$9 Billion No-Bid Contract for 65 F-35s

[punked]

The Gripen NG does seem to be a good plane. (It looks to be slightly faster than the F-35, although even with the more powerful engine I'm not sure if it would have anywhere near the same carrying capacity or range. Also not sure if it has the same stealth characteristics as the F-35. And no, I'm not expecting the 'terrorists' to have advanced radar capability, but we may be in situations where we are involved in combat with countries with at least some technological capability.)

I'd be curious about the final cost of the new Gripen though... the page you linked to doesn't give final cost, and I haven't yet found any references anywhere else.

Around 50 million.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

[segnosaur]

The Gripen NG does seem to be a good plane. (It looks to be slightly faster than the F-35, although even with the more powerful engine I'm not sure if it would have anywhere near the same carrying capacity or range. Also not sure if it has the same stealth characteristics as the F-35. And no, I'm not expecting the 'terrorists' to have advanced radar capability, but we may be in situations where we are involved in combat with countries with at least some technological capability.

I'd be curious about the final cost of the new Gripen though..

Around 50 million.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

Thanks. Interesting link.

Problem is, from the looks of things they're looking at the original Gripen, rather than the updated (and more powerful) Gripen NG.

[punked]

Thanks. Interesting link.

Problem is, from the looks of things they're looking at the original Gripen, rather than the updated (and more powerful) Gripen NG.

"$50-60 million for Gripen NG"

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-jas39-gripen-swedens-4th-generation-wild-card-02401/

[Moonbox]

OK but did you see the updated The info on the Future gripen

Actually, I've read a fair bit about the Gripen. It's a good plane, by 4th generation fighter standards.

In mock dogfights with Norwiegan F-16's, it was found to come out on top most of the time . I don't know how pumped I am about spending billions for a marginal upgrade

Upgrading from the F-18 to the Gripen would be dumber than not upgrading at all in my opinion.

The F-35 makes it look like garbage and is better suited to the role we're intending anyways.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Moonbox

[ZenOps]

Exactly - but why bother building a space elevator in a non-optimal area. By even attempting to build it in Canada - you would be risking much greater chances of failure.

If it *must* be within the physical boundaries of Canada to be considered Canadian, thats opinion I guess. But that defeats the purpose of science to determine the best options. Is Ego more important than Science?

Keneddy is where it is because its closer to the equator, and its launchable over the ocean, which is important because of the horrendous track record of failed launches, which is right around the chances of getting 3 out of 6 numbers in lotto 6/49.

Latitude is nothing if one puts up two polar satellite(s). Which is also on the table, but not for Canada. We are spending money on fighter craft instead I guess.

It has been said that a near geostationary north and south pole satellite is more important and worth infinitely more than any equatorial satellite just because it can see what the others have difficulty seeing - and they would also be able to link all and any equatorial satellites together in a single "hop". The Uber-satellite, is the one that is at the pole.

As of current, there are only 18+ hour polar satellites. The ultimate goal is of course stationary with slight rotation and compensation for earth wobble.

I guess we are going to leave it to China... Its not like the US could afford it anymore either.

BTW: The Caicos is "British" Caicos, many islands of which are unihabited, but owned by the Crown. It would not be much of a stretch to spend a few dollars to "buy" it from the Queen. I believe some islands are already slated for sale to other buyers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dellis_Cay

Edited June 10, 2010 by ZenOps

[dre]

Yeah fuck useless planes. I wanna build a space elevator!

[Guest TrueMetis]

I recall seeing a documentary where weapons experts compared the AK-47 with the M-16 (of which the C-7 is a variation.) The M-16 beat the AK-47 in pretty much the same categories (accuracy, range, etc.) However, the M-16 were much more high-maintenance and prone to jamming, whereas the AK-47 didn't have the same problems. (Part of that was due to the use of the wrong ammunition type in the early years of M-16 deployment and improper cleaning instructions, but the AK-47, with lower tolerances, is still a bit more reliable.)

The C-7 has advanced quite a bit in terms of reliability. You're right though it is more prone to jam than the AK, but that not a problem for professional soldiers because we are able to properly maintain our equipment.

[Smallc]

I think your misunderstanding, those 20 aircraft are not part of any combat sqn, but rather strictly used to train new fighter jocks in cold lake plus outfit the reseach and developement unit, so they are taken out of the equation...

I think you're misunderstanding. There are currently 30 - 32 for training, as there are 78 - 80 operation aircraft and only 48 in combat squadrons. The rest are in the training squadron. There is a ration of 1 training jet for every 1.5 operational jets. That means in the future, we'll have about 25 training jets, and 40 combat ones.

No the simply reality is this, 45 aircraft are not enough to do the mission, regardless if we purchased F-22s. and if the sticker price is a stumbling block and canadians can't choke it down then it's time we ask them WTF they want....And while we all bicker about a few bil here and there, we just spent a bil on the Oylimpic security, very few even batted an eye, now another bil on the G conference, and while yes it has caused a minor bump in the road Canadians will forget all about it soon enough....If your son or daughter was going to suit up to fly one of Canada's first line fighter jets in combat which one do you want them to climb into ? or is the saying true lives do have a price on them....

I want them to climb into a F-35...one of the 65 that we can afford. I want you to some day realize that there isn't money for everything. 65 F-35As is an increase in capacity over 80 F/A-18As. They can fly twice and far and carry more weapons. They can barely be seen on radar. The only drawback is that they're slightly slower. We'll actually be able to cover more ground than current with better aircraft. WE'll simply have 80% of the current aircraft inventory for each of the jobs that we do.

There is nothing saying that we need to purchase all of our required aircraft in one shot, much like the american system, spreading out the purchase over 10 or 15 years.

We don't have large enough orders to do something like that. There is over $50B in procurement over the next 2 decades. We can't spend it all on fighter jets.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Smallc

[GostHacked]

The problem is there are very few players left when it comes to military aircraft that we can buy. Then there are companies we can`t even look at, like Russian or Chinese. I`d like to see the SAABs in service here, all around great planes, but who knows.

But in NA our options are McDonnel Douglas, Northrop, and Grumman. And many new projects are joint operations. Companies that were competing against each other 20 years ago, are teaming up to bring you the next best thing. Besides we can acquire planes from the US easier than almost any other country on the planet. So it makes sense to buy USA in this case.

The F-35 is a great aircraft for the price. Lots of options in it as well.

Who else you going to buy from!

[William Ashley]

Yeah fuck useless planes. I wanna build a space elevator!

It would be welcome - fact is that NASA is publically grounded with the loss of the space shuttle program.

Of course how long will it take to build?

It'd save a lot of money if it actually had loads lined up.

[bush_cheney2004]

The problem is there are very few players left when it comes to military aircraft that we can buy. Then there are companies we can`t even look at, like Russian or Chinese. I`d like to see the SAABs in service here, all around great planes, but who knows.

Who else has purchased such aircraft for an expected 20+ year lifecycyle?

But in NA our options are McDonnel Douglas, Northrop, and Grumman. And many new projects are joint operations. Companies that were competing against each other 20 years ago, are teaming up to bring you the next best thing. Besides we can acquire planes from the US easier than almost any other country on the planet. So it makes sense to buy USA in this case.

Correct...almost. The F-35 is a Lockheed Martin joint. Boeing consumed Mcdonnell Douglas in 1997. Northrop and Grumman are now Northrop-Grumman since 1994. A lot has happened since 1982, eh?

Edited June 11, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[William Ashley]

It would be welcome - fact is that NASA is publically grounded with the loss of the space shuttle program.

Of course how long will it take to build?

It'd save a lot of money if it actually had loads lined up.

It would continue canada's space reach heritage, and probably generate a lot of interest and prominent space persons to Canada, and that alone might stimulate the technological sector.

The potential for a multinational support on it could lower project costs to less than the 9 billion earmarked for the f35's.

The income generate would then actually pay for planes from "business" on the elevator.

I have doubts that china won't do it within 10-20 years.

Who needs face when you have backbone.

The Canadian Spine? eh has a ring doesn't it?

Edited June 11, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

It would continue canada's space reach heritage, and probably generate a lot of interest and prominent space persons to Canada, and that alone might stimulate the technological sector.

The potential for a multinational support on it could lower project costs to less than the 9 billion earmarked for the f35's.

The income generate would then actually pay for planes from "business" on the elevator.

I have doubts that china won't do it within 10-20 years.

The thing is.. with 10 different countries throwing billions at it.. if they collaborated on manufacture... it would be done, instead of "being developed"

Instead what we have is a leadership in Canada that is more interested in paying a billion dollars to beat people up and talk about the environment they ain't gonna fix, and taking care of people who need it, hypocrytically. Let see if any women get beaten up, there is health for the woman, etc..

The G8/G20 could earmark funds for an elevator - and end up saving billions of dollars - funds raised (no pun intended) could then go to those same causes - from revenues rather than the peoples taxes.

Also sending stuff into space takes a lot of fuel.

With the infrastructure built for mass production of carbon nanotubes we would leave the metal age and move into the carbon age... yet, no instead mediocrity and maintaining the status quo will rain at the destruction and rape of the planet. and people who dare to beleive in freedom of expression and freedom of movement.

Edited June 11, 2010 by William Ashley

[GostHacked]

Who else has purchased such aircraft for an expected 20+ year lifecycyle?^équote

I think many countries expect to get 20+ years out of the items in the fleet. It gets to expensive to change them out every 10 years. You may be on top of the tech, but can spend yourself into the ground.

Correct...almost. The F-35 is a Lockheed Martin joint. Boeing consumed Mcdonnell Douglas in 1997. Northrop and Grumman are now Northrop-Grumman since 1994. A lot has happened since 1982, eh?

The F35 is a great craft period. STOL or near VTOL allows this plane to work in any area and with limited or no runways. That has always been the goal coming out of the US manufacturers. It`s how the Harrier II came to be. Britain got a great idea and with a few tweaks the plane is a marvel in aircraft tech.

Our F-18s are in horrible shape. We don`t need the next best thing, we just need something that works and is reliable. Not like a damn Sea King. It will go the way of the Tomcat. Can`t fly these bitches forever.

`Yah, I need a right aileron and vertical stabilizer for a 1978 F-18... Uh huh .... that's right ...... What do you mean it`s out of stock?

[Bonam]

It would continue canada's space reach heritage, and probably generate a lot of interest and prominent space persons to Canada, and that alone might stimulate the technological sector.

Canada is definitely not going to be the first nation to build an elevator, not a chance of it. The US perhaps, or as an international project.

The potential for a multinational support on it could lower project costs to less than the 9 billion earmarked for the f35's.

Yes but those are completely different costs. A space elevator is a tool for space exploration and scientific research, as well as eventually for the industrial and commercial use of space and space resources. It is not, however, a tool usable for military operations in the same way that a fighter plane is (this should be obvious).

I have doubts that china won't do it within 10-20 years.

Doesn't matter who does it long as someone does. Soon after, many others would follow.

That being said the main barrier right now is the further development of carbon nanotube technology. Once the technical challenge is solved, I am sure there will be a lot of political issues to be worked out. While in reality a space elevator poses no danger, overhyped media reports of a giant structure tens of thousands of kilometers long falling down and wrapping around the equator and annihilating all life in its path will generate substantial public opposition, and substantial lobbying by third world nations that are situated along the equator not to build it. The fact that in practice it would burn up in the atmosphere and harm nothing just like anything else falling from space would be completely ignored.

In my opinion, building a space elevator on the moon first is a critical step. It is technically easier and can be done with existing commercially developed materials, does not have to deal with the difficulties of passing through the atmosphere, is automatically secure against any foreseeable terrorist attack, and will generate no overhyped concerns about public safety. Building and operating such a structure on the moon would build confidence in the concept as well as provide valuable operational experience, hopefully eventually leading to an Earth space elevator.

[Smallc]

Our F-18s are in horrible shape.

Well that isn't true. They have underwent two multibillion dollar upgrades, including complete avionics and centre barrel replacement. They are far from in horrible shape, it's simply that in a decade, they won't be able to do what we need them to.

[bush_cheney2004]

...`Yah, I need a right aileron and vertical stabilizer for a 1978 F-18... Uh huh .... that's right ...... What do you mean it`s out of stock?

Such parts are readily available from AMARC (Davis Monthan AFB) near Tucson, Arizona.

http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/dm06/page1.html

[Oleg Bach]

Such parts are readily available from AMARC (Davis Monthan AFB) near Tucson, Arizona.

http://www.airshowactionphotography.com/dm06/page1.html

You really know your stuff..and your due diligence is impressive -nice to see you BC - so much for the boards for tonight - across the street is this great Jamacian spot..they have sing alongs and all the people are great - they think my son and I are black...wonderful culture - plus a beer company is doing a promotional over there and there might be free drinks..and the woman are hot and friendly - cultured..to bad you can not come along---lots of joy - until the north west gang boys discover the spot and start popping a few caps by the end of summer...at present the hood is great - my strip..is cutting edge and the a semi-gentrified area where even the hookers are polite and proper..I guess I lucked out - the kid and I have the place to ourselves and he always invites over a group of hot babes to the house after hours...and we are recording together again - and the x has lost her keys to the place.....................PARTY!

[William Ashley]

Canada is definitely not going to be the first nation to build an elevator, not a chance of it. The US perhaps, or as an international project.

Yes but those are completely different costs. A space elevator is a tool for space exploration and scientific research, as well as eventually for the industrial and commercial use of space and space resources.

It is not, however, a tool usable for military operations in the same way that a fighter plane is (this should be obvious).

You don't know much about the role of aircraft do you. It COULD be as big a military weapon as rope or a ladder. If you don't think those were big military tools then you are mistaken. It allows for zone of intercept, air based deployment in addition to space based deployment without launch rockets. It could allow for positioning of air based sensors / weapons platforms and mines, at altitude. It could allow for space launch and deployment, the list goes on and on. While not the same, most of the defensive operations could be. It would also save fuel for launch of aircraft by letting them glide. In addition it could also allow glider transports to have high altitute launches without jet fuel. Just imagine not only transport to space but letting people travel hundreds or thousands of KM in a glider, on energy rather than non renewable and expensive jet fuels.

You just don't get how much this thing could do to help the planet, and foster us into a more efficient and capable society, and all for the cost of a bunch of fighter aircraft that arn't really needed.

I'm not saying be defenseless I am saying though that unmanned delivery systems are more effective (no human goo) faster, and have no room for human error.

Doesn't matter who does it long as someone does. Soon after, many others would follow.

Well? Why not be the first? Canada could have done it with the arrow, instead they sold it to the US, now look who is getting majority earnings from jet engine aircraft.

That being said the main barrier right now is the further development of carbon nanotube technology.

The technology exists to do it today. Also schools like the University of Waterloo are continuing to research nanotechnology. None the less it is possible to build the elevator today if the industrial capacity was invested in.

However, commercial viability is driving the carbon nano industry, not a major project like the manhatan project that capacitated the nuclear world we live in today.

Once the technical challenge is solved, I am sure there will be a lot of political issues to be worked out. While in reality a space elevator poses no danger, overhyped media reports of a giant structure tens of thousands of kilometers long falling down and wrapping around the equator and annihilating all life in its path will generate substantial public opposition,

We'll that is why you don't let morons make it.

and substantial lobbying by third world nations that are situated along the equator not to build it. The fact that in practice it would burn up in the atmosphere and harm nothing just like anything else falling from space would be completely ignored.

Uhm why would you make it fall? You don't get that up and down don't exist in space, and once tethered out of the earth it will be pulled up not down. Then you just set the counter weighting. Hell you could tie it to the moon if you really wanted to well maybe not that is 4 times the distance and it would let everyone use it. Not that it is likely to happen.... anyway the fact is that you can counter balance it or even create systems that are as safe or safer than nuclear reactors, utilize solar energies solar sails etc.. there are tons of designs and options that could make the project very viable and as safe as many of the technologies used today.

In my opinion, building a space elevator on the moon first is a critical step. It is technically easier and can be done with existing commercially developed materials, does not have to deal with the difficulties of passing through the atmosphere, is automatically secure against any foreseeable terrorist attack, and will generate no overhyped concerns about public safety. Building and operating such a structure on the moon would build confidence in the concept as well as provide valuable operational experience, hopefully eventually leading to an Earth space elevator.

That is part of the equations I would advocate for both. Then technically moon resources could be transported via the two elevators, with lunar development better aided from the ground. Hell you could build the nano plants on the moon.

Edited June 11, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

and before you get on my case the f35 program has cost like 300 billion or so already (that is a year of canada's revenue or something like that) and there are next to no planes. (so said - but if they think like I do, there are planes)

You can take an elevator to the moon for less than that.

and dont get me wrong these are awe inspiring aircraft - technological masterpieces - but even so.. a space eleveator would have a lot more impact on the world, but what is done is done - but if these aircraft warrant 300 billion in spending - a space elevator should warrant 30 billion.

Edited June 11, 2010 by William Ashley

[Bonam]

You don't know much about the role of aircraft do you. It COULD be as big a military weapon as rope or a ladder. If you don't think those were big military tools then you are mistaken. It allows for zone of intercept, air based deployment in addition to space based deployment without launch rockets.

Sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about here. The elevator is worthless as a military installation for one reason above all else, it is a supremely easy target to destroy.

It could allow for positioning of air based sensors / weapons platforms and mines, at altitude.

Mines don't just float in the air, nor would I want the sky filled with levitating mines.

It could allow for space launch and deployment, the list goes on and on. While not the same, most of the defensive operations could be. It would also save fuel for launch of aircraft by letting them glide. In addition it could also allow glider transports to have high altitute launches without jet fuel. Just imagine not only transport to space but letting people travel hundreds or thousands of KM in a glider, on energy rather than non renewable and expensive jet fuels.

The kind of elevators currently being studied are far too small to carry the kind of payloads you are talking about. Additionally, aircraft that could be dropped from an elevator and then glide for thousands of km do not presently exist. Thirdly, unless these elevators were built everywhere, people would first have to get themselves to the elevator before they could use it to go somewhere else, reducing its usefulness in this respect.

You just don't get how much this thing could do to help the planet, and foster us into a more efficient and capable society, and all for the cost of a bunch of fighter aircraft that arn't really needed.

Actually I do get it, which is why I spent about two years working on the concept, am a member of several international committees on it, presented about it at several conferences, and am a strong proponent of it in general. However, I also don't promise false overhyped advantages that will never materialize.

Well? Why not be the first? Canada could have done it with the arrow, instead they sold it to the US, now look who is getting majority earnings from jet engine aircraft.

Why not be the first? I'd love to be the first, but Canada is a visionless technological backwater when it comes to aerospace technology. The state of aerospace in Canada is frankly embarassing. We still haven't even developed rockets capable of launching our own spacecraft, when even much smaller and poorer nations have figured it out. As one of the world's richest nations, our only notable achievements in space (things that people from other countries may have heard of) have been the Canadarm and Radarsat, and perhaps the MOST telescope.

The technology exists to do it today.

Not really no. It's getting there, but nanotubes cannot yet be produced with the necessary length or consistency, nor are methods for bonding them into a long structure with acceptable strengh fully developed.

Uhm why would you make it fall? You don't get that up and down don't exist in space, and once tethered out of the earth it will be pulled up not down.

If it was cut below the counterweight location, the lower portion would fall back down. This could potentially happen due to impact of space debris, though various mitigation measures have been discussed.

Then you just set the counter weighting. Hell you could tie it to the moon if you really wanted to

The fact that you think it could be tied to the moon shows you have no idea why or how the thing works heh. Hint: the moon isn't geostationary. I'd rant about how you "don't get anything about space" but I'll forgive a lack of knowledge on the part of a layman if they show enthusiasm for a space elevator.

there are tons of designs and options that could make the project very viable and as safe as many of the technologies used today.

I agree on this point of course. What I was saying (and which you evidently completely missed) was that the media would make a big deal out of it, and this would result in much opposition. Much like with the LHC, people are stupidly scared of it creating black holes, destroying the Earth, etc, when anyone with half a clue knows that won't happen.

That is part of the equations I would advocate for both. Then technically moon resources could be transported via the two elevators, with lunar development better aided from the ground. Hell you could build the nano plants on the moon.

Agreed. My vision for space exploration would include the use of elevators on the Earth, Moon, and Mars. Because of the way they work, elevators can be used to launch payloads into interplanetary transfer trajectories if the payload detaches above the geosynchronous point on the ribbon. In this way space vehicles without any rockets on them besides small thrusters for minor adjustments could be used for interplanetary travel. I think we'll get to that stage in probably 30-50 years if the current geopolitical and economic climate is extrapolated over the next several decades, which may or may not be a good prediction.

[William Ashley]

BTW - this helps with climate change in many ways.

1. reduces feul usage

2. allows carbon sequestration technologies to be integrated into carbon material manufacture - not in the air but reused into carbon products.

3. Reduces metal requirement in electronics by use of carbon nano wires etc..

4. reduces electric emissions by doing electron transfer utilizing low power circuitry and wiring.

5. reduced fosil fuel for energy production

The list goes on and on.

Last comment on this in unless someone responds

[msdogfood]

Actually, I've read a fair bit about the Gripen. It's a good plane, by 4th generation fighter standards.

In mock dogfights with Norwiegan F-16's, it was found to come out on top most of the time . I don't know how pumped I am about spending billions for a marginal upgrade

Upgrading from the F-18 to the Gripen would be dumber than not upgrading at all in my opinion.

The F-35 makes it look like garbage and is better suited to the role we're intending anyways.

the Gripen can be customized how ever a country likes more than the F-35!

We can use our own avionics's if we want F-35 not so!!.

[Smallc]

The state of aerospace in Canada is frankly embarassing.

Spelling embarrassing wrong is embarrassing. Having the fourth largest aerospace sector and third largest aircraft manufacturer in the world...not so much.

http://www.wd.gc.ca/eng/11390.asp

http://investincanada.gc.ca/eng/publications/aerospace.aspx

Edited June 11, 2010 by Smallc

[Bonam]

Spelling embarrassing wrong is embarrassing. Having the fourth largest aerospace sector and third largest aircraft manufacturer in the world...not so much.

http://www.wd.gc.ca/eng/11390.asp

http://investincanada.gc.ca/eng/publications/aerospace.aspx

Perhaps I should clarify my statement. I don't mean that we don't have an aerospace industry. We do produce commercial and utility aircraft, do software related to aerospace applications, produce certain everyday airplane components, and perform maintenance and repair of aircraft. What we lack severely in is space applications, military aerospace, and advanced R&D in the field. You can pull up stats all you like but I've experienced this lack firsthand.

By the way, your own link states Canada's aerospace sector is 5th, not fourth. If you wanna heckle people over minor spelling errors, try not to make factual mistakes in the same post.