Harper's 16 Billion Dollar Fighter Jet Purchase Plan

bush_cheney2004 · December 21, 2010

Doesn't anybody else worry about spending $130 on an apparently multirole fighter that, aside from stealth, will barely compete with 4th gen fighters in the air??

Nobody?

Nope....did you worry when the Americans built the F-22 with a modest ground attack capability too?

Its only advantage is stealth and being able to launch BVR before its enemies see it. Combine the F-35's low service ceiling and the fact that it carries only TWO air-to-air weapons, however, and it's unlikely that it's going to enjoy a great kill ratio against the most modern Russian-built fighters.

How many kills do modern "Russian-built" fighters have in the past 25 years?

Bush you keep saying that the F-35 isn't meant to fill the air-superiority role. My question then, is what plane IS going to fill that for the USA moving forward? The only thing I can think of is the <200 F-22's, which can't even fly off of carriers.

Again, the US has a mix of multiple platforms...old and new... as it transitions to the newer type. The US Navy is still procuring Super Hornets, as is Australia (to hedge their F-35 bets). The US Air Force will keep about 400 F-15s in service beyond 2025. Reserve units have numerous current types in service. Canada is a one trick pony in this regard with fewer options.

M.Dancer · December 21, 2010

Canada is a one trick pony in this regard with fewer options.

And has been since the Hornets replaced the Voodoos Freedom Fighters and Starfighters...

Moonbox · December 21, 2010

Nope....did you worry when the Americans built the F-22 with a modest ground attack capability too?

How many kills do modern "Russian-built" fighters have in the past 25 years?

A pointless question really. Niether NATO nor Russian built fighters have been tested over the last 30 years in any sort of realistic conflict.

Again, the US has a mix of multiple platforms...old and new... as it transitions to the newer type. The US Navy is still procuring Super Hornets, as is Australia (to hedge their F-35 bets). The US Air Force will keep about 400 F-15s in service beyond 2025. Reserve units have numerous current types in service. Canada is a one trick pony in this regard with fewer options.

Even you should be able to see a gap in terms of air superiority moving into 2025. At that time you'll have 180 F-22's and then a number of ancient F-15's. Perhaps air superiority is not a priority for NATO moving forward. I'm sure we'll be able to beat down third world desert rats and impoverished mini dictators through 2030, and maybe that's all the US is preparing for.

bush_cheney2004 · December 21, 2010

A pointless question really. Niether NATO nor Russian built fighters have been tested over the last 30 years in any sort of realistic conflict.

The pilots flying sorties during the Gulf War and Operation Allied Force would disagree.

Even you should be able to see a gap in terms of air superiority moving into 2025. At that time you'll have 180 F-22's and then a number of ancient F-15's. Perhaps air superiority is not a priority for NATO moving forward. I'm sure we'll be able to beat down third world desert rats and impoverished mini dictators through 2030, and maybe that's all the US is preparing for.

Yea...even I can see that. What are those stupid Americans thinking compared to your expert quadrennial projections time four out to 2025? Don't they know that the F-35 must be all things to all conflicts just because Canada can only buy one platform?

Moonbox · December 21, 2010

The pilots flying sorties during the Gulf War and Operation Allied Force would disagree.

Oh please. Using the Gulf War as proof of American pre-eminence in the air is pretty laughable. I'll not argue that pre-eminence, but I will argue that the Gulf War proved anything. That was a world super power of 300 million beating up on a 3rd world sand pot of 30 million. The Iraqis barely even fought back, nor did they have the numbers to even try.

Yea...even I can see that. What are those stupid Americans thinking compared to your expert quadrennial projections time four out to 2025? Don't they know that the F-35 must be all things to all conflicts just because Canada can only buy one platform?

I've already said I don't really care about what Canada does. As far as we're concerned the US looks after most of our defensive needs by mere proximity.

I already asked you what the Americans will be doing to guarantee air superiority through 2025 and beyond. At the moment it doesn't really look like they have a plan. Perhaps the answer is that they don't need one? I'd perhaps accept that answer if indeed it looked like sexy air combat was a thing of the past, I just don't know if that's the truth.

William Ashley · December 21, 2010

I already asked you what the Americans will be doing to guarantee air superiority through 2025 and beyond. At the moment it doesn't really look like they have a plan. Perhaps the answer is that they don't need one? I'd perhaps accept that answer if indeed it looked like sexy air combat was a thing of the past, I just don't know if that's the truth.

If you read US military briefings the answer is pretty clear - order some shiny jets and largely start developing drones.

Also there are a variety of "emergent" anti air techs.

The speed of engagement is the real problem. It goes back to the whole counter strike - strike premise.

bush_cheney2004 · December 21, 2010

Oh please. Using the Gulf War as proof of American pre-eminence in the air is pretty laughable. I'll not argue that pre-eminence, but I will argue that the Gulf War proved anything. That was a world super power of 300 million beating up on a 3rd world sand pot of 30 million. The Iraqis barely even fought back, nor did they have the numbers to even try.

Your memory is a bit spotty on this, as is your understanding of AAW, planes shot down, POWs, etc.

I've already said I don't really care about what Canada does. As far as we're concerned the US looks after most of our defensive needs by mere proximity.

Then why are you posting to this thread? If you don't care?

I already asked you what the Americans will be doing to guarantee air superiority through 2025 and beyond. At the moment it doesn't really look like they have a plan. Perhaps the answer is that they don't need one? I'd perhaps accept that answer if indeed it looked like sexy air combat was a thing of the past, I just don't know if that's the truth.

The Americans have already announced their plans...without your approval. Is that OK with you in Canada? Jeezzus...

M.Dancer · December 21, 2010

Oh please. Using the Gulf War as proof of American pre-eminence in the air is pretty laughable. I'll not argue that pre-eminence, but I will argue that the Gulf War proved anything. That was a world super power of 300 million beating up on a 3rd world sand pot of 30 million. The Iraqis barely even fought back, nor did they have the numbers to even try.

Never the less, 60+ aircraft were lost or damaged, none of which incorporated stealth technology.

http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html

Moonbox · December 21, 2010

Your memory is a bit spotty on this, as is your understanding of AAW, planes shot down, POWs, etc.

Your glibness is a credit to your argument. Nonetheless, the USA vs Iraq proved nothing other than that a well-equipped and modern super-power can wipe the floor with a poorly trained, poorly organized and poorly equipped third world army.

Then why are you posting to this thread? If you don't care?

I'm more concerned with what NATO and the Americans are doing and how unimpressive the aircraft appears to be aside from bomb trucking.

The Americans have already announced their plans...without your approval. Is that OK with you in Canada? Jeezzus...

Subject to change...as usual lol

bush_cheney2004 · December 21, 2010

Your glibness is a credit to your argument. Nonetheless, the USA vs Iraq proved nothing other than that a well-equipped and modern super-power can wipe the floor with a poorly trained, poorly organized and poorly equipped third world army.

It wasn't just the USA...see the coalition order of battle and the emphasis on strike missions, A-10 attack sorties, and CAP.

I'm more concerned with what NATO and the Americans are doing and how unimpressive the aircraft appears to be aside from bomb trucking.

Again...why are you concerned?

Subject to change...as usual lol

Never subject to change in Canada?

xul · December 21, 2010

Never the less, 60+ aircraft were lost or damaged, none of which incorporated stealth technology.

http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html

Canada has lost xxx soldiers in Afghanistan.

1xx rank under second lieutenant

01x rank under major

001 ranks colonel

000 ranks general

So, should DND promote all Canadian soldiers to generals to protect them from being killed in battle field?

In the Gulf War, there were only a few F-117 among 1000+ other coalition aircrafts. F-117s were used to drop precise-guided bombs from above 10,000 meters altitude so they were safe, because no AAA could effectively reach such high and the radars of SAMs were easier to be jammed if the distance between the targets and the radar antennae was farther. Other planes sometimes had to drop conventional bombs so they had to fly lower than F-117 so they were easily to be targeted--especially by AAAs because they could be massive fired by entirely trajectory so radar jamming was useless.

I don't mean a stealth plane is no better than a conventional plane. I just mean we should do some analysis when we read the ad leaflets of Lockheed's and pentagon's. F-117 was the only plane lost in Kosovo War. It isn't a proof that stealth planes are inferior than other planes.

Edited December 21, 2010 by xul

M.Dancer · December 22, 2010

Canada has lost xxx soldiers in Afghanistan.

1xx rank under second lieutenant

01x rank under major

001 ranks colonel

000 ranks general

So, should DND promote all Canadian soldiers to generals to protect them from being killed in battle field?

That would be funnier if the logic was sound. Having very few in action does not mean very few missions were flown.

In the Gulf War, there were only a few F-117 among 1000+ other coalition aircrafts. F-117s were used to drop precise-guided bombs from above 10,000 meters altitude so they were safe, because no AAA could effectively reach such high and the radars of SAMs were easier to be jammed if the distance between the targets and the radar antennae was farther.

Mission planners targeted the F-117A against critical strategic Iraqi command and control installations. Other key targets assigned to the 37th TFW(P) included key communications centers; research, development, production, and storage facilities for nuclear and chemical weapons; and a variety of other targets--especially hardened aircraft shelters at numerous Iraqi airfields.

As a coalitions workhorse, the F-117A logged nearly 1,300 combat sorties while flying 6,905 combat flying hours. During their mission, the F-117A pilots delivered over 2,000 tons of precision-guided ordnance with a hit rate of better than 80 percent.

Although the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing Provisional and its 42 stealth fighters represented just 2 1/2 percent of all allied fighter and attack aircraft in the Gulf, the F-117As were assigned against more than 31 percent of the strategic Iraqi military targets attacked during the first 24 hours of the air campaign.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/stealth.html

That's 31% of the missions. Did they account for 31% of the losses during that period? No, they accounted for ZERO percent.

F-117 was the only plane lost in Kosovo War. It isn't a proof that stealth planes are inferior than other planes.

That's proof you can get lucky

Smallc · December 22, 2010

Doesn't anybody else worry about spending $130 on an apparently multirole fighter that, aside from stealth, will barely compete with 4th gen fighters in the air??

No, because you can't get any better than the human body allows. This plane will be as good as, if not better than the Hornet in every possible way other than speed.

dre · December 22, 2010

The first F-35 rolled off the production lines in 2006, the first new SU-35 (whose performance specs you are talking about) in 2008. Russia does have a faster prototype to production cycle though.

The cost is more like 50%, not 25%. The estimated cost of the SU-35 is "45 million - 65 million" while the F-35 is "89 million - 130 million" (for the air force variant), with Lockheed Martin promising to reduce that by ~20% over time. And much of the cost difference is likely due to the differences in labour costs, quality assurance, and standards compliance in Russia vs the US.

How they match in an actual air-to-air scenario is as yet entirely unknown.

0/3...

Anyway, if you think the F-35 isn't a good enough fighter, then feel free to campaign for us to develop our own better fighter, or change US law so we can buy F-22s instead, or for Canada to get an airforce consisting of multiple different aircraft that fill different roles.

Id just buy the planes we need. The vast majority of what our airforce does is fly routine patrol missions over Canada and be on standby to shoot down civilian airliners. Im not an aircraft procurement expert but from what I can tell you could get a plane capable of doing that for about 30-60 million bux.

As far as the whole "global socialism - police the world!" (UN, NATO, ETC) thing, we can buy stuff for that if/when we have some actual money to spend and we wont be borrowing all of it.

Edited December 22, 2010 by dre

xul · December 22, 2010

http://www.pbs.org/w...ns/stealth.html

That's 31% of the missions. Did they account for 31% of the losses during that period? No, they accounted for ZERO percent.

I think you have missed the adjective "strategic". Who would believe that merely 50- F117s did the 31% jobs and rest 1000+ only did 69%? Their boss Bush the First would fire them for their laziness and I wish Lockheed would have 1000+ well-paid doorkeeper vacations to fit all these unemployed pilots in.

A strategic target means it is very important or very valuable. It's only a small part of all targets. Though a strategic target is supposed to be well protected, but the attacker is also well prepared. Since the US technology is far more advanced than Iraq, I bet even if they flew a B-52 over these targets Iraqis also couldn't shoot it down.

To a pilot, the riskiest task is to drop conventional bombs. He has to fly lower with lower speed, so his plane is easy to be targeted by conventional weapons. Some soldiers got killed in Somalia and Afghanistan because their helicopters were shot down by LPGs, which aren't anti-aircraft weapons at all, when they flew too close to the ground.

Although the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing Provisional and its 42 stealth fighters represented just 2 1/2 percent of all allied fighter and attack aircraft in the Gulf, the F-117As were assigned against more than 31 percent of the strategic Iraqi military targets attacked during the first 24 hours of the air campaign.

Edited December 22, 2010 by xul

bush_cheney2004 · December 22, 2010

.... F-117 was the only plane lost in Kosovo War. It isn't a proof that stealth planes are inferior than other planes.

This is not true....at least one F-16C was shot down as well as many UAVs. Dutch F-16's downed at least 3 MiG-29's. Other losses and damaged aircraft are not confirmed by NATO or Serbia.

Edited December 22, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

M.Dancer · December 22, 2010

I think you have missed the adjective "strategic".

Yeah? so what...1300 sorties...31 % off the missions against heavily defended targets...no losses...

Moonbox · December 22, 2010

No, because you can't get any better than the human body allows. This plane will be as good as, if not better than the Hornet in every possible way other than speed.

A bad argument. The human body allows significantly more flight performance than the F-35 can handle. The F-22 has human pilots. So does the Su-35. So will the Pak-FA.

The F-35 is built and designed to beat up on the Third World. It's great for that, but not much else. This is an aggressors weapon, not something you use to defend your own airspace.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Moonbox

Smallc · December 22, 2010

The F-35 is built and designed to beat up on the Third World. It's great for that, but not much else. This is an aggressors weapon, not something you use to defend your own airspace.

Really? And you know this for certain, how? The governments of more than a few countries seem to disagree with your opinion, so I'm going to say that it can't be entirely correct. The F-16 is still a very good air to air combat weapon. The F-35 combines the ability to attack ground and air and it is supposed to do the combination of each better than . That is what Canada needs, and that is what Canada has right now in the CF-188. I'm not sure why you think that we should change our general philosophy. Us having a dogfight with russian aircraft is very unlikely...and the PAK-FA is still pretty much a figment of someones imagination.

M.Dancer · December 22, 2010

That is what Canada needs, and that is what Canada has right now in the CF-188.

Having a single platform to do multiple roles isn't so much as a need but a choice. We once not that long ago flew 3 differnt warplanes before the Hornet was acquired. Generally jack of all trades are masters of none.

Us having a dogfight with russian aircraft is very unlikely...

Lets see..we flew combat missions in FRY and in Iraq where meeting a russian craft was very likely. In the event that another war occurs ( which is why we have an airforce ) all the potential belligerents fly russian or russian variations.

Moonbox · December 22, 2010

Really? And you know this for certain, how? The governments of more than a few countries seem to disagree with your opinion, so I'm going to say that it can't be entirely correct.

It has a single engine. It has low speed, low thrust and a low service cieling and can only carry one air-to-air weapon.

The F-16 is still a very good air to air combat weapon. The F-35 combines the ability to attack ground and air and it is supposed to do the combination of each better than . That is what Canada needs, and that is what Canada has right now in the CF-188.

The F-35 will be a VERY good strike craft when it comes out, but only an adequate fighter. With the original cost projection, this would have been reasonable. The program has turned into a bit of a debacle, however, and we're looking at a $130 million bomb truck that won't be able to cope in the air with foreign models that are already on the market, let alone ones coming online in the near future.

I'm not sure why you think that we should change our general philosophy. Us having a dogfight with russian aircraft is very unlikely

Well with that philosophy why bother with a multi-role fighter at all? Obviously it's still a concern. The F-35 stinks of design compromise.

Us having a dogfight with russian aircraft is very unlikely...and the PAK-FA is still pretty much a figment of someones imagination.

The PAK-FA is no more a figment of my imagination than the F-35 is. The first F-35 flew in 2006. The first PAK-FA flew in 2010.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Moonbox

bush_cheney2004 · December 22, 2010

It has a single engine. It has low speed, low thrust and a low service cieling and can only carry one air-to-air weapon.

All by design.

....that won't be able to cope in the air with foreign models that are already on the market, let alone ones coming online in the near future.

....but are they good "bomb trucks"? Nope.

Well with that philosophy why bother with a multi-role fighter at all? Obviously it's still a concern. The F-35 stinks of design compromise.

Then design and build something better.

YEGmann · December 22, 2010

The human body allows significantly more flight performance than the F-35 can handle.

This is a ridiculously wrong statement.

Trained human capability to control an airpalne is limited to 8g vertical acceleration. This limit is embedded into design standards worldwide.

The F-35 is not an exclusion. During a test, the airframe sustained the worst case load factor of 13.5 without failure, i.e., 150% of a trained human capability.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1276156944/last-1276196038/F-35+Airframe+verified+to+150+percent+of+design+limits+or+13.5+G's+(force+of+gravity)

The F-35 is built and designed to beat up on the Third World. It's great for that, but not much else. This is an aggressors weapon, not something you use to defend your own airspace.

Wrong. Stealth features and BVR AA missiles make F-35 an excellent fighter aircraft.

Edited December 22, 2010 by YEGmann

YEGmann · December 22, 2010

It has low speed, low thrust and a low service cieling and can only carry .

Compare to what? Where did you get this crap? What do you mean "one air-to-air weapon"?

The PAK-FA is no more a figment of my imagination than the F-35 is. The first F-35 flew in 2006. The first PAK-FA flew in 2010.

It certainly is. In 2010 flew a tin can with obsolete engines, a successive clone of Su-27. Ah, they called it PAK FA, T-50, whatever... There is only superficial stealth features. The RCS is large. Flying performances are inferior to Su-27. There is no avionics in it. The weaponry for it has to be designed yet. It is clear now that the airframe will be redesigned. It is a prototype of a prototype at best.