F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[Guest Derek L]

Yep...anybody praying for a U.S. cancellation of the F-35 program as a way to stop Canada's warmonger procurement of new strike fighter "jets" will be very disappointed, and have to find money for more safe injection sites elsewhere.

Indeed.

[waldo]

For sure......it's reality........

no - I read a lot of references suggesting the USN has designs on the new 'Advanced Super Hornet' over the F-35... of course, the actual underlying USN want is going up against the official program and the ongoing efforts to preserve the JSFail program funding. Even if no other country buys into extending the Super Hornet, the Growler... or the Advanced Super Hornet, the USN will - it has no choice as the failed F-35 certainly won't meet the USN needs.

[waldo]

Indeed.

indeed! yes, indeed! It's actually quite mind-boggling that you would take your uber-partisan views on the F-35 to gleefully comment on the/your (presumed) demise of Boeing's participation in strike/attack fighter design/development/manufacture/sales/support. Notwithstanding the real negative impact reliance on an effective single manufacturer (LockMart)... and all of what that means in terms of military dependency (tied to a failed design/deployment). Oh right, but it will be another opportunity for you to come on MLW and post about your LockMart shares rising!

[Guest Derek L]

no - I read a lot of references suggesting the USN has designs on the new 'Advanced Super Hornet' over the F-35... of course, the actual underlying USN want is going up against the official program and the ongoing efforts to preserve the JSFail program funding. Even if no other country buys into extending the Super Hornet, the Growler... or the Advanced Super Hornet, the USN will - it has no choice as the failed F-35 certainly won't meet the USN needs.

Several years ago DoD and the USN stated there will be no further developmental funding towards the Hornet line……..any Super-Duper-uber-Hornet will be funded on Boeing’s own hook……like the Silent Eagle…….And one needs to look at the funding from Boeing’s perspective, fore when orders of their legacy aircraft like the Hornet and Eagle are not there, why would they further develop designs that are rooted back in the 70s and late 60s? W. James McNerney would be lynched by shareholders if Boeing made such an investment.

[Guest Derek L]

indeed! yes, indeed! It's actually quite mind-boggling that you would take your uber-partisan views on the F-35 to gleefully comment on the/your (presumed) demise of Boeing's participation in strike/attack fighter design/development/manufacture/sales/support. Notwithstanding the real negative impact reliance on an effective single manufacturer (LockMart)... and all of what that means in terms of military dependency (tied to a failed design/deployment). Oh right, but it will be another opportunity for you to come on MLW and post about your LockMart shares rising!

Don’t worry about the Military-Industrial Complex…….Once Boeing divests itself of the legacy encumbrances, they’ll be able to fully focus on the next prize, the replacement of the USAF’s Bomber fleet(s), a new program that Boeing has already partnered with Lockheed on…….And of course, the eventual 6th generation fighter to replace the Super Hornets, Strike Eagles and Raptors…….

[bush_cheney2004]

Don’t worry about the Military-Industrial Complex……

Certainly not....Northrup-Grumman has a neat X-47B toy for the U.S. Navy that is being tested as well:

Edited December 22, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

The SR-72 is also the shape of things to come. A scramjet "bomber" is, no doubt, also in the works

[Guest Derek L]

Certainly not....Northrup-Grumman has a neat X-47B toy for the U.S. Navy that is being tested as well:

Yup and I'm sure 30 years from now our children and grandchildren will be debating the merits of Canada replacing it’s aging fleet of F-35As with the then F-35G versus others opting for the more technologically advanced offering from Boeing/Mitsubishi, the Phantom III……

Edited December 22, 2013 by Derek L

[DogOnPorch]

Zip...Mach 6+.

[AlienB]

Certainly not....Northrup-Grumman has a neat X-47B toy for the U.S. Navy that is being tested as well:

Looks a bit like the downed drone over Iran.

It is getting a little silly. I would think you would be able to build advanced drones that act like cruise missiles for about the same cost as a smart bomb these days.

There are so many target acquisition systems, target desgination, advanced GPS and see through building sensors capable of advanced material identification, LIDAR etc.. can hardened systems not be made. It almost makes as much sense to be flying spruce gooses painted greyish blue. - No worries it is just a giant wooden airplane, can't possibly be an American aircraft, perhaps it is North Korean or from Africa? The Guatamalan Airforce?

It seems gautamala will have more aircraft than Canada if the F35 program goes ahead, well nearly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Air_Force

Is there some reason Canada needs a big military? Lots of expensive aircraft. Do you think America would buy as much if they wern't buying from American companies?

Who exactly is Canada bombing? Is there some reason the US can't do it? Is there some shortage of military equipment capable of bombing third world countries. Can't it just adopt a nuke or two instead? God forbid a conventional war with China, India or Russia. Is there someone else capable of swimming across the three large oceans that seperate us.

Who is attacking, or who is Canada attacking?

Edited December 22, 2013 by AlienB

[DogOnPorch]

Looks a bit like the downed drone over Iran.

That was a Lockheed-Martin RQ-170...a different beast...but, yes...similar looks.

[DogOnPorch]

Boeing, of course, has their own scramjet project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51

[AlienB]

Boeing, of course, has their own scramjet project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51

That looks sexy.

ps in AlienB tech Industries. The greyblue paint would be radar and thermal dissipating paint.

Scram jets are sick when they get to the mach 9-13 range.

Second only to tungsten rods from space

Tungsten clusters dropped from hypersonic scramjets, tastey.

If only the logic of, those planes will only fight in one war, held, you could give the f35s that type of engine.

If you can't see it you can't shoot it. Electron Theory.

Unless of course you just spray everywhere with high energy or shrapnel as soon as things start blowing up.

Or set up plasma exhaust systems that can deploy in 0.000000000000003 seconds.

Cause metal doesn't normally fly in the air, and anything not molecularly air is like either a bird waiting to be cooked or a mechanical one much the same.

designation by omission of capacity to be.

It should be blatantly obvious that hypersonic scramjets make all military aircraft mostly redundant, if they are two stage. The sheer exception is incredily remote locations like antarctica. Where there is no safe launch area within 1000 or 2000km or so.

This at the same time short distance engagements at relative long distances are capable with rail gun systems both ship, and land based, and potentially airbased.

Edited December 22, 2013 by AlienB

[DogOnPorch]

It's just a test bed, but it does provide us a look at the environment a few decades down the road. The trend on this front is, indeed, towards unmanned craft of incredible speed. It would be up to a new generation of SAMs to be able to shoot them down...or perhaps a dedicated scramjet interceptor of some sort. It will be pretty "Buck Rogers" before we know it, in my opinion.

An HTV-2 separates from its booster.

[DogOnPorch]

Re: tungsten rods from space. I've heard of this possibility in a future war. A rail gun on the Moon lobbing them at hyper-velocities and impacting with megaton force on Earth. That's a ways off... It's probably easier to bump a near Earth asteroid into an orbit that will impact Washington D.C./Moscow/London/etc.

Edited December 22, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[AlienB]

It's just a test bed, but it does provide us a look at the environment a few decades down the road. The trend on this front is, indeed, towards unmanned craft of incredible speed. It would be up to a new generation of SAMs to be able to shoot them down...or perhaps a dedicated scramjet interceptor of some sort. It will be pretty "Buck Rogers" before we know it, in my opinion.

An HTV-2 separates from its booster.

Is that a balloon mounted SAM or a Plasma based sam?

Not SAM AAMs

Advanced slings etc..

The stuff will have to be in the air already as space deployment is disallowed.

Fact is that the fast systems need to be airborn to be effective. If you can't launch fast enough your missiles are going to be gone before you can launch unless they are very very well hidden. The cost of that is incredilous.

Then you have those SDI systems but based on land with THEL systems.

There are even some crazy antiproton systems.

there is no doubt though airbursts like seen in Russia and Canada are some of the only wide area defence systems. Ground everything if battle is possible just blow up the sky, and open up with highspeed laser systems over large areas.

The only way you can defeat future systems is area denile. wide area denile systems (WADS)

Edited December 23, 2013 by AlienB

[DogOnPorch]

The idea with that fella is to boost it into a sub-orbit or LEO and then let it partially re-enter some distance from its target. Once it does its job, it then could then skip along atmosphere to a landing zone perhaps half the globe away. The Germans had a similar idea in WW2 to bomb NYC this way. Had the war gone on another year, I'm sure they'd have made a few attempts, at least.

[DogOnPorch]

The stuff will have to be in the air already as space deployment is disallowed.

Who is checking??

One of my predictions is that Iran will try to put a weapon of some sort into orbit with maneuver and re-entry capabilities and call it a 'science satellite'.

But, as to your earlier suggestion that all of this will make manned machines obsolete...I don't think it will happen. It is always safer to have multiple ways of dealing with a problem. But, if there's anything history can teach us is that the best aircraft wins as long as pilot skills are equal. In a future combat environment, it could well be suicide to send Canadians into battle with anything less than the absolute best aircraft.

[waldo]

Is there some reason Canada needs a big military? Lots of expensive aircraft. Do you think America would buy as much if they wern't buying from American companies?

Who exactly is Canada bombing? Is there some reason the US can't do it? Is there some shortage of military equipment capable of bombing third world countries. Can't it just adopt a nuke or two instead? God forbid a conventional war with China, India or Russia. Is there someone else capable of swimming across the three large oceans that seperate us.

Who is attacking, or who is Canada attacking?

bingo!

[waldo]

I was reading yesterday that Brazil has chosen the Saab Gripen over the Super Hornet and Dassault Rafale. If I recall, the Rafale and Super Hornet were a couple of the options Canada has looked at, weren't they?

-k

Super Hornet was described as a lock... until

further to the NSA's influencing Brazil's decision... Snowden's open letter to the Brazilian people:

Six months ago, I stepped out from the shadows of the United States Government's National Security Agency to stand in front of a journalist's camera. I shared with the world evidence proving some governments are building a world-wide surveillance system to secretly track how we live, who we talk to, and what we say. I went in front of that camera with open eyes, knowing that the decision would cost me family and my home, and would risk my life. I was motivated by a belief that the citizens of the world deserve to understand the system in which they live.

My greatest fear was that no one would listen to my warning. Never have I been so glad to have been so wrong. The reaction in certain countries has been particularly inspiring to me, and Brazil is certainly one of those.

At the NSA, I witnessed with growing alarm the surveillance of whole populations without any suspicion of wrongdoing, and it threatens to become the greatest human rights challenge of our time. The NSA and other spying agencies tell us that for our own "safety" — for Dilma's "safety," for Petrobras' "safety" — they have revoked our right to privacy and broken into our lives. And they did it without asking the public in any country, even their own.

Today, if you carry a cell phone in Sao Paolo, the NSA can and does keep track of your location: they do this 5 billion times a day to people around the world. When someone in Florianopolis visits a website, the NSA keeps a record of when it happened and what you did there. If a mother in Porto Alegre calls her son to wish him luck on his university exam, NSA can keep that call log for five years or more. They even keep track of who is having an affair or looking at pornography, in case they need to damage their target's reputation.

American Senators tell us that Brazil should not worry, because this is not "surveillance," it's "data collection." They say it is done to keep you safe. They're wrong. There is a huge difference between legal programs, legitimate spying, legitimate law enforcement — where individuals are targeted based on a reasonable, individualized suspicion — and these programs of dragnet mass surveillance that put entire populations under an all-seeing eye and save copies forever. These programs were never about terrorism: they're about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They're about power.

Many Brazilian senators agree, and have asked for my assistance with their investigations of suspected crimes against Brazilian citizens. I have expressed my willingness to assist wherever appropriate and lawful, but unfortunately the United States government has worked very hard to limit my ability to do so -- going so far as to force down the Presidential Plane of Evo Morales to prevent me from travelling to Latin America! Until a country grants permanent political asylum, the US government will continue to interfere with my ability to speak.

Six months ago, I revealed that the NSA wanted to listen to the whole world. Now, the whole world is listening back, and speaking out, too. And the NSA doesn't like what it's hearing. The culture of indiscriminate worldwide surveillance, exposed to public debates and real investigations on every continent, is collapsing. Only three weeks ago, Brazil led the United Nations Human Rights Committee to recognize for the first time in history that privacy does not stop where the digital network starts, and that the mass surveillance of innocents is a violation of human rights.

The tide has turned, and we can finally see a future where we can enjoy security without sacrificing our privacy. Our rights cannot be limited by a secret organization, and American officials should never decide the freedoms of Brazilian citizens. Even the defenders of mass surveillance, those who may not be persuaded that our surveillance technologies have dangerously outpaced democratic controls, now agree that in democracies, surveillance of the public must be debated by the public.

My act of conscience began with a statement: "I don't want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded. That's not something I'm willing to support, it's not something I'm willing to build, and it's not something I'm willing to live under."

Days later, I was told my government had made me stateless and wanted to imprison me. The price for my speech was my passport, but I would pay it again: I will not be the one to ignore criminality for the sake of political comfort. I would rather be without a state than without a voice.

If Brazil hears only one thing from me, let it be this: when all of us band together against injustices and in defence of privacy and basic human rights, we can defend ourselves from even the most powerful systems."

.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Who exactly is Canada bombing? ....

Easily answered by understanding the countries that Canada has bombed in the past, with and without UN approval:

Iraq

Serbia

Libya

Canada's RCAF has also flown many CAP missions for those and other conflicts.

[On Guard for Thee]

Easily answered by understanding the countries that Canada has bombed in the past, with and without UN approval:

Iraq

Serbia

Libya

Canada's RCAF has also flown many CAP missions for those and other conflicts.

Canada bombed Iraq? You may recall that Chretien told Busg to go you know what himself when it came to Iraq. The UN deemed it an illegal war, Chretien said no, and Bush could be arrested if he sets foot on soil that supports the ICC. I am a Canadian, and I was in Iraq, so I know a bit of what I speak.

[On Guard for Thee]

bingo!

I would like to echo that bingo as well. Having a military is OK in my book and therefore I agree with giving them good equipment. Pouring money down the F35 sinkhole is just dumb. As was already stated here who are we about to attack?

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada bombed Iraq? You may recall that Chretien told Busg to go you know what himself when it came to Iraq. The UN deemed it an illegal war, Chretien said no, and Bush could be arrested if he sets foot on soil that supports the ICC. I am a Canadian, and I was in Iraq, so I know a bit of what I speak.

Canada bombed Iraqi patrol boats and ground forces in 1991, flying missions from Qatar as part of the UN coalition forces.

Maybe you weren't born yet.

[segnosaur]

Canada bombed Iraq? You may recall that Chretien told Busg to go you know what himself when it came to Iraq. The UN deemed it an illegal war, Chretien said no, and Bush could be arrested if he sets foot on soil that supports the ICC. I am a Canadian, and I was in Iraq, so I know a bit of what I speak.

At this time, I have to say...

You are completely and utterly full of bull crap.

Seriously. Canada's actions in Iraq have been well documented. In Gulf War 1 Canadian planes regularly flew air patrols over Iraqi territory and ran escort missions. We also engaged in attacks against ground targets and ships.

If you really were "in Iraq and know about what you speak" you would actually know that.

http://www.richthistle.com/aviation-articles-othermenu-133/74-cf-18-hornets-in-the-gulf-war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Friction#Air_operations