Production F-35s start rolling off the line

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know what FMS is.

FMS = Foreign Military Sales (applies to all nations except Canada)

Aren't F-16's so yesterday?

Nope....F-16's are still in production after delivery of over 4,000 aircraft. Block upgrades over the years provide a very cost effective, multi-role platform. It even has the best web site....F-16.net!

http://www.f-16.net/

[RNG]

FMS = Foreign Military Sales (applies to all nations except Canada)

Nope....F-16's are still in production after delivery of over 4,000 aircraft. Block upgrades over the years provide a very cost effective, multi-role platform. It even has the best web site....F-16.net!

http://www.f-16.net/

Come on .... 35 >>>>>>> 16. Who are you trying to kid. :)

Why did the server or whatever cause my middle "" show up as it did?

Edited May 21, 2011 by RNG

[bush_cheney2004]

Come on .... 35 >>>>>>> 16. Who are you trying to kid. :)

Some nations can't buy fine wine on a beer budget, and that might include Canada.

Why did the server or whatever cause my middle "" show up as it did?

You mean like this: :)

[RNG]

Seriously, are you saying the '16's are as good or better than the '35's?

Edited May 21, 2011 by RNG

[Guest Derek L]

Some nations can't buy fine wine on a beer budget, and that might include Canada.

That'll never happen......maybe 10 years ago a purchase/lease of some Rhinos or Falcons would have been prudent/possible with some foresight as opposed to upgrading the current Hornet fleet to C/D standard 10+ years too late, thus allowing us to push back the replacement into the 2020s………but hey, that would only have made sense.

[bush_cheney2004]

Seriously, are you saying the '16's are as good or better than the '35's?

Hardly...I am saying they are cheaper than F-35's. That's why they are still in production.

[bush_cheney2004]

That'll never happen......maybe 10 years ago a purchase/lease of some Rhinos or Falcons would have been prudent/possible with some foresight as opposed to upgrading the current Hornet fleet to C/D standard 10+ years too late, thus allowing us to push back the replacement into the 2020s………but hey, that would only have made sense.

Hey...we've been over this many times here...there is something about Canadian military aircraft procurements (fixed or rotary wing) that just defies logic. Cheaper just to pay cancellation fees I guess.

Cue Avro Arrow ....

[dre]

There are mines & towns there now. Are you suggesting that we put towns there just to have more towns there or would there be another reason for their existence?

No Im saying that if we develop that territory we'll have a better chance of keeping it.

[Guest Derek L]

Hey...we've been over this many times here...there is something about Canadian military aircraft procurements (fixed or rotary wing) that just defies logic. Cheaper just to pay cancellation fees I guess.

Cue Avro Arrow ....

Fixed that for you

As for the Arrow, if we look at the entire project objectively, binning it was the right call. A high performance interceptor that would have cost a fortune and entered service in the early 60s was akin to Union Pacific building the Big Boy during the birth of the diesel era. The Voodoos we’re more than adequate for our NORAD commitments during the 60s and early 70s………..Now having the BOMARCs with sawdust warheads…..that’s a different storey…….

Ultimately, we should have standardized in the early 60s with the F-4…..would have met both our NORAD and NATO commitments, and with it’s long production run and upgrades, would have been viable into the late 80s early 90s…….As they say, hindsight is 20/20.

[Guest Derek L]

No Im saying that if we develop that territory we'll have a better chance of keeping it.

Kinda like the Chicomm's stratgey?

http://www.taipanpublishinggroup.com/tpg/taipan-daily/taipan-daily-052011.html

If you build it, they will come?

[RNG]

WRT the Arrow, a friend of mine who flew both CF-104's and CF-18's told me that there were two reasons the Arrow was cancelled. Which is more important, he didn't say. The Arrow was purely an interceptor aimed at taking out Soviet bombers but then the bastards invented ICBM's. And Kennedy hated Diefenbaker and swore to keep all the western allies from buying them. And with their western world political influence at the time it was a real danger. With only supplying the RCAF, the unit cost was ridiculous.

The question I still have though, is why wasn't at least one sent to a museum.

Edited May 21, 2011 by RNG

[Guest Derek L]

WRT the Arrow, a friend of mine who flew both CF-104's and CF-18's told me that there were two reasons the Arrow was cancelled. Which is more important, he didn't say. The Arrow was purely an interceptor aimed at taking out Soviet bombers but then the bastards invented ICBM's. And Kennedy hated Diefenbaker and swore to keep all the western allies from buying them. And with their western world political influence at the time it was a real danger. With only supplying the RCAF, the unit cost was ridiculous.

The question I still have though, is why wasn't at least one sent to a museum.

The first part is very true, in that the Arrow was thoroughbred interceptor, and though the Soviets/Russians still have intercontinental bombers, and we still maintain interceptors for NORAD, the degree of sophistication required to intercept subsonic bombers in the 60s was more economically met with (As is now) more conventional, all weather fighter with a half decent fire control system….hence the Voodoo.

As for the second part (it was Ike not JFK) one can only really speculate. At the time, the United States, United Kingdom and France all had modern aerospace industries, and all had aircraft programs that met or exceeded the Avro Arrow…….I’d tend to think there could be some merit to the storey, but for the most part, I think it stems from insecurity based anti-Americanism, dressed in the guise of Canadian nationalism……Those damn Yanks stole our plane sounds better than we produced the best obsolete aircraft don’t you think….

As for why none in a museum, that’s probably a combination of political bridge burning and fear of the Red menace getting their paws on the technology.

[Guest Derek L]

And Ill add in fairness, the one role that it might really have excelled in (outside of being an interceptor), ironically, would have been in the delivery of tactical battlefield nukes in the Fulda Gap.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Derek L

[RNG]

You're right about it being Ike. Minor brain-fart there. Sorry.

[Battletoads]

We ought to start a pool, who can predict what the cost per unit will be for these f35s

[RNG]

We ought to start a pool, who can predict what the cost per unit will be for these f35s

Whatever the price, still cheaper than paying the cancellation penalty, then buying them 10 years down the road at an inflated price.

[Guest Derek L]

We ought to start a pool, who can predict what the cost per unit will be for these f35s

I'll predict that after we look at the costs of Canadianizing them (Drag chutes and Probe & drogue refuelling) well end up buying the F-35C (carrier version) tacked on to the USN order, only to find out after the fact when we replace our Airbus tankers, the Boeing KC-46 boom tanker is the cheapest option……..

Per plane cost = 87 million

Cost per plane with lifetime support = ~ 460 million

So let it be written, so it shall be done.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Derek L

[Wilber]

I'll predict that after we look at the costs of “Canadianizing” them (Drag chutes and Probe & drogue refuelling) we’ll end up buying the F-35C (carrier version) tacked on to the USN order, only to find out after the fact when we replace our Airbus tankers, the Boeing KC-46 “boom” tanker is the cheapest option……..

Per plane cost = 87 million

Cost per plane with lifetime support = ~ 460 million

So let it be written, so it shall be done.

Just about any aircraft can be converted for use as a probe and drogue tanker. Our present A310 tankers are converted Wardair/Canadian Airlines passenger aircraft. Much harder to convert to a boom tanker. The KC10 boom operator's window was the largest pressurized window in any aircraft built at the time and maybe still is. The KC10 also has probe and drogue capability.

It is hard to imagine the KC-46 not being offered with at least the option. Not only would the US be buying 100 tankers that cannot refuel their own navy's aircraft, they would be excluding themselves from exporting these things to any country who's military uses probe and drogue refueling. Probe and drogue also allows us the ability to use our C-130's as tankers.

[Guest Derek L]

Just about any aircraft can be converted for use as a probe and drogue tanker. Our present A310 tankers are converted Wardair/Canadian Airlines passenger aircraft. Much harder to convert to a boom tanker. The KC10 boom operator's window was the largest pressurized window in any aircraft built at the time and maybe still is. The KC10 also has probe and drogue capability.

It is hard to imagine the KC-46 not being offered with at least the option. Not only would the US be buying 100 tankers that cannot refuel their own navy's aircraft, they would be excluding themselves from exporting these things to any country who's military uses probe and drogue refueling. Probe and drogue also allows us the ability to use our C-130's as tankers.

Yes, I know, the post was partly in jest

That said, the USAF, Reserve and Air National Guard currently have 100s of “flying boom” KC-135s & KC-10s that without a dangerous modification (Iron Maiden), can’t refuel Navy and Marine Hornets/Harriers…….

As for us, our Herk AARs will be retired without replacement in a few years, and once the F-35 is bought, the only aircraft that we’ll have in our inventory that are capable of in-flight refueling will be the F-35 & C-17 Globemaster…..both of which are boom refuelers.

The Americans will be purchasing 100s of Boom and receptacle tankers, versus maybe ~100 various other aircraft, of differing models used by other air forces…….We could get a hybrid like the Aussies……but why, if all are aircraft are boom capable?

[Battletoads]

Whatever the price, still cheaper than paying the cancellation penalty, then buying them 10 years down the road at an inflated price.

If a Conservative government is in power I have no doubt that would be the case.

If a sane government were in power we'd be picking up much more cost efficient fighters now, or 10 years from now.

[Guest Derek L]

If a Conservative government is in power I have no doubt that would be the case.

If a sane government were in power we'd be picking up much more cost efficient fighters now, or 10 years from now.

What fighters are those? Hornet? Typhoon? Rafle? Gripen NG? Silent Eagle?

And what are your predictions?

[Smallc]

As for us, our Herk AARs will be retired without replacement in a few years,

I haven't read this anywhere. AFAIK, we're keeping the CC-130s that we bought in the 90s for a while yet. When we do replace our A310 MRTTs and MRTs, what makes you think it won't be with the Airbus A330 MRTT that Australia just bought?

[Guest Derek L]

I haven't read this anywhere. AFAIK, we're keeping the CC-130s that we bought in the 90s for a while yet. When we do replace our A310 MRTTs and MRTs, what makes you think it won't be with the Airbus A330 MRTT that Australia just bought?

As our CC-130E models started being retired, the “newer” H models usage (and wear & tear) increased dramatically, added with the high demands placed on the fleet with operations in Afghanistan, the Hs are getting tired. Once the Jerk order is completed, the remaining Hs will likely go to the SAR guys until the FWSAR program is completed….we’ll hold onto them as long as possible, but the clock is ticking.

I’d be surprised if any are left once the F-35 enters squadron service.

As for the CC-150, like the 707s before them, we bought too little of them, and they have been extremely busy and will likely be in need of replacement in the early 2020s.

As for the A330, in my personal opinion, it would be cheaper to tack on (like the C-17 purchase) to a USAF order, numbering in the 100s, a handful of additional aircraft. Also, as I mentioned above, our own aircraft at that time will all be Boom capable (F-35 & C-17), Boom aircraft have a higher fuel transfer rate then drogue refuelers and most important of all the world’s largest air force and our partners in NORAD use them.

It would only make sense, which is why it will likely not happen.

[Smallc]

It makes sense to buy aircraft that can do what we need them to do. As far as I can tell, that's the A330 MRTT. They're simply bigger, more capable versions of what we have, and they can deliver fuel using both methods. The H models of the Herc will be kept for SAR for now, and will be kept as long as possible going forward. IT may be that we buy new tankers ahead of schedule though. There isn't really anything stopping us, as it won't cost all that much.

[RNG]

If a Conservative government is in power I have no doubt that would be the case.

If a sane government were in power we'd be picking up much more cost efficient fighters now, or 10 years from now.

Are you serious? The Liberals and the helicopter fiasco ring any bells? Get real.