Derek 2.0 Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 you keep harping on this "2050/middle of the century" endpoint... we've gone over this now several times. Are you still holding to the ridiculous presumption that any plane today (including JSFail) will be relied upon into that time period? Drone baby, drone!!! Technology advances - go figure! There is no indication, based on current and proposed programs (F-35..6th generation fighter…next generation helicopters and bombers etc.) that unmanned flight will supersede manned flight in that timeframe……….All current partners intend to operate their planned F-35 fleets through the middle of this century (and likely beyond)……….Nobody plans to operate 4th generation aircraft like the Super Hornet out to the 2050s. Of note, DND has dropped the proposed JUSTAS program, and now favours manned options……..akin to the USAF retiring a portion of their Global Hawk UAV fleet in favour of maintaining the U-2 fleet…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 There is no indication, based on current and proposed programs (F-35..6th generation fighter…next generation helicopters and bombers etc.) that unmanned flight will supersede manned flight in that timeframe……….All current partners intend to operate their planned F-35 fleets through the middle of this century (and likely beyond)……….Nobody plans to operate 4th generation aircraft like the Super Hornet out to the 2050s. Of note, DND has dropped the proposed JUSTAS program, and now favours manned options……..akin to the USAF retiring a portion of their Global Hawk UAV fleet in favour of maintaining the U-2 fleet…. Nobody really knows just what a "5th generation" is supposed to be and now we have a "6th"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 Lots of people know...just not you apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 Lots of people know...just not you apparently. People who are willing to be hoodwinked by LockMart glossy brochures. Otherwise it's pretty vague to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 People who are willing to be hoodwinked by LockMart glossy brochures. Otherwise it's pretty vague to say the least. It's a vague term, sure, but it is meant to suggest a plane that's an order of magnitude more advanced than the previous generation of fighters. Nothing from the 1970's or 80's (4th gen) will have a chance against the F-35, so it's therefore considered the next generation of aircraft. Pretty simple stuff here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 It's a vague term, sure, but it is meant to suggest a plane that's an order of magnitude more advanced than the previous generation of fighters. Nothing from the 1970's or 80's (4th gen) will have a chance against the F-35, so it's therefore considered the next generation of aircraft. Pretty simple stuff here. So if they keep having to continue to ratchet the metrics for the F 35 downward as it continues not to fulfill expectations, when does it lose this so called "5th generation" classification? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 Such terms are not vague for the U.S. DoD and aircraft development programs. The attributes and capabilities of each generation are well defined for existing and projected aircraft platforms. Canada can define its own terms and definitions when it designs and builds such aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 They get vague when they keep having to move the goalposts. And of course as those metrics get downgraded the orders drop off and the price skyrockets. Which seems to be the only thing that will with this project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 Nobody plans to operate 4th generation aircraft like the Super Hornet out to the 2050s. and here I thought it was classified as a 4.5 gen aircraft... isn't that so? Given tech advances you absolutely won't see manned jets "out to the 2050s" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 It's a vague term, sure, but it is meant to suggest a plane that's an order of magnitude more advanced than the previous generation of fighters. Nothing from the 1970's or 80's (4th gen) will have a chance against the F-35, so it's therefore considered the next generation of aircraft. Pretty simple stuff here. Such terms are not vague for the U.S. DoD and aircraft development programs. The attributes and capabilities of each generation are well defined for existing and projected aircraft platforms. Canada can define its own terms and definitions when it designs and builds such aircraft. it's a buzzword marketing ploy by LockMart... which itself self-declared the JSFail as so-called "5th generation". Meanwhile in critical reality world... when a "U.S. marketing ploy makes up it's own terms and definitions in order to sway the uninformed and gullible": Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 Canada's desired definition of 5th Generation Fighter: Cost > Cheap, Cheaper, and Cheapest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 If you wanna talk about airplanes you should have at least a basic idea of weather. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 Canada's desired definition of 5th Generation Fighter: Cost > Cheap, Cheaper, and Cheapest. oh look... a 'Canada slam'! How unusual for you, hey? Oh wait... wouldn't that be the desired definition for any country, including the 'Great Satan' (see Sequestration and military downsizing)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 This week only...just for Canada: Buy one F-35A at regular price...get 2nd F-35A at 50% off ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 This week only...just for Canada: Buy one F-35A at regular price...get 2nd F-35A at 50% off ! sorry... your antagonism towards Canada fails again! It was the head of the JSFail program who recently did his dog&pony show where he was out trying to drum up sales... volume purchase incentives all around for any, for all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 How to get "maximum value"...Canada style: The Canadian project intends to continue adjusting Canada’s buy profile so that it continues to respect Government approval cycles and, at the same time, maximizes overall value for the Crown while respecting the notional timing for the phase-out of the CF-18 and phase-in of the F-35A. Table 3: Notional Canadian Buy Profile (March 2013) US Fiscal Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total # aircraft Weighted Average($M US) # aircraft 4 9 7 13 15 13 4 65 88.5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 How to get "maximum value"...Canada style: The Canadian project intends to continue adjusting Canada’s buy profile so that it continues to respect Government approval cycles and, at the same time, maximizes overall value for the Crown while respecting the notional timing for the phase-out of the CF-18 and phase-in of the F-35A. Table 3: Notional Canadian Buy Profile (March 2013) US Fiscal Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total # aircraft Weighted Average($M US) # aircraft 4 9 7 13 15 13 4 65 88.5 "Canada style"??? Just how desperate are you to take pot shots at Canada? Should I put up the breakdown of "committed" buys per country for all declared JSFail partner nations?... as they span across respective years? Should I put up those figures for the U.S. that are tied to respective yearly budget appropriations... per year budget appropriations that have a precise number of "projected" buys per year? That's projected... cause... you apparently aren't aware of how U.S. military budget appropriations occur! Go figure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 He's obviously quite desperate. They never seem to stop. Kinda fun ain't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 He's obviously quite desperate. They never seem to stop. Kinda fun ain't it? I do believe he's a bit miffed at having his 5th gen bluster busted! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 I do believe he's a bit miffed at having his 5th gen bluster busted! It would appear that way. And he's not alone as you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 More translation from U.S. to Canada speak....quite important...but who's program is it anyway ? A clear understanding of terminology is essential when reporting on costs..... Different governments sometimes use different terms to mean the same thing. For example, Canada uses the term “buy profile” to refer to the schedule on which it might want to receive and pay for the F-35A, a schedule that could change the overall cost by millions of dollars. The United States program office uses the term “bed down plan” to mean the same thing. Meanwhile, a company which is understandably focused on the manufacturing aspect of a plan may refer to this as a “production profile.” On the other hand, governments–and, of course, industry–sometimes use the same term to refer to entirely different or even opposite concepts. When Canada says an aircraft will cost $X million (Canadian) in “BY” it is referring to Budget Year, which in the United States would be referred to as Then Year (TY). Canada is therefore communicating that those are dollars complete with calculations for inflation. On the other hand, when the United States says “BY,” it means Base Year, what Canadians would call “Constant Year” (CY). In this report, unless otherwise noted, all figures are presented in Canadian Budget Year dollars. Another term often used by different jurisdictions, organizations or individuals to mean different things is unit cost. When Canadian authorities use the term “unit cost”, they usually mean “Unit-Recurring Flyaway” Cost, known as URF or URFC. As the name suggests, unit recurring flyaway cost includes costs for an aircraft to be flyable, including the costs of the engine and the mission systems. When the United States speaks of unit cost, however, it is more likely to be referring to average production unit cost (APUC) or program acquisition unit cost (PAUC). Average production unit cost involves all the items covered by unit recurring flyaway costs plus such expenditures as those for ancillary mission equipment, and initial spares as well as technical data, publications and support and test equipment. Program acquisition unit cost includes all the costs included in average production unit cost, plus the costs for facility construction, and for research, development, test and evaluation. Got all that ? Good ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 More translation from U.S. to Canada speak....quite important...but who's program is it anyway ? Got all that ? Good ! "who's program is it anyway"??? You mean... the JSFail International Program... the one with 9 so-called partner nations? That one? by the by, was there actually some point in your quoting directly from the Canadian Forces 2013 (annual) update? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 (edited) The plane that ate the Canadian military.......http://www.scribd.com/doc/221183188/The-Plane-That-Ate-the-Canadian-Military Edited August 13, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 The plane that ate the Canadian military....... try and keep up... it's actually "The plane that ate the Pentagon"! I won't bother to link the image that goes along with that well worn saying... that would be rather juvenile, hey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 I've heard those US versions actually come equipped with their own greenback printing machines mounted way up front as far from that hot burning engine as they can get it. That way when it does blow the pilot can take it with him on ejection, assuming that thing works, so he has pocket money to get home with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.