F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

Boeing and General Dynamics (And Lockheed) have being working on the concepts of the 6th generation for years……hardly news.

see self-perpetuating military industrial complex, ya think?

[Guest Derek L]

I know which is why when we said we were buying these f35s a lot of people said that if we can push it a few years this plane will be the plane of the past we will be stuck with.

Huh? Are you now suggesting Canada waits until the ~2030-2040s to replace our Hornets with the 6th Generation aircraft?

[Guest Derek L]

see self-perpetuating military industrial complex, ya think?

Or long term sustainability coupled with the growth in technology……….Some say Patato, some say Potato…

[bush_cheney2004]

Go look it all up. The US had a bidding process the F35 won their process and requirements.

Canada is not the US....and the US Navy's design request for a F/A-18 E/F/G successor would have happened regardless of the F-35's status. Believe it or not, some nations can design and build more than one military 'jet'.

Edited April 19, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[punked]

Huh? Are you now suggesting Canada waits until the ~2030-2040s to replace our Hornets with the 6th Generation aircraft?

I am saying if we replace the Hornets with something less expensive considering now the first production run of the F35 wont be until 2018-2020 and we aren't at the front of the line and can expect ours to come later 2022-2025 why not buy something cheaper now to get us to that new UAV that everyone will be running anyway in the 2030s?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/f35-budget-disaster/

Time was on the f35s side when it was going to have its first production in 2010. Now they are pushing it 10 years? Time aint on their side anymore.

Edited April 19, 2012 by punked

[DogOnPorch]

Huh? Are you now suggesting Canada waits until the ~2030-2040s to replace our Hornets with the 6th Generation aircraft?

Punked, cyber and waldo all want the same thing: World Peace. Getting rid of our military would show our dedication to such a venture.

[punked]

Canada is not the US....and the US Navy's design request for a F/A-18 E/F/G successor would have happened regardless of the F-35's status. Believe it or not, some nations can design and build more than one military 'jet'.

No I know that. That is my point the F35 is the right plane for the US because you guys can buy whatever you want whenever you want. Us we need to be a little more careful in our planning or we will end up with the last run of a 5th generation fighter the same time as the first run of the 6th generation is coming out.

Then we will have an obsolete 50 billion dollar plane.

Edited April 19, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

I am saying if we replace the Hornets with something less expensive considering now the first production run of the F35 wont be until 2018-2020 and we aren't at the front of the line and can expect ours to come later 2022-2025 why not buy something cheaper now to get us to that new UAV that everyone will be running anyway in the 2030s?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/f35-budget-disaster/

So you’re suggesting we purchase a new Super Hornet like aircraft now, then replace it with a yet to be developed 6th generation aircraft in the 2030s?

In all honesty, I’ve advocated and suggested that would have be a viable alternative for us, if we had of replaced our current Hornets (Or at least a portion of the fleet) with the Super Hornet, in lieu of the upgrading of our current Hornets, 12 years ago.

[bush_cheney2004]

No I know that. That is my point the F35 is the right plane for the US because you guys can buy whatever you want whenever you want. Us we need to be a little more careful in our planning or we will end up with the last run of a 5th generation fighter the same time as the first run of the 6th generation is coming out.

That's fine....but the argument is hollow in the context of your nation's typical procurement circle jerk. The US Navy is just doing what it is suppose to be doing, and that includes new designs for surface combatants and submarines. Canada is going to end up with whatever the hell somebody else makes available....you've already lost control of that decision.

[waldo]

Go read the article again.......

sure, no problem

And that sounds suspiciously like the role that the Navy’s version of the JSF is supposed to play. That plane, already the most expensive weapons program in the history of mankind, is in serious budget trouble. In addition to newly discovered design flaws, the Government Accountability Office last month found additional problems with its software and safety systems. The military wants the F-35 to ultimately replace nearly every tactical fixed-wing aircraft the Navy, Marines and Air Force fly, but the admiral in charge of the program has backed off the 2018 estimate for when the plane is expected to enter the air fleet.

[cybercoma]

Punked, cyber and waldo all want the same thing: World Peace. Getting rid of our military would show our dedication to such a venture.

Don't ever speak for me.

[punked]

So you’re suggesting we purchase a new Super Hornet like aircraft now, then replace it with a yet to be developed 6th generation aircraft in the 2030s?

In all honesty, I’ve advocated and suggested that would have be a viable alternative for us, if we had of replaced our current Hornets (Or at least a portion of the fleet) with the Super Hornet, in lieu of the upgrading of our current Hornets, 12 years ago.

I do not see why that isn't an alternative now. BTW this is not the plane I advocate I am just saying their are alternatives.

[DogOnPorch]

Don't ever speak for me.

Make me.

[Guest Derek L]

sure, no problem

And further down:

There’s a sense in which that’s correct. The program for the Super Hornet replacement, officially called the FA-XX and announced last week in the Pentagon’s 30-year aviation plan, might not necessarily yield a new aircraft. It could. But as the program goes on, the brass might decide that the JSF in fact does what the Navy needs a post-Super Hornet plane to do. Or it might even decide that the post-X-47B is a better substitute.

That news service seems a little behind the times:

The Sixth Generation Fighter

[punked]

Yah fight a 2012 news story about something the Navy did in 2012 with an article from 2009.

[bush_cheney2004]

I do not see why that isn't an alternative now. BTW this is not the plane I advocate I am just saying their are alternatives.

Because you would fight over that too. Unlike budging in line for Canada's C-177's, there will be no exceptions for deadbeats coming late to the ticket window!

[DogOnPorch]

I do not see why that isn't an alternative now. BTW this is not the plane I advocate I am just saying their are alternatives.

Indeed. You won't say what aircraft you do advocate.

[punked]

Indeed. You won't say what aircraft you do advocate.

I advocate for the government doings its homework then justifying its decision to the Canadian people WITH OUT LYING ABOUT IT. Is that so much to ask?

[Guest Derek L]

I do not see why that isn't an alternative now. BTW this is not the plane I advocate I am just saying their are alternatives.

Simple, it’s either two large purchases within 15-20 years, or we go without fighter aircraft for most of the 2020s and into the 2030s……..

The JSF programs started in the 1990s, which borrowed and further developed technology from the F-22/F-23 programs that started in the 1980s……..The 6th generation, we be a follow on from the JSF program, but if so desired to incorporate unmanned technology, directed energy weapons etc, much of the development will start from a clean slate and could very well push development into the late 2030s and make the costing of the JSF program pail in comparison……..

If one was to wave a magic wand, we’d have developed a procurement cycle (Not just Fighter Aircraft) that would have seen the Canadian military purchasing smaller orders, spread out over a longer, continuous period. Though this method would be costlier (somewhat) in terms of maintenance, training and support, it would be advantageous in that it wouldn’t see having to face massive block obsolescence coupled with higher procurement costs of large orders, to say nothing of maintaining modern equipment for our military and a sustainable pattern of production for our industries.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Derek L

[punked]

Simple, it’s either two large purchases within 15-20 years, or we go without fighter aircraft for most of the 2020s and into the 2030s……..

The JSF programs started in the 1990s, which borrowed and further developed technology from the F-22/F-23 programs that started in the 1980s……..The 6th generation, we be a follow on from the JSF program, but if so desired to incorporate unmanned technology, directed energy weapons etc, much of the development will start from a clean slate and could very well push development into the late 2030s and make the costing of the JSF program pail in comparison……..

If one was to wave a magic wand, we’d have developed a procurement cycle (Not just Fighter Aircraft) that would have seen the Canadian military purchasing smaller orders, spread out over a longer, continuous period. Though this method would be costlier (somewhat) in terms of maintenance, training and support, it would be advantageous in that it wouldn’t see having to face massive block obsolescence coupled with higher procurement costs of large orders, to say nothing of maintaining modern equipment for our military and a sustainable pattern of production for our industries.

Wait this thing started in the 1980s. Didn't someone in this thread dismiss the Hornet because it started in the 70s. More hypocrisy.

[Guest Derek L]

Wait this thing started in the 1980s. Didn't someone in this thread dismiss the Hornet because it started in the 70s. More hypocrisy.

The Hornet program did begin the 1970s……..And the YF-22/YF23 begin development in the 80s, with the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, X-32 & X-35, expanding on technology developed for the past programs……..Completely applies and oranges, and is not highlighting hypocrisy, but your own ignorance.

[punked]

The Hornet program did begin the 1970s……..And the YF-22/YF23 begin development in the 80s, with the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, X-32 & X-35, expanding on technology developed for the past programs……..Completely applies and oranges, and is not highlighting hypocrisy, but your own ignorance.

Yep the reason for one even though the same is not the reason for the other. I know what hypocrisy is friend.

[Guest Derek L]

Yep the reason for one even though the same is not the reason for the other. I know what hypocrisy is friend.

Tell me then, why didn't Boeing submit the Super Hornet & Harrier to the JSF program in lieu of the x-32?

[punked]

Tell me then, why didn't Boeing submit the Super Hornet & Harrier to the JSF program in lieu of the x-32?

Because it didn't meet the US requirements. You should watch Battle of the X-Planes it documents the bidding quite well.

[Guest Derek L]

Because it didn't meet the US requirements. You should watch Battle of the X-Planes it documents the bidding quite well.

And those requirements? What makes you feel confident that Boeing’s Super Hornet could meet said requirements today?

As for the battle of the “X-Planes”, I’ve seen it, and worked for Boeing in the late 90s……but thanks.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Derek L