F-35 Purchase

[login]

Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) is a diversified company with annual gross sales revenue of about $48 billion dollars. Canada's potential contribution to future sales revenue for F-35's is a relative drop in the bucket. Canada still buys other LockMart aircraft, subsystems, and support.

It is still a company banking on the future and the f35 is a large part of that future, or does it have a 6th generation lined up in the next 10 years no one told us about?

I really am not anti Lockheed Martin but the finances speak for themself with the fact they hold more debt than assets, they are deemend a relatively low bankrupcy risk like how often do people roll 1's on dice?

The company offers a lot but with their number of VP's an project bloat I don't have a lot of confidence in the company in global competition where the technology isn't controlled through monopolization.

I would go ahead and ask Canada to see if MacDonnell Douglass's f-36 is a go or could be made with parts and get a price quote.

The Snecma M88 engine in the Dassault Rafale allows it to supercruise in dry power, even with four missiles and a 1000-liter belly tank and even in the naval version; it can supercruise up to Mach 1.4 while carrying six air-to-air missiles (MBDA MICA).

Edited November 7, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

It is still a company banking on the future and the f35 is a large part of that future, or does it have a 6th generation lined up in the next 10 years no one told us about?

Nope, 6th generation won't be around until the late 2020s or early 2030s to start replacing the USN Super Hornets.

I would go ahead and ask Canada to see if MacDonnell Douglass's f-36 is a go or could be made with parts and get a price quote.

McDonnell Douglas doesn’t exist as a sole entity………..And any information on the “X-36” can’t be exchanged with another Government without prior approval of the US Government………But let’s put reality aside for a moment, who do you propose building the X-36? Something you’re going to do in your basement perhaps……after you’ve integrated Russian and F-35 avionics into the Rafale of course.

[login]

Nope, 6th generation won't be around until the late 2020s or early 2030s to start replacing the USN Super Hornets.

What are next weeks lotto numbers?

http://en.wikipedia....ion_jet_fighter

Fact is 6th gen designs already exist. f35 is a 20 year old project already. It is really unfortunate that todays design isn't built today instead people opt to build yesterdays design today.

You are regurgitating market control not the reality of the plausible and potential.

Canada's national security shouldn't be delegated to the realm of market control.

McDonnell Douglas doesn’t exist as a sole entity………..And any information on the “X-36” can’t be exchanged with another Government without prior approval of the US Government………But let’s put reality aside for a moment, who do you propose building the X-36? Something you’re going to do in your basement perhaps……after you’ve integrated Russian and F-35 avionics into the Rafale of course.

It would have to be a pretty large basement, but we can't rule that out.

Theavionics of the f35 suck. It has bells and whistles but it sort of sucks as a plane. Doesn't max out speed capabilities, no super cruise, avionics can be put on another aircraft via modules.

There are things that arn'tcool likethe fact 'the software' ain't even done..... and level of technology is from 20 years ago.

I'mstarting to think 100 million of the plane cost is box design.

None the less.. it stinks.. the only benefits is to buy a few for NORAD and a strike force, its not much of a fighter though.

I prefer a home brewed plane, not an American controlled project.

Canada needs to revise its IP laws though, they have resulted in the US buying out Canadian IP's related to the defence industry leaving Canada at gun point super inflated prices for defence spending it is nonsense.

I just say to hell with it. But the means of procurement ---- it should be paid with avaialble funds only spending what Canada can pay for today.

Its just a really badly implemented procurement.

Plans exist eg. http://en.wikipedia....neration_Bomber

the whole thing is massive in mindset though, but you are staying a line that isn't holistic and is market driven.

Take for example the fact that Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty applies to the US and not Canada.

I think where Canada needs to go is an orbital drop ship. Something that can take pay loads into space and have a rapid descent to target. Utilizing free fall assist for high mach insertion.

As well as a secondary force for intercept and escort. --- I think that procurement of Rafale like plane and f-18's are just going to be a stop gap. Canada needs to expand its airforce not receed it. I think within 10 years though Canada should look to except in high level contexts use drones for escort, or atleast mix things up a bit... but the whole strategy needs to be modernized. The procurement just feels like it is being managed by dinasuars who don't have a clue what technology exists today.

An orbital dropship might be two stage.. stationary launch cannon to suborbital then thrust to near space to drop zone.

http://en.wikipedia...._bomber_concept

Like what is the deal with the x37b?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1268138/X-37B-unmanned-space-shuttle-launched-tonight.html

Edited November 15, 2012 by login

[wyly]

I just say to hell with it. But the means of procurement ---- it should be paid with avaialble funds only spending what Canada can pay for today.

or to use your arguement(and cpcftw) from a different thread on taxation the military and those who voted for the cpcp should pay for it, let those who use it give up their pensions to pay for it right?...

login

no tax is good tax.

We need to remove taxes not add more of them. Municipalities need to reduce their spending. Sales taxes are already high enough in Canada. I'll take dirt roads and snow shoes over paying someone for something I can do myself.

Costs are way too high.. things are too developed in Canada in terms of infrastructure upkeep. People should be able to accept less.

Tax people who use the programs. Blanket taxing is immoral.

Costs should go to people who get the benefits.

Edited November 15, 2012 by wyly

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I hope they don't buy the birds.

[login]

or to use your arguement(and cpcftw) from a different thread on taxation the military and those who voted for the cpcp should pay for it, let those who use it give up their pensions to pay for it right?...

First off I beleive in a militia and the right to bear arms. So I think everyone who is concerned with their protection should invest in that. But I think the freedom of choice is important. That is why individuals who wish to support the purchase of a given fighter jet should be able to put in for that. It works the same way for people who don't want to spend for some arts program or justice system or sports or etc... they shouldn't need to pay, and programs should be open for spending and proposed to the public, whereby the public can then decide what services it wants to buy from the government. The government in their grant proposal can convince Canadians why it is needed, and Canadians can comment on that. Heck even foreigners and residents could buy in. What is the difference between the gov and a corp in that instnace, the government monopolizes some services for the publics well being, or insure competition where otherwise a monopoly might exist.

I think if old folks with pensions or young folks with pensions as it the case of MPs want specific services they should be willing to pay for them, but they shouldn't be forcing other people to if those other people don't want them.

Back to the militia though people should be able to put their money to their defence first. But in reality I think some Canadians do support the f35 and they should be the ones to pay for it, much like the people that support the arts or the environment should be the ones to pay for it.

Now there are exceptions but I think that if we are to equally pay for it, then it should be a measurement of our currency - and that means inflationary spending into programs, rather than direct taxation, it is the only way to insure that everyone is financially being treated the same on the costs.

I think the whole tax system needs to be restructured to be more representative of the people gaining the benefits paying the costs, but except for essential services all skeleton crew like that should be left to the public to decide. Let the legislature decide the law warrantedly, perhaps they could start with all the bad ones they've made and clean it up a bit before moving on to screw things up more, but law shouldn't be about raising budgets. Can you beleieve there was once a time taxes only existed in emergencies? Are we in an emergency now? I don't think so, so why can people not pay down a credit card before putting themselves in debt even more?

Oh I want that, I want that.... well F.U. if you don't got the money in your pocket bugger off you nut.

Even adding tax referendums to tax forms is a way I would go. I beleive in tax democracy. I would take it much further though. Don't take away choice unless there is no other option.

The current governments are just intentionally poisoning effective government and paying for yesterday today, but living further and further in the past in regard to their payments. People say Canada doesn't need austerity, well it needed in 100 years ago, and it has needed it from that point onward. It is fiscal insanity and no one can live the life of a debtor consciously saying, yes this is moral, Canada isn't a financially moral state, and that is wrong.

Canada needs to represent freedom in all ways and that includes emancipation of the people from the shackles of the public debt.

Edited November 15, 2012 by login

[bush_cheney2004]

...I prefer a home brewed plane, not an American controlled project.

Oh...that's great, because your all Canadian "plane" will also need all Canadian engines, radar, avionics, comms/nav suite, data link, tankers, missiles, ground attack ordnance, cannon/chain gun, GPS satellite system, two-seat trainers, simulators, and a bunch of other stuff.

Who needs overpriced American crap, right? Good luck.......

[Guest Derek L]

Oh...that's great, because your all Canadian "plane" will also need all Canadian engines, radar, avionics, comms/nav suite, data link, tankers, missiles, ground attack ordnance, cannon/chain gun, GPS satellite system, two-seat trainers, simulators, and a bunch of other stuff.

Who needs overpriced American crap, right? Good luck.......

Yeah, the last time we looked at that option, it was the “home-grown approach” or the rest of our military…….

I feel we should take the opposite approach (Like we are slowly in some areas) and move towards an entire net-centric , scalable (and in some areas smaller) military that is fully interoperable with our closest allies if we want to be a world player……If not, take the Icelandic or Irish approach………..I don’t see a realistic, nor affordable, middle ground……………Now if we choose to be world actors, we should model our military as a self sufficient expeditionary force born out of fiscal realities (See more capable but smaller in size).

Now only if there was an organization that historically took this approach towards a combined force……

[login]

Oh...that's great, because your all Canadian "plane" will also need all Canadian engines, radar, avionics, comms/nav suite, data link, tankers, missiles, ground attack ordnance, cannon/chain gun, GPS satellite system, two-seat trainers, simulators, and a bunch of other stuff.

Who needs overpriced American crap, right? Good luck.......

No, no it won't.

My plane would have a propulsion system. Radar is a little dated, and I would upgrade it to better detection systems that don't spew emissions (example internal sensed differentiation sensed presence). No data link is requried. Missiles are secondary, as HEWS are better for air combat , and neutron bomb or sabots ar ejust as effective for bombing screw conventional war. HEWS can be used for ground attack also. no need for chain gun, hews. No need for GPS with intermal intertial tracking computer system. No need for trainers if it has autopilot ai. sims are secondary as they can be done in a rigged up jet with ai and display sims, and other stuff. Just throw a high power HEW on the cyclotron mounted to the engine cycling generator. Throw in the EW suite also. as well as vector thrust.

See my plane could fly itself, or have a pilot if required. In place of a pilot you could add payload such as a megaton nuke or tons of chems or rig it up for a robot assasin insertion etc.. tech has advanced a lot.

I'd also go for a bomber model, based on valkryie. for boom wake ride, or even include that for supercruise boom wake at mach 3. for delivery.

You can even mount mini nuclear power generators in bombers these days for continuous operations. Thats a bomber the enemy don't want to shoot down over tehran or shanghai or moscow.

Shiva star is only the tip of the iceberg circa 5-10 years ago what is capable.

Lets get real though projects like the f35 arn't about war machines, they are about making the military industrial complex money so they can kick 3rd world countries.

Now bear in mind this is not a total solution due to the ability to use disapation fields to defend against lasers i.e. dampeners.

It gets rather complex. a missile mount is not impposible. But one would have missiles as only a last resort because they are generally inferior to say a 10MW laser.

Edited November 16, 2012 by login

[bush_cheney2004]

Like I said....good luck getting all those things "Made in Canada".

[Guest Derek L]

Like I said....good luck getting all those things "Made in Canada".

And cheaper than the F-35.....

[login]

Like I said....good luck getting all those things "Made in Canada".

Thats what basements are for right. Remember it is Canada sending their doctors down there not the other way around.

As soon as the research well dry's up in the US

This thing is 1970's technology..

https://www.google.c...iw=1250&bih=673

The patents are expired.

eg.

http://www.airwar.ru...r/draw/b70.html

http://www.airwar.ru...raw/xb70mk.html

http://www.airwar.ru...b70valkyre.html

J-47 Turbojet

with some tweaks this is archaic but unused that can easily be tidied up a bit and slapped together.'

Nuclear powered aircraft projects date back over 50 years ago.

eg. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Convair_X-6

nuclear power has gotten much cleaner since the Tupolev Tu-119

The designs of course are not fully maximized as --- the idea of generation of power is secondary tothe direct capacity to use nuclear exhaust for thrust, in addition to powering a filtered compressed oxygen mixture for high mach flight through the use of nuclear energy to create fuel while in flight. Effecitvely making a nuclear air thrust scramjet sonic wake riding strike bomber / ICMB (with ai guidance) / anti aircraft due to DEWS.. as well as the ability to have increased air fluidity through compression or release of specific LTA gases. If the need be you could paint it with some silly putty too.

Edited November 17, 2012 by login

[Topaz]

Apparently, the Russian Stealth is said to match the US F-35 and China is on their way of producing a stealth of their own. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/russia-stealth/

[Smallc]

[Topaz]

The big question for McKay is why they never even considered other jets? If you watch QP enough, you could tell that the Tories weren't looking for another jet, even the prices for the jet was increasing as time went on. Now , with budget cuts in place, its going to be out of the question of even thinking about the F-35 as the replacement jet. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/18/peter-mackay-avoids-answering-when-asked-if-government-is-looking-at-alternatives-to-f-35/

[Guest Derek L]

And in other F-35 news:

http://www.washingto...bf23_story.html

SAN DIEGO — The Marine Corps is forming the first squadron of pilots to fly the next-generation strike fighter jet, months after lawmakers raised concern that there was a rush to end the testing of an aircraft hit with technical problems.

So far two veteran pilots of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing have been trained to fly the F-35B. They are becoming the first members of the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 that will debut at a ceremony Tuesday at the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Ariz.

The first F-35B arrived Friday and 15 more are slated to arrive over the next year. The Defense Department has pumped a half a billion dollars into upgrading the facilities, hangars and runways at the base to make way for the next-generation fighter jet, officials said.

The very first operational F-35B squadron, another huge milestone accomplished and made more significant by doing it with the Marines, which will be operating the STOVL version, which itself was put on “probation” a while back………And the first USAF squadron operating the F-35A, of which what we’ll be getting, will also be standing up in several months about a three hours drive NE at Luke Air Force Base……

Edited November 19, 2012 by Derek L

[Bonam]

Thats what basements are for right. Remember it is Canada sending their doctors down there not the other way around.

As soon as the research well dry's up in the US

This thing is 1970's technology..

https://www.google.c...iw=1250&bih=673

The patents are expired.

eg.

http://www.airwar.ru...r/draw/b70.html

http://www.airwar.ru...raw/xb70mk.html

http://www.airwar.ru...b70valkyre.html

J-47 Turbojet

with some tweaks this is archaic but unused that can easily be tidied up a bit and slapped together.'

Nuclear powered aircraft projects date back over 50 years ago.

eg. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Convair_X-6

nuclear power has gotten much cleaner since the Tupolev Tu-119

The designs of course are not fully maximized as --- the idea of generation of power is secondary tothe direct capacity to use nuclear exhaust for thrust, in addition to powering a filtered compressed oxygen mixture for high mach flight through the use of nuclear energy to create fuel while in flight. Effecitvely making a nuclear air thrust scramjet sonic wake riding strike bomber / ICMB (with ai guidance) / anti aircraft due to DEWS.. as well as the ability to have increased air fluidity through compression or release of specific LTA gases. If the need be you could paint it with some silly putty too.

Yes I'm sure Canada's nuclear-hating peace-loving public will be only too eager to spend a few hundred billion dollars developing a nuclear scramjet propelled aircraft equipped with neutron bombs.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes I'm sure Canada's nuclear-hating peace-loving public will be only too eager to spend a few hundred billion dollars developing a nuclear scramjet propelled aircraft equipped with neutron bombs.

I don’t even bother anymore will William……..I think his ideas require a “grounding” prior

[login]

Oh...that's great, because your all Canadian "plane" will also need all Canadian engines, radar, avionics, comms/nav suite, data link, tankers, missiles, ground attack ordnance, cannon/chain gun, GPS satellite system, two-seat trainers, simulators, and a bunch of other stuff.

Who needs overpriced American crap, right? Good luck.......

exactly

my gosh think of it a canadian aerospace industry...

its great having parts and all but if you can't build anything with them...

Edited November 22, 2012 by login

[login]

Yes I'm sure Canada's nuclear-hating peace-loving public will be only too eager to spend a few hundred billion dollars developing a nuclear scramjet propelled aircraft equipped with neutron bombs.

Yes I'm sure Canada's nuclear-hating peace-loving public will be only too eager to spend a few hundred billion dollars developing a nuclear scramjet propelled aircraft equipped with neutron bombs.

Canada isn't nuclear hating.

You are clearly out of touch.

sorry but its not hundreds of billions to develope 50 year old technology.

development costs are mostly to develope new technology.

the patents have expired

\Your positions are negligent of the past 50 years

Canada has exported its nuclear technology around the world

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media-room/news-release/2009-05/2124

Edited November 20, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

Canada isn't nuclear hating.

You are clearly out of touch.

sorry but its not hundreds of billions to develope 50 year old technology.

development costs are mostly to develope new technology.

the patents have expired

\Your positions are negligent of the past 50 years

Canada has exported its nuclear technology around the world

http://www.nrcan.gc....se/2009-05/2124

William, can you possibly fathom why it is that nuclear powered aircraft were shelved back in the 60s? Aside from cost, which both the Soviets and Americans found prohibitive, there’s also the very real likelihood that you’re going to lose aircraft in crashes…………With our Hornet fleet alone we’ve had nearly 20 crashes over 30 years……….So what you’re proposing, is the possibility of having nearly 20 “Three Mile Islands” over the next 30 years within Canada………….Can’t you dream up something like a Canadian produced X-Wing fighter flown by monkeys or something..........Christ on a cracker.......

[login]

William, can you possibly fathom why it is that nuclear powered aircraft were shelved back in the 60s? Aside from cost, which both the Soviets and Americans found prohibitive, there’s also the very real likelihood that you’re going to lose aircraft in crashes…………With our Hornet fleet alone we’ve had nearly 20 crashes over 30 years……….So what you’re proposing, is the possibility of having nearly 20 “Three Mile Islands” over the next 30 years within Canada………….Can’t you dream up something like a Canadian produced X-Wing fighter flown by monkeys or something..........Christ on a cracker.......

I'm not sure why you are refering to me as "William", none the less, first off you make an airplane that doesn't crash. Second you make it so that it can crash safe.

Nuclear power is remarkably safer today than it was in the 1960's, especially among microreactors.

Also, we simply arn't living in the same nuclear reality for a Nuclear Powered Bomber that existed in the 1960's.

It is also easy to make a nuclear reactor crash proof or ejectionable.

You don't seem to understand crash safety for devices like black boxes, and or nuclear power systems, as well as the difference between 1960's large installation based nuclear plants versus small aircraft based systems.

Three mile island is an 800 MW faciliy, which is over 40 to 400 times the power output if not more than the microreactor that would be on the aircraft.

Understand that nuclear thrust is not power generative it uses nuclear heat to replace electric or petrocarbon fuel source exhaust propulsion.

That is compressed superheated oxygen and other gasses from the air itself. Meaning that while a conventional fuel supply can exist.. rotor or turbine based primary stage electric power can be used in combination with nuclear exhaust second stage as well as self feuling via air filtration and compression systems to allow scramjetting and wake riding.

Basically no fuel need apply. It makes the system much safer. In a crash like an ejection seat you can encase the reactor in crash proof aerogel or other foam ontop of a super hardened carbon composite shell for survival. the fuel itself can be deactivated in miliseconds. And all that remains is heat.. these "3 mile island scenarios would be impossible... but in the event of an explosion sure there could be some contamination.. but not a lot.. now if you intentionally armed it to cause contamination sure.

Perhaps a less than 20 crashes record, my gosh if the 60 f35's were to have that record on their one engine model that would be 1/3rd of Canada's airforce gone... at a cost of what 6 billion dollars in crashes.

Edited November 21, 2012 by login

[Topaz]

In my view, the Tories and the DND have decided on the F-35 and nothing is going to change that, even though it will cost 25+ Billion by the time all of this is done and the reasons behind all this? No one is saying but I do know that the Canadian directors on this company are former military personel , who probably stand to make a killing as shareholders and IF down the road Canada and the US are harmonized or at least the military, we'll have to same jets and the US will always hold the codes. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/National+Defence+escapes+study+with+slap+wrist/7591274/story.html

[PIK]

In my view, the Tories and the DND have decided on the F-35 and nothing is going to change that, even though it will cost 25+ Billion by the time all of this is done and the reasons behind all this? No one is saying but I do know that the Canadian directors on this company are former military personel , who probably stand to make a killing as shareholders and IF down the road Canada and the US are harmonized or at least the military, we'll have to same jets and the US will always hold the codes. http://www.vancouver...1274/story.html

You just figured that out? These are the future. The chinese are close to thier own, and when they do have their own,the super hornet and others will be obsolete overnite. What are the russians doing, are they building thier own?

[login]

You just figured that out? These are the future. The chinese are close to thier own, and when they do have their own,the super hornet and others will be obsolete overnite. What are the russians doing, are they building thier own?

yes because Chinese planes can reach Canada...

http://whitedwarf.egloos.com/m/3727379

They have 1 aircraft carrier...

this discounting the chinese ufos

Edited November 22, 2012 by login