Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 What about buying 1/2 fighter jets, and 1/2 un-manned vehicles? UCAVs cost way less to purchase and maintain, and 1/18th as much to fly per hour. It’s a false economy though and for the foreseeable future, current or near term UCAVs won’t be able to deliver on all the requirements we have…….Namely our requirements for NORAD and (unlike the straw man directed at the F-35) operating UCAVs in the Arctic/higher latitudes, due in part to the curvature of the Earth and the lack of “bandwidth” the further North you go (Greatly effects comms & data links with manned aircraft, to say nothing about “remote controlled” ones) It was thought, a decade ago, that the JSF/ 5th generation of fighters would be the last manned ones, but as “future” technology has become realized as “present ” (or near term) that the 6th generation of aircraft (~2030s) will still be manned, but with the option of being used unmanned depending on the situation…….This will likely be a future debate amongst our children and grandchildren…… Near term though, there are already plans within the puzzle factory in Ottawa that will see the acquisition of UAV/UCAV being obtained as a complement to manned aircraft, namely within the domestic surveillance and tactical, battlefield reconnaissance roles……..in a sense, replacing our Trackers and Kiowa/JetRangers that we retired in the 90s without replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 It’s a false economy though and for the foreseeable future, current or near term UCAVs won’t be able to deliver on all the requirements we have…….Namely our requirements for NORAD and (unlike the straw man directed at the F-35) operating UCAVs in the Arctic/higher latitudes, due in part to the curvature of the Earth and the lack of “bandwidth” the further North you go (Greatly effects comms & data links with manned aircraft, to say nothing about “remote controlled” ones) RIght thats why I suggested 50/50. Use the UCAVs for anying they CAN be used for, and use the fighters for everything else. I read an interesting article here... http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo6/no1/doc/technology-technologi-eng.pdf Its a few years old now from when the CF-18 replacement debate was just starting. You could get 40 of each for the same we would pay for 60 F35's, and you would save a shitload of money on every mission where the UCAV was an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 RIght thats why I suggested 50/50. Use the UCAVs for anying they CAN be used for, and use the fighters for everything else. I read an interesting article here... http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo6/no1/doc/technology-technologi-eng.pdf Its a few years old now from when the CF-18 replacement debate was just starting. You could get 40 of each for the same we would pay for 60 F35's, and you would save a shitload of money on every mission where the UCAV was an option. I read that piece years ago, and I’ll quote the final paragraph: It is always difficult to foresee what the future holds,and that is certainly the case with the UCAV and the JSF. The debate on the replacement of the CF-18 will clearly be stormy in the coming years. By the time Canada has to make a decision, both the Joint Strike Fighter and the Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle will have shown what they can and cannot do, but the ultimate decision that the government will have to make with respect to the CF-18 replacement will not be an easy one. To paraphrase Rumsfield, UCAVs are a known unknown presently.....There is a reason why the USAF is putting a portion of their Global Hawk fleet in storage, all the well keeping the U-2 fleet in service……. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Well sometimes people who are flat broke cant buy the nicest sports care on the market. We will probably have to make a compromise. The Rafale, Super Hornet, Gripen, and Typhoon would all be viable replacement. And nobody has any idea what the F-35 will cost to fly over time. Just what is your idea of "viable", Dr. Dre? When you look at each of the planes you have suggested, they ALL would be flying bullseyes in a modern combat situation! How about a suggestion that might WORK? You only emphasize my point that if we are not willing to pay for a workable military solution then we should stop BS'ing ourselves. Let's have NO military and forget about playing any useful peacekeeping role. We will depend totally on the Americans for our defence and just accept that we will be forced to dance to their tune as payment. If we ever are attacked we will just immediately capitulate. Without an effective military there are NO other options for us! It's true that we can't afford to spend an equal amount to Uncle Sam's figures but there's a big difference between that and not making at least a reasonable contribution to the group's defense! That was the original idea behind NATO. Somehow over the years the idea was perverted into "let's get the Americans to pay for everything!". Now America can no longer afford to protect the entire globe. She's cutting back and expecting her allies to be more self-reliant. She should have done that 50 years ago! Face it, my good Doctor! We have been freeloaders! Bums! It's time to stop fooling ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Just what is your idea of "viable", Dr. Dre? When you look at each of the planes you have suggested, they ALL would be flying bullseyes in a modern combat situation! How about a suggestion that might WORK? You only emphasize my point that if we are not willing to pay for a workable military solution then we should stop BS'ing ourselves. Let's have NO military and forget about playing any useful peacekeeping role. We will depend totally on the Americans for our defence and just accept that we will be forced to dance to their tune as payment. If we ever are attacked we will just immediately capitulate. Without an effective military there are NO other options for us! It's true that we can't afford to spend an equal amount to Uncle Sam's figures but there's a big difference between that and not making at least a reasonable contribution to the group's defense! That was the original idea behind NATO. Somehow over the years the idea was perverted into "let's get the Americans to pay for everything!". Now America can no longer afford to protect the entire globe. She's cutting back and expecting her allies to be more self-reliant. She should have done that 50 years ago! Face it, my good Doctor! We have been freeloaders! Bums! It's time to stop fooling ourselves. I don't think the Americans get to pay for everything. I do think that America is the weirdest global power the world has ever known. What they can't control with commerce they control with military presence. They fight wars with dollar bills and take down a superpower like Russia, destroying the Soviet Union once and for all. They form alliances and support their friends, they are the first ones to show up in the case of any kind of disaster. WE still complain! Leave the Americans to their own designs. They are harmless friends of ours. That is because we mean them no harm, and they know it. They put up with their silly northern neighbor because they have concluded that we pose no threat to them. Instead of us detracting from their strength, we should be supporting it. You want F35's, trade them some oil for them! Alberta can buy the damned planes if they want to. They don't want to. We need to grow up in political terms. This country is different, we need to remember that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 How about a suggestion that might WORK? From one old hippy to another... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 From one old hippy to another... Meanwhile... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/03/30/active-array-radar-for-rafale-fighter-aircraft-delivered-by-thales/ Hmmm, what timing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/03/30/active-array-radar-for-rafale-fighter-aircraft-delivered-by-thales/ Hmmm, what timing? Better late than never....F/A-18 E/F/G has fielded AESA radar since 2007. F-22 got the AN/APG-77 before that, and the F-35 will have AN/APG-81. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APG-79 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APG-81 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 From one old hippy to another... Ah eyeball, you break my heart! It always comes down to the same problem. We might be willing to give peace a chance but there are always others who won't! A unilateral approach not only won't work, it has a good chance of getting a lot of us killed! What do you think would happen to us if you and I took a couple of guitars and sat on a street in Iran, singing Lennon's song? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Better late than never....F/A-18 E/F/G has fielded AESA radar since 2007. F-22 got the AN/APG-77 before that, and the F-35 will have AN/APG-81. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APG-79 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APG-81 BONNE CHANCE!!! Exactly, and as I alluded to earlier, the French still do not have a working AESA radar integrated with the Rafale………and once they do, like the Super Hornet, it will be a swine in lipstick when compared to the F-35.…….No Stealth, No thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Back in February, NDP MP Matthew Kellway submitted a question on the order paper about the F-35. He wanted to know the “exact wording” of the specific requirements for Canada’s upcoming fighter jet purchase that could only be met by the F-35A, the variant the government has long stated it plans to buy.He received a reply from the office of Associate Minister of National Defence Julian Fantino, stating that one of the mandatory requirements was that it was “capable of providing the pilot with 360-degree, out-of-cockpit visual situational awareness in a no-light environment.” Fantino’s office then went on to explain the reasoning behind listing this as a mandatory requirement. As CBC News reported Monday, the Government Accountability Office in the U.S. recently noted some developmental issues with the helmet system, that stated “deficiencies with the helmet mounted display, integral to mission systems functionality and concepts of operation, are most problematic.” Continued here: http://gizmodo.com/260482/f+35-helmet-display-system-to-scare-the-bejeezus-out-of-enemies The jet doesn't meet the requirements and the Conservatives are backing away from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 The jet doesn't meet the requirements and the Conservatives are backing away from it. Given the current budget environment I would say that there may be smoke where there is fire. The F35 meets the Canadian DND budget, guess who wins...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 The jet doesn't meet the requirements and the Conservatives are backing away from it. Strawman........ This is what is in development and suffering delays: http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/index.php/f-35-hmds This is what will be used in the interim with a modification to include the different instrument layout between the two aircraft: http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020184/eurofighter-typhoon-integrated-display One of the key differences between the two systems, the one suffering delays is in Technicolor, and the one already being used is in Paris Hilton Night vision green…… You have anymore strawmen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 You have anymore strawmen? Yes, the F-35's speedometer and odometer are not metric (kilometers) ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Yes, the F-35's speedometer and odometer are not metric (kilometers) ! ...and the cockpit voice warnings have a distinct American accent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 ...and the cockpit voice warnings have a distinct American accent! ....and it doesn't have daytime running lights (DRL). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 ....and it doesn't have daytime running lights (DRL). No Betty Boop nose art, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) No Betty Boop nose art, either. ... and Canada doesn't want to pay for F-35 air bags or the special undercoating. Canada buying tactical aircraft: Edited March 31, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Yes, the F-35's speedometer and odometer are not metric (kilometers) ! Indeed, and the Rafale comes with ashtrays……Clearly the "helmet delays" effected the F-35’s successful night-time refuelling tests last week, as it effected the last three months of night flying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 ... and Canada doesn't want to pay for F-35 air bags or the special undercoating. If we could get away with no engines we would. Saves on maintenance and airframe wear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Ah eyeball, you break my heart! It always comes down to the same problem. We might be willing to give peace a chance but there are always others who won't! A unilateral approach not only won't work, it has a good chance of getting a lot of us killed! Think very carefully about the irony of this in light of the US telling us to stop worrying about defending ourselves and the strategy of the blue herons I mentioned. What do you think would happen to us if you and I took a couple of guitars and sat on a street in Iran, singing Lennon's song? Damned if I know and damned if I care, I'm no more interested in going to Iran with my guitar than I am sending troops or planes there. Surely you don't imagine Iran is about to send a Wehrmacht over the pole to invade us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDsCjGay7kg&list=UU6SVLIBW3obvS5UDZISdbLA&index=6&feature=plcp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted April 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 F-35 program to get overhaul after scathing AG report Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.