Wilber Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 No takers for the Super Viper yet. It lost out to the Gripen in Brazil but India might take some as an interim machine while are developing their own fighter. Sounds like just the ticket for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 No takers for the Super Viper yet. It lost out to the Gripen in Brazil but India might take some as an interim machine while are developing their own fighter. Sounds like just the ticket for us. A very close aircraft was just purchased by 1 or 2 middle eastern countries. As for the F-15, I don't expect to get any. If we did, it would probably be a smaller than 65 order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 A very close aircraft was just purchased by 1 or 2 middle eastern countries. No, the UAE purchased the block 60 F-16, which uses its own radar (AN/APG-80) versus the radar in the proposed "F-16V" (AN/APG-83).....there is nothing "close" about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 No takers for the Super Viper yet. That's not quite true, the "F-16V" is an upgrade for block 50/52 F-16s, that an end user can elect to upgrade their current fleets to or purchase new built aircraft at said standard. The USAF is upgrading a large portion of their current F-16 with the radar of the "F-16V" (AN/APG-83), and the Republic of China, is upgrading their far older block 25 f-16s to said standard. Of course, in USAF service, said aircraft will be replaced by the F-35A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 No, the UAE purchased the block 60 F-16, which uses its own radar (AN/APG-80) versus the radar in the proposed "F-16V" (AN/APG-83).....there is nothing "close" about them. That's rather hair splitting of you. They're both new build advanced F-16s with AESA. The F-16V is more advanced yet, but is similar in that it combines new technology with an older but proven airframe with good results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 That's rather hair splitting of you. They're both new build advanced F-16s with AESA. The F-16V is more advanced yet, but is similar in that it combines new technology with an older but proven airframe with good results. No, its factual.........there are currently no "new build" F-16Vs. And how do you know of "good results"? The first upgraded block 50/52 "F-16V", with the AN/APG-83 radar, only completed its first flight last month..........Do you have a source within Edwards AFB or are you making things up again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 Sorry, I should have made that about just the E/F, as they were purchased after being selected. That was my good results rationale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 Sorry, I should have made that about just the E/F, as they were purchased after being selected. That was my good results rationale. Fair enough, but in this thought experiment, we wouldn't purchase the block 60 design, funded by the UAE, since per the contractual agreement between the UAE and the US Government/Lockheed, a portion of our tax dollars would be going to the UAE..........and the UAE would have no reason to offer any form of industrial off-sets. None the less, optics wise, if they decide to fund a replacement inside this mandate, I doubt they would be able to square the circle of a single engine aircraft replacing the Hornet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 I think if the price was right they could do it on cost grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 I think if the price was right they could do it on cost grounds. So two engines are no longer required for safety in the Arctic. How things change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 I think if the price was right they could do it on cost grounds. Well it's not.......the current flyaway price of a block 50/52 F-16 is ~$50 million per copy, but upgraded with the AN/APG-83 radar and avionics package, per the Taiwan deal, is an additional ~$20-25 million per aircraft.........~$70-75 million for a warmed over F-16 versus ~$80-90 million for the F-35A.....on paper, that is nearly $1 billion in savings for a 65 aircraft buy, but doesn't factor (unlike the F-35) long term training and logistics, nor having to buy any attrition aircraft upfront.........hence the naval renewal isn't going to be funded by selecting a legacy aircraft. And every argument, regardless of how foolish and invalid, made against the F-35A can be made against the F-16 in spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 So two engines are no longer required for safety in the Arctic. How things change. I never said that. Did Trudeau ever say that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 Well it's not.......the current flyaway price of a block 50/52 F-16 is ~$50 million per copy, but upgraded with the AN/APG-83 radar and avionics package, per the Taiwan deal, is an additional ~$20-25 million per aircraft.........~$70-75 million for a warmed over F-16 versus ~$80-90 million for the F-35A.....on paper, that is nearly $1 billion in savings for a 65 aircraft buy, but doesn't factor (unlike the F-35) long term training and logistics, nor having to buy any attrition aircraft upfront.........hence the naval renewal isn't going to be funded by selecting a legacy aircraft. The F-16 is one of the least expensive aircraft to operate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) I never said that. Did Trudeau ever say that? Then what were you referring to justifying on cost grounds? Edited November 24, 2015 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 The F-16 is one of the least expensive aircraft to operate. No, in US service, the F-16 has one of the smallest average hourly operating costs.......but then, is the most prolific aircraft in American service with the USAF, ANG and USN. Bases, fuel, training, logistics and personal etc will cost the same regardless of the aircraft we select. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 Then what were you referring to justifying on cost grounds? What? What does that have to do with the number of engines? I don't remember Trudeau ever making the 2 engine argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 What? What does that have to do with the number of engines? I don't remember Trudeau ever making the 2 engine argument. Lots of F-35 detractors have made that a major objection to the F-35. What were you justifying on cost grounds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 Lots of F-35 detractors have made that a major objection to the F-35. What were you justifying on cost grounds? I was justifying the F-16V. Apparently, according to Derek, it's no less money. It's hard to know that as we don't have like for like comparisons for any of the aircraft in terms of costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 What? What does that have to do with the number of engines? I don't remember Trudeau ever making the 2 engine argument. He didn't, but several Liberal MPs did............The optics would be interesting to see Trudeau select an aircraft (F-16) now, that was rejected by his father nearly 40 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 I was justifying the F-16V. Apparently, according to Derek, it's no less money. It's hard to know that as we don't have like for like comparisons for any of the aircraft in terms of costs. No, I told you, per plane, it is currently less money, but we won't save money in the long run........same goes with the Super Hornet, which is currently less money than the F-35 (~$65 million per), but if wanted to upgrade the avionics it will cost the same (or more) than a production F-35........the Eurofighter, Rafale, F-15 and Gripen NG all currently cost as much or more than a LRIP F-35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 What makes you think military spending doesn't enhance the quality of life of Canadians? ... - Patrolling our northern waterways. The U.S. has, in the past, disputed some of Canada's claims regarding the Arctic ocean. If we do not maintain Canada's military and defer to the Americans, we loose some of our ability to assert our claims - Localized search and rescue. In a time when the U.S. government can become gridlocked, do you really think they will eagerly expend the resources to conduct search and rescue within Canada's territory on a regular basis? I think those $billions spent on a few assault airplanes can be used far more effectively to enhance the quality of life for Canadians. First of all, I notice you ignored one of the key parts of my argument... in that for many Canadians, the pride that we feel in being able to maintain basic defense capabilities enhances their lives more than many domestic spending areas (such as the CBC). Secondly, if your argument is to only spend on things that "enhance the quality of life of Canadians", just how far are you willing to take that logic? For example, should we cancel all foreign aid? After all, we are spending roughly 5 times the amount on foreign aid (on a yearly basis) than we would on new fighter jets. And what about the U.N.? We may get some benefit from some organizations like the WHO, but why bother with things like the General Assembly? If we get rid of our ambassador there (plus all the staff) we would save millions, and that money could be spent "enhancing the quality of life for Canadians". As for guarding the homeland of Canada, certainly we should have equipment for search and rescue. That does not have to be military equipment. No it wouldn't. But military equipment can be dual purpose. The Americans will get what the Americans want as regarding the Arctic Ocean. Actually no, they wouldn't. While a Canadian military would never win a shooting war with the U.S.,, the ability to detect U.S. (and other foreign countries) ships/planes, and deploy forces in the same area is enough to make our sovereignty be recognized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 I guess I do not share your "pride that we feel in being able to maintain basic defense capabilities". I have no difficulty in having the USA pay for our security and give up their young for our security because our security is vital to their security. Since it is American foreign policy international interventions that causes challenges to our security I have no problems letting them pay for it. The U.S. Air Force bought 21 B-2 stealth bombers from Northrop Grumman in the 1980s and 1990s at a price of more than $2 billion apiece, if you count development costs. The cost of settling 25,000 Syrian refugees in Canada has been approximated at about $1.2 billion. I think we get more for our money with refugees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 I'd prefer a few B-2s. What a machine! It's incredible what the USA can do in the realm of aerospace technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 Canadian security Big Guy style. Assume the fetal position and hope they go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) Canadian security Big Guy style. Assume the fetal position and hope they go away. That is an interesting and self serving analysis - and incorrect. You have a very heroic and nationalistic attitude. Canada need people like you in our front lines: http://www.forces.ca/en/page/applynow-100 and to get you into the mood: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechpatton3rdarmyaddress.html Edited November 25, 2015 by Big Guy 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.