justme Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 There isn't another plane out there that boasts that sort of capability that would be available to the Canadian market. Exactly. The F-22 has the edge over the F-35, and it seems that the F-35 isn't going to be much cheaper than the F-22, but the F-22 isn't available for export and even if it was, it's not a multi-role plane. The F-35, however, does have some of the same technology as the F-22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 Actually the assembly line part is quite impressive in itself. I recently had the opportunity to have a VIP tour of the Boeing facility in Everett, where they have assembly lines producing, among other things, 747s, 767s, and 787s. These are not car assembly lines. Things are highly advanced, custom made, and on a grand scale. And that was just a civilian assembly line, not one for advanced military aircraft. The skills needed by the technicians assembling these planes are not trivial, it is not just a bunch of mindless laborers screwing in bolts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 Exactly. The F-22 has the edge over the F-35, and it seems that the F-35 isn't going to be much cheaper than the F-22, but the F-22 isn't available for export and even if it was, it's not a multi-role plane. The F-35, however, does have some of the same technology as the F-22. The F-22 is significantly more expensive to build and purchase and prohibitively more expensive to operate and maintain. The radar absorbing paint it uses wears off after every flight and it costs retarded amounts of money to repaint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 .... And that was just a civilian assembly line, not one for advanced military aircraft. The skills needed by the technicians assembling these planes are not trivial, it is not just a bunch of mindless laborers screwing in bolts. Agreed...lots of work goes into the fixtures, tooling, and gaging for each part of that line. Supply chains that wrap around the world have to be qualified and managed. There are countless hours of testing, inspections, and certifications. And all of this after you invest billions to have a design with paying customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justme Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 (edited) The F-22 is significantly more expensive to build and purchase and prohibitively more expensive to operate and maintain. The radar absorbing paint it uses wears off after every flight and it costs retarded amounts of money to repaint. The 2009 cost of the F-22 is $150 million. If the $9 billion that Canada is spending on F-35s is for planes only, the cost per F-35 would work out to about $138 million. That's not that much of a difference for a superior plane. Edited June 26, 2010 by justme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 Thats just assembly line work... nothing impressive. It's not a Chevy we are building here. The building quality is much much higher, because the role demands it. To me, the vid BC posted IS impressive. You have no clue what goes into building one of these things. And even to me the assembly line in an auto plan is impressive. We put these aircraft into combat. We don't do that with 4 door sedans. Car manufacturers can afford a recall or two, aircraft makers cannot afford that. Not to mention the company's reputation is on the line. I really don't think we have any other choice for a multi-role fighter with VTOL that we can afford. Stealth, internal bays, good payload, VTOL, modern top notch avionics and radar/targeting systems. We can buy this NOW. Our CF-18 fleet is aging and we need to bring our military into the next generation, regardless if we every use them or not. We can have this integrated into our military and into our role in NATO. We can get parts/service from the US easier than any other country on this planet. Proximity has it's advantages. 6th gen fighters might be a few more decades off. As they get more expensive to build and maintain. Canada needs to get into this. When do we get our first delivery?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 I didnt rant and rave about any assembly line. I just laughed at your dopey post showing that video as proof you couldnt build a fighter in India or China... a video which shows none of the advanced engineering that goes into the plane, and in fact shows the one part you COULD do in India or China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZenOps Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 For use for arctic defense: Anything in the air: Bombers, other fighters and hijacked commercial planes is what its primary role would be. In the water: Ships in the Northwest passage. Land vehicles (over ice) : Tank based invasion over the arctic? Hah. No. Not happening. It would not be able to target or track anything under the ice (submarines) I don't think there is a munition that can be dropped from a fighter that would be able to break through several feet of ice and still maintain tracking ability. Satellites are also useless for tracking underice. Which is of concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 I didnt rant and rave about any assembly line. I just laughed at your dopey post showing that video as proof you couldnt build a fighter in India or China... a video which shows none of the advanced engineering that goes into the plane, and in fact shows the one part you COULD do in India or China. That's where you are wrong.....the video does demonstrate such engineering for design to production transition, and unlike your laughable claim, cannot be done for even $9 per hour labor in China or India. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 The F 22 is something of a strange sort. The funding for the completion of the program has yet to be dealt with by the Obama administration. Really. Since late 2009 the unfunded production run of 185 continues, even though it is capped at 76 aircraft. The F 22 is riddled with problems, and has failed to meet expectations in some respects. Even so it is a beautiful bird that is not likely going to be exported, and so it faces certain doom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 The 2009 cost of the F-22 is $150 million. If the $9 billion that Canada is spending on F-35s is for planes only, the cost per F-35 would work out to about $138 million. That's not that much of a difference for a superior plane. The F-22 costs enormously more per flight to maintain and requires tens of thousands of dollars worth of repainting and repairs after EVERY flight. Aside from that, it has no carrier variant and even the US military doesn't think it's worth building any more of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justme Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 Aside from that, it has no carrier variant and even the US military doesn't think it's worth building any more of them. Why would a carrier variant matter? Is there a carrier variant of the A-10 or B-2? The US military is large enough to afford specialized equipment and has plenty of planes for carriers. Speaking of carriers, since the JSS is in limbo and the Conservatives originally wanted to go with a couple small carriers, I could see something like the USS Wasp, which is in Halifax right now, working well for Canada. It can hold multiple helicopters, including Chinooks, troops with landing craft and probably F-35s. Combine that with a couple supply ships and replace the destroyers, and the navy would be pretty good shape. But instead, they want to pack all capabilities into one ship at a low cost which is going nowhere, and the supply ships and destroyers are about 30-40 years old with no sign of a replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justme Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 Even so it is a beautiful bird that is not likely going to be exported, and so it faces certain doom. The F-117 and B-2 aren't available for export either, yet they remain. The US may limit the number of F-22s and restrict it to American use only, but they won't can it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 (edited) Speaking of carriers, since the JSS is in limbo It's not, and we can't afford carriers...or man them. As for the destroyers and supply ships, they will be replaced, and not that far in the future. That's the point of the new procurement system. There will be no more lengthly tendering processes in 2 years. Edited June 30, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 For use for arctic defense: Anything in the air: Bombers, other fighters and hijacked commercial planes is what its primary role would be. In the water: Ships in the Northwest passage. Land vehicles (over ice) : Tank based invasion over the arctic? Hah. No. Not happening. It would not be able to target or track anything under the ice (submarines) I don't think there is a munition that can be dropped from a fighter that would be able to break through several feet of ice and still maintain tracking ability. Satellites are also useless for tracking underice. Which is of concern. what are we defending the arctic from? Osama has fleet of bombers and is going to sink Ellesmere Island??? we need an f35 to shoot down a commercial airliner???? 1960's technology could do that just fine... Ships in the NWP? we have F18's now that are powerless to stop ships going through the NWP... there is no logical reason the government needs to buy these planes other than to gain the redneck vote... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 (edited) Ships in the NWP? we have F18's now that are powerless to stop ships going through the NWP... Umm....no. And the military seems to think that we need these planes, so....maybe they're all rednecks. Edited June 30, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 what are we defending the arctic from? Your right whats all the fuss about, lets just hand over the islands the danes lay claim to, give up our off shore claims to any oil, or minerals under the sea bed...If you can not protect or occupy a chunk of land it is very difficult to have the world take you serious when you claim that territory as your own. Osama has fleet of bombers and is going to sink Ellesmere Island??? we need an f35 to shoot down a commercial airliner???? 1960's technology could do that just fine... Why stop at 1960's tech....why not bi planes with a good modern GPMG or man pack SAM sys.... Ships in the NWP? we have F18's now that are powerless to stop ships going through the NWP... If a ship required to be sunk in the NWP our F-18 would be up to the task.... there is no logical reason the government needs to buy these planes other than to gain the redneck vote... This aircraft is a multi role fighter, that can clear the skys of any air threats and provide an excellent air to ground support platform.....red neck factor...i wonder if it would be a red neck factor if your daughter or son had to strap up in a 1960's fighter.....but hey it's money we are talking about here....and it over rides any talk about saving lives, or bringing back our troops home alive.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 Your right whats all the fuss about, lets just hand over the islands the danes lay claim to, give up our off shore claims to any oil, or minerals under the sea bed...If you can not protect or occupy a chunk of land it is very difficult to have the world take you serious when you claim that territory as your own. there are many countries that cannot protect themselves and no one is taking their resources...what country anywhere has moved drilling rigs into another countries claimed territorial waters?...ya those Danes are just so imperialistic... Why stop at 1960's tech....why not bi planes with a good modern GPMG or man pack SAM sys.... only f35's can shoot down commercial airliners?...ya those commercial airliners are just so lethal to 1960's technology...oh wait wasn't it a 60's Su-15 that shot down KAL 007 If a ship required to be sunk in the NWP our F-18 would be up to the task...the only country in the world that challenges our ownership of the NWP is the USA, they travel through it whenever they want without our permission, the F-18 is useless as well...so who are we protecting our arctic from that we need f35's? certianly not the Russian they recognize our claims...who are these mythical enemies?This aircraft is a multi role fighter, that can clear the skys of any air threats and provide an excellent air to ground support platform.....red neck factor...i wonder if it would be a red neck factor if your daughter or son had to strap up in a 1960's fighter.....but hey it's money we are talking about here....and it over rides any talk about saving lives, or bringing back our troops home alive....what threats?...f35's are rednecks masturbatory fantasies, "bigger guns, bigger boobs, gotta stoke my gun till it goes off"... want to bring our troops home alive... good idea, let's start by not sending them to stupid wars that are none of our business and that we cannot win... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 the only country in the world that challenges our ownership of the NWP is the USA, what threats?... As long as we agree you don't know what you are talking about... The Canadian government claims that some of the waters of the Northwest Passage, particularly those in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, are internal to Canada, giving Canada the right to bar transit through these waters.[10] Most maritime nations,[44] including the United States and the nations of the European Union,[45] consider them to be an international strait, where foreign vessels have the right of "transit passage".[46] In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage#International_waters_dispute Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 Why would a carrier variant matter? Is there a carrier variant of the A-10 or B-2? The US military is large enough to afford specialized equipment and has plenty of planes for carriers. The carrier is the only way the US can reliably project it's air power abroad. One of the reasons the F-22 was cancelled was because in the event that it went to war with anyone against whom the F-22 would be required (ie China or Russia), any allied airfields that could launch the F-22 would be bombarded to death by missiles. A carrier group, on the other hand, moves and is escorted, and therefore is much easier to defend. Basically the USAF felt that the F-22 could potentially be neutralized before it was of any use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 The carrier is the only way the US can reliably project it's air power abroad... Only somewhat true....as there are strike mission profiles for US based strategic bombers (i.e. B-1, B-2) using in-flight refueling as well as cruise missile strike missions from several forward deployed and survivable platforms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 (edited) Wow, that is one sweet bird. The video clip on pge 1 doesn't do it justice. It's nice to see the government is(edit: NOT) trying to squeeze the very last drop out of our old military jets as the Liberals did with the Sea Kings, which needlessly risked lives and took some. Thanks Bubber for your assistance! Edited June 30, 2010 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 It's nice to see the government is trying to squeeze the very last drop out of our old military jets as the Liberals did with the Sea Kings, which needlessly risked lives and took some. Because you like it when lives are risked and lost needlessly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 Only somewhat true....as there are strike mission profiles for US based strategic bombers (i.e. B-1, B-2) using in-flight refueling as well as cruise missile strike missions from several forward deployed and survivable platforms. You're right that's true but the F-22 doesn't really fit in with any of those profiles I don't think does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 You're right that's true but the F-22 doesn't really fit in with any of those profiles I don't think does it? Depends on the strike mission...the F-22 has limited air-to-ground strike capability in a stealth package if needed for medium range duty...and it can protect itself along the way...going in and coming back. There is even a move afoot to build an attack variant to fulfill the role held by former FB-111 and F-15. One of the curious things about force level planning is an obsession with what may be needed compared to actual circumstances and missions realized to date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.