F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

Well the reality is that the basics of the technology to build a nuclear powered aircraft do exist, if we wanted to. It's been done before, and we have the technology today to do it better than it was done in the past. And we could arm it with neutron bombs too, if we wanted to (though I don't know why we would; normal thermonuclear armaments seem more widely applicable than neutron bombs). Of course, such a program would be monstrously expensive, and does not at all fall within the specs of what the Canadian military wants for its next aircraft. But I can sympathize with William's desire to fantasize about the technological possibilities. I for one would love to work on a project to develop a modern nuclear ramjet for Canada's airforce

Oh I know the Americans and Soviets looked the technology when I was in diapers, but the US engine weighed twice the weight of the P&W F135, produced only slightly more thrust and though offered exceptionally more “range”, said range doesn’t take into account actual real world requirements like lubricants and crew fatigue associated with flying long endurance in aircraft the size of a fighter……..

The idea might be neat, but aside from perhaps offering advantages in space flight, the associated costs don’t make such an idea feasible…………It’s the same reason the United States Navy has done away with their nuclear powered surface combatants in the 90s……..The extreme costs don’t really offer any benefits over conventional types………

[Bonam]

Oh I know the Americans and Soviets looked the technology when I was in diapers, but the US engine weighed twice the weight of the P&W F135, produced only slightly more thrust and though offered exceptionally more “range”, said range doesn’t take into account actual real world requirements like lubricants and crew fatigue associated with flying long endurance in aircraft the size of a fighter……..

The idea might be neat, but aside from perhaps offering advantages in space flight, the associated costs don’t make such an idea feasible…………It’s the same reason the United States Navy has done away with their nuclear powered surface combatants in the 90s……..The extreme costs don’t really offer any benefits over conventional types………

The advantages would likely be realized in a few specific key special role aircraft that would benefit from being able to stay aloft for long periods. Just as it is beneficial for aircraft carriers and submarines to be nuclear powered. For example, a nuclear powered airforce one that could stay aloft for months at a time. This could also be applicable to other command and control type aircraft. But there has been recent progress in miniaturizing nuclear reactors significantly, and so a new effort to develop nuclear engines for aircraft could well yield lighter results than the prototypes looked at in the 60s and 70s.

Of course I agree with you regarding cost feasibility. Additionally, there simply is not any real necessity for aircraft with these capabilities to justify such costs.

But if the US was still in a serious cold war with another superpower of comparable technological and economic prowess, we'd likely be well on our way to having fusion powered hypersonic fighters armed with laser beams and antimatter weapons.

[bush_cheney2004]

....But if the US was still in a serious cold war with another superpower of comparable technological and economic prowess, we'd likely be well on our way to having fusion powered hypersonic fighters armed with laser beams and antimatter weapons.

The US is still pursuing such technology for a defined, post Cold War mission: hypersonic delivery of a weapons/recon package to anywhere in the world within one hour. Example would be the Boeing X-51A.

[Bonam]

The US is still pursuing such technology for a defined, post Cold War mission: hypersonic delivery of a weapons/recon package to anywhere in the world within one hour. Example would be the Boeing X-51A.

Yep I've been following its development, along with the development of the other technologies I mentioned: fusion energy, laser weapons, antimatter.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Bonam

[Guest Derek L]

The advantages would likely be realized in a few specific key special role aircraft that would benefit from being able to stay aloft for long periods. Just as it is beneficial for aircraft carriers and submarines to be nuclear powered. For example, a nuclear powered airforce one that could stay aloft for months at a time. This could also be applicable to other command and control type aircraft. But there has been recent progress in miniaturizing nuclear reactors significantly, and so a new effort to develop nuclear engines for aircraft could well yield lighter results than the prototypes looked at in the 60s and 70s.

Of course I agree with you regarding cost feasibility. Additionally, there simply is not any real necessity for aircraft with these capabilities to justify such costs.

But if the US was still in a serious cold war with another superpower of comparable technological and economic prowess, we'd likely be well on our way to having fusion powered hypersonic fighters armed with laser beams and antimatter weapons.

The limiting factors of keeping manned aircraft aloft, outside of the actual “human condition” will always be the aircraft itself……..Hydraulics, lubricants and general electrical, mechanical and structural fatigue…..The USAF’s Strategic Air Command, whom set many endurance records, found that 48 hours was on the outside limit of practicality for keeping large multi engine aircraft aloft………..Of course a fighter size aircraft (or helicopter), one that doesn’t allow the aircrew to at least stand-up, stretch, take a leak and have something warm to eat/drink starts losing efficiency after 4-6 hours. This became one of our own requirements in selecting a maritime helicopter, as such, precluded the much smaller (and cheaper) Seahawk and Lynx helicopters.

Now there is no reason to say that an unmanned aircraft, with endurance measured in days not hours wouldn’t be practical, but such a craft can/could/is already achievable with airships and designs similar/expanded upon the Global Hawk…………But this does nothing for replacing our current manned fighters, at less a cost than the F-35.…….or for the other reasons like sticking it to the Americans that William login was babbling about.

As to laser weapons, depending upon development, it is quite possible the F-35 will have directed energy weapons in a later block upgrade, but based on the Americans binning their 747 based chemical laser research, I would tend to think that might not be for decades, if ever.

[login]

How would "you" do this ? By violating the IP rights of manufacturers in other nations? Great plan.

yes.

I wouldn't publicize though, it'd be above top secret.

If anything were uncovered it'd be denied.

If the rules are stacked against you, make your own.

This is survival not rich and poor.

F**K IP

Of course it wouldn't all be pirated, butI have no qualms whatsoever pirating.

Edited December 2, 2012 by login

[login]

The limiting factors of keeping manned aircraft aloft, outside of the actual “human condition” will always be the aircraft itself……..Hydraulics, lubricants and general electrical, mechanical and structural fatigue…..The USAF’s Strategic Air Command, whom set many endurance records, found that 48 hours was on the outside limit of practicality for keeping large multi engine aircraft aloft………..Of course a fighter size aircraft (or helicopter), one that doesn’t allow the aircrew to at least stand-up, stretch, take a leak and have something warm to eat/drink starts losing efficiency after 4-6 hours. This became one of our own requirements in selecting a maritime helicopter, as such, precluded the much smaller (and cheaper) Seahawk and Lynx helicopters.

Now there is no reason to say that an unmanned aircraft, with endurance measured in days not hours wouldn’t be practical, but such a craft can/could/is already achievable with airships and designs similar/expanded upon the Global Hawk…………But this does nothing for replacing our current manned fighters, at less a cost than the F-35.…….or for the other reasons like sticking it to the Americans that William login was babbling about.

As to laser weapons, depending upon development, it is quite possible the F-35 will have directed energy weapons in a later block upgrade, but based on the Americans binning their 747 based chemical laser research, I would tend to think that might not be for decades, if ever.

nay nay

fact is it is already possibke but missiles make the us more money.

Or should I say it makes rich americans more money

you are grossly mistaken it does mean the next generation.

The us doesm't want other people to have new jets that make their technology obsolete.

Its a national security risk.

Its not because it ain't possible it is what it makes possible that is the problem.

Edited December 2, 2012 by login

[bush_cheney2004]

yes.

I wouldn't publicize though, it'd be above top secret.

If anything were uncovered it'd be denied.

If the rules are stacked against you, make your own.

Not going to happen regardless of any rules...dream on.

This is survival not rich and poor.

F**K IP

Of course it wouldn't all be pirated, butI have no qualms whatsoever pirating.

Obviously...but there is a big difference between stealing MP3s and building modern military aircraft. Remember, Canada did famously build its own interceptor, but wouldn't even buy any from itself.

[login]

Not going to happen regardless of any rules...dream on.

Obviously...but there is a big difference between stealing MP3s and building modern military aircraft. Remember, Canada did famously build its own interceptor, but wouldn't even buy any from itself.

It is still developing.

none the less no, there is no difference. If you know how to press play

Edited December 3, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

Obviously...but there is a big difference between stealing MP3s and building modern military aircraft. Remember, Canada did famously build its own interceptor, but wouldn't even buy any from itself.

Yup, our “achievement” with the Arrow then was like someone today perfecting the VHS player………At the end of the day, Dief the Chief ultimately made the right call when faced with choosing between the Arrow and the rest of the military.

[Guest Derek L]

To get us back on topic:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/usa-defense-fighter-idUSL1E8MU73B20121130

WASHINGTON, Nov 30 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp and the U.S. Defense Department have reached an agreement in principle on a fifth batch of 32 additional F-35 fighter planes, the Pentagon said on Friday, bringing nearly a year of negotiations to a close.

The deal is valued at around $3.8 billion, although the two sides are still finalizing details, according to a source familiar with the agreement.

The agreement will also pave the way for talks about preliminary funding for a sixth batch of aircraft that Lockheed, the Pentagon's largest supplier, has been building at its own cost for some time.

So for the 5th batch of LRIP F-35s, including support, will be around:

3.8 billion / 32 = ~ 118 million............Or to contrast, the LRIP F-35 is now about the same price as what the Europeans are paying for the Eurofighter, and the French for the Rafale...........Keep in mind this fifth batch is low rate production and the per plane cost has come down nearly 50% in nearly a year and a half….Full production and economies of scale haven’t even kicked in yet.

"These lot 5 negotiations were a pivotal point for the F-35 program that will make it much easier to agree on terms for follow-on production," he said.

Current plans call for the cost of an F-35 to be around $66 million in 2018, excluding the engine, which is comparable to an F-16, he added.

The fifth F-35 order includes 22 conventional takeoff and landing variants for the U.S. Air Force, three B-models that can land vertically for the Marine Corps and seven C-models to be used on aircraft carriers for the Navy.

So the current plans are still on track………Anyone want to take a bet that the Canadian Media or Official Opposition won’t bring up this story?

[cybercoma]

Graphic from the National Post illustrating Canada's choices and how they stack up to the F-35, as well as the jets they could potentially face in the field.

Edited December 3, 2012 by cybercoma

[Signals.Cpl]

Graphic from the National Post illustrating Canada's choices and how they stack up to the F-35, as well as the jets they could potentially face in the field.

I really want to know what the cost of all the aircraft include, wether they are using the same method of calculation or just pulling number out of thin air.

[Guest Derek L]

Graphic from the National Post illustrating Canada's choices and how they stack up to the F-35, as well as the jets they could potentially face in the field.

The graphic is rife with errors………….

For instance, it contrasts the “range on internal fuel” of the F-35, but mistakenly labels the others ranges as on internal fuel which is incorrect, as in the case of the other aircraft, said figures are with external drop tanks……….

It states the F-35 doesn’t have the ability to “Supercruise” which is also incorrect as confirmed by a recent DoD/Lockheed press release I linked to several months ago………

And the flyaway cost listed for both the Raptor and F-35 is absurd, again the most recent cost was linked to above……….

It lists the Raptor and Korean aircraft as “potential options” regardless of the fact that the Raptor is no longer in production and was never allowed to be exported, and the initial design of the Korean aircraft hasn’t even been finalized yet…………All the while, excluding both the Dassalt Rafale and Boeing Super Hornet, F-15 Silent Eagle and the latest block of F-16 as other “potential options”

Very Sloppy Journalism, and I see they’re borrowing said graphic from APA, a group founded by Peter Goon and Dr. Carlo Koop, who was laughed out of Australian Senate Committee hearings for his hysterical, unfounded claims……….At the very least, I don’t see why the National Post didn’t just send out a half dozen emails to manufactures and request their products information packages and publish those numbers………

[DogOnPorch]

The F-22 isn't for sale....oh yeah...it says that.

Edited December 3, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

It lists the Raptor and Korean aircraft as “potential options” regardless of the fact that the Raptor is no longer in production and was never allowed to be exported, and the initial design of the Korean aircraft hasn’t even been finalized yet…………All the while, excluding both the Dassalt Rafale and Boeing Super Hornet, F-15 Silent Eagle and the latest block of F-16 as other “potential options”

Agreed, as the former were never an option for Canada. The latter would potentially have better contract offsets or outright licensed build for Canada compared to the F-35A.

Very Sloppy Journalism, and I see they’re borrowing said graphic from APA, a group founded by Peter Goon and Dr. Carlo Koop, who was laughed out of Australian Senate Committee hearings for his hysterical, unfounded claims………

The Australians have a very well organized and spirited group engaged in their procurement spinning and lobbying. Compared to Canada, the Aussies have more skin in the game.

[DogOnPorch]

BC...who flies the Super Tucano in the US military? The Marines?

[Guest Derek L]

The F-22 isn't for sale....oh yeah...it says that.

But it also places it in the "potential options" column.

[DogOnPorch]

But it also places it in the "potential options" column.

True enough. Canada really only has one choice for a multi-role jet and it doesn't matter who is in government at the moment. If we wish to spread it out over some cheaper dedicated aircraft....that may also be solution. But, it would mean more pilots and ground crew (et al). Then there's airbases...

[bush_cheney2004]

BC...who flies the Super Tucano in the US military? The Marines?

It was going to be the USAF for counter-insurgency, but the deal got nixed. I think Beechcraft protested the contract as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

True enough. Canada really only has one choice for a multi-role jet and it doesn't matter who is in government at the moment. If we wish to spread it out over some cheaper dedicated aircraft....that may also be solution. But, it would mean more pilots and ground crew (et al). Then there's airbases...

Zactly...as the entire strategy and efficiencies are lost with other choices. It's not just about the aircraft.

[DogOnPorch]

It was going to be the USAF for counter-insurgency, but the deal got nixed. I think Beechcraft protested the contract as well.

Ah, OK...that makes sense. Took a ride in one once. Hot machine.

[DogOnPorch]

Zactly...as the entire strategy and efficiencies are lost with other choices. It's not just about the aircraft.

I get a giggle every time somebody suggests an aircraft that DOESN'T operate at North American voltages.

Edited December 3, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

Agreed, as the former were never an option for Canada. The latter would potentially have better contract offsets or outright licensed build for Canada compared to the F-35A.

I doubt it………..The Koreans haven’t even decided on the requirements of their eventual indigenous program…………..One things for certain, after their current competition likely selects the F-35, and they start defining the KF-X program parameters, they will lean heavily on American aerospace firms once they realize the actual costing involved and might purchase further F-35s and/or join in on the next international fighter program from the beginning.

None the less, what the South Koreans might start doing in the 2020s won’t solve Canada’s requirement.

The Australians have a very well organized and spirited group engaged in their procurement spinning and lobbying. Compared to Canada, the Aussies have more skin in the game.

I agree to an extent. The Australians, when compared to nations of similar stature (like Canada), tend not to dick around and more than often make their dollar go further, translating into more bang for their buck.

[Guest Derek L]

True enough. Canada really only has one choice for a multi-role jet and it doesn't matter who is in government at the moment. If we wish to spread it out over some cheaper dedicated aircraft....that may also be solution. But, it would mean more pilots and ground crew (et al). Then there's airbases...

Tis a false positive……….Operating numerous airframes/platforms is very expensive, hence why the JSF program was intended to reduce aircraft types not only for the Americans, but the other partner nations as well…………In the case of Canada, the F-35 won’t only drastically expand upon our Hornet fleet in terms of current capabilities, but will also add organic capabilities to the Canadian Forces that we’ve never truly had (EW, SEAD) well greatly expanding C4ISR capabilities for not only the RCAF, but also RCN, the Army, CSIS, the RCMP and other government agencies.