Jump to content

Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan


Recommended Posts

Canadians need to be able to see through the many misconceptions that surround the F-35 acquisition, which is a vital element in the securing of our nation's future, write Paul Manson and Angus Watt....

Thank you for reminding that this is an acquisition exercise for Canada, not design or engineering evaluation. Canada is a lower level Tier 3 partner in the F-35 program, with a commensurate low initial investment in the hopes of garnering parts and systems subcontracts.

USA and UK = Tier 1

Italy and the Netherlands = Tier 2

Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Turkey = Tier 3

Singapore and Israel = “Security Cooperation Partners.”

If Canada can build or buy something better/cheaper...then do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 874
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Canadians are unaware that the F35 program is the result of a procurement process already concluded. The Boeing X32 lost out to the Lockheed Martin X35 proposal. The entire question of sole source procurement is a red herring. This F35 was determined to be the best way to go, and the reasons are a matter of public record.

Another red herring is the cost of maintenance. This is where jobs for Canadians really come from, not the production of the aircraft itself. While it is true some production employment will be realized, it is actually very minimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. They already have this technology. It's called a balloon. :D

I was actually literlaly refering to creating a cushion underneath.

Example filter gases dump lower gases away, tunnel lighter gases to underneath trap said gases from being released

picture a dish underwater.. it collects the air it traps and it goes to the top of the fliped bowl.

Air is the same you just need to keep funneling the air to the top and it will cause an air cushion. Ballons are totally encased. While this could be used with a balloon or "derigible - that is gases kept inside the shell" of the aircraft.

The idea of cushion is one that allows lift by controlling gas flow.

The micron filter for instance sends heavy gasses one way and send light gases into the "pocket"

Bear in mind two things.

Things stay in motion in air... you only need to add more energy to go faster or to counter act resistence.

Air contains energy so you can aquire energy from the air - including gases that can be used for more energy.

Kinetic energy is transfered to the object, it doesn't disapear.

Heat energy from friction can also be transfered into kinetic or potential energy.

the f35 is 27000 kg

But it has to lift almost all its own weight.

A much more intelligent model would be to build a lighter aircraft that required less energy becuase it lifted its own weight, then only energy for momentum and stoping would be required.

Why is it so heavy?

Like this is still a jet.. and look how light it is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-5

I bet that would be hard to detect on radar too.

It probably costs a lot less to make too. I bet for a fraction of the cost you could get 10x the number of these things. Throw in some Lighter than air techs and micron filters and they'd probably fuel themselves.

That was 50 years ago, I bet people can do even better these days especially with micronization and nanotechnology.

27000KG to 300 KG means 100x less energy..

how much lighter is carbon nano fibre than aluminum?

Edited by Esq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet that would be hard to detect on radar too.

It probably costs a lot less to make too. I bet for a fraction of the cost you could get 10x the number of these things. Throw in some Lighter than air techs and micron filters and they'd probably fuel themselves.

That was 50 years ago, I bet people can do even better these days especially with micronization and nanotechnology.

27000KG to 300 KG means 100x less energy..

how much lighter is carbon nano fibre than aluminum?

No, it wouldn't be hard to detect on radar, it has no stealth features. The F-35 and other fighters weigh what they do because of the systems they have on board. Structurally, they need the strength to withstand supersonic speeds and high acceleration. The engines need to be capable of providing much more thrust to achieve these speeds and accelerations, and thus weigh more. The long range required means more fuel must be carried. The weapon and sensor systems that must be carried weigh a lot as well.

As for energy, for an aircraft in flight, the rate of energy use is entirely determined by the requirement of overcoming atmospheric drag. Thus, energy use is determined by drag coefficient, velocity, and planform area, not by weight. P = 1/2 * Cd * A * d * v3, where P is the required power, Cd is the drag coefficient, A is the planform, area, d is the density of air, and v is the velocity.

Air contains energy so you can aquire energy from the air - including gases that can be used for more energy.

We already do that too. The gas we use from the air is oxygen, and it is used in jet engines by burning it with jet fuel to produce thrust and electricity to power on-board systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it wouldn't be hard to detect on radar, it has no stealth features. The F-35 and other fighters weigh what they do because of the systems they have on board. Structurally, they need the strength to withstand supersonic speeds and high acceleration. The engines need to be capable of providing much more thrust to achieve these speeds and accelerations, and thus weigh more. The long range required means more fuel must be carried. The weapon and sensor systems that must be carried weigh a lot as well.

As for energy, for an aircraft in flight, the rate of energy use is entirely determined by the requirement of overcoming atmospheric drag. Thus, energy use is determined by drag coefficient, velocity, and planform area, not by weight. P = 1/2 * Cd * A * d * v3, where P is the required power, Cd is the drag coefficient, A is the planform, area, d is the density of air, and v is the velocity.

We already do that too. The gas we use from the air is oxygen, and it is used in jet engines by burning it with jet fuel to produce thrust and electricity to power on-board systems.

[/quote

Great so why dont we tell Bombardier that all that money we have loaned them is now due and we need some planes to defend the nation. Design and build a lightweight aircraft to be used as a ground attack weapon, and get thousands of them. Yes thousands of them, Cessna sized or smaller, non-jet powered and soldier flyable. Big enough for a couple air to air missiles and a couple ground attack missiles with a nice cannon with lots of shells. Its all we really need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great so why dont we tell Bombardier that all that money we have loaned them is now due and we need some planes to defend the nation.

Bombardier does not have the expertise to build a 5th generation fighter aircraft, not by a longshot. And if they did, the program would cost hundreds of billions, just like the JSF program is costing.

Design and build a lightweight aircraft to be used as a ground attack weapon, and get thousands of them. Yes thousands of them, Cessna sized or smaller, non-jet powered and soldier flyable.

Wrong century, friend. Such craft would be useless for any kind of modern military operation.

Big enough for a couple air to air missiles and a couple ground attack missiles with a nice cannon with lots of shells. Its all we really need.

Methinks you are responding to the wrong poster or greatly misinterpreted the context of the exchange between me and Esq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great so why dont we tell Bombardier that all that money we have loaned them is now due and we need some planes to defend the nation. Design and build a lightweight aircraft to be used as a ground attack weapon, and get thousands of them. Yes thousands of them, Cessna sized or smaller, non-jet powered and soldier flyable. Big enough for a couple air to air missiles and a couple ground attack missiles with a nice cannon with lots of shells. Its all we really need.

OK....but you can't do all that with a Cessna 172 sized airframe. You would need to move up to something like a Douglas A-1 Skyraider or Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. Plus it would look way more 'bitchin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK....but you can't do all that with a Cessna 172 sized airframe. You would need to move up to something like a Douglas A-1 Skyraider or Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. Plus it would look way more 'bitchin.

Look if you can sling armament on them, they are good to go. What of the MQ9 Reaper, its a UAV to be sure, but just think about it for a minute.

Look folks there is no such thing as modern warfare, there is only nuclear and non nuclear warfare thats it. Limited or unlimited war. This is a large nation we seek to defend, UAV's must be part of the defense plan. Once you find the targets you need to eliminate them, but they need to be found first. You don't win wars from the air, you do that from the ground, and we have a lot of ground to cover.

A new jet is pretty, but it wont win any wars. We need a more foundational solution, not mere lip service. Look at the reality we face folks, are a couple of fighter squadrons going to serve as a functional defense? Not hardly. So why are we debating the viability of a new aircraft while the defense of the nation is not even remotely served with its purchase. We need to get our collective heads out of our asses and start looking at this thing with a little perspective. If Harper is vulnerable anywhere it is here in national defense. More than lip service is needed to defend this nation.

WE need less politics and more patriotism to solve this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bombardier does not have the expertise to build a 5th generation fighter aircraft, not by a longshot. And if they did, the program would cost hundreds of billions, just like the JSF program is costing.

I don't think a fifth gen solution is in the cards for us one way or another. I offer an alternative we can afford.

Wrong century, friend. Such craft would be useless for any kind of modern military operation.

I disagree. Strike aircraft are the correct option in offensive efforts. For defense, there is no known way to counter stealth as of yet. You can't hit what you can't see. Modern military operations is a red herring, there is only armour and ways of defeating it. In the end the armour always loses.

Methinks you are responding to the wrong poster or greatly misinterpreted the context of the exchange between me and Esq.

I was not responding directly to you, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a guess....but I suspect this exact same sort of hand wringing and internecine fighting happened for the CF-18 procurement.

What is it about buying aircraft (of any kind) that ties Canada up in such knots?

We are still freaked out from a fifty year old Arrow program.

If I had to take care of this myself, I would buy AC 130's and A 10's for starters, nice little insurance policy for the boots on the ground. I would be all over F22's if they were available, but they are not. That being the case I would go for the new F15 S models. Nice bird good genes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are still freaked out from a fifty year old Arrow program.

Roger that...

If I had to take care of this myself, I would buy AC 130's and A 10's for starters, nice little insurance policy for the boots on the ground. I would be all over F22's if they were available, but they are not. That being the case I would go for the new F15 S models. Nice bird good genes!

OK....but Fairchild A-10's have long been out of production. Modern AC-130's cost upward of $200 million...each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger that...

OK....but Fairchild A-10's have long been out of production. Modern AC-130's cost upward of $200 million...each.

Build the ancient A10 on license, and the price of the AC130 is inflated as well. Hell we could do our own version if we wanted to. The problem is we have no political will to do anything at all. No risk, no reward, we know fear and little else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Build the ancient A10 on license, and the price of the AC130 is inflated as well. Hell we could do our own version if we wanted to. The problem is we have no political will to do anything at all. No risk, no reward, we know fear and little else.

I think a big issue is being missed here. The issue with the older birds is that they are too easily spotted by current hand held and mobile SAMs. The reach and power of those systems would blot those jets out of the sky too easily. The newer Jets have a much reduced radar signature so that enemy forces cannot engage them so far out. thus allowing our guys to get in close enough with HARMs and other weapons to deal the first blows.

Part of the question with these jets is what does the future tactics call for. Do you really need jets to deliver the weapons in the future? There are railgun style weapons in development now that will shoot projectiles hundreds of miles and speeds of mach 5+ and use GPS guidance.

Personally, i think some new jets are needed as the next generation tactics are still too far out; but they are coming no question. One issue with the f35 that i dont like is that it is a single engine craft. twin engine units allow the pilot to get home if one engine quits on mechanical failure when he's patrolling up north a 1000 miles from base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a big issue is being missed here. The issue with the older birds is that they are too easily spotted by current hand held and mobile SAMs.

and what do SAMs use for targetting?

Why can't this be avoided with the new plane.

The newer Jets have a much reduced radar signature so that enemy forces cannot engage them so far out.

and what technologies allow that?

twin engine units allow the pilot to get home if one engine quits on mechanical failure when he's patrolling up north a 1000 miles from base.

Yet a half ton plane could probably just glide home if it floated, like a hot air balloon.

Apparently this is what some old british aircraft did - they just kept on flying even without even the pilot.

Edited by Esq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and what do SAMs use for targetting?

Why can't this be avoided with the new plane.

I think you have misunderstood what i was writing. SAMs use radar or heat signatures for homing in on its target. Radar missiles are partially avoided by stealth (reduced radar signature). Missiles using heat sources (like the hot exhaust out of a jet) to home in on can be sent off course by dropping super hot burning flares from the jet

and what technologies allow that?

stealth characteristics (reduced radar signature) by radar energy absorbing coatings and a design that reduces the ability of radar to get bounced back energy waves.

Yet a half ton plane could probably just glide home if it floated, like a hot air balloon.

Apparently this is what some old british aircraft did - they just kept on flying even without even the pilot.

A fighter jet might be able to fly home and land on autopilot... but it cannot do it without an engine and thats what i spoke of in my comment. at best you might get a 3:1 ratio of forward movement to altitude loss out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which according to Sheila Frasier is a floating cost which depends on how many airframes Lockheed Martin can sell. Specifically, it's based on the average flyaway cost of every F-35 produced for every buyer. If countries, like the UK, drastically slash their orders, our price goes through the roof.

I applaud you, critical thinking is in short supply these days... Here's a few things to also consider regarding the F-35... It's a STEALTHY ATTACK/SUPERIORITY fighter bomber which is why it won out over the F-22 raptor, a true stealth fighter jet, in it's evaluation for the US airforce, NOT short runway capable and very heavy in a "loaded" configuration which makes it unusable for the US navy and why the US navy is puchasing F-18 super hornets (yes the newest version of the planes we now have at a small fraction of the cost of the F-35), there are many suitable fighter planes available worldwide much better suited, and more importantly much, much cheaper than the F-35 and with much more lucrative insentives as to "maintenance" contracts for Canada... Now considering the helicopter fiasco Canada got caught up in, does this "deal" really make any kind of sense to anyone? btw - when was the last time a Canadian fighter bomber was used in an ATTACK role? Even in the (1991) first gulf war Canadian fighters were only used in a support DEFENSIVE role because they were inferior in technology (by US design) and could not be effective alongside American fighters... Will these planes be any different? If not, why buy them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds sort of desperate now, like Mckay thinks maybe popular support will stop him when he says

"We have to now, if we don't we won't have any planes in 2020."

I think that must seal it right there.

Now Canadians defence aquisitions are being made on a basis of the aquisitions being the only choice.

Who cares about cost overruns when 'we won't have any planes in 2020' is what canadians are dealing with.

Stock in f35 manufacturor anyone?

Maybe Canada can save money buy buying them out and building them.

Edited by Esq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

..... Even in the (1991) first gulf war Canadian fighters were only used in a support DEFENSIVE role because they were inferior in technology (by US design) and could not be effective alongside American fighters...

Point of order.....Canadian CF-188's did fly OFFENSIVE strike missions (i.e. dropped bombs) on Iraqi military targets late in the Gulf War, in addition to CAP and sweep missions. Also, Canada had about 10% of the NATO strike missions during Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) in 1999.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the classifications "offensive", "defensive", "peace-keeping", "support", and other used military operations to be more often than not - political. Specifically, when I hear leftist Canadians going on about how Canada should only serve in a "defensive", "peace-keeping", or "support" capacity in a theatre of war, I can taste the politicization. I guess it's the gift of self-delusion through the creative use of semantics.

"We're the GOOD guys! We only do *defensive* missions!" - As if killing the bad guys is something to avoid or be embarrassed about...

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the classifications "offensive", "defensive", "peace-keeping", "support", and other used military operations to be more often than not - political. Specifically, when I hear leftist Canadians going on about how Canada should only serve in a "defensive", "peace-keeping", or "support" capacity in a theatre of war, I can taste the politicization. I guess it's the gift of self-delusion through the creative use of semantics.

Indeed...it is the cognitive dissonance that General Hillier attempted to fix. Peacekeeping has really been "peacekilling", but the lefties at home don't want to hear about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except all those thing really do have military meanings.

Sure they do, but they're also always used in a politicized manner by political hacks such as politicians, journalists, and internet forum ideologues.

Also, did I even imply that these terms can't be used in a military context? Why are you stating the obvious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure they do, but they're also always used in a politicized manner by political hacks such as politicians, journalists, and internet forum ideologues.

If they are, as you say, always used in such a manner; how can they ever, under your terms, have an actual military meaning?

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...