Moonbox Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 F-22's are still in production. How many 5th Gen air superiority fighter or strike aircraft has Canada developed? The program is cancelled. The planes are prohibitively expensive. The program, overall, was a failure for anything other than experimentation and showcasing US technological expertise, which is impressive. 186 planes for how many billions spent? That's one of the most epic failures in US procurement history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 The program is canceled. The planes are prohibitively expensive. The program, overall, was a failure for anything other than experimentation and showcasing US technological expertise, which is impressive. 186 planes for how many billions spent? That's one of the most epic failures in US procurement history. The program was not just canceled because of cost but it was also determined that there is now less need for air superiority aircraft than when it was first envisioned. The F-35 will carry out the other roles at less cost. The F-22 was a big leap forward in design so more than the usual amount of troubles should have been expected. It is logical to think the F-35 will benefit greatly from the experiences learned from the F-22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) The program is cancelled. The planes are prohibitively expensive. The program, overall, was a failure for anything other than experimentation and showcasing US technological expertise, which is impressive. That's your opinion....the aircraft has not completed its authorized production run. The USAF wants to preserve all tooling just in case a restart is needed for such a collosal "failure". 186 planes for how many billions spent? That's one of the most epic failures in US procurement history. Yet Canada cannot develop and produce a single plane. It will have to buy somebody else's "failure"....again. Edited March 11, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 186 planes for how many billions spent? That's one of the most epic failures in US procurement history. Keep in mind that there are at least a few financial shenannigans going on here. The initial plan was to purchase (I think) 700 planes. They developed cost estimates based on the number of planes, including development costs. Later, they greatly reduced the number purchased. The problem is, the development costs remained the same, so the price-per-unit increased. Once that happened, people started claiming "The plane is too costly". However, had they ordered the original 700 it wouldn't have been as expensive on a per-plane basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Keep in mind that there are at least a few financial shenannigans going on here. The initial plan was to purchase (I think) 700 planes. They developed cost estimates based on the number of planes, including development costs. Later, they greatly reduced the number purchased. The problem is, the development costs remained the same, so the price-per-unit increased. Once that happened, people started claiming "The plane is too costly". However, had they ordered the original 700 it wouldn't have been as expensive on a per-plane basis. Yup...the Rooshins had the MiG-21 down to 1.5 million...11,000+ built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no1ninja Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) Yup...the Rooshins had the MiG-21 down to 1.5 million...11,000+ built. LOL, so we should double the order! If they get that much cheaper, I say we get 10X as many. Maybe we can make some money selling them to other countries who can't buy them in bulk. This might be a good investment opportunity for the country. We can be like the French, sell to anyone who can afford them. (I hope my sarcasm is evident. Silly wabbits, who quoted the per plane cost in the first place? Perhaps someone who was not entirely honest of true costs? A pitch man?) Edited March 11, 2011 by no1ninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 LOL, so we should double the order! If they get that much cheaper, I say we get 10X as many. Maybe we can make some money selling them to other countries who can't buy them in bulk. We can be like the French, sell to anyone who can afford them. MiG-21s have been shot down in droves. See: Viet-Nam & numerous Arab/Israeli wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 MiG-21s have been shot down in droves. See: Viet-Nam & numerous Arab/Israeli wars. No bull...my wife could shoot down a MiG-21 with her Toyota Corolla! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 No bull...my wife could shoot down a MiG-21 with her Toyota Corolla! MiG-23s, too...Lebanon 1982...as the Syrian Air Force found out. 86 in flames to zero Israelis...thank you McDonnell Douglas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 No bull...my wife could shoot down a MiG-21 with her Toyota Corolla! WOW... What "generation" of Corolla is that... Most be at least a 2nd, eh... All in all though, I agree, the "sustainability" of Toyota Corolla's to Mig 21s is quite high, and quite well known... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 WOW... What "generation" of Corolla is that... Most be at least a 2nd, eh... All in all though, I agree, the "sustainability" of Toyota Corolla's to Mig 21s is quite high, and quite well known... Both rust-out in the winter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Boeing Completes Production of 1st Australian Super Hornet with Provisions for Future Electronic Attack Capability - ST. LOUIS, Sept. 23, 2010 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] announced today that it has completed production of the first Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F/A-18F Super Hornet that has the capability to be converted into an electronic attack aircraft. - - The Boeing Super Hornet is a multirole aircraft, able to perform virtually every mission in the tactical spectrum, including air superiority, day/night strike with precision-guided weapons, fighter escort, close air support, suppression of enemy air defenses, maritime strike, reconnaissance, forward air control and tanker missions. Boeing has delivered more than 430 F/A-18E/Fs to the U.S. Navy. Every Super Hornet produced has been delivered on or ahead of schedule and on budget. - Why are AUSTRALIANS so much SMARTER than Canadians? Brain freeze? Isn't Australia one of the "partners" Harper refers to in his "purchase" of those few (only 65) F-35s for Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Both rust-out in the winter... ALUMINIUM RUSTS!?!? Ooops, I know TIN does... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 ALUMINIUM RUSTS!?!? Ooops, I know TIN does... The MiG-21 is a nice little jet interceptor (see 'Your Favorite Aircraft'). But, it's part of that old Soviet strategy where numbers countered quality. NATO has never been so flippant with its pilots. The MiG-21 was/is strictly short range...once it hits the Russian version of Joker Fuel, it starts getting a nasty pitch-up problem making it very hard to fly. In Soviet Russia, jet flies you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 The MiG-21 is a nice little jet interceptor (see 'Your Favorite Aircraft'). But, it's part of that old Soviet strategy where numbers countered quality. NATO has never been so flippant with its pilots. The MiG-21 was/is strictly short range...once it hits the Russian version of Joker Fuel, it starts getting a nasty pitch-up problem making it very hard to fly. Old scenario, all the way back to Korea Mig-15 vs Sabres, there was the odd "PILOT" (Russian vs Chinese) that did OK by using the Mig's climb rate and superior maneuverability to advantage... For the most part though it made for a lot of US aces... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 ALUMINIUM RUSTS!?!? Aluminum corrodes. Different colour, same result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Old scenario, all the way back to Korea Mig-15 vs Sabres, there was the odd "PILOT" (Russian vs Chinese) that did OK by using the Mig's climb rate and superior maneuverability to advantage... For the most part though it made for a lot of US aces... In Viet-Nam... The MiG-21's prime prey was the F-105 Thunderchief which it had a good chance of catching-up to. But, it was no match for the F-4 Phantom in its various versions. The older MiG-17 had a better shot at an F-4 if the N Vietnamese pilot could get the American to follow him into a tight turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Boeing Completes Production of 1st Australian Super Hornet with Provisions for Future Electronic Attack Capability ... ...Every Super Hornet produced has been delivered on or ahead of schedule and on budget. - Why are AUSTRALIANS so much SMARTER than Canadians? Brain freeze? Isn't Australia one of the "partners" Harper refers to in his "purchase" of those few (only 65) F-35s for Canada? Ummm... you do realize that the Australians are still planning on purchasing the F-35. From: http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6619 The withdrawal of the F-111 is expected in 2010 with the F/A-18F Super Hornets to be operational that same year. ... The F/A-18F Super Hornet...will ensure our air combat capability edge is maintained through the transition to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over the next decade. You see, the Australian situation is different than Canada's. Down there, their primary plane was the F-111, a plane that was originally introduced in 1967. That makes it more than a decade older than the CF-18 Hornet. They only purchased the Super Hornet as a temporary measure, because they felt the F-111 was no longer viable, and there was too much of a wait until the F-35 was available for export. Yeah, the plane was purchased on-time and on-budget, but the military there believes that the F-35 is still the "better buy". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Ummm... you do realize that the Australians are still planning on purchasing the F-35. From: http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6619 The withdrawal of the F-111 is expected in 2010 with the F/A-18F Super Hornets to be operational that same year. ... The F/A-18F Super Hornet...will ensure our air combat capability edge is maintained through the transition to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over the next decade. You see, the Australian situation is different than Canada's. Down there, their primary plane was the F-111, a plane that was originally introduced in 1967. That makes it more than a decade older than the CF-18 Hornet. They only purchased the Super Hornet as a temporary measure, because they felt the F-111 was no longer viable, and there was too much of a wait until the F-35 was available for export. Yeah, the plane was purchased on-time and on-budget, but the military there believes that the F-35 is still the "better buy". Are you trying to tell me that there are countries that can BUY and FLY planes of different types and manufacturers at the SAME TIME? Tell me it isn't so.... They couldn't possibly operate TOGETHER, people here told me... Planes become "obsolete technology" as soon as something "NEWER" hits the drawing board just like computers, people here told me that too... It's AMAZING, simply AMAZING... (ps - The Aussies are buying their F-35s without engines, they're putting in their own, AND they're looking to buy the B version, same as US marines, the one FIRST on the "chopping block" and the one driving up the costs of the other versions...) #1 - Joint Strike Fighter Affordability Failure - The JSF program sets new benchmarks for exceeding initially intended Unit Procurement Costs in a weapon system being developed. These publications detail the scope, scale and nature of the program's failure in this area. - READ IT - Even YOU may learn something (although highly doubtful)... Like I asked before, "why are Australians so much SMARTER than Canadians"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 ...Like I asked before, "why are Australians so much SMARTER than Canadians"? Because they don't need any ice road truckers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Because they don't need any ice road truckers? YOU score the FIRST point my friend... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 GWiz made an incorrect statement about the plane being "nowhere near production". I provided evidence that he was wrong, that indeed the plane was in production. The fact that the information was 2 weeks old is irrelevant... GWiz was still wrong. Well, from what I hear the U.S. air force is expecting its first shipment during 2011 (i.e. this year). It will be a small shipment (and I'm sure the U.S. will get priority for new planes for the next little while), but they are being made. http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/05/airforce_force_structure_051610W/ - An additional $4.6 billion would be added to the SDD program through its completion in 2016, on top of the $9.2 billion to go already planned by the end of 2010, for a total to go SDD cost of $13.8 billion. Through FY11 approximately $37 billion had been spent on JSF SDD. Also, the schedule would be extended so that the SDD would end in early 2016 instead of mid-2015 as planned in the 2010 JET II Revised schedule. The extra SDD funding was needed because: (A) TBR found that additional testing would be needed that was not previously planned; and ( cost estimates for previously planned testing were too low. All 3 services were to reassess their planned IOCs based on revised SDD schedule, but had not done so by January 2011 - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-program.htm YOU wouldn't happen to know what SDD means? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Are you trying to tell me that there are countries that can BUY and FLY planes of different types and manufacturers at the SAME TIME? You know, I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here. You pointed to Australia's purchase of the Superhornet as "smarter" than Canada's planned purchase of the F35. I pointed out how you failed.. that the Super hornet was only a stop-gap measure. Where does the issue of "flying different types of planes at the same time come in? The issue isn't "will the airforce have more than 1 plane at the same time". (It will since it's impractical to replace an entire fleet at the same time.) The issue is will the Australians eventually replace their entire fleet with F35s. That is currently the plan. (ps - The Aussies are buying their F-35s without engines, they're putting in their own, AND they're looking to buy the B version, same as US marines... Really? News to me, since the last I saw, they were planning on buying the A variant.... From: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/kevin-rudd-signs-off-on-purchase-of-14-f-35-joint-strike-fighters/story-e6frg8yo-1225803790418 Senator Faulkner said the government had approved acquisition of the first 14 Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) Joint Strike Fighters... Is this yet another example of you blundering? Should we add it to the list? READ IT - Even YOU may learn something (although highly doubtful).. You know, perhaps before you start accusing others of engaging in (possibly) willful ignorance, you should consider all the mistakes that you yourself have made in this thread alone. So far we have: - The F35 is nowhere near production (sorry, they've already flown their first production plane) - Australia bought the F18 instead of the F35 (sorry, its only a temporary stop-gap measure) - Australia is buying the STVL version (Sorry, looks like they're buying the CTOL version) Maybe its time you did some reading yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 You know, I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here. You pointed to Australia's purchase of the Superhornet as "smarter" than Canada's planned purchase of the F35. I pointed out how you failed.. that the Super hornet was only a stop-gap measure. Where does the issue of "flying different types of planes at the same time come in? The issue isn't "will the airforce have more than 1 plane at the same time". (It will since it's impractical to replace an entire fleet at the same time.) The issue is will the Australians eventually replace their entire fleet with F35s. That is currently the plan. Really? News to me, since the last I saw, they were planning on buying the A variant.... From: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/kevin-rudd-signs-off-on-purchase-of-14-f-35-joint-strike-fighters/story-e6frg8yo-1225803790418 Senator Faulkner said the government had approved acquisition of the first 14 Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) Joint Strike Fighters... Is this yet another example of you blundering? Should we add it to the list? You know, perhaps before you start accusing others of engaging in (possibly) willful ignorance, you should consider all the mistakes that you yourself have made in this thread alone. So far we have: - The F35 is nowhere near production (sorry, they've already flown their first production plane) - Australia bought the F18 instead of the F35 (sorry, its only a temporary stop-gap measure) - Australia is buying the STVL version (Sorry, looks like they're buying the CTOL version) Maybe its time you did some reading yourself. sar·casm   /ˈsɑrkæzəm/ Show Spelled [sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony. 2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms. Save it for NEXT TIME... PronunciationIPA: /pɹəˈdʌkʃən/, SAMPA: /pr\@"dVkS@n/ Audio (US) (file) Audio (UK) (file) [edit] Nounproduction (plural productions) 6.that which is manufactured or is ready for manufacturing in volume (as opposed to a prototype or conceptual model) This is the final production model. PLEASE go back to playing in your sandbox... You're even more stupid and less knowledgeble here than you were there... Therefore even more boring... If you want to LEARN, fine, but don't try to make out you know things you know NOTHING about... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 ....PLEASE go back to playing in your sandbox... You're even more stupid and less knowledgeble here than you were there... Therefore even more boring... If you want to LEARN, fine, but don't try to make out you know things you know NOTHING about... Sorry my new planeless friend....whenever member segnosaur decides to engage, you are toast but just don't know it yet. 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.