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

[Smallc]

Well, it's probably the Air National Guard I'm thinking about then....but seriously, I don't want to more than 3 times what we are, which is what we would have to do to keep up.

[bush_cheney2004]

Probably built 10 years or so after ours. I believe they use the 10,000 hour mark as the cut-off...then it's assessment time...Scrapyard? National Guard? Museum?

All of the above....and foreign transfers....going back many years and thousands of types:

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/

Edited August 5, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Well, it's probably the Air National Guard I'm thinking about then....but seriously, I don't want to more than 3 times what we are, which is what we would have to do to keep up.

I don't quite understand...but...

While politicians talk about aircraft life in years or decades, in reality it is how hard the airframe is pushed. Was the F-16 only flown back and forth to the county airshow once a year then loving wrapped in plastic? Or has it just completed its 100th combat sortie this week alone? Our craft have been used A LOT and, no doubt, many are simply grounded due to stress cracks and what have you...now being used for parts.

[DogOnPorch]

All of the above....and foreign transfers....going back many years and thousands of types:

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/

Cool beans. Those are all the transfers?

[bush_cheney2004]

Cool beans. Those are all the transfers?

No....that's just Army Air Corp and USAF....this guy has another section for Navy/USMC and Coast Guard:

http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_serials/navyserials.html

http://www.joebaugher.com/coastguardseries.html

I'm sure there are transfer serials from/to Canada buried in there somewhere.

[DogOnPorch]

No....that's just Army Air Corp and USAF....this guy has another section for Navy/USMC and Coast Guard:

http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_serials/navyserials.html

http://www.joebaugher.com/coastguardseries.html

I'm sure there are transfer serials from/to Canada buried in there somewhere.

There used to be TONS of old warbirds up here in these parts. I remember huge fields of yellow Harvard Trainers doing not much and silver PBYs being converted to firebombers. Ah to be back then with a few grand.

Me: How much fer the ol' Catalina?

Feller: Fifty bucks.

Me: Sold.

[bush_cheney2004]

There used to be TONS of old warbirds up here in these parts. I remember huge fields of yellow Harvard Trainers doing not much and silver PBYs being converted to firebombers. Ah to be back then with a few grand.

Kinda puts all the teeth gnashing over 65 units (of anything) in perspective. The WW2 serials list is just exhausting, and I'm sure the UK/Canada has even more volume to add. Just count all those Flying /Super Fortresses.....amazing.

Edited August 5, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

I don't quite understand...but...

While politicians talk about aircraft life in years or decades, in reality it is how hard the airframe is pushed. Was the F-16 only flown back and forth to the county airshow once a year then loving wrapped in plastic? Or has it just completed its 100th combat sortie this week alone? Our craft have been used A LOT and, no doubt, many are simply grounded due to stress cracks and what have you...now being used for parts.

None of the 78 in service are grounded. They have all had their centre barrel replaced and any other necessary parts. They have all had a complete redo of any system that needed to be done. On any given day, 70% of the combat fleet is ready to fly (that means crewed and gassed up). The rest could be ready on short notice.

[DogOnPorch]

None of the 78 in service are grounded. They have all had their centre barrel replaced and any other necessary parts. They have all had a complete redo of any system that needed to be done. On any given day, 70% of the combat fleet is ready to fly (that means crewed and gassed up). The rest could be ready on short notice.

That's good to know in a French WW2 confidence sort of way...lol. It would take a Battle of Britain-like situation to expose the weaknesses. Regardless, aircraft do wear-out and you can bet there are cracks forming. The Americans know this as a science and replace accordingly.

[Smallc]

We seem to not do too bad ourselves. We are able to keep old aircraft that are used hard flying. It can be pretty much assured that there is little if no weakness in the F-18. The Australians are doing the same thing as us. No one replaces aircraft as much as the US, because no one spends nearly as much money. We can't afford to replace at the same rate as they to. To do so, we'd have to spend about 3 times what we do.

[DogOnPorch]

Kinda puts all the teeth gnashing over 65 units (of anything) in perspective. The WW2 serials list is just exhausting, and I'm sure the UK/Canada has even more volume to add. Just count all those Flying /Super Fortresses.....amazing.

Canada no doubt lost that many (65) Halifaxes in a dozen raids...or less...without bothering with the actual statistics. But as I'm sure you're aware, war has generally got much safer for the average soldier/sailor/airman no matter superduper this or that being used against them.

There's a one acre section of the Verdun battlefield, Mort Homme, where some 70,000 French and 70,000 Germans were simply minced into the dirt and mud. Sucks to be them.

Edited August 5, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

We seem to not do too bad ourselves. We are able to keep old aircraft that are used hard flying. It can be pretty much assured that there is little if no weakness in the F-18. The Australians are doing the same thing as us. No one replaces aircraft as much as the US, because no one spends nearly as much money. We can't afford to replace at the same rate as they to. To do so, we'd have to spend about 3 times what we do.

As BC-2004 mentions, Canada doesn't have to do the jobs the USAF/USN/USMC/USAAC/USNG have to do. As long as we're only facing a lone 23mm cannon from 3000m or an SA-7 fired wildly, we'll do just fine. No Bridges at Toko Ri for us, though. Our squadrons would quickly reach 'withdrawn' status.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada no doubt lost that many (65) Halifaxes in a dozen raids...or less...without bothering with the actual statistics. But as I'm sure you're aware, war has generally got much safer for the average soldier/sailor/airman no matter superduper this or that being used against them.

Right...so the message in all those serials is not to be less ready or capable than any potential enemy. Equality in the battlespace is not required or desired. Lack of air superiority sucks too.

Just for fun.....16,000 P-47 Thunderbolts @ $85,000 US each is about $1.4 billion (1944) total dollars....or $30 billion today.

[msdogfood]

also see this!!.

Thanks!.

[DogOnPorch]

what I'm saying is we have no enemies...who protects Costa Rica with no armed forces? why haven't they been attacked by their neighbours or the Chinese?...if any country with the ability to invade us wanted to do so we couldn't do a thing about it, we'd be totally neutralized in a matter of days...so why spend billions on something we cannot prevent?...why would a country invade us for resources we're quite willing to sell them(and have)?...the only country likely to attack us is our neighbour and if they decided to our military airports would be neutralized within hours and all 60-70 J35's would be useless junk...

I suggest you Google the Rio Treaty as to who and what protects Costa Rica from the baddies.

[Oleg Bach]

Why bother buy all these military toys? If you have an enemy why not starve them to death...or maybe poison their water supply - or maybe..just bash them with a rock that will cost you nothing other than a few calories of physical clout...

I could never understand modern war..now with nuclear weapons...we retreat to the by gone era of conventional warfare...I guess war is so much fun that ..............well - a good fight can not be sustain for entertainment if both parties can kill each other out right with the first blow...so.........................we pretend that we do not have nuclear weapons so we can keep fighting for sport...IF I were commander of the affair in Iraq or Afghanistan - I would go old school..and simply nuke small pocket of the nation when the wind was right..why fool around and talk like a rat about ideolgy..

[wyly]

Okay sure. The F-18 will do the job for another few years yes. The Super Hornet, however, is going to start being retired in the US armed forces in 2025. Spending money on the Super Hornet IMO is worse than spending no money at all. It's heavily outclassed by already existing Russian and European technology and it will go obsolete so fast that we'd be in the same situation 10 years from now that we're in today. Third world countries are flying better planes than the Super Hornet.

Super Hornet is an excellent plane there are no third world countries flying anything significantly better....which again brings up the point of which country are we going to war with India? Columbia? Brazil?...the F35 is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle to fight an imaginary war with an imaginary enemy for reasons you can't explain ..

It's planned to be an effective weapon for the next 40 years. You're so full of ***t it hurts. According to you the aircraft carrier and surface fleets are also obsolete, which coincidentally is also complete and utter nonsense.

and you're full of paranoid self-delusional ignorace...it'll be obsolete long before it's life expectancy is reached...battleships were the pride of every navy, they'd never be obsoltete but they were obsolete long before WW2 but it took the japanese carriers to drive that lesson home...to bully under-equiped third world countries surface fleets are fine but vs a modern military force, carrier and surface fleets are now obsolete cruise missle technology is supreme all that is needed is real war with equals to drive that fact home...cruise missles have already demonstrated the weakness of surface ships the industrial military complex perpetuate the myth of naval invincibility...

If you knew anything about how the equipment operated maybe you'd be able to make a valid point, but you clearly don't. I'm willing to go into great detail with you on how you're wrong if you like, but first tell me how this stuff is going obsolete technically.

ya you're the world expert on technology

[wyly]

interesting info...the US Navy buys Russian Mi17 helicopters at a third the price of a Blackhawk ...and we can't look at less expensive Russia/India developed fighters?

[DogOnPorch]

interesting info...the US Navy buys Russian Mi17 helicopters at a third the price of a Blackhawk ...and we can't look at less expensive Russia/India developed fighters?

These helicopters are for the ANA who have plenty of Russkie spare parts hanging around...oddly enough.

[bush_cheney2004]

interesting info...the US Navy buys Russian Mi17 helicopters at a third the price of a Blackhawk ...and we can't look at less expensive Russia/India developed fighters?

Go ahead....everything except rotary winged aircraft...there is just something about helos that vexes Canada so.

[wyly]

wyly's choice for Canada's airforce.

DogOnporch's choice for canada's airforce

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RzCB3VRruE

[DogOnPorch]

DogOnporch's choice for canada's airforce

[Moonbox]

Super Hornet is an excellent plane there are no third world countries flying anything significantly better....

but there are 3rd world countries flying better planes. The Su-30 is a better plane and check the list of who is flying those. Are we going to aspire to flying lesser aircraft to them???

which again brings up the point of which country are we going to war with India? Columbia? Brazil?...the F35 is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle to fight an imaginary war with an imaginary enemy for reasons you can't explain

We have explained. The DND has explained and so have most 1st world governments who are also choosing to buy the plane. Instead of listening, however, you've chosen to wet yourself over the issue and insist we don't need the plane because it's unlikely we'll ever go to war. I'd certainly hope we don't, but not only does it act as somewhat of a deterrant, it's also useful to be prepared should the worst happen.

Ever heard of Game Theory? Probably not...

and you're full of paranoid self-delusional ignorace...it'll be obsolete long before it's life expectancy is reached...battleships were the pride of every navy, they'd never be obsoltete but they were obsolete long before WW2 but it took the japanese carriers to drive that lesson home...

The battleship was known to be obsolete as a primary naval asset well before WW2 started. That's why the Americans and Japanese were building their fleets around carriers well before war broke out between them. That being said, 70 years later the role of the battleship is still being fulfilled by cruisers today.

to bully under-equiped third world countries surface fleets are fine but vs a modern military force, carrier and surface fleets are now obsolete cruise missle technology is supreme all that is needed is real war with equals to drive that fact home...cruise missles have already demonstrated the weakness of surface ships the industrial military complex perpetuate the myth of naval invincibility...

Cruise missile technology is far from supreme. You don't know what you're talking about and that's pretty clear. The fastest cruise missile in the world still can't outrun the American PAC-3 nor can it escape detection from hundreds of miles away. I'll repeat again, you don't understand the tech AT ALL.

ya you're the world expert on technology

Definetly not an expert but at least I understand some of the basics. You're not even that far along.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Moonbox

[segnosaur]

Super Hornet is an excellent plane there are no third world countries flying anything significantly better.

Actually, Uganda (definitely a country that would qualify as 'third world') has ordered several Sukhoi Su-30s.

The Su-30 has thrust vectoring (something that the Super Hornet does not have), a higher maximum speed, and a longer range. (Not sure about its combat radius though).

[GostHacked]

Super Hornet is an excellent plane there are no third world countries flying anything significantly better....which again brings up the point of which country are we going to war with India? Columbia? Brazil?...the F35 is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle to fight an imaginary war with an imaginary enemy for reasons you can't explain ..

The aircraft have always been used defensively. And it won't be Columbia or Brazil we would be going to war against. The problems seem to be elsewhere.

What you and your like fail to understand is that we need to maintain air superiority in our own air space OUR OWN AIRSPACE. Missiles alone will NOT do the job, they can surely assist, but to claim air superiority, you actually need to be in the air as well.

and you're full of paranoid self-delusional ignorace...it'll be obsolete long before it's life expectancy is reached...battleships were the pride of every navy, they'd never be obsoltete but they were obsolete long before WW2 but it took the japanese carriers to drive that lesson home...to bully under-equiped third world countries surface fleets are fine but vs a modern military force, carrier and surface fleets are now obsolete cruise missle technology is supreme all that is needed is real war with equals to drive that fact home...cruise missles have already demonstrated the weakness of surface ships the industrial military complex perpetuate the myth of naval invincibility...

If aircraft carriers and destroyers and battle ships were obsolete, why do we pump more money and research into developing new ones with updated technology? Why is the aircraft carrier one of the single most feared entities on the planet in terms of war?

Like I said before and many will agree with me, these planes will be used IN Canada for defense. We rarely if ever send any fighter jets to foreign theaters. We simply lack the military infrastructure to project air power in another country.... hell we lack it in our own country.

ya you're the world expert on technology

I'll say you are not much of an expert either.