bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 ....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... Then surely you can appreciate that the USA and NATO are not necessarily interested in what's best for Canada's aircraft procurement woes, particularly given what has happened before. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Then surely you can appreciate that the USA and NATO are not necessarily interested in what's best for Canada's aircraft procurement woes, particularly given what has happened before. Perfectly understandable... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Perfectly understandable... Good...because the F-35 program is headed for a serious "neck down", with nowhere near originally planned production numbers (i.e. > 2000). Per unit costs will increase, and Canada would be paying more for less, if not already priced out of the market. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Good...because the F-35 program is headed for a serious "neck down", with nowhere near originally planned production numbers (i.e. > 2000). Per unit costs will increase, and Canada would be paying more for less, if not already priced out of the market. Exactly right, and exactly my point... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) Exactly right, and exactly my point... Canada can buy a few or do without....the world will move on either way. A new edition of "Janes - All the World's Aircraft" will be published, with a fine description of the F-35 Lightning II...and the nations that have deployed them. Edited February 17, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) Good...because the F-35 program is headed for a serious "neck down", with nowhere near originally planned production numbers (i.e. > 2000). Per unit costs will increase, and Canada would be paying more for less, if not already priced out of the market. I think those production numbers will increase, if anything. The F-35 is intended to replace the F-16, the A-10, and the F-18, among others, which number over 7000 (worldwide) planes all in all. Immediate procurement plans might be scaled down, but as these other aircraft age and retire, they will have to be replaced with new ones, and the F-35 is the only new (5th gen) American fighter available to fill that role. It will be decades before an alternative (6th gen) fighter is available, and the vast majority of new combat aircraft procured by the US over the next 20+ years will be F-35s. Edited February 17, 2011 by Bonam Quote
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Canada can buy a few or do without....the world will move on either way. A new edition of "Janes - All the World's Aircraft" will be published, with a fine description of the F-35 Lightning II...and the nations that have deployed them. No problem, as I've already previously addressed that very issue... The much BIGGER problem for Canada being "what if" countries like GB and Australia, which YOU yourself pointed out, choose "other options" in aircraft to meet their needs and Canada is "forced" to COMPLETELY "do without" a replacement for their aged and ageing CF-18s or PAY THROUGH THE NOSE at CANADIAN TAXPAYERS EXPENSE for F-35(A) fighters in a quantity that may be totally insignificant to ANYONE'S benefit... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 I think those production numbers will increase, if anything. The F-35 is intended to replace the F-16, the A-10, and the F-18, among others, which number over 7000 (worldwide) planes all in all. Yes and no...the F-35 is a debatable replacement for the A-10 with GAU-8 Gatling gun, will not be replacing later F-16 Block 50/52/60, and will not replace F/A-18G. Immediate procurement plans might be scaled down, but as these other aircraft age and retire, they will have to be replaced with new ones, and the F-35 is the only new (5th gen) American fighter available to fill that role. The Americans will revert to their high-low mix of the past, which gave us the F-16 and to a lesser degree the F-18 to begin with. They already have an uncontested air superiority fighter in the F-22. It will be decades before an alternative (6th gen) fighter is available, and the vast majority of new combat aircraft procured by the US over the next 20+ years will be F-35s. I disagree...it will be a mix of aircraft and other airborne weapons systems, not so much because of cost, but because of the threat and mission profiles. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 I think those production numbers will increase, if anything. The F-35 is intended to replace the F-16, the A-10, and the F-18, among others, which number over 7000 (worldwide) planes all in all. Immediate procurement plans might be scaled down, but as these other aircraft age and retire, they will have to be replaced with new ones, and the F-35 is the only new (5th gen) American fighter available to fill that role. It will be decades before an alternative (6th gen) fighter is available, and the vast majority of new combat aircraft procured by the US over the next 20+ years will be F-35s. Wishful thinking doesn't alter FACTS... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=626929 Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 No problem, as I've already previously addressed that very issue... The much BIGGER problem for Canada being "what if" countries like GB and Australia, which YOU yourself pointed out, choose "other options" in aircraft to meet their needs and Canada is "forced" to COMPLETELY "do without" a replacement for their aged and ageing CF-18s or PAY THROUGH THE NOSE at CANADIAN TAXPAYERS EXPENSE for F-35(A) fighters in a quantity that may be totally insignificant to ANYONE'S benefit... Canada isn't "forced" to buy anything. I grow weary of the longstanding excuses...the world will move on either way. It really has nothing to do with the aircraft or even the cost....Canada wrestles with such political demons time and time again even when it tries to procure much less expensive rotary winged aircraft. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Canada isn't "forced" to buy anything. I grow weary of the longstanding excuses...the world will move on either way. It really has nothing to do with the aircraft or even the cost....Canada wrestles with such political demons time and time again even when it tries to procure much less expensive rotary winged aircraft. Agreed, but that isn't the issue is it, at least not for Canadians... But I DISAGREE that todays economic and political conditions in our TWO countries don't have a bearing on the overall outcome... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Bonam Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) Yes and no...the F-35 is a debatable replacement for the A-10 with GAU-8 Gatling gun, will not be replacing later F-16 Block 50/52/60, and will not replace F/A-18G. The Americans will revert to their high-low mix of the past, which gave us the F-16 and to a lesser degree the F-18 to begin with. They already have an uncontested air superiority fighter in the F-22. Right, the air superiority role is filled by the F-22 (though only a small number exist) and the F-15, while the "strike fighter" role (among others) will be filled by the F-35. I disagree...it will be a mix of aircraft and other airborne weapons systems, not so much because of cost, but because of the threat and mission profiles. What other 5th gen aircraft custom designed for specific threat and mission profiles is the US developing? None that I am aware of. The F-35 is designed as a flexible multi-role aircraft because the US seems to be changing its strategy when it comes to procurement of aircraft, specifically, to have fewer types of aircraft, that can fill wider roles. This makes sense from a logistical point of view and is made possible by the technological progress that allows new aircraft such as the F-35 to fill such a wide range of roles whereas this was not entirely feasible with older generations of aircraft. Edited February 17, 2011 by Bonam Quote
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Right, the air superiority role is filled by the F-22 (though only a small number exist) and the F-15, while the "strike fighter" role (among others) will be filled by the F-35. What other 5th gen aircraft custom designed for specific threat and mission profiles is the US developing? None that I am aware of. The F-35 is designed as a flexible multi-role aircraft because the US seems to be changing its strategy when it comes to procurement of aircraft, specifically, to have fewer types of aircraft, that can fill wider roles. This makes sense from a logistical point of view and is made possible by the technological progress that allows new aircraft such as the F-35 to fill such a wide range of roles whereas this was not entirely feasible with older generations of aircraft. You seem to think the F-35 is some sort of "super plane" - it's not... - 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." - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=626929 Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) Right, the air superiority role is filled by the F-22 (though only a small number exist) and the F-15, while the "strike fighter" role (among others) will be filled by the F-35. I can only speak from experience and a time long since past, when we thought Skyhawks, Corsairs, Crusaders, and Phantom II's would be rapidly replaced, only to find some of these aircraft in niche roles as the new multi-role aircraft were deployed. Currently, only 187 F-22's will be produced, which is a significant neck down from original plans. What other 5th gen aircraft custom designed for specific threat and mission profiles is the US developing? None that I am aware of. The F-35 is designed as a flexible multi-role aircraft because the US seems to be changing its strategy when it comes to procurement of aircraft, specifically, to have fewer types of aircraft, that can fill wider roles. We have already been down this path with President Kennedy's Whiz Kids and the F-111. We know how that story ended. All I'm saying is don't be surprised when the winds of change blow yet again. This makes sense from a logistical point of view and is made possible by the technological progress that allows new aircraft such as the F-35 to fill such a wide range of roles whereas this was not entirely feasible with older generations of aircraft. Not so fast....the US and others have already hedged that bet (i.e. F/A-18 E/F/G). Edited February 17, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Not so fast....the US and others have already hedged that bet (i.e. F/A-18 E/F/G). That's my American friend giving us all an honest answer... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Bonam Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 I can only speak from experience and a time long since past, when we thought Skyhawks, Corsairs, Crusaders, and Phantom II's would be rapidly replaced, only to find some of these aircraft in niche roles as the new multi-role aircraft were deployed. Currently, only 187 F-22's will be produced, which is a significant neck down from original plans. Yup, 168 of which have already been built. The bulk of the air superiority fleet will remain F-15s for the time being, likely until a 6th gen air superiority fighter is produced. We have already been down this path with President Kennedy's Whiz Kids and the F-111. We know how that story ended. All I'm saying is don't be surprised when the winds of change blow yet again. Of course things can change, I'm just saying what I think it looks like right now. There are fewer new types of combat aircraft being developed for mass production than ever before. That means acquisition will be limited to fewer and fewer options in the near future. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Agreed, but that isn't the issue is it, at least not for Canadians... I don't know...you tell me. If Canada cannot/will not design and produce such aircraft, then its choices will be limited by somebody else. But I DISAGREE that todays economic and political conditions in our TWO countries don't have a bearing on the overall outcome... I don't think it matters either way...the Americans will have X number of F-35's, regardless of what Canada decides to do. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Yup, 168 of which have already been built. The bulk of the air superiority fleet will remain F-15s for the time being, likely until a 6th gen air superiority fighter is produced. Right, but even then the "neck down" will continue. We are seeing this across the board with ships, submarines, heavy armor, mechanized artillery, etc. Not only are the improved capabilities reducing needed force levels, but the projected enemy force levels are disappearing even faster compared to lingering Cold War math. Of course things can change, I'm just saying what I think it looks like right now. There are fewer new types of combat aircraft being developed for mass production than ever before. That means acquisition will be limited to fewer and fewer options in the near future. True, but older options are still in production for a reason, air force reserves will continue to fly older aircraft, and retired birds sit quietly waiting in the New Mexico desert. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 I don't know...you tell me. If Canada cannot/will not design and produce such aircraft, then its choices will be limited by somebody else. OWCH! THAT still hurts today... http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/aeronautics/topics/275/ http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/index.html http://www.avro-arrow.org/ I don't think it matters either way...the Americans will have X number of F-35's, regardless of what Canada decides to do. True... At least for Americans... For Canadians it matters quite a bit, we're the ones that'll be paying for that decision... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Moonbox Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 You seem to think the F-35 is some sort of "super plane" - it's not... - 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." - That sums up how I feel about the plane, but I've spent enough time on this thread explaining that lol Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Bonam Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Right, but even then the "neck down" will continue. We are seeing this across the board with ships, submarines, heavy armor, mechanized artillery, etc. Not only are the improved capabilities reducing needed force levels, but the projected enemy force levels are disappearing even faster compared to lingering Cold War math. Enemy force levels change, sure, but who we define as an "enemy" changes too. Geopolitical alliances can shift very quickly in some cases. And if a war ever breaks out where the US actually needs significant numbers of planes consistently flying combat missions and the losses are more than an occasional plane here and there, all the newest planes will start to be rapidly mass produced by the hundreds or by the thousands. If that happens in the next 20-30 years, that'll probably be F-35s (or maybe they'll restart F-22 production if the facilities/expertise still exist by that point). Of course, such a war would also greatly speed development of next generation aircraft, but that would still take some years given how complex these systems are now. Quote
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 Enemy force levels change, sure, but who we define as an "enemy" changes too. Geopolitical alliances can shift very quickly in some cases. And if a war ever breaks out where the US actually needs significant numbers of planes consistently flying combat missions and the losses are more than an occasional plane here and there, all the newest planes will start to be rapidly mass produced by the hundreds or by the thousands. If that happens in the next 20-30 years, that'll probably be F-35s (or maybe they'll restart F-22 production if the facilities/expertise still exist by that point). Of course, such a war would also greatly speed development of next generation aircraft, but that would still take some years given how complex these systems are now. You might want to take a look at this - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=625853 - The simple truth as it regards much of this including UCAVs like the X-45 program and others, is NOT the Technology or Hardware, that already exists and is easily doable TODAY... NO, the "problem" is the same one causing great expense and delays in airframes like the F-35 and other "next generation" airframes, that being the SOFTWARE (which for the F-35 is only 50-70% complete and still untested) and in the case of unmanned (but manually and/or artificially guided) the ethical, and legal applications, cost in jobs and financials regarding current contracts (Like the F-35 and F-22), and other implications surrounding their "roll out" and use... However, like all major advances, these "problems" will be worked out... They have to be because if the U.S. doesn't, then China and most likely certain other countries, will... One other thing to remember is that just like it is today when it comes to ANY Military applications it's NOT the "individual unit" that is primary, it's "the package" of diverse units that rule the day... - PLUS - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=626315 PLUS - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=626929 When combined you may see a very different picture... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 That sums up how I feel about the plane, but I've spent enough time on this thread explaining that lol Me too my friend, me too, but hey, it's fun to try opening peoples eyes to reality, if in the end they still can't see, so be it, it matters not to me... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Bonam Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 You might want to take a look at this - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=625853 - The simple truth as it regards much of this including UCAVs like the X-45 program and others, is NOT the Technology or Hardware, that already exists and is easily doable TODAY... NO, the "problem" is the same one causing great expense and delays in airframes like the F-35 and other "next generation" airframes, that being the SOFTWARE ... I don't see the relevance of this post to the point I was making. However, I could certainly believe that it is the software that is holding things up. In every project that I've worked on that included mechanical, electrical, and software components (probably a few dozen by now) it's ALWAYS the software that's been the problem, without fail. From my experience, there is a real disconnect between the engineering principles that software engineers learn in school and apply in typical software engineering jobs and the kind of methodology that is required for control systems or autonomous control systems. There are precious precious few people that have the right training and mindset for control software design. Quote
GWiz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Posted February 17, 2011 I don't see the relevance of this post to the point I was making. However, I could certainly believe that it is the software that is holding things up. In every project that I've worked on that included mechanical, electrical, and software components (probably a few dozen by now) it's ALWAYS the software that's been the problem, without fail. From my experience, there is a real disconnect between the engineering principles that software engineers learn in school and apply in typical software engineering jobs and the kind of methodology that is required for control systems or autonomous control systems. There are precious precious few people that have the right training and mindset for control software design. On this we can agree... The relevence I was conveying is that it's quite concievable that an unmanned but human or human/AI controlled multi role air frame could be the mainstay within the U.S. airforce/marines/navy/army/et al in very short order if your scenario were to play out and NOT the F-35 or any other manned airframe... Even now with all the advantages an unmanned fighter brings with it what I write on that link - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=625853 - along with the others I posted paints a pretty good picture of why going ahead with the F-35 purchase is the wrong thing for Canada to do... Please have a good read through this thread and just maybe you'll be able to see why I feel rather strongly about this... To boot it's actually a pretty enjoyable and at times rather humourous read... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.