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

[waldo]

Being as the US Navy is sticking with the F-35 along side the Super Hornet (an aircraft it was never designed to replace), I wonder who would pay for this mythical advanced Super Hornet for Canada, that no one else is buying?

again, what's with the repeat use of "mythical"? You were just shown some Boeing propaganda!!! Perhaps you should try a googly for USN response to Advanced Super Hornet demonstration. As for cost, I already provided that in a recent post... per Boeing, 10% more than the cost of a Super Hornet. Notwithstanding the Advanced upgrades can be added to both existing Super Hornets and Growlers.

[Smallc]

So more than even the F-35C, given the info BC provided.

[bush_cheney2004]

The F35C begins carrier qualification in about 4 months. Super Duper Hornets...not so much....the production line is melting....melting......melting.

[On Guard for Thee]

The basic problem for the F 35 is that LockMart put all it's eggs in one basket. The "stealth" basket. That caused performance to suffer and now, Oh woe is me, she ain't so stealthy. I see Britain has severly cut back it's order, as has Italy, which is considering further reductions. It seems many of the original customers are getting cold feet. But as far as production lines melting, LockMart has already achieved that, in spades.

[bush_cheney2004]

Super Hornet production will cease by 2016 if no more F-18G orders are placed. Canada certainly won't figure anything out by then, so ironically, Canada is dependent on firm F-35 customers Australia and USA to keep the stop-gap Hornet line going.

[waldo]

US Navy (2015) Unfunded List Requests 22 EA-18G Growlers

US House Armed Services Committee Endorses 2 Super Hornets Per Month ... whaaa!... pork barrel!

[On Guard for Thee]

And just as a personal thought, as a pilot I am not sure how comfortable I would feel sitting over the arctic, hundreds of miles from nowhere, when it's minus 50 or so on the ground, in an airplane that has one engine which is prone to cracks in it's turbine blades, and with an ejection seat that has problems. And then if all goes well and I make Inuvik, I hope there is room in the DND hangar because you have to keep this baby warm if you ever want it to start again. Does anybody know what a Herman Nelson is?

[Smallc]

The basic problem for the F 35 is that LockMart put all it's eggs in one basket. The "stealth" basket. That caused performance to suffer and now, Oh woe is me, she ain't so stealthy. I see Britain has severly cut back it's order, as has Italy, which is considering further reductions. It seems many of the original customers are getting cold feet. But as far as production lines melting, LockMart has already achieved that, in spades.

If you think that the F-35 is only about stealth, I can't help you.

[Smallc]

And just as a personal thought, as a pilot I am not sure how comfortable I would feel sitting over the arctic, hundreds of miles from nowhere, when it's minus 50 or so on the ground, in an airplane that has one engine which is prone to cracks in it's turbine blades, and with an ejection seat that has problems. And then if all goes well and I make Inuvik, I hope there is room in the DND hangar because you have to keep this baby warm if you ever want it to start again. Does anybody know what a Herman Nelson is?

Yes, it's a wonder how any F-16 pilots ever work up the courage to fly their aircraft over the arctic. It's similar to the question of why someone would fly in circles to calibrate a CIWS.

[On Guard for Thee]

If you think that the F-35 is only about stealth, I can't help you.

As I've already pointed out, it's not just about stealth. There is cracked turbine blades, blurry vision from the helmet, delamination of airframe components, airframe components falling off, etc., but stealth was supposed to be the thing that set this unit apart. And now oops, failed that too.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, it's a wonder how any F-16 pilots ever work up the courage to fly their aircraft over the arctic. It's similar to the question of why someone would fly in circles to calibrate a CIWS.

Agreed...so scary....even though the F-16 has a service ceiling of 50,000 feet where the temperature is -40C to -60C. How do the brave pilots in F-16's do it ?

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes, it's a wonder how any F-16 pilots ever work up the courage to fly their aircraft over the arctic. It's similar to the question of why someone would fly in circles to calibrate a CIWS.

What does a sea whiz have to do with anything in this discussion?

[Smallc]

As I've already pointed out, it's not just about stealth. There is cracked turbine blades, blurry vision from the helmet, delamination of airframe components, airframe components falling off, etc., but stealth was supposed to be the thing that set this unit apart. And now oops, failed that too.

Stealth is not the only thing they sets the F-35 apart.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter

Stealth is only one part of the package.

[Smallc]

What does a sea whiz have to do with anything in this discussion?

It links back to an earlier thread in which you claimed as a pilot that you flew circles around a CIWS to calibrate it. Considering that isn't how the system is calibrated (it uses deflection from average point of impact) combined with your statement that you'd never fly over the arctic without two engines (something that is common place from Beavers to Falcons) I can't help but question what kind of flying experience you have (and I will freely admit I have none).

Edited June 4, 2014 by Smallc

[monty16]

Let's cancel the whole Canadian military and build a large coast guard. The Russians aren't coming and never were. Neither are the Chinese, the Indians, the Pakistanis, the North Koreans, the Iranians, or the other bad guys the US has imagined. We can't be so sure about the Iraqis intent on revenge or maybe the Americans due to their track record over the last 15 years. Jet planes won't do any good for protecting against those.

[Smallc]

Then when something does happen, we can sit back and watch, just like you want

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry...Canada will still need strike aircraft to bomb Iraq, Serbia, Libya, and maybe kidnap Haitian presidents (again).

[monty16]

Then when something does happen, we can sit back and watch, just like you want

You have to come to the understanding that if something happens then it's because we, in concert with the US, caused it to happen. That is just about the only threat left in the modern world where there is the nuclear deterrent that prevents something happening that can be defended against.

Russia is not coming.

China is not coming.

The only thing that is possibly coming is a revenge strike frome those we have given legitimate cause to become our enemies. WE know who they are and we should be able to easily figure out how to lower the likelihood of an attack that can't be defended against. We don't want to learn the hard way on our very own 9/11.

[Smallc]

Such as the Typhoon in the Philippines.

[bush_cheney2004]

Or NATO deployments to eastern Europe. Just like a "warmonger", a peacekeeper's job is never done. More laser guided bombs, please.

Edited June 4, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

It links back to an earlier thread in which you claimed as a pilot that you flew circles around a CIWS to calibrate it. Considering that isn't how the system is calibrated (it uses deflection from average point of impact) combined with your statement that you'd never fly over the arctic without two engines (something that is common place from Beavers to Falcons) I can't help but question what kind of flying experience you have (and I will freely admit I have none).

Well you better tell the Canadian Military that because they had me flying around one of their old Iriquois Class destroyers for the better part of a week doing just that. As for single engine over the arctic, you totally misquoted me. I have certainly put my share of time over the north and the arctic single engine. Had no choice if I wanted a job. The RCAF has a choice. Spend a lot less money on a safer airplane. Makes pretty good sense to me.

[Smallc]

The F-35 has the same number of engines as the F-16 which routinely flys over the arctic. It seems to be quite safe.

[On Guard for Thee]

And as recentely as last December that F 135 engine had a fan blow out as it neared 77% of it's life cycle. Luckily it happenned on a test stand and not over the arctic where we would certainly have lost the airplane and heaven forbid, possibly the pilot as well. I'm not saying the F 18 could never lose an engine, but at least with it you'd get home. Much safer and a hell of a lot less expensive.

[Smallc]

You don't often get home when one engine goes. Often, you lose control. When you don't, often the other engine receives severe damage and doesn't operate for long. The F-35 will blow engines. Of course it will. Every jet does. Engine technology from 2014 should be better than engine technology from the mid 80s though.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well I must be pretty lucky then as I have had 2 engine failures, never lost control, and one was a turbine burst and the other engine wasn't touched. They have scatter shields in place for just that purpose. And the GE 414 engine went into production in 98, not the 80's and has proved to be very relliable. I'm certainly not an engine designer, but I personally think they are trying to suck too much thrust from that one engine and therefore the temps have to be quite high and that's where the blade crack and thermal creep problems come from.