F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

The F-35 is still stealth when it drops the tanks. The CF-18 isn't. I didn't realize that you were so dense.

hey now... before those tanks are dropped... while they're still carrying gasolina... how's that F-35 "stealth" working out for you? CF-18 stealth??? Did not know it was "stealth worthy"... at all! Talk about (your) denseness

Yes, you mentioned that. I'm not sure I see the relevance. You're comparing a naked F-18 carrying 3 tanks, and an F-35 with 2 tanks and internal weapons payload.

the relevance is you puffed up and made claims based on F-35 external storage... and the net (measly) impact is they only add 8% to the range.

[dre]

The F-35 is still stealth when it drops the tanks. The CF-18 isn't. I didn't realize that you were so dense.

Yes, you mentioned that. I'm not sure I see the relevance. You're comparing a naked F-18 carrying 3 tanks, and an F-35 with 2 tanks and internal weapons payload.

Its useless talking about stealth in the context of arctic patrols anyways. The whole point is to have a presense... you WANT to be seen. Both stealth and air to ground capabilities are mostly usefull for the kind of operations we should not be involved in, in the first place... namely wiping out random darkies in the middle east and taxing Canadians to solve the rest of the worlds problems.

[Smallc]

hey now... before those tanks are dropped... while they're still carrying gasolina... how's that F-35 "stealth" working out for you? CF-18 stealth??? Did not know it was "stealth worthy"... at all! Talk about (your) denseness

My only response -

the relevance is you puffed up and made claims based on F-35 external storage... and the net (measly) impact is they only add 8% to the range.

Possibly. We have no final numbers on that. Still, the F-35 will leave a greater range when carrying weapons than any of the available competitors.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

the retired CF-18 'fleet manager's' statement suggests the F-35 has less range than the CF-18... and that from a Canadian north patrol/reconnaissance aspect, the F-35 is disadvantaged in relation to the CF-18. This same range reference shows up, many times over across various sites... if the guy has it wrong, if all these other appearances of the same reference are wrong, just what are the range numbers that would correspond to that type of flight mode; i.e., patrol/reconnaissance?

I've also read several references that suggest the F-35 drop tanks only realize a minimal 8% gain over the range associated with the internal tank... drag performance considerations. In any case, MLW member punked hit the other point I was lining up around - stealth. If you're so accepting to dropping stealth for maximizing range... and that, supposedly, that dropping stealth only realizes you an additional (and measly) 8% range gain, isn't "dropping stealth" a non-starter?

but again, what are the range numbers for the flight mode associated with flying patrol/reconnaissance... CF-18 versus F-35?

That’s indeed what he suggested, either due to a brain fart or to mislead. As for the range itself, the numbers as posted by smallc, are the very reflection of that. The Hornet’s numbers include drop tanks versus the F-35’s with just internal fuel, now obviously the addition of drop tanks (The very same as used on the Hornet, Eagle etc) will increase the F-35’s range.

As for the ~8% factor, that really depends on the calculation and contrasting the internal fuel capacity of both the Hornet and F-35. If the F-35 carriers more than double the internal fuel than the Hornet, quite obviously carrying a single 480 gal drop tank will increase each aircraft’s percentage differently. As for (negative) drag performance, that to depends on what’s carried and by what aircraft.

For your NORPAT, if each aircraft is carrying several short and medium range missiles (With the F-35 internally), and the F-35 two under wing tanks and the Hornet carrying two under wing and one centerline (To bring the Hornet’s capacity closer to the F-35s), quite obviously the F-35 will be less impacted by drag.

As for stealth, again for conducting the vast majority of our NORPATs, stealth is not a requirement, but if it becomes so (even during said mission) the F-35 can fulfill said stealth requirement (by dropping it’s tanks) where as the Hornet (or any other 4+ generation aircraft) can not.

[Guest Derek L]

This jet has the best range available.

Yes, and the F-35 will have better range in all of those missions. It simply won't go quite as fast. On internal fuel, the F-35 has range that simply can't be matched by the F-18.

Negative Ghostrider, the max speed numbers released by Lockheed (Mach 1.6) are including a full internal weapons load by the F-35, the Hornet carrying several JDAMS, external tanks and missiles (to equal the F-35’s internal capacity) are not going anywhere near the Boeing’s stated max speed (Mach 1.8) unless going on a rapid earthbound trajectory……….Then of course you can factor in both manufactures stated max g-ratings (F-35= 9+…F/A-18= ~7.5-8)………

[Army Guy]

here are some links to do a comparison.

My link

My link

My link

My link

My link

[DogOnPorch]

You have to be quite the pilot to pull 9g sustained. Lots of branflakes, I guess.

Speed isn't quite the factor as it used to be back in the bomber chasing days. Plus, interceptors give-up maneuverability to attain the blistering Mach 3 or so speeds. The MiG-25 could fry its engines after one short run flat out. The only craft made that can hold Mach 3 for hours is still the magnificent SR-71, if I'm not mistaken. Ram jets....

Edited April 28, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

You have to be quite the pilot to pull 9g sustained. Lots of branflakes, I guess.

It varies depending on which axis it’s felt (riding a roller coaster vs the scrambler) and the length of time…….Being in a car crash or getting hit in the noggin with a hockey puck can inflict dozens of g’s on ones body and though unpleasant, is quite survivable………There are clear benefits of having an aircraft that can sustain a higher g-force than a human body…

Speed isn't quite the factor as it used to be back in the bomber chasing days. Plus, interceptors give-up maneuverability to attain the blistering Mach 3 or so speeds. The MiG-25 could fry its engines after one short run flat out. The only craft made that can hold Mach 3 for hours is still the magnificent SR-71, if I'm not mistaken. Ram jets....

I beg to differ, though not the be all and end all, speed is a significant tenet within the OODA loop…..one more arrow in the quiver so to speak and obviously other factors (wing loading, allowable sustained G’s thrust/weight etc) are contributors………As in your example, the Foxbat had/has superior straight line speed but when coupled with agility (or lack there of) this can also become a negative.

[DogOnPorch]

It varies depending on which axis it’s felt (riding a roller coaster vs the scrambler) and the length of time…….Being in a car crash or getting hit in the noggin with a hockey puck can inflict dozens of g’s on ones body and though unpleasant, is quite survivable………There are clear benefits of having an aircraft that can sustain a higher g-force than a human body…

Yes...the Irish blew me up when I was young. G forces. Don't get me started re: hockey groin injuries. Plus, my first experience with a proper roller coaster was Expo 86's Scream Machine. Aye Carumba! Later coasters haven't quite done the trick the same way as that first. Ahhh...women....errr...roller coasters.

I beg to differ, though not the be all and end all, speed is a significant tenet within the OODA loop…..one more arrow in the quiver so to speak and obviously other factors (wing loading, allowable sustained G’s thrust/weight etc) are contributors………As in your example, the Foxbat had/has superior straight line speed but when coupled with agility (or lack there of) this can also become a negative.

Oh, sure...I do agree. Speed = good. But, during the Cold War, most designs were based on finding a needle in a haystack up in the high arctic. Interceptors have to beat the bomber by a wide degree to be useful. Since bombers are a minor factor these days, Mach 2.5+ isn't quite the element on the blueprint it once was. The whole 'multi-role' deal has arf-ed things up, too. You don't carry bombs to a gun fight.

[waldo]

That’s indeed what he suggested, either due to a brain fart or to mislead. As for the range itself, the numbers as posted by smallc, are the very reflection of that. The Hornet’s numbers include drop tanks versus the F-35’s with just internal fuel, now obviously the addition of drop tanks (The very same as used on the Hornet, Eagle etc) will increase the F-35’s range.

right... he's just another one of those guys you so readily... and conveniently... dispatch - outright. Again, as was stated/emphasized, F-35 drop tanks offer minimal/measly (8%) gain to its range.

As for the ~8% factor, that really depends on the calculation and contrasting the internal fuel capacity of both the Hornet and F-35. If the F-35 carriers more than double the internal fuel than the Hornet, quite obviously carrying a single 480 gal drop tank will increase each aircraft’s percentage differently. As for (negative) drag performance, that to depends on what’s carried and by what aircraft.

again, the reference made/offered in regards 'drag', was that the minimal/measly 8% range gain reflected the F-35 drag countering impact that drop tanks caused... simply a comment, without comparison, centered on the F-35.

As for stealth, again for conducting the vast majority of our NORPATs, stealth is not a requirement, but if it becomes so (even during said mission) the F-35 can fulfill said stealth requirement (by dropping it’s tanks) where as the Hornet (or any other 4+ generation aircraft) can not.

yes, finally... an acknowledgement that F-35 "stealth" has not, has never been a need/requirement for Northern patrol/reconnaissance. Now, if only someone would step-up and actually speak to past examples... actual examples... of when Canada needed/deployed a combat/interceptor. Of course, dropping bomb payloads from afar doesn't count... or, as MLW member 'dre' so directly highlighted, neither does, "wiping out random darkies". As for that F-35 "stealth" thingee, I didn't seem to get any bites earlier:

guys, guys... wadda bout that X-band/L-band thingee? What about those wiley Ruskies fitting their new SU-35S with L-band? And all those guys out there touting the SU-35S as the F-35 "stealth killer"? Have they all got it... wrong? Or, the "new Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA", said to actually defeat the F-35's own X band stealth directly??? Comments... on the much hyped, much touted, F-35 stealth capability?

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course, dropping bomb payloads from afar doesn't count... or, as MLW member 'dre' so directly highlighted, neither does, "wiping out random darkies".

Serbs are not "darkies"...maybe after Canada bombed them in 1999?

[Army Guy]

This site may prove helpful , unless you don't like sources form the Cdn Airforce.

My link

[DogOnPorch]

Serbs are not "darkies"...maybe after Canada bombed them in 1999?

It was waste that defeated Hannibal at the Battle of Zama. He was a "darkie", you know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7PzZJXbi8

Edited April 28, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[CPCFTW]

I'm no expert on these things, but I don't understand the kerfuffle waldo is making regarding losing stealth with drop tanks...

Assuming a stealth mission required 8% more range, couldn't the pilot just drop the tanks after the first 8% of the mission when stealth likely wouldn't be needed? Or do we need stealth for taking off?

Seems like more waldo hot air to me... But like I said, I'm no expert and don't pretend to be one (ahemwaldocough).

[DogOnPorch]

I'm no expert on these things, but I don't understand the kerfuffle waldo is making regarding losing stealth with drop tanks...

Assuming a stealth mission required 8% more range, couldn't the pilot just drop the tanks after the first 8% of the mission when stealth likely wouldn't be needed? Or do we need stealth for taking off?

Seems like more waldo hot air to me... But like I said, I'm no expert and don't pretend to be one (ahemwaldocough).

Quite true. Tanks are usually dropped at the first hint of trouble.

[waldo]

I'm no expert ... But like I said, I'm no expert

ah yes, nothing like a FTW drive-by to add substantive input... although I'm particularly peeved that this one doesn't include the usual obligatory salute to hippies and lefty arts graduates.

[waldo]

It was waste that defeated Hannibal at the Battle of Zama. He was a "darkie", you know.

guys, guys... the full comment offers a clear delineation - "dropping bomb payloads from afar doesn't count... neither does, wiping out random darkies". One is generalized (sans reference), the other is specific. But ahhh... while you're zealously parsing syntax for immeasurable gain, why not spare a few cycles to answer those questions/points concerning the (non)need for NORPAT stealth, when Canada actually needed/deployed a combat/interceptor (stealth or not) these last many decades, and questions concerning the actual viability of said "stealth"... hey!

[cybercoma]

Gee... ya think?

[Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin] Page told [CBC Power & Politics] host Evan Solomon what bothered his office was that one set of books was available inside DND, while another "for communication purposes" was presented publicly, in which he said the government was "low-balling" the numbers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/27/pol-the-house-kevin-page-f35s-budget.html?cmp=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[DogOnPorch]

guys, guys... the full comment offers a clear delineation - "dropping bomb payloads from afar doesn't count... neither does, wiping out random darkies". One is generalized (sans reference), the other is specific. But ahhh... while you're zealously parsing syntax for immeasurable gain, why not spare a few cycles to answer those questions/points concerning the (non)need for NORPAT stealth, when Canada actually needed/deployed a combat/interceptor (stealth or not) these last many decades, and questions concerning the actual viability of said "stealth"... hey!

Why? We on the jingoistic chest thumping side of things have already figured out that for you, no aircraft is too many aircraft.

[waldo]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/27/pol-the-house-kevin-page-f35s-budget.html?cmp=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

yes... as some of us have been highlighting:

Page, who is now

busy preparing new estimates on the full costs of acquiring F-35s

, also told Solomon the pricetag could go well beyond the $25-billion estimated once the life-cycle costs are factored in.

Until now, the government has estimated the cost of each F-35 plane at $75 million. But according to Page, the government need only look south for a more "reasonable" estimate.

According to Page, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has pegged the costs for all variants of the F-35 at $137-million.

And at that price, Page says the Canadian government will not be able to purchase 65 F-35s but more like 40 or 45 fighter jets.

"That's the difficult part," said Page.

"

If we spend more on these planes, what does this mean for ships, what does this mean for the armed forces, and what does this mean for Defence Department sustainability going forward, which could be a huge issue?

"

Page wrote to Rob Fonberg, the deputy minister of national defence, this week asking him to adopt the same pricing used by the GAO.

"We're already encouraging (DND) officials to look at the numbers coming out of the U.S.," said Page, adding his upcoming estimates would certainly "borrow on that."

[waldo]

Why? We on the jingoistic chest thumping side of things have already figured out that for you, no aircraft is too many aircraft.

yes, clearly... to deal with the Red Menace in your closets/under your bed... it requires a, "whatever it costs, it costs", jingoistic chest-thumping assessment!

[DogOnPorch]

More non-pilots flapping their wings. Flap harder, fellas!

[DogOnPorch]

yes, clearly... to deal with the Red Menace in your closets/under your bed... it requires a, "whatever it costs, it costs", jingoistic chest-thumping assessment!

Canada has no enemies. We're beloved the globe over.

[waldo]

More non-pilots flapping their wings. Flap harder, fellas!

ya, I bet "Pro Flight Simulator" takes all your skills!

[DogOnPorch]

ya, I bet "Pro Flight Simulator" takes all your skills!

I have about 500 hours in various machines.