Guest Derek L Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 Well, that kinda goes my way doesn't it? Since we can't really think that a non-NATO aircraft would actually be compatible within our little sphere of friends. I think there is still an outstanding software issue associated with this F35 bird that is to this day giving the procurement process some difficulty. Aside from that, and the fact that the US would not sell us F22's even if they were still making them. Lets leave the word treason out of the equation when we consider the tools that we desire for the stated purpose of national defense. No, there’s no outstanding software issues, development of the F-35 is on track. It does leave something totally independent, on this I must agree. Lets talk about this point. I firmly believe that this nation has the expertise and the need for leading edge technologies to be applied in our military infrastructure. Design something compatible you say. Hmmm, are we not building a multiple billion dollar new fleet of ships for the navy? Made in Canada aren't they? What about a number of army vehicles? Don't we have the opposite procurement process in both the Army and Navy ? Both the Army and Navy rely heavily on the American and European defence industries products……..A Volvo or GM product built in Canada is still Swedish or American. On your second point, maintenance and overhaul are still requirements for all equipment, and I agree that compatibility issues must be considered. So why not design something to take advantage of it? Why not look at it from a different point of view. What we should want to do is build on success. We know what works and we know what we want so why not do it here in Canada instead of buying the products from the USA to in effect subsidize their military industrial complex. This is what you don’t seem to comprehend…………We are taking the advantage of the Americans…….We are purchasing a very small percentage of the total order of F-35, but our aerospace industry will be producing components for the entire program for the next 30+ years I don't think so. More like thank me for bringing an industry that we once damn near lead back home where we can create some jobs and keep some tax payers money in Canada where Fred down the street can have a job at the aircraft factory! You wouldn’t be thanked………What do you think equates to a longer term viable job? The Production of 65 Canadian aircraft or building subsystems for thousands of F-35s over the next 30 years. The Russians are building the T50, India is buying 200 of them.Russian PressThe Chinese are building the J20,linked source Both behind the F-22 and F-35.…………In the case of both aircraft, they’ve only just produced flyable prototypes………the X-35 first flew 12 years ago…….. I certainly do, the F22. Lets back up the truck. We want and need the F22, but we can't have it because the Americans won't sell it to us. So you and folks like you say we should settle for second best and get the F35? I say if we can't buy what we want we are left with no option but to build it ourselves. We did it before and we can do it again. Look at the ship building contracts just announced and where the money is going. It stays at home. Look at the APC's built in Canada, that money stayed home. So why would you advocate outsourcing when you know that we are exporting our dollar bills. We don’t need the F-22.……It’s a air superiority fighter, our requirements call for a mulit-role fighter, hence the F-35. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 The demise of the Arrow is something well buried. Yet the analogy seems reasonable, if not misguided. I did say that I want the company that builds aircraft in Canada foot the bill. Not the taxpayer. Unlike the Avro problems, Bombardier is already diversified, but the company is still a little shakey despite the billions the tax payer has spent on it. I see this as a way to kill two birds with one stone so to speak. Bombardier as a private company would never bid on, nore be able to produce such an aircraft without Government subsidy……………The JSF program is estimated to cost 100s of billions of dollars…….No private company would invest that type of money into a program that they would never see a return on, based on projected Canadian orders. That’s what killed Arrow, and that’s what kills your idea. Quote
Tilter Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 Quote The Russians are building the T50, India is buying 200 of them.Russian Press The Chinese are building the J20,linked source and one thing is certain--- we would be better off buying defence products from the Russians & Chinese :blink: than from the neighbours from the country directly south of us. The Russians are far more trustworthy than the Americans and have much better aircraft-- can anyone even remember an incident where a Russian Aircraft CRASHED??? :blink: Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 and one thing is certain--- we would be better off buying defence products from the Russians & Chinese :blink: than from the neighbours from the country directly south of us. The Russians are far more trustworthy than the Americans and have much better aircraft-- can anyone even remember an incident where a Russian Aircraft CRASHED??? :blink: Can anyone recall when Russian aircraft actually won vs American aircraft? The MiG-15 perhaps (for a short while)...we wanna buy those? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 Hang on here people! We are talking about big bucks, political allies and potential enemies. Now how can we not see the forest for the trees here? Whether or not the Americans actually build thousands of the planes or not, the promise of jobs are the carrot. That is the point its just a carrot! Here bite this little carrot and continue to do what we tell you to do or no job for you. That is the truth. We are depending on the good graces of the Americans far too much. Instead we should be taking care of our own business. My point about the F22 was that it is at the top of its class, nothing better. Not that it matters to us since we can never buy one. If we had the balls, we could build one. Once again I am talking about forgiving the loans to Bombardier in exchange for a new aircraft. I don't know if they can build it or not, but I am willing to bet they could. Especially considering the size of debt the Government of Canada has allowed them. It would be worth their effort to find out if it could be done. Canada can use about five times what we now have for an air force. That is just to stop anything from getting through to us forget about offensive force projection. We need to defend this nation, not attack another nation. My point in mentioning the Russian and Chinese birds is that they DID build them. Those aircraft are designed to be on pare with aircraft from our side of the equation. If you think otherwise, you are fooling yourself. I for one would see us rethink our military policy, decide what obligations we choose to undertake and then balance that with defending the nation at the borders. If you cannot defend your borders there is not much point in the exercise. So we need to decide what it is that we want before we go off bent on some weird arms race. The F35 is a good bird, no doubt about it. In the RCAF they have pushed multiple engine aircraft until this government. Suddenly the need for two engines disappeared, and no competition was required in this procurement process. Why? “The biggest issue was integrating and testing the software that runs the aircrafts electronics and sensors. At the hearing senater John McCain described it as a train wreck and accused Lockheed Martin of doing an abysmal job”- The economist July 16th- 22nd 2011. http://yachtech.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/f-35-fleet-grounded-due-to-software-issue/I am not convinced about a resolution to this issue. That software is so sensitive that the Canadian government will not have access to it, nor will any other country buying the aircraft. System updates will be done in the USA, PERIOD. My concern with this issue is that WE DON'T GET THE TECHNOLOGY THAT GOES WITH THE BIRDS ! For that reason alone we should be giving our heads a shake. We can't even nail down a unit price because of all the cost overruns! We literally do not know how much we will have to spend on this program. Yet we sit here like bean counters trying to use Enron accounting to prove we got a great deal. No matter how you slice it we are giving away more dollars then we are getting. There is the root problem. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Hang on here people! We are talking about big bucks, political allies and potential enemies. Now how can we not see the forest for the trees here? Whether or not the Americans actually build thousands of the planes or not, the promise of jobs are the carrot. That is the point its just a carrot! Here bite this little carrot and continue to do what we tell you to do or no job for you. That is the truth. We are depending on the good graces of the Americans far too much. Instead we should be taking care of our own business. My point about the F22 was that it is at the top of its class, nothing better. Not that it matters to us since we can never buy one. If we had the balls, we could build one. Once again I am talking about forgiving the loans to Bombardier in exchange for a new aircraft. I don't know if they can build it or not, but I am willing to bet they could. Especially considering the size of debt the Government of Canada has allowed them. It would be worth their effort to find out if it could be done. Canada can use about five times what we now have for an air force. That is just to stop anything from getting through to us forget about offensive force projection. We need to defend this nation, not attack another nation. Boeing lost to Lockheed in the JSF program………Boeing, merged with McDonnell-Douglas, a company with decades of experience in building modern fighter aircraft (F-4, F-15, F-18), and still couldn’t field a competitive aircraft against Lockheed’s entry, that was the fruition of decades of experience in building modern stealth aircraft………Bombardier is not even in the same league as Boeing. My point in mentioning the Russian and Chinese birds is that they DID build them. Those aircraft are designed to be on pare with aircraft from our side of the equation. If you think otherwise, you are fooling yourself. I for one would see us rethink our military policy, decide what obligations we choose to undertake and then balance that with defending the nation at the borders. If you cannot defend your borders there is not much point in the exercise. So we need to decide what it is that we want before we go off bent on some weird arms race. The F35 is a good bird, no doubt about it. In the RCAF they have pushed multiple engine aircraft until this government. Suddenly the need for two engines disappeared, and no competition was required in this procurement process. Why? Let’s not mince words………The Chinese rely heavily on the Russian aerospace industry……The Russian’s have only just put a flyable prototype into the air……..ten years behind Lockheed and Boeing……..Relying on precedent, Russian aircraft are vastly inferior to ones made in the West…….For example, when East and West Germany reunited, the reborn Luftwaffe retired early the former East German Migs (some only a few years old) in favour of keeping their F-4 Phantoms in service (first delivered in the early 70s) and have only recently started retiring them in favour of the Eurofighter. Edited January 23, 2012 by Derek L Quote
Wild Bill Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) It does leave something totally independent, on this I must agree. Lets talk about this point. I firmly believe that this nation has the expertise and the need for leading edge technologies to be applied in our military infrastructure. Design something compatible you say. Hmmm, are we not building a multiple billion dollar new fleet of ships for the navy? Made in Canada aren't they? What about a number of army vehicles? Don't we have the opposite procurement process in both the Army and Navy ? On your second point, maintenance and overhaul are still requirements for all equipment, and I agree that compatibility issues must be considered. So why not design something to take advantage of it? Why not look at it from a different point of view. What we should want to do is build on success. We know what works and we know what we want so why not do it here in Canada instead of buying the products from the USA to in effect subsidize their military industrial complex. I don't think so. More like thank me for bringing an industry that we once damn near lead back home where we can create some jobs and keep some tax payers money in Canada where Fred down the street can have a job at the aircraft factory! I will grant that some maintenance costs with the F35 are said to reduced on a per flying hour basis. That is a projection, not a fact. There is insufficient data to substantiate that claim. Besides I am advocating a Canadian plane approach. Well, I guess I did not make it clear that I prefer a Canadian aircraft considering the extent of the expense and the ongoing costs of operation. Given that I do not think we pose a security threat. The Russians are building the T50, India is buying 200 of them.Russian Press The Chinese are building the J20,linked source We did that already. It part of the procurement process we use, it worked when we bought it and we are making it work now. Should it be replaced? Sure, but we took forever to make up our minds and in the end will we will export billions of dollars to the nation we bought that stuff from. I prefer a home made bang for our buck. I don't think that likely, do you? I certainly do, the F22. Lets back up the truck. We want and need the F22, but we can't have it because the Americans won't sell it to us. So you and folks like you say we should settle for second best and get the F35? I say if we can't buy what we want we are left with no option but to build it ourselves. We did it before and we can do it again. Look at the ship building contracts just announced and where the money is going. It stays at home. Look at the APC's built in Canada, that money stayed home. So why would you advocate outsourcing when you know that we are exporting our dollar bills. Jerry, I would also love to see a Canadian plane! Sadly, I just don't think we can afford it! When the Arrow was built we had large scale aircraft production factories left over from the war. We also had a large cadre of the engineers and craftsmen. After Diefenbaker we lost pretty well all of that! The plants became parking lots and the engineers went down south to help the Americans put a man on the Moon. Today what we have are small scale specialized industries, like Garrett/Allied Signal or Litton Systems, who produce specialty components like "head's up" cockpit displays. They have nowhere near the capacity to design and manufacture a Canadian plane comparable in performance to an F-22 or F-35. So unlike in the days of the Arrow we would be starting much farther back. You are talking billions and billions and billions of dollars, Jerry! I do not believe it is even remotely feasible for us to afford it! If we HAD an existing industry we could attract other partners. Perhaps the Israelis or the Swiss would participate and share the load. However, we don't! That also died with the Arrow. Derek is right that we are far better off as far as jobs are concerned to produce a percentage of parts for the entire F-35 production, rather than just a few entire planes for domestic use. The world has changed! Economies of scale cannot be ignored in favour of patriotism! One dollar and one dollar makes two dollars. Period and end of story. I don't believe you can equate building our own military ships with literally inventing and then producing our own F-35 level aircraft. It's apples and oranges. But oh I wish I COULD agree with you, Jerry! Many times in my calls as a salesman selling electronic parts during the 80's and 90's I would be with a buyer or an engineer and see a model of the Arrow on their desk, or a picture on a wall. They told me wonderful stories of those days. There were many such people who had been involved back then and the dream was still dear in their hearts. We can't go back. Too many bridges were burned. Perhaps we will someday find something in another field or area of technology where once again Canada might shine. I hope so. But it won't be a plane! Edited January 23, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 Jerry, I would also love to see a Canadian plane! Sadly, I just don't think we can afford it! When the Arrow was built we had large scale aircraft production factories left over from the war. We also had a large cadre of the engineers and craftsmen. After Diefenbaker we lost pretty well all of that! The plants became parking lots and the engineers went down south to help the Americans put a man on the Moon. Today what we have are small scale specialized industries, like Garrett/Allied Signal or Litton Systems, who produce specialty components like "head's up" cockpit displays. They have nowhere near the capacity to design and manufacture a Canadian plane comparable in performance to an F-22 or F-35. So unlike in the days of the Arrow we would be starting much farther back. You are talking billions and billions and billions of dollars, Jerry! I do not believe it is even remotely feasible for us to afford it! If we HAD an existing industry we could attract other partners. Perhaps the Israelis or the Swiss would participate and share the load. However, we don't! That also died with the Arrow. Derek is right that we are far better off as far as jobs are concerned to produce a percentage of parts for the entire F-35 production, rather than just a few entire planes for domestic use. The world has changed! Economies of scale cannot be ignored in favour of patriotism! One dollar and one dollar makes two dollars. Period and end of story. I don't believe you can equate building our own military ships with literally inventing and then producing our own F-35 level aircraft. It's apples and oranges. But oh I wish I COULD agree with you, Jerry! Many times in my calls as a salesman selling electronic parts during the 80's and 90's I would be with a buyer or an engineer and see a model of the Arrow on their desk, or a picture on a wall. They told me wonderful stories of those days. There were many such people who had been involved back then and the dream was still dear in their hearts. We can't go back. Too many bridges were burned. Perhaps we will someday find something in another field or area of technology where once again Canada might shine. I hope so. But it won't be a plane! Oh how I hate it when the truth hurts! I have been had, badly I will add. I guess maybe since I was born the year they killed it, it becomes another factor in my position is that I am an RCAF brat. I see the venture as a national dream, and oh boy do we do well doing that kind of thing! The last true vestige of our efforts was sold off to the USA when we let go of Spar. The Americans wanted that one really bad. So we allowed it to be sold off, bad idea. I watched the de Havilland Aircraft Company of Canada go away. Same for Canadair. Hard to take watching that crap happen. Especially when you think of what we went through to get to where we did in order to have politics crush a national dream. Can't seem to forgive the politicians for that. So many firsts, and we walked away because we tried to rationalize an expense. Dummies..... Oh well, on this subject I fear I will never turn from my belief that we made a mistake with the Arrow. We may well have lead in the space race, that is where those aerospace engineers went when we killed the Arrow. Today we buy what we need or want from somebody else. Nobody seems to care. I say that we have lost something over the years, the will and means to achieve greatness. Its about how we rise to challenges, the desire to overcome impediments. It seems to be all about dollar bills instead of something more substantial like national pride, which now has no value at all. This almost begs the question then of why bother at all? Since the Americans will look out for us anyhow...? I guess we should just go with the flow and be good sheeple towing the party line or something. Yet I can't help to think that this is just like we did back in '59, buy American !! Anybody remember the Western Canadian Defender plane? We used to reach for the stars. now we reach for a credit card. For some reason I think we have lost our way. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 Oh how I hate it when the truth hurts! I have been had, badly I will add. I guess maybe since I was born the year they killed it, it becomes another factor in my position is that I am an RCAF brat. I see the venture as a national dream, and oh boy do we do well doing that kind of thing! The last true vestige of our efforts was sold off to the USA when we let go of Spar. The Americans wanted that one really bad. So we allowed it to be sold off, bad idea. I watched the de Havilland Aircraft Company of Canada go away. Same for Canadair. Hard to take watching that crap happen. Especially when you think of what we went through to get to where we did in order to have politics crush a national dream. Can't seem to forgive the politicians for that. So many firsts, and we walked away because we tried to rationalize an expense. Dummies..... Oh well, on this subject I fear I will never turn from my belief that we made a mistake with the Arrow. We may well have lead in the space race, that is where those aerospace engineers went when we killed the Arrow. Today we buy what we need or want from somebody else. Nobody seems to care. I say that we have lost something over the years, the will and means to achieve greatness. Its about how we rise to challenges, the desire to overcome impediments. It seems to be all about dollar bills instead of something more substantial like national pride, which now has no value at all. This almost begs the question then of why bother at all? Since the Americans will look out for us anyhow...? I guess we should just go with the flow and be good sheeple towing the party line or something. Yet I can't help to think that this is just like we did back in '59, buy American !! Anybody remember the Western Canadian Defender plane? We used to reach for the stars. now we reach for a credit card. For some reason I think we have lost our way. For what it’s worth, Bombardier bought Canadair back in the 80s…….and they purchased de Havilland from Boeing....... Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 For what it’s worth, Bombardier bought Canadair back in the 80s…….and they purchased de Havilland from Boeing....... Which is why I said its all we have left. They also owe us a ton of money........ Quote
Army Guy Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 I think Jerry has a valid piont, with bils going into rebuilding our ship building capabilities why not spend some cash boasting a Canadian company R&D budget to produce a Canadian aircraft. maybe not something as sexy as the Aero, but we have proven designs in the past such as the Bufflo, or twin otter, why can we not develope something in the transport catogory...I thought there was a Company that had up dated the Buf design...although there is not much call for large numbers of small transport aircraft there are a few competing designs, C-27J, one example...it is a market that perhaps we could compete in.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Guest Derek L Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 I think Jerry has a valid piont, with bils going into rebuilding our ship building capabilities why not spend some cash boasting a Canadian company R&D budget to produce a Canadian aircraft. maybe not something as sexy as the Aero, but we have proven designs in the past such as the Bufflo, or twin otter, why can we not develope something in the transport catogory...I thought there was a Company that had up dated the Buf design...although there is not much call for large numbers of small transport aircraft there are a few competing designs, C-27J, one example...it is a market that perhaps we could compete in.... You’re thinking of Viking Air out here in BC…….As for dumping money into the Canadian aerospace industry, we do already……It’s called Bombardier……….As for transports etc, they may not be on the same scale in terms of complexity as the JSF, but the Globemaster and Jerc were still billions in development and on the inverse, Airbus has been developing the A400M since the 80s, is now spending billions of dollars a year, and as of now, has only a handful of flyable aircraft……….Perhaps we should leave the multi billion dollar development programs to the established companies and concentrate (As we do) on bidding on the subsystems of said programs. Quote
Wiggum Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) You’re thinking of Viking Air out here in BC…….As for dumping money into the Canadian aerospace industry, we do already……It’s called Bombardier……….As for transports etc, they may not be on the same scale in terms of complexity as the JSF, but the Globemaster and Jerc were still billions in development and on the inverse, Airbus has been developing the A400M since the 80s, is now spending billions of dollars a year, and as of now, has only a handful of flyable aircraft……….Perhaps we should leave the multi billion dollar development programs to the established companies and concentrate (As we do) on bidding on the subsystems of said programs. Not to derail another thread..but the updated Buff is my choice for FWSAR in BC...J model for the rest Ok..Back to F-35s..... Edited January 26, 2012 by Wiggum Quote
Guest Derek L Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 Not to derail another thread..but the updated Buff is my choice for FWSAR in BC...J model for the rest Ok..Back to F-35s..... You know my position……..32 Ospreys to replace the Buff, Herc, Totter, and Cormorant as is, then move Cormorants to the CSS replacing the Griffons………Then a couple of squadrons of Osprey to augment the THS Griffons (retiring ~half) and Bob’s your mother’s brother……..What I think will happen is either the Spartan or Jercs replacing the works……….But since this is Canada, look for a do it all solution put for by Bombardier for FWSAR and the Aurora replacement based on a their Global Express…….You heard it here first Quote
Smallc Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 I'd be happy with the Aurora being replaced by a global express. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 I'd be happy with the Aurora being replaced by a global express. Why? The Boeing P-8 Poseidon (In concert with UAV/UCAVs) was designed as a direct and improved replacement for the P-3s/CP-140s and is the head and shoulders choice of militaries and the crews that fly them for said aircraft’s replacement………The Global Express/Sentinel platform is not a replacement and would be a severe downgrade in capabilities. Quote
Smallc Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Maybe you're right, I just don't think our patrol planes will need to do much hunting of ships and subs with their torpedoes. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Maybe you're right, I just don't think our patrol planes will need to do much hunting of ships and subs with their torpedoes. What good is a maritime patrol aircraft if it can’t engage any targets it locates? If anything, based on the recent proliferation of quiet diesel electric and AIP submarines, a capable MPA is very relevant today…amongst the other missions that our Aurora’s perform for us………All roles that the P-8 will allow a drastic improvement on. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 The original '64 design lives on. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 The original '64 design lives on. Indeed, so they should have built a turboprop P-3 replacement with over treble the range! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Boeing must have won the coin toss. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest Derek L Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 It’s a moot point with in-flight refuelling………And to add the significantly higher cruising speed of the P-8 is something the Orion can’t compete with. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) It’s a moot point with in-flight refuelling………And to add the significantly higher cruising speed of the P-8 is something the Orion can’t compete with. The record flight duration of 21.5 hours was accomplished by a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3 back in 1971...they didn't need no steenkin' in-flight refueling. I'm sure the P-8 will do, but the Orions were the stuff of legend for on station time. The crews worried more about having enough flight rations than fuel! Edited January 27, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 It’s a moot point with in-flight refuelling………And to add the significantly higher cruising speed of the P-8 is something the Orion can’t compete with. Inflight refueling is kind of a moot point considering Canada's capacity in that area. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Inflight refueling is kind of a moot point considering Canada's capacity in that area. Not really. In the early 2020s, the CC-150 will need replacement, and it's probably a good bet that the next MRTT will have boom refuelling capability. Also, the current MRTT C-130s will be need some kind of replacement at the end of this decade. I would expect a project around 2018 - 2020 to replace the 5 CC-130 MRTTs and the 2 CC-150 MRTTs, and possibly even the 2 CC-150 MRTs. Edited January 27, 2012 by Smallc Quote
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.