ReeferMadness Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 The AIM-120D is superior to the meteor, none the less, the Meteor will be used on British (and Italian) F-35s.......carried internally, unlike the Gripen, hence not inducing a drag penalty, thus, not decreasing the aircraft's speed, range and maneuverability The current meteor won't fit in the butterball - they "plan" to modify it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 Apparently everything always goes according to plan...ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 Apparently everything always goes according to plan...ha Apparently, when you're a hardcore butterball supporter, nothing else will do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 The current meteor won't fit in the butterball - they "plan" to modify it. Your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 Apparently, when you're a hardcore butterball supporter, nothing else will do! Or understand the program..........do you consider the Intel 80386 as a modern microprocessor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 If the liberals have they're way and drop the F-35, what are the options ? I've been sold on the F-35 since i heard about it, And have now been forced to keep up with the other types available..... While the Liberals are going to learn very quickly that cheaper does not equate into great savings.....For instance Brazil has just purchased 36 grippen E models for 5.4 bil or about 150 mil per, along with some off sets....The research into the gripen is kind of impressive, but the further i research the more confused i get....as they're are shit loads of web sites and they are all clouded with a lot of lets say uneducated people... But here are what they are referencing as replacements... F-15SU or SA not sure (Saudis new aircraft) new builds. (100 Mil a copy) F-18E Grippen E model (150 mil a copy) Rafale Euro fighter ( not sure but this one has been a favorite of many, but is alot more expensive than most of them) 143 mil a copy but very high op costs. I've tried to find anything about how they compared in the original competition but found nothing....derek can you whittle down the list for me, to give me a place to start .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 The Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen NG, Super Hornet etc are all as much of a "bomb truck" as our current Hornets and the F-35.........for example, outside the Gripen NG and F-35 (as of yet), all of said aircraft have been used as "bomb trucks" over Iraq and Syria in the fight against ISIS.At least you now understand the 35 is just a bob truck. Perhaps we are making progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) But here are what they are referencing as replacements... F-15SU or SA not sure (Saudis new aircraft) new builds. (100 Mil a copy) F-18E Grippen E model (150 mil a copy) Rafale Euro fighter ( not sure but this one has been a favorite of many, but is alot more expensive than most of them) 143 mil a copy but very high op costs. I've tried to find anything about how they compared in the original competition but found nothing....derek can you whittle down the list for me, to give me a place to start .... The Eurofighter, latest F-15s, Rafale and Gripen NG currently cost as much (or more) as a low-rate production F-35A......once the F-35A enters full production, it will cost even less Right now, the only Western fighters in production, that are cheaper than a F-35 LRIP aircraft, are the Super Hornet and the F-16.......Again, once the F-35 enters full rate production, as the Super Hornet and Falcon go out of production, it will become cheaper than the two....... The proposed "advanced" F-16V would cost nearly as much as the F-35 (hence why nobody has ordered it), the proposed "advanced" Super Hornet, nobody knows the end cost, as most of said technology is just a concept.....Unlike the Advanced F-16, what the USAF is partially upgrading a portion of their fleet to, nobody has ordered an advanced Super Hornet and the US Government won't fund its development further, as such, we'd pay for that too....so it's not off base to assume, based on the F-16 currently being cheaper than the Super Hornet, that an advanced Super Hornet would cost as much as or more than the F-35A. ---------- At the end of the day, I highly doubt this Government will select, let alone purchase a new fighter inside this mandate, kicking the can down the road even further......I base this opinion on three things: 1. There is no money budgeted for new fighters within the Liberal's four year fiscal plan......that's not to say they couldn't add more money, but I doubt a new fighter is a priority (when we still have a ~decade left on our current Hornets) 2. The Liberals said they intend to conduct both a defense review of the entire Forces and hold a "open and transparent" competition........translation.......time. It took us nearly 6 years to select a new, bolt action, rifle for the Rangers......a program measured in the millions, with a full project staff......The Hornet replacement will measure in the billions, have countless implications on the Canadian aerospace industry, but currently has a staff of 3 people, a staff about the size as the one in NDHQ that waters the plants. 3. Canada has yet to leave the F-35 program and is still sending representatives to next month's partners meeting in Italy......... Edited November 28, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 The Eurofighter, latest F-15s, Rafale and Gripen NG currently cost as much (or more) as a low-rate production F-35A......once the F-35A enters full production, it will cost even lessNow you're just pulling stuff out of your ass. I've posted a number of sources that say not only would the Gripen be cheaper to buy, it's operating costs (which are much more than the purchase cost over time) are far far less than the butterball. Why are you hooked on this particular shiny trinket? Do you have shares in Lockheed Martin like the others around here who want war toys in their stockings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 28, 2015 Report Share Posted November 28, 2015 Now you're just pulling stuff out of your ass. I've posted a number of sources that say not only would the Gripen be cheaper to buy, it's operating costs (which are much more than the purchase cost over time) are far far less than the butterball. Why are you hooked on this particular shiny trinket? Do you have shares in Lockheed Martin like the others around here who want war toys in their stockings? No, you posted a poorly written blog that blurs poorly researched data listing proposed Gripen NG capabilities (a plane yet in squadron service, unlike the F-35B), with figures associated with the original Gripen.........as I posted, the Norwegian Government found the Gripen NG would cost more than the F-35...... I fail to see how it maters, but since you brought it up, I have shares in most defense companies, but as a former employee, a large ESO with Boeing......ergo, if your implication were correct, I would be waving pom-poms for the Super Hornet and Eagle.........alas, when Boeing's X-32 lost to Lockheed's X-35, I lost thousands... ------- Now I asked you above, in an attempt to further this discussion, in your opinion, do you consider the Intel 80386 microprocessor to be cutting edge, with a potential for future growth and sustainability out past the middle of this century? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 The AIM-120D is superior to the meteor, none the less, the Meteor will be used on British (and Italian) F-35s.......carried internally, unlike the Gripen, hence not inducing a drag penalty, thus, not decreasing the aircraft's speed, range and maneuverability The current meteor won't fit in the butterball - they "plan" to modify it. So let me get this straight... You hand-wave away the stealth characteristics of the F35, with the argument that it can be nullified by "future technological enhancements" (without giving any sort of time frame or indication of what that will entail), but when it comes to your meteor missle your complaint is that it has to be 'modified' to be carried by the F35. Why are you considering one potential technological change (ability to detect stealth) is somehow more relevant than technological changes needed for the F35 to carry the Meteor? Technological changes to nullify stealth: vague claims, no time frame Technological changes to allow F35 to carry Meteor missile: Active development project; required changes studied, plans made to integrate the missile in future blocks https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-mbda-on-target-for-meteor-introduction-413687/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Why are you hooked on this particular shiny trinket?Perhaps people are so "hooked on this trinket" because we've learned enough about defense issues to recognize the issues related to the various options for purchasing fighter jets, and recognize that the F35, although not perfect, is the best option. We remember the folly of the EH101 program (i.e. rejecting a purchase not because it was a bad deal, but because of politics) and prefer Canada did not make the same (expensive) mistake again. Right now, the opponents of the F35 seem to be doing the same sorts of things; - Continually chanting "bomb truck", like its some sort of magic talisman, ignoring the fact that all potential CF18 replacements can also be used in an air-to-ground capacity - Pointing to outdated or incorrect information (like harping on an engine problem which has long since been corrected, or claiming that the F35 lost in a 'dogfight' with an F16, when a fully functional F35 was never actually PUT in a dogfight with an F16) - Engaging in hypocracy (like your "technology changes will make stealth irrelevant... but ignoring technology changes that will let the F35 carry the Meteor missile.". Or automatically dismissing anything positive about the F35 because "Oh, the information must have come from Lockheed", while ignoring the fact that much of the information about the alternatives likewise comes from companies who are trying to sell planes.) - Engaging in improper comparisons (like comparing the characteristics an unloaded Gen4 fighter with the F35, when the Gen4 fighter would never go into combat in an 'unloaded' configuration) Perhaps if those opposed to the F35 could come up with valid arguments that didn't do one of those things listed above, their arguments might actually carry some weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 I disagree. I believe that my world view is far more objective and realistic than most which I read on this board. You're welcome to believe that, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. In fact, I suspect those who hold the same opinion as you are exceptionally rare. Even most of the people in this thread who oppose the F35 don't want to totally disband the military; they just have a different idea of the equipment we should purchase and the missions they should be used for. I am saddened by some of the "macho" rhetoric which I see here. Except of course most of the arguments here have actually been quite logical and reasonable. We have pointed out simple basic facts, like the need to maintain a military presence to protect our soveriegnty, especially in areas where the U.S. would not act (e.g. in the "turbot war"), not because we're tough macho people but because the cold hard fact is that nations often have competing goals and the military is often needed to resolve things in a manner favorable to us. I have pointed to several scenarios where the U.S. would either be unwilling or unable to "protect" us militarily. Do you really need suggestions from me as how we could spend more $billions and $billions (that I believe we are wasting on our military) on enhancing the quality of life for Canadians? No, I want you to answer the same question that I've already asked twice, and you are avoiding... If your goal is that we should concentrate on "enhancing the quality of life for Canadians", then do you think we should be spending Millions and/or billions on things like Foreign Aid and/or maintaining a presence in the U.N. general assembly, when neither one of those goes to enhancing the quality of life for Canadians. See the question in bold text above? That's what I want answered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Why are you considering one potential technological change (ability to detect stealth) is somehow more relevant than technological changes needed for the F35 to carry the Meteor? One slight correction, the Meteor will be changed (for the British and Italians) to fit into the F-35.......the primary, medium range missile, to be used by the majority of the F-35 users will still be the AMRAAM Delta, and whatever replaces that.......Of note, a load out of four Meteors weighs ~500 lbs more than an equal number of AMRAAMs, and any potential benefits a Meteor has over the current AMRAAM are negated by the inferior radars used in the aircraft (sans the F-35) that will employ them........further to that, in the case of the Rafale and the F-16 (and I believe the Gripen NG), the 80s era data links in said aircraft will prevent said aircraft from providing mid-course updates to the missile......in effect, said users, will have a heavier AMRAAM..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 - Continually chanting "bomb truck", like its some sort of magic talisman, ignoring the fact that all potential CF18 replacements can also be used in an air-to-ground capacity Exactly, more so with the suggestion that a Gripen NG (an aircraft yet to enter service) would make a more suitable aircraft for our NORAD role, when the aircraft itself was designed to be a "bomb truck" and only received a radar in the last several years allowing the Gripen to use medium range air/air missiles....... - Pointing to outdated or incorrect information (like harping on an engine problem which has long since been corrected, or claiming that the F35 lost in a 'dogfight' with an F16, when a fully functional F35 was never actually PUT in a dogfight with an F16) Or failing to mention development problems and delays with the Typhoon/Rafale/Super Hornet/Gripen.......in the case of the Super Hornet and Gripen, serious engine (both originally used a near identical engine) issues that forced an entire redesign and massive fleet groundings........Saab lost 2-3 Gripen in its development. - Engaging in hypocracy (like your "technology changes will make stealth irrelevant... but ignoring technology changes that will let the F35 carry the Meteor missile.". Or automatically dismissing anything positive about the F35 because "Oh, the information must have come from Lockheed", while ignoring the fact that much of the information about the alternatives likewise comes from companies who are trying to sell planes.) Here's is something to ponder for our NORAD mission........there are currently no Western aircraft in service or in development that could intercept a Russian Tu-160 bomber (the type they are using over in Syria) on a high speed run, a tactic they would/do use with the first sight of enemy aircraft to allow them to get into firing range of their long range (nuclear if they were attacking North America) supersonic cruise missiles........... How does one intercept (or get into missile range of said aircraft) of an aircraft that can sprint faster then said interceptor? Only if there was a way to sneak up on said aircraft........ - Engaging in improper comparisons (like comparing the characteristics an unloaded Gen4 fighter with the F35, when the Gen4 fighter would never go into combat in an 'unloaded' configuration) Exactly, an aircraft with weapons and fuel under the wings, even an equal amount to what could be carried internally on a F-35, does not "perform" anywhere near the listed manufacturer numbers....... ------------------- One more thing I'll mention, the Trudeau Government, the one that promised to scrap the F-35, is still an F-35 partner nation, will be sending officials to the next partners meeting in Italy next month and confirmed that Canada will continue to invest (150 million) into the F-35 program........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 So let me get this straight... You hand-wave away the stealth characteristics of the F35, with the argument that it can be nullified by "future technological enhancements" (without giving any sort of time frame or indication of what that will entail), but when it comes to your meteor missle your complaint is that it has to be 'modified' to be carried by the F35. How can I possibly "hand-wave away" a trait that has yet to prove itself in actual air-air combat? Especially when other traits that historically have been instrumental in air-air combat (speed, agility, flexibility to carry weapons) has been traded away for this single trait? This whole thing reminds me of he disastrous Avro Arrow incident when the Americans convinced us that fighters weren't necessary anymore because missiles were taking over. Brilliant decision that was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 How can I possibly "hand-wave away" a trait that has yet to prove itself in actual air-air combat? The U.S. has successfully used stealth in various ground attack roles for over a decade, so its reasonable to assume that it would be useful in an air-to-air role as well. And frankly, it seems rather bizarre to think that being less visible wouldn't provide an advantage in combat. Especially when other traits that historically have been instrumental in air-air combat (speed, agility, flexibility to carry weapons) has been traded away for this single trait? This is typical of the anti-F35 crowd... the issue has been explained to you over and over again, yet you still post the same nonsense over and over again. The F35 has not necessarily sacrificed "speed/agility/flexibility"... The problem is, the Anti-F35 crowd keeps quoting the abilities of the potential competitors in a clean configuration (i.e. not carrying weapons), ignoring the fact that the F35, in many cases, is faster/more agile when in combat because it can carry weapons internally. Without carrying missiles, planes like the Gripen and Super Hornet (in theory) can outrun the F35. Yet that's pretty much a useless comparison, since a fighter plane without weapons is pretty useless. If you start putting missiles/bombs on the Gripen/Super hornet, you introduce drag, which reduces maximum speed, agility and range. On the other hand, the F35 can carry many of its weapons internally. No external weapons means it won't have the same impact on speed or range when in combat. You also make the mistake in assuming stealth is the only single advantageous trait that the F35 has. It is not. The improved avionics (better sensors and communications), and the new helmet (giving better situational awareness) are probably just as important as its stealth capabilities. Oh, and I'm not sure why you think the F35 has "less flexibility to carry weapons". Even if its internal weapons bays may have limited carrying potential, it still has external hardpoints where it can mount weapons, if it really needs to. (Of course, doing so would introduce some drag, but a part internal/part external mix of weapons would still produce less drag than the all-external weapons mounted on a Gripen/Super Hornet. And by the way, I took a look at the weapons each of the planes can carry...According to Wikipedia: Gripen: 9 different missiles/bombs Super Hornet: 16 different missiles/bombs Rafale: 10 different missiles/bombs Eurofighter Typhoon: 16 different missiles/bombs F35: 20 different missiles/bombs Granted, some of those programs are in development, but it certainly does look like the F35 is certainly competitive with the range of weapons it is able to carry. This whole thing reminds me of he disastrous Avro Arrow incident when the Americans convinced us that fighters weren't necessary anymore because missiles were taking over. Brilliant decision that was. Actually, it was a brilliant decision. The Arrow was not a multi-role fighter... it was an interceptor.... designed to fly very fast in one direction. It was not designed to be a "dog fighter"; it was meant to intercept russian bombers entering our air space. The development of long range missile technology meant that it was no longer needed. The Arrow was not the only plane with similar functionality that was cancelled...the U.S. was developing the XF108 Rapier, a plane that would have had an even higher top speed than the Arrow. Similarly, it was cancelled because the nature of the military threat from the USSR had changed and it was no longer needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) This whole thing reminds me of he disastrous Avro Arrow incident when the Americans convinced us that fighters weren't necessary anymore because missiles were taking over. Brilliant decision that was. The advent of ICBM's made dedicated bomber interceptors much less relevant and lead to the multiroll fighters that have been built ever since. There hasn't been one successful western fighter built since then hasn't been used as a "bomb truck". We even used our CF-104's as "bomb trucks" in their NATO roll. This was an aircraft that held both altitude and speed records and was initially designed as interceptor. Edited November 30, 2015 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 A fighter without weapons and full fuel is just a very expensive way of transporting one person a short distance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 A fighter without weapons and full fuel is just a very expensive way of transporting one person a short distance. Point made, but sometimes they are purposely trimmed that way for recon missions, bomb damage assessment, testing, etc. A "clean" recon aircraft can often outrun its fighter escorts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 And frankly, it seems rather bizarre to think that being less visible wouldn't provide an advantage in combat. It would be turning on its head, something which has been basic to air combat since WW I. "Beware the Hun in the sun". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 How can I possibly "hand-wave away" a trait that has yet to prove itself in actual air-air combat? Especially when other traits that historically have been instrumental in air-air combat (speed, agility, flexibility to carry weapons) has been traded away for this single trait? This whole thing reminds me of he disastrous Avro Arrow incident when the Americans convinced us that fighters weren't necessary anymore because missiles were taking over. Brilliant decision that was. Never forgiven Diefenbaker for that. What a set back to our aerospace industry, and boy those Bomarc's sure came in handy eh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Point made, but sometimes they are purposely trimmed that way for recon missions, bomb damage assessment, testing, etc. A "clean" recon aircraft can often outrun its fighter escorts. Sure it will but they are useless as fighters when used in that roll. Other than the U2 and SR-71 there have been almost no dedicated reconnaissance aircraft designed. and built Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Sure it will but they are useless as fighters when used in that roll. Other than the U2 and SR-71 there have been almost no dedicated reconnaissance aircraft designed. and built Its possible that a combination of sattalites and drone technology have eliminated the need for dedicated reconnaissance aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Its possible that a combination of sattalites and drone technology have eliminated the need for dedicated reconnaissance aircraft. If they haven't already, they likely will. 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.