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

[Jack Weber]

I was into Airfix 1/72. Had sections of my bedroom ceiling divided into WW2 aircraft by nation. It was an acoustic tile ceiling and parts of it were sagging from the weight of the things. Also had a bunch of the ships. Somewhere in a box I think I still have models of HMS Hood, HMS KGV and HMS Warspite.

I built the HMS Hood,HMS Prince of Wales,USS Iowa,USS Missouri,USS New Jersey(basically the same ship)and,The Yammato(sp),The Graf Spee,and The Prinz Eugan...

It's probably why I became sick of building ships...

Edited July 20, 2010 by Jack Weber

[wyly]

More than 50,000 men went down in that 3 day battle and,if I'm not mistaken,it was the bloodiest battle in the history of warfare until either Verdun or the Battle of the Somme in WW1.

a quick check throught history books will show battles with higher single day death tolls, particularly those battles fought in China

[wyly]

I never said that it was easy, just that being able to land on a carrier doesn't make you able to do everything else that is required.

you said it was simple...landing on a carrier is probably the most challenging landing there is for any pilot...and unmanned aircraft have done that...

Much more, every one of these experimental aircraft you are speaking about are just hinting at the possibility of air to air combat. Look how long it takes to develop and produce a conventional operational fighter aircraft. More than ten years for sure.

research into unmanned fighters has been going on for over ten years...80% of current fighter development is geared towards the pilot, eliminate the pilot and development is much simpler and less expensive, estimates are $15 million per unit....

[DogOnPorch]

I had a thing for 1/700 waterline ships...usually Japanese.

[Army Guy]

you said it was simple...landing on a carrier is probably the most challenging landing there is for any pilot...and unmanned aircraft have done that...

It's true they have already done that, in fact the new UCAV out performs most 5 th genration aircraft in serveral areas.. But the tech has niot been developed to fully replace the human in the cockpit...and won't be for some time yet...

As a ground pounder i have an issue with something or someone that does not have skin in the game, some guy flying a UCAV in some secluded spot in Canada providing me with sir support in say Afghan does not give me a warm and fuzzy, A pilot has skin in the game he screws up he know some grunts are going to pay him a vist, or he is going to lose his life to the enemy....he has more situational awareness, he sees what i see, when i see it...his life is on the line like mine is....to sum up he's more motivated to get his mission completed....

research into unmanned fighters has been going on for over ten years...80% of current fighter development is geared towards the pilot, eliminate the pilot and development is much simpler and less expensive, estimates are $15 million per unit....

And while true a large portion of new fighter tech goes into pilot safety,and redunant safty systems does not mean that there will not be redunent systems to ensure the UCAV survival...while true without the pilot you can reduce size and wieght of the aircraft....but all that is going to do is increase the amount of wpns you can put on it....i argree it will be less expensive but hardly 15 mil a unit....wonder what they spent on the latest UCAV the Americans have designed

Edited July 20, 2010 by Army Guy

[Handsome Rob]

I built the HMS Hood,HMS Prince of Wales,USS Iowa,USS Missouri,USS New Jersey(basically the same ship)and,The Yammato(sp),The Graf Spee,and The Prinz Eugan...

It's probably why I became sick of building ships...

Try Lego?

http://media.techeblog.com/images/legoairs_7.jpg

[Handsome Rob]

Kinda. Still have to deal with the FAA/NAR regulations, certifications, etc.

Here's my first (failed but cool) attempt:

Had some problems with the relative timing of the 3 separate rocket motors lol.

That's really cool? What would happen if you increased the burn time of the first stage? Build a higher speed gradually to try and stabilize like a bicycle?

Are you building from kits? Or designing yourself?

I'm getting into flying model aircraft. But unfortunately I have many full sized aircraft behaviors to un-learn. My 3rd trip up, was flying downwind when it gusted. Unfortunately a 30 oz model does not behave like a 1500 pound citabria, it floated, for quite a while, much like a full size aircraft balloons on flare. Much to my dismay, this float ended with a tree complete with very large prickle bush underneath.

Still working on rebuilding the wing.

[wyly]

It's true they have already done that, in fact the new UCAV out performs most 5 th genration aircraft in serveral areas.. But the tech has niot been developed to fully replace the human in the cockpit...and won't be for some time yet...

but already have replaced many manned missions...I don't see this as a long wait before almost all combat missions will be unmanned...

As a ground pounder i have an issue with something or someone that does not have skin in the game, some guy flying a UCAV in some secluded spot in Canada providing me with sir support in say Afghan does not give me a warm and fuzzy,

this I can agree with somewhat it's a social issue we're not fully trusting of machines, I'd be uncomfortable flying in a plane with no pilot, I still hate talking to answering machines I prefer human contact...

A pilot has skin in the game he screws up he know some grunts are going to pay him a vist,

no grunt is ever going to pay him a visit, has any grunt gone to sort out the american pilot that fired on and killed Canadian troops earlier in the Afghan war?

or he is going to lose his life to the enemy....

unless it's a low level helicopter that's unlikely most ground forces pose no threat to fighter pilots at the altitude they operate at...when was the last time a Taliban shot down a fighter plane?

he has more situational awareness, he sees what i see, when i see it...

not having been at the controls how do you know what they see?...modern optics, thermal sensors, radar packed into a plane will see more than you do, visit google earth to have a look what optics can do and they're likely much better than that...I suspect you will still have better audio info...

his life is on the line like mine is....to sum up he's more motivated to get his mission completed....

ya you have much much more at risk no doubt about that but I'm sure the controler is motivated other peoples lives depend on his decisions

And while true a large portion of new fighter tech goes into pilot safety,and redunant safty systems does not mean that there will not be redunent systems to ensure the UCAV survival...

but they will be more survivable...and if they don't it's not a big deal a plane can be easily replaced a pilot with millions of dollars and thousands of hours invested in his/her training cannot be replaced so easily...

while true without the pilot you can reduce size and wieght of the aircraft....but all that is going to do is increase the amount of wpns you can put on it....i argree it will be less expensive but hardly 15 mil a unit....wonder what they spent on the latest UCAV the Americans have designed

the 15 mill was an estimate I found on US government website in todays dollars, as time goes by the dollar figure will go up(with anything military dollar figures never seem to meet reality)...but the cost comparison is for todays planes, 55 mill for a Super Hornet(not including pilot training) or the 90-116 mill estimates for when the F35 comes on line...

[Wilber]

Fair enough...so does the criticism diminish if $16 billion is spent on licensed Super Hornets instead?

Probably not.

[Wilber]

I had a thing for 1/700 waterline ships...usually Japanese.

When I was a kid I did the Battle of River Plate with those things. Graf Spee, Exeter, Ajax and Achilles all laid out on a paper mache ocean. I think those were the only ones I did though.

[bush_cheney2004]

but already have replaced many manned missions...I don't see this as a long wait before almost all combat missions will be unmanned...

Not going to happen anytime soon for lots of reasons...the US information you reference also defines options for a mix of manned or unmanned versions of platforms going forward. Technically, a manned aircraft can deliver ordnance on target without dependency on a secure datalink, as can cruise missiles (the original unmanned aircraft).

How many UCAV's does Canada have?

[DogOnPorch]

wyly: unless it's a low level helicopter that's unlikely most ground forces pose no threat to fighter pilots at the altitude they operate at...when was the last time a Taliban shot down a fighter plane?

June 21st 2009....the last helicopter to be shot down was on June 9th 2010. It does happen.

[DogOnPorch]

When I was a kid I did the Battle of River Plate with those things. Graf Spee, Exeter, Ajax and Achilles all laid out on a paper mache ocean. I think those were the only ones I did though.

Yes, those ships were perect for naval dioramas. They had tons of detail. Some even used them for gymnasium wargames. Allied ships were hard to come by...the entire IJN seems to have had a kit, though...of course.

Edited July 20, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[wyly]

June 21st 2009....the last helicopter to be shot down was on June 9th 2010. It does happen.

what did my post say???

Quote

wyly: unless it's a low level helicopter that's unlikely most ground forces pose no threat to fighter pilots at the altitude they operate at...when was the last time a Taliban shot down a fighter plane?

[Smallc]

What do you think was being answered with the first date?

[GostHacked]

Try covering this country without supersonic aircraft.

[Moonbox]

Smallc it's a dumb question anyways. We don't need F-35's to fight the Taliban. That much is obvious.

We MAY need them to fight future threats that are better equipped than the Taliban, however. The Taliban are the most ass-backwards enemy we could find anywhere. Moving forward, it's almost GUARANTEED that any enemy we face will be better equipped.

[Smallc]

Definitely. Jet fighters aren't some kind of luxury that we just have because.

[DogOnPorch]

What do you think was being answered with the first date?

It was a UK jet aircraft, I believe.

[DogOnPorch]

Definitely. Jet fighters aren't some kind of luxury that we just have because.

I agree. If 'jet fighters' have air superiority over the battlefield, things go poorly for the guy doesn't have them. See: The Six Day War and other lopsided affairs as examples. The Taliban, however, are naturally resistant to air strikes as they know the lay of the land (caves et al) and often mingle with civilians...or hide in 'no-go zones' like Pakistan as per Cambodia/Laos during Viet-Nam.

[Army Guy]

but already have replaced many manned missions...I don't see this as a long wait before almost all combat missions will be unmanned...

The proof is laid out on the airfields in Afghan. UAV have been deployed for recon, and for the occasional strike mission with missles ( mostly within the Pak borders) only because if it was a manned fighter thier would be shit to pay from the Pak government.

There is hundrds of manned coalition fighters in Afghan and perhaps no more than 24 UAV's I hav'nt seen any UCAV's but that is not to say there is none there....

Many have speculated on many combat systems we have today, the first Anti tank missle was suppose to mark the death of the tank, and yet serveral countries still pour in bils into tank research....

UCAV's will diffintely be part of tommorrows battle space...but i don't think it will take it over....I pray it does not , once you remove the human risk element tocombatants in a battle ,i think it will carry on indifinately with civilians being the targets....

no grunt is ever going to pay him a visit, has any grunt gone to sort out the american pilot that fired on and killed Canadian troops earlier in the Afghan war?

Happens more times than you can believe, i know a few British and dutch apache pilots that got a good smack down by some grunts that got lite up by mistake....as the F-16 pilot, he was gone out of threater that night, before the troops got out of the training area....for a good reason, that one would not have turned out to well....

unless it's a low level helicopter that's unlikely most ground forces pose no threat to fighter pilots at the altitude they operate at...when was the last time a Taliban shot down a fighter plane?

Most of those aircraft providing close air support do so well under 3500 ft....well within small arms fire....alot of these fighters have been damaged do to ground fire...all it takes is one lucky shot....i don't know of one being shot down yet, but then again we did'nt mix with the airforce guys when or if we got back to camp...

not having been at the controls how do you know what they see?...modern optics, thermal sensors, radar packed into a plane will see more than you do, visit google earth to have a look what optics can do and they're likely much better than that...I suspect you will still have better audio info...

I've been at the Battle group HQ recieving live UAV feed and while your right i've never been at the controls, nor can i say the live feed is the same as the controls, however, they say (HQ staff) contols are done off one screen similar to a vidio game , although the view can be changed by the operator, a pilot has a greater field of view atleast 120 degrees. Also keep in mind the pilot also has access to all those modern optics as a UCAV pilot does....be it a social cause or not i still perfer to have a live pilot in the same game, with just as much skin on the line as i do....not some guy drinking a hot coffee and eating donuts in some seacan thousands of miles away....

but they will be more survivable...and if they don't it's not a big deal a plane can be easily replaced a pilot with millions of dollars and thousands of hours invested in his/her training cannot be replaced so easily...

Thats the way we hope they act like, truth is it's all about the equipment, and dollars....shit if it was all about lives we would would not be having this debate....we'd all be saying hey it saves lives lets buy it.....and yet everyone has posted and quoted 16 bil is alot of money....which it is ,so it's about money....pilots or any other military trade can be replaced alot easier and cheaper than vital military equipment....shit in WWII some pilots barely had 10 to 12 weeks of training before seeing front line action.....once your geared up for war pumping out pilots is the easy part....

I agree with you that more and more of todays wpns will become unmanned, the Navy is looking into unmanned subs, the army into unmanned transport helos, and vehs....but what determines most conflicts today is the loss of human lives, and the cost of resources, taking out the combatants , the human cost will have to come of of where...the population, thats my opinion.

[wyly]

Smallc it's a dumb question anyways. We don't need F-35's to fight the Taliban. That much is obvious.

We MAY need them to fight future threats that are better equipped than the Taliban, however. The Taliban are the most ass-backwards enemy we could find anywhere. Moving forward, it's almost GUARANTEED that any enemy we face will be better equipped.

we don't get into wars with well or equally equipped opponents and neither does the USA....

[bush_cheney2004]

we don't get into wars with well or equally equipped opponents and neither does the USA....

Really? Ever heard of the Korean War? Or Desert Storm?

[justme]

That's far more than we need. We are already short 1500 sailors (the only branch with a personnel shortage) and we would need to buy more helicopters and....it's just too much for right now. The JSS is a good idea for what we need if it can be carried through (which it will be, just a bit late).

I disagree with you, but more importantly, Rick Hillier disagrees with you:

The concept of a Future Canadian Amphibious Assault Ship arose as part of the development of Canada's Joint Support Ship Project (JSS) and the need to improve the ability of the Canadian Forces to rapidly deploy overseas.[1] Many of the capabilities required were to be included in the JSS, but a dedicated amphibious ship was favoured by some, such as then Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier.[2] As of August 2008, the project appears to have been placed on hold, if not cancelled.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Canadian_Amphibious_Assault_Ship

And you don't need a complement the size of that on the Wasp. That was just an example. The British are building a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier that's almost the same size as the American Nimitz carrier that only requires a complement of 600 - compared to nearly 5000 on the Nimitz. The french Mistral carrier has a complement of 160. And if you think that's too much, consider that Australia, a country with only about two thirds of our population and a smalller economy, is building two Canberra class carriers.

There's nothing magical about having more deck space for aircraft and lifts to be able to store them inside the ship that makes it overwhelming for Canada, but it would give Canada ability to deploy aircraft that it would not otherwise have.

In a natural disaster, the hardest hit areas where people need help the most are usually the harest to reach. Chinooks, which I doubt the JSS will be able to hold, can fill the role of reaching these areas, and a carrier can serve as a base of operations for the Chinooks.

Should the Canadian Air Force be called upon to serve in a conflict, again, a carrier can be used as a base of operations outside of Canada for fighter jets and the JSS can't. I remember reading about how the Canadian government was considering sending F-18s to Afghanistan, but it was plagued with problems. Granted Afghanistan is a land locked country, but in most cases, a carrier would eliminate logistical and basing problems.

Without a carrier, or for people that want to argue semantics, amphibious assault ship, you can kiss these important capabilities good bye. Meanwhile, many of our allies, including one smaller than Canada, are building these ships.

As for cost, they're far less expensive than fighter jets and create jobs in Canada.

Edited July 20, 2010 by justme

[wyly]

pilots or any other military trade can be replaced alot easier and cheaper than vital military equipment....shit in WWII some pilots barely had 10 to 12 weeks of training before seeing front line action.....once your geared up for war pumping out pilots is the easy part....

and in WW1 it 10 hrs training or something like that but those days are long gone...no recruit is going to find himself at flying solo missions the controls of 60 million+ fighter in 10-12 weeks and serious war with an equally equipped opponent will be over long before training of a pilot is completed...

first 6 months of training is an elimination process weeding out the unsuitable and that overlooks it's damn hard to get a shot at it....first you need to be a near perfect physical specimen, a friend of mine tried a week long physical testing, one fail and your out no second chances...