase, instead of one time large block buy????

I have no idea to be honest.........but would suggest very few of our past Prime Ministers needed a nanny service on entering office.........how many Prime Ministers has Canada had that also had a young family? Trudeau, Trudeau, Mulroney.......Clark maybe?

It wasn't suggested until a year or so ago........and I would assume, a reflection on the past median age of MPs (versus today/post 2011 election, which saw the NDP with an youngish group), likely not many "new mothers" in the House, and in years prior the number of males versus female MPs.

Bumped, same source as mine, sans the National Post paywall. -------- I'm to assume the strategy is as suggested.......punt on a official selection, pay our dues to get us into the next (far larger) round of contract bidding, see what pork comes our way (or doesn't) then decide........with the planned center barrel replacement of our Hornets, there is no urgent need to "decide" inside this decade........and government mandate.

Distance between the eventual selection and said election promise.......as I said before, I doubt any aircraft will be selected inside this mandate (the Harper Government had no intention of purchasing the aircraft until it entered full rate production, hence they wouldn't have purchased a replacement inside this mandate either)..........and if/when there is an eventual "flip-flop", who is really going to care? No, we've spent, to date (since 1997) just over $300 million, the touted $150 million figure is the next level of investment going forward into the production and sustainment phase.