bush_cheney2004 Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I disagree... Canada is in a unique position because of it's location and size among NATO countries... I'm sure that Canada thinks this is the case, but the mission reality says otherwise, particularly when it comes to deployments. The "little guys" like Denmark and Norway seem to get the job done too....and they have no NORAD defense arrangement. Is there any reason to believe that that would/will change regardless of what Canada buys? Wouldn't a policy whereby cheaper, yet fully capable, planes were purchased, with an amount of those savings set aside to upgrade and service said planes throughtout their service life be a better, more responsible and more prudent policy for Canada's Armed Forces to adopt, begining with THIS case? Maybe, but your own DND states otherwise, knowing full well what will likely happen with changes in governments and budgets. So what has changed? COST! Not the mission requirment or service life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Ok, so tell me what other comparable airframes to the F/A-18E/F and it's roll did the U.S. put into service post 1996? I'm willing to learn... The US Navy "demoted" several remaining F-14 Tomcat squadrons to strike mission duty for bomb trucking, and elevated (pun intended) the F/A-18 E/F to the primary fleet defense - air superiority role. F/A-18 C/D also took on more strike missions after the retirement of the A-6 Intruder. Several F-18s also were converted to tactical tankers to make up for the retirement of KA-6 tankers. Edited February 15, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Why, I would think that's obvious, GWiz! Stealth has to do with how easily a plane can be targeted and shot down. It would be naive in the extreme to think that no other country that we may come into conflict in the future would not have technology good enough to knock down our planes. Hell, even in Kosovo our F-18s were often given missions far behind the lines because their electronics was obsolete compared to the other Allied aircraft and we would have compromised security. Correct... Seems to me though that I remember American planes being "knocked down" and they had the latest and best "tech" of the TIME... How did that happen? "It would be naive in the extreme to think that no other country that we may come into conflict in the future would not have technology good enough to knock down our planes." Would that not still apply regardless of what plane Canada buys? China and other countries are making great strides in their own aircraft technology. Will we and they never come into conflict? Or perhaps one of their customers? Who knows to what country they will sell aircraft in the future? I've noticed in such discussions that we tend to get dismissive of such possibilities but the arguments always really seem to be saying that "no third world country will ever have comparable aircraft to the USA!" Valid points, but it's my contention that no matter what, Canada will ALWAYS remain behind the U.S. when it comes to ANY future conflicts which we MAY or MAY NOT choose to become a part of... It is my contention also that "Stealth" in a MANNED airframe is NOT the ultimate airframe nor the ultimate advantage you seem to think... Speed, enemy detection, armament and range, to name but a few are easily equally important as "Stealth" in any forseeable conflict in support of the United States and/or NATO... That's not the question. What's pertinent is if they will have fighter aircraft comparable or even better that the CANADIAN forces! Otherwise, we will never be considered a useful player that pulls its own weight. We will just be a "political tagalong" used to show political support and not allowed to do any REAL fighting! Here I have to disagree... My FIRST concern is Canada's realistic and affordable NEEDS, not what perception others may have of Canada... It's ALWAYS a choice that Canada has the right to make whether or not it's in Canada's best interest and it should never be a choice based on what anyone other than Canadians want... I don't believe this to be hyperbole. Based on my observations about the Canadian governments, particularly Liberal ones, in my lifetime, I truly believe this to be likely! Not hyperbole, fair comment... Call me a cynic if you want but I have good reasons and lots of evidence! Naaa, you're not a cynic, but I am... What I'm cynical about is the F-35 ever seeing the light of day, at least not to current levels or standards, because of costs in the U.S. and/or being overtaken by better options for the U.S. Militaries... Where would that leave Canada? What does Canada do then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 ....What I'm cynical about is the F-35 ever seeing the light of day, at least not to current levels or standards, because of costs in the U.S. and/or being overtaken by better options for the U.S. Militaries... Where would that leave Canada? What does Canada do then? 1) Don't worry about it, as much of such technology will not be exported readily for a long time. 2) Cancel the contract and pay that big fee! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 1) Don't worry about it, as much of such technology will not be exported readily for a long time. 2) Cancel the contract and pay that big fee! 1. But that works for me... Militaries can be such a drain on economies anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 You say; "I'm listening, teach me", do you you mean it? If you do, and that goes for Wild Bill and others too, I'm willing to try... Yes i do mean it, I've already confessed that I am by no means a subject matter expert when it comes to the Canadian Airforce, i will say that i do try to keep up and understand general DND policies and whats going on with all 3 elelments of our forces. And for the most part this debate has been educational for me, forcing me to research and back my cliams, but also research yours and ESQ pionts of view as well. and while i may not of articulated my piont very clearly i do think there is merits on both sides of the debate. I don't want you to get me wrong, although i am a big manned aircraft fan, i do believe that there is a place for the Unmanned aircrarft as well...Thats because i'm a grunt, and until they develope some sort of replacement for the grunt i like who ever is providing support to have some skin in the game....and this is my personal opinion but i think people perform better when it is their ass on the line as well, ....not in some sea container half way across the planet drinking timmies and eating donuts.... I get it, the piont that tech advancements are traveling at an incrediable rate, i mean we've all seen it in the last 20 years on every piece of military equipment, in all 3 elements...what is a pipe dream today could or can become reality tommorrow...and for the most part both of us agree thats a good thing in fact the F-35 project is counting on it, just as the X-45 is as well. But when you step back from the problem, there are many reasons that the US Airforce wants a manned fighter, as ESQ explained it is what they do...fly planes, from inside a cockpit, getting over that hurdle is going to be a large jump....it's my opinion that we are going to see manned flight for some time to come....yes the Airforce will incorporate unmanned aircraft into most mission packages but i think pilots will be here well into the future. The US Airforce has invested enough cash into this program that it is a no fail project, past the piont of no return...that and the fact it is being pushed by the US government... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 1. But that works for me... Militaries can be such a drain on economies anyway... Until Canada is actually attacked by something there is little appetite for these kind of procurements anyway. Go the way of Iceland...total abdication to the Americans....but it still went broke! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 The US Navy "demoted" several remaining F-14 Tomcat squadrons to strike mission duty for bomb trucking, and elevated (pun intended) the F/A-18 E/F to the primary fleet defense - air superiority role. F/A-18 C/D also took on more strike missions after the retirement of the A-6 Intruder. Several F-18s also were converted to tactical tankers to make up for the retirement of KA-6 tankers. Ahhh, so in short, I was right... The F/A-18 E/F is the NEWEST "4th Generation" Fighter to be produced and rolled out... Thanks... - In June 2009 the House Armed Services Committee supported procurement of additional F/A–18E/F aircraft to mitigate the naval strike-fighter inventory shortfall and believed that procurement of additional F/A–18E/F aircraft through a multi-year procurement contract is more cost effective and prudent than procuring new aircraft through an annual contract or applying $25.6 million of additional fiscal resources per aircraft to extend the service life of the F/A–18A through D fleet. Therefore, the committee included a provision in title I of this Act that would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multi-year procurement contract for the purchase of additional F/A–18E/F and EA–18G aircraft and also included a provision in title X of this Act that expressed a sense of Congress that the Department of the Navy should maintain no less than ten carrier air wings with no less than 44 strike-fighters each. Additionally, the committee directed the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 2, 2010, that evaluates the operational effectiveness and costs of extending and modernizing the service-life of F/A–18A through D aircraft to 10,000 flight hours versus procuring, either through an annual or multi-year procurement contract, additional F/A–18E/F aircraft beyond the current program of record. - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18ef-unit.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Until Canada is actually attacked by something there is little appetite for these kind of procurements anyway. Go the way of Iceland...total abdication to the Americans....but it still went broke! Tsk, tsk, now you're trying to slot Canada in with Iceland, shame on you... 'Ye wouldna be try'in te bring out de Irish in me now wuold'ye? (You'd fail, no Irish, just German ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Ahhh, so in short, I was right... The F/A-18 E/F is the NEWEST "4th Generation" Fighter to be produced and rolled out... Thanks... No...you are using an arbitrary and decidedly American definition. The Eurofighter Typhoon is arguably "newer". Don't obsess on the Americans so much...that is my job! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Tsk, tsk, now you're trying to slot Canada in with Iceland, shame on you... Dude...your nation is at war...but your CF-188s are sitting it out back home. Go big or go home. Just sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Correct... Seems to me though that I remember American planes being "knocked down" and they had the latest and best "tech" of the TIME... How did that happen? "It would be naive in the extreme to think that no other country that we may come into conflict in the future would not have technology good enough to knock down our planes." Would that not still apply regardless of what plane Canada buys? Lemme see if I understand your arguement. American planes with more advanced technologies suffered losses. So therefore, Canada should be content with much less advanced technologies, even though obviously we would suffer even HIGHER losses! As to your second point, of course there is no perfect solution and even the most advanced plane may still get shot down. I'm just arguing that you seem to be saying Canada should pick the easiest! Older, slower, less advanced and more plainly visible is what I'm hearing! Easy to say if it's gonna be some OTHER poor slob who has to fly it! Would you like to see your own son or daughter in such a situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 No...you are using an arbitrary and decidedly American definition. The Eurofighter Typhoon is arguably "newer". Don't obsess on the Americans so much...that is my job! Tsk, tsk a LIE... Cought you with you pants down again did I... Read the WHOLE statement I made... - "The much newer and more modern F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a significantly different plane than our CF-188s that need replacing... They are after all the latest U.S. planes of the "4th generation" fighter planes, AND the U.S. NAVY will be flying them well into the future..." As I said, I was right and YOU were not man enough to ADMIT it you old troll... Still squirming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Lemme see if I understand your arguement. American planes with more advanced technologies suffered losses. So therefore, Canada should be content with much less advanced technologies, even though obviously we would suffer even HIGHER losses! As to your second point, of course there is no perfect solution and even the most advanced plane may still get shot down. I'm just arguing that you seem to be saying Canada should pick the easiest! Older, slower, less advanced and more plainly visible is what I'm hearing! Easy to say if it's gonna be some OTHER poor slob who has to fly it! Would you like to see your own son or daughter in such a situation? - On 15 February 2000, the Navy determined the aircraft to be "operationally effective and operationally suitable," and recommended the aircraft's full introduction into the fleet. The Navy announced the results of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet operational evaluation (OPEVAL). The OPEVAL report awarded the best possible grade to the Super Hornet, calling it "operationally effective and operationally suitable." In addition, the report recommended the aircraft's introduction into the fleet. Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jay Johnson, stated "The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the cornerstone of the future of naval aviation. The superb performance demonstrated throughout its comprehensive operational evaluation was just what we expected and confirms why we can't wait to get it to the fleet!" Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine (VX-9) at China Lake, Calif., flew 1,233 hours in over 850 sorties and expended more than 400,000 pounds of ordnance in the Super Hornet during nearly six months of flights. The 23-member aircrew tested the aircraft in a complex variety of tactical missions representing the operational arena. - So yeah, I'd have absolutely no problem with my sons flying F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, and in fact my youngest son is a pilot, but will be TO OLD to fly the F-35 by the TIME we get them (if we ever do)... Certainly more so than him being a Guinea pig flying an unproven F-35A over the Canadian North on a training mission.. Here's the thing Bill, I think we both want what's BEST for Canada's air arm going forward, right? Also I'm not at all against the JSF which turned into the F-35, and IF it had come to fruition ON TIME, ON BUDGET (cost) , and meeting it's PROMISED SPECIFICATIONS and CAPABILITIES we wouldn't be having this conversation... In FACT I was a hard line proponent in Canada JOINING the JSF program and have been following it since it's inception... If you've been following my posts correctly you will see that the F-35 has met NONE of the established criteria to date... It's a minimum of 2-3 years behind schedule, the software (the hardest and most critical part of the plane) for it is only some 50-70% complete, it's projected cost has nearly doubled, it's slower and has less range than projected, and except for the F-35b and F-35c not really suitable for Canada's Northern Operations with the F-35b being a STVOL (too expensive and may be dropped) on top of which when OUTSIDE armament or fuel are added it loses virtually all "stealth" and exhibits a huge drop in speed and range... Simply put, nowhere near the plane Canada signed on to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Dude...your nation is at war...but your CF-188s are sitting it out back home. Go big or go home. Just sayin'. Yeah, because YOU GUYS didn't want them there... My friend, do me a favour and don't go there... It's "out of bounds"... In the line of duty: Canada's casualties Last Updated December 20, 2010 Since 2002, 154 members of the Canadian Forces have been killed serving in the Afghanistan mission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Yeah, because YOU GUYS didn't want them there... Nope....Canada, despite wanting to do so, could not deploy....it was a well documented "bridge too far". http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=420aa1ba-bde0-4f0c-a369-080d17073b6b My friend, do me a favour and don't go there... It's "out of bounds"... Maybe for you, but not for me. All who serve (and die) are never to be "out of bounds": Country Total --------- ----- Australia 22 Belgium 1 Canada 154 Czech 3 Denmark 40 Estonia 8 Finland 2 France 53 Georgia 5 Germany 46 Hungary 4 Italy 35 Jordan 1 Latvia 3 Lithuania 1 NATO 1 Netherlands 25 New Zealand 1 Norway 9 Poland 24 Portugal 2 Romania 17 South Korea 1 Spain 30 Sweden 5 Turkey 2 UK 355 US 1476 ------------------ Total 2326 http://icasualties.org/oef/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) Tsk, tsk a LIE... Cought you with you pants down again did I... Read the WHOLE statement I made... - "The much newer and more modern F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a significantly different plane than our CF-188s that need replacing... They are after all the latest U.S. planes of the "4th generation" fighter planes, AND the U.S. NAVY will be flying them well into the future..." As I said, I was right and YOU were not man enough to ADMIT it you old troll... Still squirming? Nope...you are still wrong...this is what happens when you try to win a copy and paste contest with a US Navy veteran. The F/A-18G is newer....LOL! Edited February 16, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) Nope...you are still wrong...this is what happens when you try to win a copy and paste contest with a US Navy veteran. The F/A-18G is newer....LOL! Squirm away... And it's role is? And it's a plane Canada should consider buying why? Getting caught in your own trap? Check your hook, is it up or down! Edited February 16, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Nope....Canada, despite wanting to do so, could not deploy....it was a well documented "bridge too far". http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=420aa1ba-bde0-4f0c-a369-080d17073b6b Maybe for you, but not for me. All who serve (and die) are never to be "out of bounds": Country Total --------- ----- Australia 22 Belgium 1 Canada 154 Czech 3 Denmark 40 Estonia 8 Finland 2 France 53 Georgia 5 Germany 46 Hungary 4 Italy 35 Jordan 1 Latvia 3 Lithuania 1 NATO 1 Netherlands 25 New Zealand 1 Norway 9 Poland 24 Portugal 2 Romania 17 South Korea 1 Spain 30 Sweden 5 Turkey 2 UK 355 US 1476 ------------------ Total 2326 http://icasualties.org/oef/ Yeah, that's a load of casualties YOU (meaning the USA and in particular the Bush admin.) are responsible for... Good call... Glad you are willing to take the "credit"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Squirm away... And it's role is? And it's a plane Canada should consider buying why? I have already edumacated you on the Growler's role. At this point, Canada shouldn't buy anything until the Americans take them shopping again...we got a bigger air force in mothballs at Davis-Montham AFB. Come on down and pick something out on the cheap, 'cause it's about the money, ain't it !? http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/f-18-readied-for-takeoff-at-davis-monthan-afb/view/?service=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Yes i do mean it, I've already confessed that I am by no means a subject matter expert when it comes to the Canadian Airforce, i will say that i do try to keep up and understand general DND policies and whats going on with all 3 elelments of our forces. And for the most part this debate has been educational for me, forcing me to research and back my cliams, but also research yours and ESQ pionts of view as well. and while i may not of articulated my piont very clearly i do think there is merits on both sides of the debate. I don't want you to get me wrong, although i am a big manned aircraft fan, i do believe that there is a place for the Unmanned aircrarft as well...Thats because i'm a grunt, and until they develope some sort of replacement for the grunt i like who ever is providing support to have some skin in the game....and this is my personal opinion but i think people perform better when it is their ass on the line as well, ....not in some sea container half way across the planet drinking timmies and eating donuts.... I get it, the piont that tech advancements are traveling at an incrediable rate, i mean we've all seen it in the last 20 years on every piece of military equipment, in all 3 elements...what is a pipe dream today could or can become reality tommorrow...and for the most part both of us agree thats a good thing in fact the F-35 project is counting on it, just as the X-45 is as well. But when you step back from the problem, there are many reasons that the US Airforce wants a manned fighter, as ESQ explained it is what they do...fly planes, from inside a cockpit, getting over that hurdle is going to be a large jump....it's my opinion that we are going to see manned flight for some time to come....yes the Airforce will incorporate unmanned aircraft into most mission packages but i think pilots will be here well into the future. The US Airforce has invested enough cash into this program that it is a no fail project, past the piont of no return...that and the fact it is being pushed by the US government... Fair ball... Have a look at my follow up... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=626315 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I have already edumacated you on the Growler's role. At this point, Canada shouldn't buy anything until the Americans take them shopping again...we got a bigger air force in mothballs at Davis-Montham AFB. Come on down and pick something out on the cheap, 'cause it's about the money, ain't it !? http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/f-18-readied-for-takeoff-at-davis-monthan-afb/view/?service=1 Yup... But that was my point in the first place... Oh, and no thanks to your kind offer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 How much does that much aluminum cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Also I'm not at all against the JSF which turned into the F-35, and IF it had come to fruition ON TIME, ON BUDGET (cost) , and meeting it's PROMISED SPECIFICATIONS and CAPABILITIES we wouldn't be having this conversation... In FACT I was a hard line proponent in Canada JOINING the JSF program and have been following it since it's inception... You've dealt with aircraft programs before, your well aware that very few of these projects comes in ON time, and ON budget, it's the nature of the beast, despite all the promises that get made, it just happens.... If you've been following my posts correctly you will see that the F-35 has met NONE of the established criteria to date... It's a minimum of 2-3 years behind schedule, the software (the hardest and most critical part of the plane) for it is only some 50-70% complete, it's projected cost has nearly doubled, it's slower and has less range than projected, and except for the F-35b and F-35c not really suitable for Canada's Northern Operations with the F-35b being a STVOL (too expensive and may be dropped) on top of which when OUTSIDE armament or fuel are added it loses virtually all "stealth" and exhibits a huge drop in speed and range... Simply put, nowhere near the plane Canada signed on to... Thats not true the F-35 has set the bar in many circumstances for new inovations for a multi mission aircraft. And while i do agree with you in some cases there are Gen 4 and 4.5 aircraft that can outperform the F-35 in some areas today, but not as an entire package, and not with the future tech problems that will get worked out. Some of those areas are. Commonality is the key to affordability – on the assembly line; in shared-wing platforms; in common systems that enhance maintenance, field support and service interoperability; and in almost 100 percent commonality of the avionics suite. Component commonality across all three variants reduces unique spares requirements and the logistics footprint. In addition to reduced flyaway costs, the F-35 is designed to affordably integrate new technology during its entire life cycle. Commonality is going to play a major role for parts availablity, US will be spending major funding in upgrades and updates in which Canada could take advantage of if released by US government, such as new wpns sys, or the above mentioned items. During missions or operations Parts,Componets, Wpns could be loaned both ways US-Canada to ensure operational integrity of units. It will also mean we will not have any problems with operating with our major NATO allieds, in regards to Comms,modern wpns sys, having the right equipment so we are not delegated to a minor support role. Some of the others are listed in the link below. Some of which are already operating. F-35 Tech. Even with it's reduced range and speed, it's current stats are pretty impressive, it has already doubled most ranges and it's speed is still decent, of a multi mission aircraft...And while it does have alot of faults today. even you yourself have said that tech will double tommorow, and the momentum that this project has behind it will drive those changes, and in 6 to 8 years from now when the first Version lands at a Canadian airfield i'm sure it will not be the same aircraft it is today.... But rather a 5 th gen fighter that will fit in well with other new tech of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 You've dealt with aircraft programs before, your well aware that very few of these projects comes in ON time, and ON budget, it's the nature of the beast, despite all the promises that get made, it just happens.... I am well aware... I'm also aware of the U.S.'s political climate which will have a tremendous bearing on projects like the F-35 and their escalating costs going forward... The "big picture" between the "Bush Era" and today are quite different as is the "will" of the American public towards wars and Military spending... Military spending is no longer the "untouchable" it once was... That worries me... Thats not true the F-35 has set the bar in many circumstances for new inovations for a multi mission aircraft. And while i do agree with you in some cases there are Gen 4 and 4.5 aircraft that can outperform the F-35 in some areas today, but not as an entire package, and not with the future tech problems that will get worked out. Some of those areas are. Commonality is going to play a major role for parts availablity, US will be spending major funding in upgrades and updates in which Canada could take advantage of if released by US government, such as new wpns sys, or the above mentioned items. During missions or operations Parts,Componets, Wpns could be loaned both ways US-Canada to ensure operational integrity of units. It will also mean we will not have any problems with operating with our major NATO allieds, in regards to Comms,modern wpns sys, having the right equipment so we are not delegated to a minor support role. Some of the others are listed in the link below. Some of which are already operating. F-35 Tech. Nothing there I wasn't aware of or disagree with... However none of it applies exclusively to the F-35 since the "package" will also include the F/A-18 E/F and any "new tech" airframes, like unmanned fighters, going forward over at least the next 20 years... Even with it's reduced range and speed, it's current stats are pretty impressive, it has already doubled most ranges and it's speed is still decent, of a multi mission aircraft...And while it does have a lot of faults today. even you yourself have said that tech will double tommorow, and the momentum that this project has behind it will drive those changes, and in 6 to 8 years from now when the first Version lands at a Canadian airfield i'm sure it will not be the same aircraft it is today.... But rather a 5th gen fighter that will fit in well with other new tech of the day. House votes to end F-35 secondary engine program - In the end, even the Pentagon wanted to bin it. President Barack Obama and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives today reached a compromise and axed the $450 million F-35 General Electric (GE) F136 jet engine program, which funded the construction of a secondary powerplant for the F-35 Lightning II fighter based on technology from GE and Rolls-Royce. Both the Obama and the Bush administration had fought to terminate the program. Even after Defense Secretary Robert Gates removed it from the Pentagon's funding requests, congress reinserted it a few years ago. The final vote in the House stood at 233-198, with newly-elected, budget-hawk Republicans crossing the aisle to vote with liberal Democrats opposed to continued increases in expenditure on military hardware. The newly-instated Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner of Ohio, voted against stripping the funding. GE and Rolls-Royce had pledged to bring jobs to Ohio, Indiana and more than a dozen other states. Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies Corporation (UTC), is the manufacturer of the F-35's current engine. The firm said that GE's engine would just draw jobs away from their own manufacturing plants. The F-35 already has a functioning engine, the P&W F135. However, the F136 the project's supporters said that competition between suppliers would ultimately lower costs for the government. - If costs and economic conditions in the U.S., Canada and the rest of "the western world" weren't the factor they are I'd agree with you... The world economic conditions, particularily in the U.S., will determine whether or not the F-35 flies, in what form, in what numbers, and by whom... You may want to read this, all of it, to understand what I'm saying - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-program.htm - Ashton B. Carter, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, said in a briefing at the Pentagon March 12, 2010 that the Defense Department will require a shift to a fixed-price contract in its negotiations with Lockheed Martin for the initial production phase of the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter. The department also will conduct an internal analysis of what the full production cost should be to better negotiate with the contractor. Taken together, Carter said, these measures will reduce costs of a program that has met with significant production delays and cost overruns since its inception in October 2001. “The secretary believed -- and this is a principle that's important -- that the investments needed to get back the development schedule oughtn't to be made solely by the taxpayer -- that the responsibility for that should be shared, and it is being shared, with the contractor,” Carter said. With this announcement, the department is moving away from a cost-plus arrangement, which reimburses companies for their expenses in addition to providing an extra payment to guarantee them a profit. Instead, in switching to a fixed-price structure, the department and the contractor will set the price beforehand, and the final payment will not depend on the total amount of time or resources expended to complete the project. The director of defense procurement and acquisition policy will conduct the “should-cost” analysis for the final production rollout of the F-35 aircraft. Carter stressed that it’s important for the department to have its own estimate of what the program’s cost should be to better determine a negotiated price, rather than relying solely on the contractor’s figures. “We will be looking at the cost structure of [the joint strike fighter] in all its aspects – assembly, parts supplies, staffing, overheads and indirect costs, cash flows, contract structures, fees, and lifecycle costs,” Carter said in a prepared statement before the Senate Armed Services committee yesterday. Rather than wait for the program to cross the Nunn-McCurdy line, the defense officials began to review and restructure it as though it was already in Nunn-McCurdy breach. Carter said he understands that these new initiatives will not be easy for Lockheed and its subcontractors to accommodate, but he underscored that these decisions are crucial to moving the program forward in a way that is acceptable to the military and the American public - The plain FACT is that countries like Canada could end up holding the short end of the stick and get stuck with TREMENDOUS costs just to get the F-35s they NEED because countries like Canada will not have any other options at that point in TIME... What is the F-35 Lightning II? - It is a stealth fighter aircraft with one engine and one seat. In March, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said "it will become the backbone of U.S. air combat for the next generation." The F-35 is scheduled to go into service in 2011. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor. - - But expert Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information in the U.S. told PBS, "The history of multi-role fighters, even for single services, is terrible. They do nothing well. ... The F-35 never will be able to fulfil its mission, because it is too heavy to fight other aircraft in the air, but too fast, thin-skinned and lightly armed to support troops on the ground." - - What does it cost? The JSF is widely reported to be the most expensive military program ever — and costs are rising. One of the problems, Gates said in March, is "overly rosy forecasts by the program office itself." In June estimates of the cost of the American program rose again, to $382 billion US for 2,457 aircraft. That averages $155.5 million US per plane. In Canada, the Department of National Defence reports it will spend about $9 billion for its 65 F-35s. That works out to about $138.5 million per aircraft. The cost could double when a maintenance contract is added. Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week, the author of two books on the F-35, says the rising costs of the fighter jet could be a "death spiral." "The risk is that as the unit costs go up numbers come down, can the production process adapt?," Sweetman said in a telephone interview with CBC News. - It's happened before... Is that truly something you recommend that the Canadian Government and it's TAXPAYERS should do? As I've been saying throughout, I'm concerned about what's BEST for CANADA and NOT what's best for the U.S., NATO, or any other foreign entity... 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.