F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

They wanted to do a stampede running of the bulls on Baystreet.

$500 friendly bet?

for attacking third world countries.

So having two aircraft types would allow us to attack second world countries? Would three garner us the first world?

As I said, the Hornet, modern in it’s time, was intended to attack and survive in the most hostile airspace ever known to man.

It needs a cheap fighter that it can modify and replace parts on at will. Ideally something that will be low cost to maintain, and will be able to fly in arctic conditions or at bear minimum Canadian subarctic winters.

Ahh, like the F-35, what with it’s open architecture design and ease of block software upgrades amongst the entire user base……….As for the Arctic, well the Danes, Norwegians and Americans aren’t too concerned.

The f35 isn't tested and loosing one is a bigger deal than loosing one rafale

The Hornet wasn't "tested" when we purchased........Nor was the F-15 or F-16 when the Americans purchased it.......or the Rafale when the French purchased it etc.....

That really is a problem because these things will be yesterdays plane by 2025. The project lifespan is way too long. It is buying too much on tommorrows money. they don't have the money now they shouldn't be buying now.

Didn’t you just advocate purchasing “last weeks” plane?

We don't need all the tasks for every role. Keeping flight hours down will be important that is why having a mixed fleet with a lower cost jet to fly is a better deal for the tax payers. Why drive a porsche or bugatti when a toyota will do the job?

But we won't save money with a "mixed fleet" mixed fleet equals twice the amount of aircraft we have to train air and ground crew on, twice the logistics footprint, twice the infrastructure for maintaining the two aircraft, and in the case of European aircraft, near twice the stores inventory……….There is a reason why modern Western Forces are standardizing and reducing fleet types across all elements.

[login]

So having two aircraft types would allow us to attack second world countries?

No the Rafale would allow low cost interdiction without stressing the f35 frame.

F-35, what with it’s open architecture design and ease of block software upgrades amongst the entire user base

Is that sarcasm? They havn't even finished 80% of the factory default source code for the plane yet

….As for the Arctic, well the Danes, Norwegians and Americans aren’t too concerned.

Sure they arn't.

The Hornet wasn't "tested" when we purchased........Nor was the F-15 or F-16 when the Americans purchased it.......or the Rafale when the French purchased it etc.....

Why are you defending stupidity. That is because they made it. countries that don't design and make aircraft have the privelege of seeing how the plane performs before buying into it.

Didn’t you just advocate purchasing “last weeks” plane?

The Rafale is still being developed by the French.

But we won't save money with a "mixed fleet" mixed fleet equals twice the amount of aircraft

Its not twice as many it is 60-70 jets instead of 50.

we have to train air and ground crew on, twice the logistics footprint, twice the infrastructure for maintaining the two aircraft, and in the case of European aircraft, near twice the stores inventory……….There is a reason why modern Western Forces are standardizing and reducing fleet types across all elements.

F35 costs more and is more of a pain in the but. The fewer of them and more rafale in the fleet the lower the overall cost, lower replacement parts ect.. If you fly the rafale forwhat missions itis good enough for you will see major cost savings.

Edited October 30, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

No the Rafale would allow low cost interdiction without stressing the f35 frame.

Purchasing a second airframe would drastically increase the operating budget of the RCAF…………As to “stressing the airframes”, you clearly don’t understand the fleet management principles of the RCAF.

Is that sarcasm? They havn't even finished 80% of the factory default source code for the plane yet

No, not at all. When we selected the Hornet, it hadn’t completed it development…………In fact, we started receiving our Hornets several years prior to issues with the leading edges being resolved.

Sure they arn't.

Nope, all JSF members and all experienced for decades in basing & operating (single engine) fighters.

Why are you defending stupidity. That is because they made it. countries that don't design and make aircraft have the privelege of seeing how the plane performs before buying into it.

Uh-huh……..And based on precedent, how did the three American examples pan out?

The Rafale is still being developed by the French.

Barely……….And the reason for the continued development?

Let me get this straight, you’re ok with a French aircraft in development, an aircraft a generation behind and costing near the price of the F-35, but you won’t afford the same grace to the Americans, the numerous partner nations and Lockheed/BAE/Northrop?

Its not twice as many it is 60-70 jets instead of 50.

You’re misunderstanding my post……….Apologies

Operating the F-35 alone equals one aircraft type…………Operating the F-35 and another airframe, doubles the fleet. (In terms of aircraft types.)

F35 costs more and is more of a pain in the but. The fewer of them and more rafale in the fleet the lower the overall cost, lower replacement parts ect.. If you fly the rafale forwhat missions itis good enough for you will see major cost savings.

No, you have no idea what you’re talking about………..If we’re operating two types of aircraft, doesn’t mater the numbers of each aircraft, just that there would be two types in the inventory.

If we operate the F-35 and the Rafale, then we need two operational conversion units for the pilots……We need two schools for training of the various technicians……….We need twice as many maintenance facilities……….We need twice the amount of spares inventory…….And with a French aircraft, we need French/European ordnance, and unlike the F-35, we won’t be able to use our current inventory for the Hornets………We’ll need technicians to maintain the new ordnance……….

I’m sorry you don’t grasp the concept, but operating multiple fleets of differing aircraft is expensive, hence why Western militaries are reducing the types of aircraft they have in inventory…………The Americans, British, French, Italians etc are all reducing said types of fleets, not only aircraft, but ships, tanks, rifles, boots, ammunition etc………..

[Wild Bill]

No the Rafale would allow low cost interdiction without stressing the f35 frame.

Just curious, does the Rafale have similar stealth capabilites or do they come with bullseyes already painted on the wings?

[Guest Derek L]

Just curious, does the Rafale have similar stealth capabilites or do they come with bullseyes already painted on the wings?

French red, white and blue roundels…………….The Rafale, like the Eurofighter, as recent as the conflict over Libya, still required either special forces on the ground or another aircraft type ( RAF Tornado and MN Super Etendards) to laser designate targets on the ground………..

[login]

Just curious, does the Rafale have similar stealth capabilites or do they come with bullseyes already painted on the wings?

Good enough for the French.

None the less they have semi-stealth capabilities. However a russian type ECM stealth module could be added to give similar stealth capabilities to the the f35. See stealth capabilities of the T50.

As for bombing of the ground for "sovreignty defence" I really don't get it.

Also the ground based bombing without laser designator can be done by installing a simple and very small computer system tracking ground systems and/or smart bombs.

A ground based force is not required. Except for exactness and you need that with the f35 too. Its illegal for the US to authorize a bombing run without calculating collatoral damage and assessing via JAG.

Also these planes would be for domestic missions or where they were enough. A ground war in Canada using air forces is not very good.

But I could come up with a solution to your problem in 10 seconds. So no you are wrong.

Also the F35 doesn't have real stealth capabilities it is like saying plug your ears and tell me where I am.

It has one form of stealth and many forms of being detected.

While it does have advantages technologically, technological advantages are short lived, and there is no war they can be advantage of, and no one to invade Canada to put them to use. So it is just throwing money away to a large extent. You have to look at it in terms of, what missions are required, and which ones can be performed by the f35 and not by the rafale. I could throw on a 5 million ecm unit the the rafale and get the same results as the f35 in term of stealth abilities (actually less) and save 100 million dollars or more.

Also what about criticisms like:

http://www.popularme...planes-13506974

This trumps things

The upper echelons of the military warn that there are limits to stealth in these networked environments. "The rapid expansion of computing power ushers in new sensors and methods that will make stealth and its advantages increasingly difficult to maintain," Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, wrote in the July 2012 issue of Proceedings magazine, published by the U.S. Naval Institute. "Maintaining stealth in the face of new and diverse counter-detection methods would require significantly higher fiscal investments in our next generation of platforms."

Read more: Russian-Made Tech Vs. America's Stealth Warplanes - Popular Mechanics

Greenert (although from the Navy) effectively says the financial investment in stealth will have little actual return in terms of mission capability due to detection systems out there and those that will be out there. So stealth simply cannot be relied on to allow indiscriminate bombing and planes that won't be hit by missiles. The opposite is true. There will be fewer planes and they can still be hit by missiles, or rail guns or energy based weapons.

Edited October 31, 2012 by login

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I could throw on a 5 million ecm unit the the rafale and get the same results as the f35 in term of stealth abilities (actually less) and save 100 million dollars or more.

This is exactly the kind of cheap, short sighted approach that was used in the past for CF-188's, leading to absurd situations requiring panic shuttles of training FLIR pods across the Atlantic during the Kosovo War, lack of updated radios, and obsolete IFF.

[login]

This is exactly the kind of cheap, short sighted approach that was used in the past for CF-188's, leading to absurd situations requiring panic shuttles of training FLIR pods across the Atlantic during the Kosovo War, lack of updated radios, and obsolete IFF.

No its not. It is in no way the same. You making that post is like the kind of cheap, short sighted approach that was used in the past for CF-188's, leading to absurd situations requiring panic shuttles of training FLIR pods across the Atlantic during the Kosovo War, lack of updated radios, and obsolete IFF.

[Guest Derek L]

Good enough for the French.

None the less they have semi-stealth capabilities. However a russian type ECM stealth module could be added to give similar stealth capabilities to the the f35. See stealth capabilities of the T50.

"Stealth Module"?

As for bombing of the ground for "sovreignty defence" I really don't get it.

That's obvious.

Also the ground based bombing without laser designator can be done by installing a simple and very small computer system tracking ground systems and/or smart bombs.

Just that simple eh? Perhaps you should outline how simple it is to Dassault and the Eurofighter consortium……….

A ground based force is not required. Except for exactness and you need that with the f35 too. Its illegal for the US to authorize a bombing run without calculating collatoral damage and assessing via JAG.

No, you’re wrong William………For laser guided bombs, you require a laser designator, be it from ground forces, another aircraft or the aircraft can self designate……..The Rafale and Eurofighter, as of yet can’t self designate or designate for another Rafale/Eurofighter as made evident by both aircraft requiring a 70s vintage Tornado or Super Etendard for targeting.

Also these planes would be for domestic missions or where they were enough. A ground war in Canada using air forces is not very good.

Do you understand the combat history of our current Hornets?

But I could come up with a solution to your problem in 10 seconds. So no you are wrong.

Also the F35 doesn't have real stealth capabilities it is like saying plug your ears and tell me where I am.

Really, did you gather such information through video games or blogs William?

It has one form of stealth and many forms of being detected.

Such as?

While it does have advantages technologically, technological advantages are short lived, and there is no war they can be advantage of, and no one to invade Canada to put them to use. So it is just throwing money away to a large extent. You have to look at it in terms of, what missions are required, and which ones can be performed by the f35 and not by the rafale. I could throw on a 5 million ecm unit the the rafale and get the same results as the f35 in term of stealth abilities (actually less) and save 100 million dollars or more.

Perhaps you should share your ideas then with the air forces of the JSF partnership nations.........If it's just that easy.......

[Guest Derek L]

This is exactly the kind of cheap, short sighted approach that was used in the past for CF-188's, leading to absurd situations requiring panic shuttles of training FLIR pods across the Atlantic during the Kosovo War, lack of updated radios, and obsolete IFF.

That’s exactly it………luckily we upgraded our Hornets to “Cs” not too long after the “C” was stopped being produced……….I can’t imagine trying to “upgrade” a Super Hornet or Rafale in the 2030/40s when the USN and French are no longer operating them………..Kind of like the current third world countries operating Skyhawks and Fishbeds.

[login]

"Stealth Module"?

Yes, Russian stealth modules able to be attached to their jets to offer ECM stealth. Havn't you read about it yet? They've been around for a few years now.

Just that simple eh? Perhaps you should outline how simple it is to Dassault and the Eurofighter consortium……….

I would.

For laser guided bombs, you require a laser designator, be it from ground forces, another aircraft or the aircraft can self designate……..

No actually you don't if you can modify the circuit. All you need is a trajectory. It needn't be by laser, that is the sensor designation part which then relays information, any alternate sensor or designation system can be used in its place including virtualized information. The world moves at a pace of about 4 inches per second. Figure it out.

The Rafale and Eurofighter, as of yet can’t self designate or designate for another Rafale/Eurofighter as made evident by both aircraft requiring a 70s vintage Tornado or Super Etendard for targeting.

It is a simple fix. The answer though, is that maybe they don't want to. That is what pilots and gunners are for.

Do you understand the combat history of our current Hornets?

What combat history?

Such as?

-Sound

-smell

-chemical analysis

-mass, displacement

-visual band

-apparently UHF cross analyized radar

-point monitoring

-EM sheild sphere invasion

-point to point verification

-human verification based on trajectory of sighting

-others (like quantum tunneled analysis)

Perhaps you should share your ideas then with the air forces of the JSF partnership nations.........If it's just that easy.......

I'd be more than willing.

Of course it would be nice if monies were received for consulations, as well as flight expenses etc.. as applicable.

I'm sure anyone with half a brain could tell them these things if their hands and hopes wern't in other peoples pockets with the draw string being held by corporate execs.

Or how about

Carlo Kopp, an analyst with the group Air Power Australia, has written that the Lightning II is "demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft." He also claims radar waves will bounce between the juncture of wing and fuselage in a way that can be detected if the airplane is scanned from any direction but the front. He is not the only one who has pointed out possible sources of trouble. For example, rival airplane-makers in Europe claim that powerful aircraft radar can spot an F-35 coming, even head-on, if multiple opposing aircraft are cooperatively scanning.

Read more: Russian-Made Tech Vs. America's Stealth Warplanes - Popular Mechanics

or

Aviation Week reporter Bill Sweetman notes that the F-35A's gun is located internally, but it is housed in a "hideous wart" on the airplane's surface—one of several features he says could betray the aircraft's position.

Read more: Russian-Made Tech Vs. America's Stealth Warplanes - Popular Mechanics

Now don't get me wrong, I've been behind the lightening for years now, I just think the procurement plan needs to be balanced and financed with existing money.

Edited October 31, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, Russian stealth modules able to be attached to their jets to offer ECM stealth. Havn't you read about it yet? They've been around for a few years now.

So you would integrate Russian equipment into French aircraft? You do understand that a “stealthy pod” doesn’t make the aircraft stealth right?………it’s to reduce the return on pods hanging under the wings……The F-35 doesn’t require this, since both it’s targeting and ECM capabilities are integral to the airframe and avionics.

I would.

Have at her.

No actually you don't if you can modify the circuit. All you need is a trajectory. It needn't be by laser, that is the sensor designation part which then relays information, any alternate sensor or designation system can be used in its place including virtualized information. The world moves at a pace of about 4 inches per second. Figure it out.

What you’re confusing is satellite guidance like a JDAM. I’ve already “figured it out”.

It is a simple fix. The answer though, is that maybe they don't want to. That is what pilots and gunners are for.

Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about……..Both manufactures, reluctant to use American solutions, have backed themselves into a corner, as such, their sales speak to this.

What combat history?

Google it.

Such as?

-Sound

-smell

-chemical analysis

-mass, displacement

-visual band

-apparently UHF cross analyized radar

-point monitoring

-EM sheild sphere invasion

-point to point verification

-human verification based on trajectory of sighting

-others (like quantum tunneled analysis)

Where does taking LSD fit in?

I'd be more than willing.

Of course it would be nice if monies were received for consulations, as well as flight expenses etc.. as applicable.

I'm sure anyone with half a brain could tell them these things if their hands and hopes wern't in other peoples pockets with the draw string being held by corporate execs.

OK........Thanks William.

[Guest Derek L]

Or how about...

Neither of theses sources know what they’re talking about…………As to the prior Russian link……..Do you think Russian (Or Chinese) arms manufactures would attempt to sell their wares with a sales strategy that conceded their products were hopelessly out matched by American products? If “Stealth” is a sales ploy, why are the Russians and Chinese attempting to develop their own stealth products? And why do they try and steal American secrets?

[login]

So you would integrate Russian equipment into French aircraft?

Its the concept not the equipment. There are many concepts.

You do understand that a “stealthy pod” doesn’t make the aircraft stealth right?………it’s to reduce the return on pods hanging under the wings……The F-35 doesn’t require this, since both it’s targeting and ECM capabilities are integral to the airframe and avionics.

It does require 250 million dollars.

What you’re confusing is satellite guidance like a JDAM. I’ve already “figured it out”.

There are many alternate options.

Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about……..Both manufactures, reluctant to use American solutions, have backed themselves into a corner, as such, their sales speak to this.

Not really. I don't get your connection here.

Google it.

You can't count air shows as combat experience.

Where does taking LSD fit in?

Probably in training for the f35 helmet users?

[Guest Derek L]

Its the concept not the equipment. There are many concepts.

And the concept became outdated when said systems became integral to an airframe.

It does require 250 million dollars.

What does? The F-35? Didn't you read the link I posted a page or so back? The F-35A will come close to the Initial estimates of under 80 million per copy, once in full production later this decade.

There are many alternate options.

Nope, not with the Paveway family.

Not really. I don't get your connection here.

The Europeans tried to develop their own technology and are facing difficulty………As such, the orders for their aircraft, outside of the partner nations are grim. Remember, both these aircraft currently cost as much as the costing associated with production F-35As………

You can't count air shows as combat experience.

The first Gulf war, FRY and Libya.

[Bonam]

"Stealth Module"?

Cloaking device. Just don't tell the Romulans we have one.

[Guest Derek L]

Cloaking device. Just don't tell the Romulans we have one.

I'm waiting for the monkey crewed airships

[Bonam]

I'm waiting for the monkey crewed airships

Or replacing our airforce with space-elevator-launched-gliders (that was one of William's proposals a few years back).

[Guest Derek L]

Or replacing our airforce with space-elevator-launched-gliders (that was one of William's proposals a few years back).

I don’t understand the subterfuge though……….At the end of the day, Mr Ashley might be somewhat “eccentric”, but in my opinion harmless………..And I suppose an internet discussion forum is meant to “discuss things”

[Moonbox]

What does? The F-35? Didn't you read the link I posted a page or so back? The F-35A will come close to the Initial estimates of under 80 million per copy, once in full production later this decade.

Not according to the CAPE office at the Pentagon...they were estimating program costs now at +$1.4 Trillion now with an overall average unit cost of $133M back in March.

This program has been bungled pretty badly.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE82S03L20120329

[Guest Derek L]

Not according to the CAPE office at the Pentagon...they were estimating program costs now at +$1.4 Trillion now with an overall average unit cost of $133M back in March.

This program has been bungled pretty badly.

http://www.reuters.c...E82S03L20120329

But do you recognize that this is a new accounting method? Unlike previous aircraft which included a 30 year lifespan, this method uses 50 years and estimates what inflation will be out to the 2060s…………

As to the unit cost, the current negotiations underway for the next block of F-35s, Low Rate Initial Production aircraft (LRIP # 5), have DoD wanting a price around 90 million per aircraft (flyaway cost) with Lockheed closer to 100 million per……..Where they will eventually settle, I don’t know, but somewhere within the 90-100 million dollar range, which isn’t bad considering this order will be for just over 30 aircraft……….

As to the $133 figure flyaway cost, that was for LRIP # 4 aircraft, which still wasn’t bad, since they were initially estimated to cost closer to 160 million per………..The initial LRIP aircraft were closer to 300 million per aircraft……..Remember, these are “flyaway cost” (With an engine) and no support

I’ve yet to see any evidence that our Governments costing of just under 15 billion for 65 production aircraft and support is unattainable……….Or a per plane figure including the aircraft, spares, support and training aides, specific to the F-35A, at ~$220-230 million per plane.

[login]

And the concept became outdated when said systems became integral to an airframe.

Is that like how paying became outdated when people determined they could keep their wallet in their pocket?

What does? The F-35? Didn't you read the link I posted a page or so back? The F-35A will come close to the Initial estimates of under 80 million per copy, once in full production later this decade.

Is this before or after the contract price is agreed on?

Nope, not with the Paveway family.

Why is that?

The Europeans tried to develop their own technology and are facing difficulty………As such, the orders for their aircraft, outside of the partner nations are grim. Remember, both these aircraft currently cost as much as the costing associated with production F-35As………

No they don't.

You are reading figures that don't represent the costs. Educate yourself, it is nonsense for you to be saying these planes are costing under 100 million when they simply arn't. You are wrong, your figures are wrong, and you arn't with the times on the f35, you are quoting year 2005 costs when it is nearly 2015 and the costs have more than doubled.

The first Gulf war, FRY and Libya.

as I was saying...

[Guest Derek L]

Is that like how paying became outdated when people determined they could keep their wallet in their pocket?

What?

Is this before or after the contract price is agreed on?

Put the horse before the cart.

Why is that?

That's how it works.

No they don't.

You are reading figures that don't represent the costs. Educate yourself, it is nonsense for you to be saying these planes are costing under 100 million when they simply arn't. You are wrong, your figures are wrong, and you arn't with the times on the f35, you are quoting year 2005 costs when it is nearly 2015 and the costs have more than doubled.

Read my link from several pages back.

[login]

Read my link from several pages back.

several pages and forescore 7 years before?

What is 9000000000 / 65?

is it > or < 70?

What is 300 * 30?

Now what is 18 000 000 000 / 65?

That looks like 275+ million/plane.

Do I need to teach you elementary school again young Derek?

Your logic seems to be from the same Flaherty school of

We are viciously reducing that deficit. We'll have that deficit paid off in a few years.

From the book called:

Budgetting for the day you leave office.

A credible government will not sign a 30 year deal without the money. It is misappropriation.

These goons that do this term in and term out should be hanged.

Edited November 2, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

several pages and forescore 7 years before?

What is 9000000000 / 65?

is it > or < 70?

What is 300 * 30?

Now what is 18 000 000 000 / 65?

That looks like 275+ million/plane.

Do I need to teach you elementary school again young Derek?

Your logic seems to be from the same Flaherty school of

We are viciously reducing that deficit. We'll have that deficit paid off in a few years.

From the book called:

Budgetting for the day you leave office.

A credible government will not sign a 30 year deal without the money. It is misappropriation.

These goons that do this term in and term out should be hanged.

Now William, do you really have that much trouble with math?

If the Government of Canada desires to purchase 65 F-35s and they have budgeted ~$15 billion for said purchase of aircraft, spares training aides etc, what is the per plane purchase price?

15 000 000 000 / 65 = ?

Perhaps you'd care to review DND pricing?

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/comparison-comparaison-eng.asp