F-35 Purchase

[GostHacked]

His views don't make any sense. This aircraft has TWICE the range of the current fleet of CF-18s. Also, the idea that drones are going to quickly supplant human pilots in these type of aircraft is funny.

The military in the USA has been moving towards a UAV fleet since the early 80's when they were thinking about it. The goal was to eliminate the pilot from the aircraft so lives are saved (oh the irony). ... It's not funny, it's a reality.

[DogOnPorch]

The most recent time is Syria, so far. The last one before that was probably Russia / Georgia. Many would present a case for military involvement in both cases.

World War II was, by far, the most serious.

Not really. I expect nation states to act in their own interests, and various different "coalitions" doing various things at various times. If Canada has a direct interest in a certain foreign policy then we should participate. Otherwise we should only participate in extreme cases.

So, we could be 'conditional members' of NATO and NORAD, then? Participate when it is of Canada's interests, only? Let's hope the US doesn't ever develop the same selfish attitude.

Hey... who believes in the good will of humans? Youre the one saying that I should pay taxes that go towards fixing other peoples problems. Id rather pay down my mortgage with that money, unless a direct threat emerges.

Actually, I never said anything remotly like that, liar. But, I take note that you'd be willing to let our armed forces decay unless a 'direct threat emerges'.

Edited April 26, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[cybercoma]

Yup. When did he retire? There wasn't even an F-35 in 2001, but an X-35 & X-32.....Again, as I’ve said, I question his opinion, since the two major points, the single engine & range, are very much false concerns when contrasted with the F-35........

So you can read the news reports and articles and know everything you need to know about those jets to say he's wrong, but he, an aerospace engineer and former fleet manager, is wrong because he retired? Whatever you say.

[Smallc]

So you can read the news reports and articles and know everything you need to know about those jets to say he's wrong

Yes, you can. His concerns are nonsense.

[Fletch 27]

With the Liberal math, It is much more prudent to achquire used P51 Mustangs from the UK war Museum and maintain them for the next 40 years. It would be WAY cheaper.. But makes no sense... Withthe NDP math, they would just like a Museum..

The F-35 makes sense unless your ok with your pilots getting shot down by China's Next-Gen Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter. Oh, and China is more than happy to supply these to many of our friendly/not-so friendly nations that we are currently "playing in the sandbox" with now..

And regardless of what the Libs and NDP spin; the process was a battle that was narrowed down to 2 suppliers (from 5).. This plane out-performed them all and bring many additions that the runner up could not accommodate at that time, nor can now for that matter (all development halted)..

[waldo]

This aircraft has TWICE the range of the current fleet of CF-18s.

As for “range”, as mentioned by smallc, the F-35 carries more internal then our current Hornet carriers with external drop tanks…………

His concerns are nonsense.

you've hit upon one of his expressed concerns... range. In regards the type of mode/flying for Northern patrols/reconnaissance, care to offer up those respective range numbers for each plane:

CF-18 => ???? km

F-35 => ???? km

[waldo]

And regardless of what the Libs and NDP spin; the process was a battle that was narrowed down to 2 suppliers (from 5).. This plane out-performed them all and bring many additions that the runner up could not accommodate at that time, nor can now for that matter (all development halted)..

narrowed down by who? What 5 planes... leaving which 2? What were the defined requirements particularly as relates to Canada's needs? Out performed... on what... paper?

as for math, it's quite clear you're most accepting of Harper Conservative "under which pea" math... it's quite clear you accept a 'whatever it costs, it costs' summation.

[Smallc]

CF-18 => 537 - 704 km

F-35 => 1080 km

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-agrees-to-f-35a-combat-radius-reduction-369287/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet

Now of course, there are other range numbers, but for interception missions, this is the important one.

[dre]

so did yoyu mind when military budgets were slashed to fund other depts and programs, resulting in our current state of affairs.

Both military and social spending were cut to balance the budget as they should have been. But the first places that should get cut are the ones with no return on investment. Like OPERATION: "OOPS Should thought THAT through a little better!" in Afghanistan that were still mired in 10 years later. Thats not "defense" spending, it actually diverts money AWAY from real defense spending.

[GostHacked]

narrowed down by who? What 5 planes... leaving which 2? What were the defined requirements particularly as relates to Canada's needs? Out performed... on what... paper?

as for math, it's quite clear you're most accepting of Harper Conservative "under which pea" math... it's quite clear you accept a 'whatever it costs, it costs' summation.

Canada's best bet was to be at least partially involved in the USA's projects. The only thing that might stand a chance would be Bombardier, but they lack the experience in fighter aircraft. Canada simply does not have the infrastructure to support this type of venture. If Canada had pursued with the Arrow that might have turned into a different story.

But hey, it's only because of agreements that Canada really has no other option but to go with Made in the USA (but parts made here and abroad). I say if we go for the F-35, let's get the good ones. The VTOL would be a complete asset for remote locations where you want to conceal yourself. You can save money just by not needing to build large runways and the needed facilities and equipment to maintain them. You can operate almost anywhere and set up camp.

The Euro Fighter venture kind of paid off, and it's not a bad piece of kit, it can serve most of our needs. Also, the Swedes also have some damn fine aircraft. But the Chinese and the Russians are now bringing their offers to the table. And like said here, they have no problem selling to anyone.

[waldo]

you've hit upon one of his expressed concerns... range. In regards the type of mode/flying for Northern patrols/reconnaissance, care to offer up those respective range numbers for each plane:

CF-18 => ???? km

F-35 => ???? km

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-agrees-to-f-35a-combat-radius-reduction-369287/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet

Now of course, there are other range numbers, but for interception missions, this is the important one.

yes, yes there are other range numbers... like the one you conveniently bypassed in regards my purposeful reference to (northern) patrols/reconnaissance. What about that flight mode... that related range?

as for your emphasis on "combat range"... interception... we seem to have made out just fine with the CF-18 range in terms of the MacKay "rousting the Russian Bear" photo-ops, hey?

[Smallc]

as for your emphasis on "combat range"... interception... we seem to have made out just fine with the CF-18 range in terms of the MacKay "rousting the Russian Bear" photo-ops, hey?

And so we should do even better having an aircraft with twice the internal fuel range. The fewer times they have to refuel, the better.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Smallc

[waldo]

And so we should do even better having an aircraft with twice the internal fuel range. The fewer times they have to refuel, the better.

nothing to say about the particular range number you're so avoiding... like the plague?

[Guest Derek L]

The military in the USA has been moving towards a UAV fleet since the early 80's when they were thinking about it. The goal was to eliminate the pilot from the aircraft so lives are saved (oh the irony). ... It's not funny, it's a reality.

Why did they just put a portion of their Global Hawk fleet in storage, well keeping the U-2 still going?

[Guest Derek L]

So you can read the news reports and articles and know everything you need to know about those jets to say he's wrong, but he, an aerospace engineer and former fleet manager, is wrong because he retired? Whatever you say.

No, his opinion is just that and, based on when he retired, his opinion isn’t anymore valid then anyone else’s outside of the program.

[Guest Derek L]

nothing to say about the particular range number you're so avoiding... like the plague?

What range number is that? The F-35 has a larger range radius on internal fuel then our current Hornet and the Super Hornet with internal fuel and external tanks.

[Smallc]

What range number is that? The F-35 has a larger range radius on internal fuel then our current Hornet and the Super Hornet with internal fuel and external tanks.

And with external tanks, the F-35 should have a massive range.

[Guest Derek L]

And with external tanks, the F-35 should have a massive range.

Even the “B” will be comparable to the Hornet, but when you consider it’s replacing the Harrier, coupled with a vastly superior bring back weight, it will be a much greater improvement over it’s predecessors.

[punked]

Must be lying in this article then.

The F-35 does have stealth, but the technology requires compromises with respect to other capabilities. F-35s can fly only 2,220 kilometres without refueling, unless non-stealthy external tanks are added. The CF-18s now in service have a range of 3,330 kilometres, which, again, is handy in the Arctic.

Unless you are making the argument the only time you need the stealthyness, which we are paying huge dollars for, is for short range trips. Whats the point of making a stealth fighter when the stealth only works in situations when you need it the most.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/973799--f-35-a-poor-fit-for-canada

Edited April 27, 2012 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

...Whats the point of making a stealth fighter when the stealth only works in situations when you need it the most.

That's precisely the reason for "making" a stealth strike fighter.

[Guest Derek L]

Must be lying in this article then.

Unless you are making the argument the only time you need the stealthyness, which we are paying huge dollars for, is for short range trips. Whats the point of making a stealth fighter when the stealth only works in situations when you need it the most.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/973799--f-35-a-poor-fit-for-canada

Do you know how an external (drop) tank works?

The argument is a strawman…..The Hornet’s range figure is including external tanks (two under the wings and one centerline), where is the F-35’s is without said tanks.

[Guest Derek L]

That's precisely the reason for "making" a stealth strike fighter.

It's trying......I really think Lockheed should start paying me

[bush_cheney2004]

It's trying......I really think Lockheed should start paying me

Forgive them...for they know not what they think. I guess they think they can save money by renting a stealth pod just for strike missions.

[Guest Derek L]

Forgive them...for they know not what they think. I guess they think they can save money by renting a stealth pod just for strike missions.

And then some bring up UCAVs “patrolling our North”……The whole curvature of the Earth thing is not taught in schools anymore I suppose………The roaming charges would be immense

Edited April 27, 2012 by Derek L

[punked]

Do you know how an external (drop) tank works?

The argument is a strawman…..The Hornet’s range figure is including external tanks (two under the wings and one centerline), where is the F-35’s is without said tanks.

That is the point. We can add all the tanks we want to the Hornet we aren't paying for a stealth fighter with it.