Production F-35s start rolling off the line

[PIK]

I am sure when the people that know what is going on comes out and says it will not fly,then harper will cancell it, but he sure is not going to cancell it because topaz or the star says they are no good.

[GostHacked]

Once again we see the failure of logic! You can logically prove anything if you don't have all the facts!

Of course, it's not logic I'm slamming here. Many folks do not have enough info to hold a qualified opinion. However, they are reasonably bright and make the mistake of putting together what seems a logical argument from their perspective of ignorance.

The idea of having a spare engine seems entirely logical to the uninitiated, who have no idea of how such engines or aircraft actually WORK or any direct, hands on experience!

I remember how during the CB radio craze of the 70's how so many CB'ers would mount two antennae on their car. Invariably, if you asked them why they would tell you "Well, two gets out twice as good as one!"

Having a fair bit of REAL technical understanding of such antennae, I knew that this was baloney! The idea of having two antennae came from big trucking rigs, who would mount their CB antenna on a side mirror. Because of the bulk of the trailer this would block the signal towards the other side. Having a second antennae on the other side would fill in the pattern. What's more, the way they were fed power would cause some phase difference, in that the pattern would no longer be circular but more of a "butterfly - figure 8", so that the antennae would work better front and back and less so to the sides. This meant better communication with other trucks up ahead, which was usually more important to a driver.

Anyhow, one day a CB'er came into our local coffee shop. He pulled up in a Volkswagon beetle, with two florescent orange 9' CB whip antennae on the front bumper. It looked like a REAL beetle!

He came swaggering in with a CB walkie talkie on each hip, with the whips extended! Everyone in line promptly moved away from him, for fear of getting poked in an eye.

My friends at the table all hid smiles, knowing that I would not be able to resist. I waved at the gentleman and said "I see by your car you're a CB operator! I was wondering why you have 2 antennae?"

The CB'er hitched up his pants, puffed out his chest and said in return "Well, of course 2 gets out twice as good as one!"

I replied "Gee, then why don't you use 4? Or 8? Hey, with 16 I bet you could talk to Tierre Del Fuego!"

The CB'er scowled, grabbed his coffee and stormed out the door, without a word.

Looking back, I feel a bit sorry for him. He held a belief that seemed perfectly logical to one who had no actual knowledge of radio electronics. Few CB'ers actually did, since it was a service for operators, not technicians. If they actually know any electronics they tend to become ham radio operators.

So, if two engines are safer why not install 4? Or 8? Or 16?

Or a bigger gas tank so they don't run out and get stranded in the air!

So the trucker antennae scenario is equated to military fighter craft with two engines? Not to mention that the failure rate of F-18s crashing could be more attributed to the maintenance program not being up to par.

But you may have a point. That was not always the case, so technology has improved greatly.

http://f-35.ca/2011/one-engine-versus-two/

[Wild Bill]

So the trucker antennae scenario is equated to military fighter craft with two engines? Not to mention that the failure rate of F-18s crashing could be more attributed to the maintenance program not being up to par.

But you may have a point. That was not always the case, so technology has improved greatly.

http://f-35.ca/2011/one-engine-versus-two/

No, the trucker antennae scenario equates to many people arriving at what seems to be a logical conclusion but is totally wrong because they didn't know or understand all the facts.

I guess that is what makes an educated or considered opinion more valuable.

[Alberta_Ford]

I thought it was a good analogy. Informative as well. As I understand it with one engine we have the risk of losing engine power due power failure. If there was a second it would also fail or if it was shot and damaged a second might possibly have a chance of carrying on but the plane is not very mobile and damaged at that point. I guess the designers settled on the extra efficiency gained by less weight and less fuel consumption. Remember in theory it's not suppose to dogfight its supposed to acquire targets from distance without being tracked. If it ends up working that way its sound logic. The f22 has two engines and was there flagship so why would they have changed the format for a similarly intended purposed fighter if it couldn't do the job intended. Possibly it's more effectively with one engine.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Alberta_Ford

[Moonbox]

I am sure when the people that know what is going on comes out and says it will not fly,then harper will cancell it, but he sure is not going to cancell it because topaz or the star says they are no good.

I thought they were the same thing. Doesn't Topaz work for the Star or something? Sure seems like it....

[Wiggum]

In my biased opinion Id sure like to see some of this cash go into SAR. Being the only military service that deals daily with Canadians it could sure use a bit of thought...maybe that's another thread though.

[Alberta_Ford]

In my biased opinion Id sure like to see some of this cash go into SAR. Being the only military service that deals daily with Canadians it could sure use a bit of thought...maybe that's another thread though.

Sar-techs are outstanding. Its interesting as a specialty in the military which does not require much equipment at all. They don't carry weapons or anything. Just a fleet of helicopters is all they really use its not like the army which use dozens of different vehicles. They should have a purpose built all weather helicopter to better withstand storms than the variant of the griffon they use.

[Wiggum]

Sar-techs are outstanding. Its interesting as a specialty in the military which does not require much equipment at all. They don't carry weapons or anything. Just a fleet of helicopters is all they really use its not like the army which use dozens of different vehicles. They should have a purpose built all weather helicopter to better withstand storms than the variant of the griffon they use.

Yup, the Griffon is a joke for SAR...2 hour flight time(SAR Config) and good luck if you have more then one critically ill patient to take care of, there's no room.

The Cormorant is good, but there was some major "cheaping out" on a lot of mods that are now causing issue. The Buffalo and Hercules(planes) are still being used as well. The Buff has been falling apart for years...to the point that they have been unable to hold primary SAR on some nights. Sar Techs have tonnes of gear however getting "cutting edge" stuff is painfully slow. I would like to see a boost to the whole SAR program.

[Wilber]

I thought it was a good analogy. Informative as well. As I understand it with one engine we have the risk of losing engine power due power failure. If there was a second it would also fail or if it was shot and damaged a second might possibly have a chance of carrying on but the plane is not very mobile and damaged at that point. I guess the designers settled on the extra efficiency gained by less weight and less fuel consumption. Remember in theory it's not suppose to dogfight its supposed to acquire targets from distance without being tracked. If it ends up working that way its sound logic. The f22 has two engines and was there flagship so why would they have changed the format for a similarly intended purposed fighter if it couldn't do the job intended. Possibly it's more effectively with one engine.

The F-35 is a smaller lighter aircraft than the F-22 and it has a more powerful engine. The F-35's P&W F135 is the most powerful engine ever put in a fighter aircraft. While the F-35A's thrust to weight ratio is not as high as the F-22's, it can carry almost identical amounts of fuel and payload.

The F-22 is intended to be primarily an air superiority aircraft whereas the F-35 is to be a Jack of all trades. The F-35 is intended to be a multi roll aircraft to be used by all three services in conventional, carrier and STOVL roles. Because Canada hasn't the desire to accept the expense of operating more than one type of fighter, we are stuck with selecting the best Jack of all trades that is available and because we historically expect at least 30 years of life from whatever we do buy, we need to get the most up to date aircraft we can. This should apply to all the aircraft we buy for the military, not just fighters. Kind of like PC's, the better one you buy, the less often you will have to replace it. This is why I applauded the government for going with the C-17 in spite of its cost, because it is simply the best in its roll.

The F-35B is intended to replace the Harrier and the engine has to power a lift fan for takeoff and landing as well has having a thrust vectoring nozzle on the engine exhaust. This makes a single engine layout the only practical system. Trying to do the same thing with a twin engine layout would be more complex and heavy. This is a bit of a plus for the F-35A because it will benefit a lot from all the weight saving techniques and engine power required to make the F-35B viable in a STOVL role.

[Keepitsimple]

Although sceptics and naysayers like the CBC focus almost exclusively on the purchase price of the aircraft, the program's real bargain will be in the maintenance. Traditionally, 50% of all maintenance is for engines so you can see right away that there are huge savings in having one engine instead of two. A second important area is that 95% of the parts are plug-and-play.....you don't have to remove other parts to get at the one that's being replaced. And thirdly, spare parts will be readily available because of all the countries that are using the plane......and generally, the parts will be cheaper because of the number that will be produced.

[jbg]

Yes, the Tories will go ahead and buying this jet and only time and money will show if the opposition parties and some US experts where right or wrong. If they are wrong no harm done, but if they where right, the Tories will pay down the road. This jet is not right for Canada, but the Tories will be using it with NATO and the US when they decide which Middle-Eastern country is to be attacked. Watch the cost of this jet sky-rocket with the maintenance.

If Canada is a functioning member of NATO how is jet not "right for Canada"?

[Guest Derek L]

If Canada is a functioning member of NATO how is jet not "right for Canada"?

Indeed………And I’d love to hear what those “experts” that are opposed to the purchase, would replace our Hornets with……

[Wild Bill]

Indeed………And I’d love to hear what those “experts” that are opposed to the purchase, would replace our Hornets with……

They wouldn't replace them at all, Derek! Or they would go with something cheap but useless, as a symbolic gesture rather than an actual solution.

These critics see no need for Canada to have any effective military force at all. If they got their way, we would have none. Of course, if we then actually needed some effective force they would be nowhere around to take the blame. In effect, if they get their way and are wrong we ALL suffer, with no hope of avoiding the pain!

Certainly, if we ever needed someone to defend us they would be worse than useless.

[Guest Derek L]

They wouldn't replace them at all, Derek! Or they would go with something cheap but useless, as a symbolic gesture rather than an actual solution.

These critics see no need for Canada to have any effective military force at all. If they got their way, we would have none. Of course, if we then actually needed some effective force they would be nowhere around to take the blame. In effect, if they get their way and are wrong we ALL suffer, with no hope of avoiding the pain!

Certainly, if we ever needed someone to defend us they would be worse than useless.

My thoughts exactly Bill.

[jbg]

Certainly, if we ever needed someone to defend us they would be worse than useless.

Trudeau was happy to rely on the U.S., who he supposedly hated, for his defense. Then again he relied upon Harvard for his legal education. In English.

[Guest Derek L]

Trudeau was happy to rely on the U.S., who he supposedly hated, for his defense. Then again he relied upon Harvard for his legal education. In English.

Indeed.......Or as Bill said, none at all……..Ironic that I’m having a debate with a “progressive” in the NORAD thread over his belief that NORAD dropped the ball on 9/11

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Trudeau was happy to rely on the U.S., who he supposedly hated, for his defense. Then again he relied upon Harvard for his legal education. In English.

I don't think Trudeau relied on American defense as much as many think. Keep in mind he was following the guy who created "Peace Keepers". He was hemmed in a tad too much by this Liberal Party approach.