Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) I'm suggesting that it wouldn't take them long to build one. The point is neither here nor there, however, since the only reason they don't have one is because of American pressure and assurances that South Korea falls under the umbrella of American deterrence. So once attacked, the South Koreans would just put together a nuclear arsenal...........but they don't need to, because they fall under the American nuclear umbrella........I thought you said the South Koreans could take care of themselves? It IS bluster, with the number of North Korean batteries actually capable of hitting Seoul nowhere near the oft-quoted 13,000 figure and with the damage and death-toll massively exaggerated. Not only is there room for about 20,000,000 people in underground shelters, but up to 1/4 of North Korean shells turn out to be duds. Yes, there would be significant damage. Yes, people would die, but the catastrophic flattening is garden-variety hyperbole and misinformation. What is the number of artillery pieces able hit Seoul, from behind the DMZ? And how do you know that 25% of the North's artillery shells are duds..........My god, you seem better informed than Western intelligence services!!! No, you're just pretending to have a clue and pretending to be an expert. First, North Korea isn't capable of carpet bombing Seoul. Second, large-scale strategic bombing is far more destructive than sustained artillery, so your point is doubly obtuse. Leningrad was besieged for almost three years, with the Germans firing point-blank into the city throughout. It wasn't flattened and it didn't fall, and the vast, overwhelming majority of casualties were due to starvation and deprivation. I never suggested the North could "carpet bomb" Seoul.......they don't need too. During the Second World, a single B-17 could drop on a Germany city upwards of 10000 lbs of HE bombs, versus a typical artillery piece, with a sustained rate of fire of anywhere between 30-50 rounds an hour.......Now using the low end estimate of 30 rounds per hour, and the weight of a NATO 155mm shell (I don't know the weight or size of North Korean artillery) ~80 lbs we have: 30 x 80 lbs = 2400 lbs of ordinance an hour Back to the B-17, the round trip from Southern England to Germany would take ~4-5hrs, to drop ~10000 lbs of HE explosives in one day.............Our 155mm artillery piece can deliver in ~4-5 hours ~9600-12000 lbs of HE explosives in the same time period...........Even if you include a night attack from a RAF Halifax or Lancaster dropping an equal amount of explosives in the same 24hr period, that is ~20000 lbs of explosives from two bombers......the same, single artillery piece need only 8-10 hours of the day of sustained fire to equal that total........ You understand that firing from 35-miles away means a lot of shells land in parks, streets, on top of each other, on rubble, in rivers etc? You understand that Seoul is a 605 square kilometer area that would require a volume of sustained bombardment that due to practical, logistical and retaliatory measures, North Korea simply wouldn't be capable of maintaining? How do you know the North Koreans are incapable of maintaining a sustained bombardment for weeks, if not months? Likewise, what do South Koreans have, in their arsenal capable of counter-battery fire against North Korean artillery, buried in hardened positions, likewise, how does unprepared South Korean artillery defend against counter-battery fire from the North? More armchair-general bluster, from a guy who makes it painfully obvious he hasn't done the math himself. There is some math, with work shown, above........care to refute it? Edited January 7, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 I should also add, Stop gaps don't get sent to Farnborough Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2PoRdUFkjQ Super Hornet on display in 2014 again in HD. Still actively being pitched and sold. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Wasn't as stop Gap at all. Much like what the F-22 has in store, it received an upgrade package to pull it into the next generation. American military is always divided on every front. The F-22 according to many is a waste as well. Again, this comes down to people making their own judgement. It was/is a stop-gap, after the Avenger II was cancelled by the first Bush administration, to replace the A-6E, KA-6D and the EA-6B........later, it also replaced the F-14........Of which, the Super Hornet falls short in both range and ordnance when contrasted with the aircraft it replaced... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2PoRdUFkjQ Super Hornet on display in 2014 again in HD. Still actively being pitched and sold. The Super Hornet is only in service with the USN and RAAF......and will cease production within the next several years. Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 The Super Hornet is only in service with the USN and RAAF......and will cease production within the next several years. Yes, in about a decade as Boeing has their hands in the competition for the aforementioned 6th gen plans already being developed. Doesn't mean Canada can't still buy them. Boeing will be offering support for the service life of the Aircraft. The upgrade package included. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Yes, in about a decade as Boeing has their hands in the competition for the aforementioned 6th gen plans already being developed. Doesn't mean Canada can't still buy them. Boeing will be offering support for the service life of the Aircraft. The upgrade package included. No, the "upgrade package" has not and will not be funded by the US Government.......likewise, once the Super Hornet is retired in the 2030s, Canada would be the sole operator for an additional two decades, requiring Canada to pay for any lifetime upgrades on our own......unlike currently, where Canada (and other nations) are able to piggyback onto fleet upgrades paid for by the US Government......... Operating the Super Hornet in the 2050s, would be akin to the RCAF operating these: in the present day........... Edited January 7, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 It was/is a stop-gap, after the Avenger II was cancelled by the first Bush administration, to replace the A-6E, KA-6D and the EA-6B........later, it also replaced the F-14........Of which, the Super Hornet falls short in both range and ordnance when contrasted with the aircraft it replaced... It started out as a stop gap. Boeing improved it to a point where it can transition from high alpha to any position without thrust vectoring. The Airframe is stellar. The maneuverability is good, the maintenance is easier and with Boeing's upcoming advanced upgrades, it stays relevant. The F-35, assuming it ever goes anywhere (If it misses Farnborough again this year it's done) will be way too costly. People saying it will be sub $100 million... Yeah, if Lockheed is willing to take a MASSIVE loss to returns on their investment. At that point I'm even more dubious because they would have to be very desperate. Ask yourself, several hundred billion dollars in cost... Several countries turned off by it's absence from Farnborough in 2014 due to issues, which means less likely to sell and countries backing away... You really think sub $100 million? BS, all day long. Super Hornet all day. It's all we need Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 No, the "upgrade package" has not and will not be funded by the US Government.......likewise, once the Super Hornet is retired in the 2030s, Canada would be the sole operator for an additional two decades, requiring Canada to pay for any lifetime upgrades on our own......unlike currently, where Canada (and other nations) are able to piggyback onto fleet upgrades paid for by the US Government......... Operating the Super Hornet in the 2050s, would be akin to the RCAF operating these: in the present day........... Our Pilot's have been winning competitions in the air to this day with our ageing fleet. Lol, Boeing will support it for it's service life. And you act like the F-35 is a guarantee. It's going to cost the U.S. $1 trillion + to maintain to 2050. $1 trillion +. That's disgusting. And no way in hell they keep the F-35 in production that long either. So when the plug gets pulled as well, where do we sit? A $200 million paperweight? Yeah, real sound investment. Keep drinking the Kool Aid buddy. The F-35 is already a failure and as soon as the U.S. taxpayer forces the Gov to accept that fact, it's done. The Super Hornet is at least combat ready, with a solid airframe and modern avionics. The F-35 is loaded with question marks. $40 billion in a questionable aircraft with no guarantee's? No thanks. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 It started out as a stop gap. Boeing improved it to a point where it can transition from high alpha to any position without thrust vectoring. The Airframe is stellar. The maneuverability is good, the maintenance is easier and with Boeing's upcoming advanced upgrades, it stays relevant. The F-35, assuming it ever goes anywhere (If it misses Farnborough again this year it's done) will be way too costly. Boeing isn't upgrading the Super Hornet.........because their largest customer isn't interested. People saying it will be sub $100 million... Yeah, if Lockheed is willing to take a MASSIVE loss to returns on their investment. At that point I'm even more dubious because they would have to be very desperate. Ask yourself, several hundred billion dollars in cost... Several countries turned off by it's absence from Farnborough in 2014 due to issues, which means less likely to sell and countries backing away... You really think sub $100 million? BS, all day long. Super Hornet all day. It's all we need The F-35A is already under $100 million per aircraft......as evident by the latest signed contract. Low-rate, initial production (LRIP) lot 8 pricing will be released once the final contract details are firm, according to a statement from F-35 spokeswoman Kyra Hawn. The price for each of the three F-35 variants is roughly 3.6% less expensive than in LRIP 7; this should put the cost of an F-35A in LRIP 8 at about $93.3 million, an F-35B at $100.5 million and an F-35C at $111.1 million. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Boeing isn't upgrading the Super Hornet.........because their largest customer isn't interested. Agreed. The U.S. will not accept second rate tactical aircraft or sit on its ass because of costs. The U.S. is not Canada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Boeing isn't upgrading the Super Hornet.........because their largest customer isn't interested. The F-35A is already under $100 million per aircraft......as evident by the latest signed contract. Yeah, and the remaining 55 aircraft? No thanks. And that's assuming they keep on schedule with their plans. Something that is becoming more and more unlikely with each passing day. Again, not one guarantee on these lemon's. I'd rather see our billion investment go elsewhere. On proven aircraft. Not a question mark. If Canada is going to buy it, run a proper competition. (Though I'm sure it would be rigged) it would at least buy time. I want to see real results before any of my tax dollars are invested. You should as well. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Our Pilot's have been winning competitions in the air to this day with our ageing fleet. With Sabres? Boeing will support it for it's service life. Sure, and we'll get to pay for it...... And you act like the F-35 is a guarantee. It's going to cost the U.S. $1 trillion + to maintain to 2050. $1 trillion +. That's disgusting. And no way in hell they keep the F-35 in production that long either. F-35 production will wind down in the later 2030s.....several decades after the Super Hornet production. So when the plug gets pulled as well, where do we sit? A $200 million paperweight? Yeah, real sound investment. Keep drinking the Kool Aid buddy. The F-35 is already a failure and as soon as the U.S. taxpayer forces the Gov to accept that fact, it's done. The Super Hornet is at least combat ready, with a solid airframe and modern avionics. The F-35 is loaded with question marks. $40 billion in a questionable aircraft with no guarantee's? No thanks. The F-35 will still be supported, decades after production, to maintain the users various fleets through to retirement..........the Super Hornet will be razor blades, garbage cans, gate guards and museum pieces.......... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Yeah, and the remaining 55 aircraft? No thanks. And that's assuming they keep on schedule with their plans. Something that is becoming more and more unlikely with each passing day. Again, not one guarantee on these lemon's. I'd rather see our billion investment go elsewhere. On proven aircraft. Not a question mark. If Canada is going to buy it, run a proper competition. (Though I'm sure it would be rigged) it would at least buy time. I want to see real results before any of my tax dollars are invested. You should as well. Long lead items for the Super Hornet would need to be ordered late this Spring or early Summer to prevent Boeing from closing the production line in St Louis the following year.......already, Boeing has stopped production of the baseline Super Hornet, finishing the remaining orders of the Growlers for the USN........ There will be no Canadian Super Hornet, no mater how hard you wish it to be so......... Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 That's the difference. I'm a results guy, not a let's put our faith in a corporation that had to cancel the F-22 early and now needs the F-35 to sell to even get a sniff at upgrade contracts for the F-22 and a sixth gen fighter to enter the fray with. I'll take a Eurofighter, before I go hand over fist for any F-35 that hasn't even flown a demo that tests it's limits yet. You go ask any smart billionaire if they'd buy a failing dream. They'd be backing out in a heartbeat. That's why Politicians seldom make good businessmen. This deal has no results yet and it's all speculation. Better the soon to be axed billion dollar devil you know then the one you don't. And $40 billion is the life cycle cost if we go F-35. Again, no thank you. No results, no investment. Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Even if they don't go Super Hornet, until the F-35 is proven, no touchy Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Good points by the way. Nice to find someone who can debate with some good facts Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 For political reasons, Canada will not procure a strike fighter replacement without significant domestic production offsets. As a Tier 3 partner for the JSF program, this requirement is already met by the F-35. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 And again, the F-35 will be supported if it ever really get's off the ground. The F-22 is a far more capable plane that at least made production before being nixed. The F-35 has already started to suffer for it's failures to this point and it's surpassed the F-22's cost of production. Out east, many are not happy with the U.S. and with the PAK-FA from Russia and even Japan and China in the mix, many are backing away. Fringe Countries as well. Even Saudi Arabia just bought Eurofighters to replace their fleets. The Brazillian's eliminated the F-35 from contention, Australia backed away, most of Europe has no interest and again, missing Farnborough has really hurt the F-35. And with talk that it will miss again this year, this could be it. And if it does make it to Farnborough, you'll learn in a hurry if it's worth buying or not. Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 And I'm sorry, there are still better options out there. And for production, Saab offered to allow full manufacturing rights to Canada along with partial coverage of introductory costs. And even if we backed away from the F-35, we still maintain build licensing. So it's not a total loss. Other Countries may eventually complain and nix it, but that's assuming any are really left by the time they work out all of the issues. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 No, Canada would lose all or most of its present F-35 sub-contracts if it chooses to option out. Other partner nations would pick up the slack. Realistically, Canada hasn't moved forward on any other replacement aircraft despite all the "anything but F-35" chatter. Like its infamous rotary wing aircraft procurements, the CF-188 replacement will be filled with no less drama. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 No, Canada would lose all or most of its present F-35 sub-contracts if it chooses to option out. Other partner nations would pick up the slack. Realistically, Canada hasn't moved forward on any other replacement aircraft despite all the "anything but F-35" chatter. Like its infamous rotary wing aircraft procurements, the CF-188 replacement will be filled with no less drama. Gotta agree with that last statement lol. I'll settle for a competition. There was talk of that, but the F-35 should never have been moved before more was proven Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 I mean, even Saab made a great offer for production in Canada that would still stand. We need to properly assess three or four replacements.Including the F-35, not in addition to Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Time is on the F-35's side....as more nations procure the F-35 there is a shrinking market for the competition which soon makes export production of alternatives no longer viable. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Time is on the F-35's side....as more nations procure the F-35 there is a shrinking market for the competition which soon makes export production of alternatives no longer viable. Well, the first half of this year will be an interesting one. Those Countries could just as quickly run for the hills if any more setbacks occur. Quote
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.