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

[Derek 2.0]

short story even shorter... the suggestion wasn't "now"; rather, the suggestion was drones would be viable alternatives well before the trumpeted extended 2050s/2060s F-35 life cycle.

There is nothing "extended" about the life cycle of the F-35........hence why a Canadian purchase, combined with through life support costs over ~35 years is over 40 billion.........~2025 + 35 = ?

And as stated earlier, based on the 6th generation concepts released by Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop (LRS-, manned flight won't be surpassed by unmanned technology prior to the middle of the century.

[Derek 2.0]

He'll probably have sold his shares before the service life is over, anyway.

Your unfounded personal dig aside, who do you think is and will build future generations of UCAVs?

[bush_cheney2004]

Pointing at unmanned flight down the road is just another delaying tactic...for "deniers"....of Canada's present and near term needs for replacement tactical aircraft.

[waldo]

meanwhile U.S. Navy names first Director of Unmanned Weapon Systems - Go Navy!

[waldo]

meanwhile, posted reference, a few short posts back, to the Australian F-35 review announced a couple of days ago... that goes... unnoticed. Ignored. Go figure.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada will not find answers to its skinflint ways and circle jerk defense procurement processes outside its borders.

Sea Kings Hornets forever !

[On Guard for Thee]

Canada will not find answers to its skinflint ways and circle jerk defense procurement processes outside its borders.

Sea Kings Hornets forever !

No, just Super Hornets for the next phase. You know, something that works!

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe Canada can design and build its own CF-18 replacement...you know...like those new combat ships for the navy.

Look how well that is going...would save lots of money and create more jobs in Canada !

Edited December 3, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

meanwhile, posted reference, a few short posts back, to the Australian F-35 review announced a couple of days ago... that goes... unnoticed. Ignored. Go figure.

Didn't notice your post........said motion, put forth by the Greens and only carried by Labor is pure partisan politics.......Australian Labor supports (and purchased the current RAAF F-35s), the context of the debate is the replacement of the Super Hornet fleet.........with additional F-35s.

That is why the Federal Labor Government remains committed to acquiring the fifth-generation F-35A Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, with three operational squadrons planned to enter service beginning around 2020 to replace the F/A-18A/B Hornet aircraft.

To assure Australia’s air combat capability through the transition period to the Joint Strike Fighter, the Federal Labor Government is retaining the current 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets. A decision on replacing the Super Hornets with additional Joint Strike Fighters will be made closer to the withdrawal of the Super Hornets, which is not expected until around 2030.

As noted in past threads, the Australian Liberal party (current Government) intends to replace the current Super Hornet fleet with F-35Bs, to operate in conjunction with the RAN FAA aboard the Canberra class LHD, as their stated option to meet the requirements of the RAAF's long range strike mission........

In the past, Labor favored a version of the F-22 in said role, but on forming the previous Government, dropped the notion when reality set in.

[Derek 2.0]

meanwhile U.S. Navy names first Director of Unmanned Weapon Systems - Go Fly Navy!

Why wouldn't they? Said program was already spoken to in this thread.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why wouldn't they? Said program was already spoken to in this thread.

Right...those who can....do.

[waldo]

Canada will not find answers to its skinflint ways and circle jerk defense procurement processes outside its borders.

this is at least the 3rd time in recent posts of yours that you have referred to Canada's procurement processing as a, as you say, "circle jerk". Given the myriad of U.S. procurement failures, is there a term you suggest we use in describing that facet of failed U.S. military procurement?

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe Canada can design and build its own CF-18 replacement...you know...like those new combat ships for the navy.

Look how well that is going...would save lots of money and create more jobs in Canada !

Naw, we'll still make money helping you build the bomb truck, but we'll also save a whack buying a plane we know works.

[waldo]

Didn't notice your post........said motion, put forth by the Greens and only carried by Labor is pure partisan politics.......

carried by a significant majority vote of the Australian Senate (Labor, Independents and Greens). You can choose to label it partisan; however, the review proceeds with a mandate to report on May 1, 2016. Again, if everything was going so smoothly, why would there be such calls for a review... following the high-level alignment I put forward in that prior post?

[ReeferMadness]

Your unfounded personal dig aside, who do you think is and will build future generations of UCAVs?

I think that it's premature to commit to UCAV's as a sole strategy but they offer so many advantages (more tolerance to G forces, reduced weight, potentially lower cost, no risk to the pilots) that they can't be ignored. Particularly for homeland defense where lag time would be lowest and there would be least opportunity for jamming, we should be looking at them as part of the procurement.

So, I think that the ability to fly unmanned missions should be a requirement of the F-18 procurement. As I mentioned before, Saab thinks they can put it in the Gripen. And there would be lots of air space patrol missions where hauling a guy around in the cockpit is really just unneeded weight and risk.

[bush_cheney2004]

...So, I think that the ability to fly unmanned missions should be a requirement of the F-18 procurement. As I mentioned before, Saab thinks they can put it in the Gripen. And there would be lots of air space patrol missions where hauling a guy around in the cockpit is really just unneeded weight and risk.

This is laughable given present day (circle jerk) realities for Canada...not Sweden. Developing even more expensive platform requirements is first rate comedy.

Edited December 3, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

carried by a significant majority vote of the Australian Senate (Labor, Independents and Greens). You can choose to label it partisan; however, the review proceeds with a mandate to report on May 1, 2016. Again, if everything was going so smoothly, why would there be such calls for a review... following the high-level alignment I put forward in that prior post?

Cost versus capability.......prior to losing to the Liberals, Labor's favored approach for their long range strike requirement was procuring upwards of a dozen submarines, armed with cruise missiles, built in South Australia, which happens to be a ALP bastion........

[eyeball]

Not sure how serious you are about that. But, it is common for opponents of the F35 to suggest we go with unmanned drones.

While drones may eventually replace manned fighters/bombers, the technology to make that possible probably won't be around for a decade or two. The main problem I see is one of situational awareness... we don't yet have the ability to make the pilots feel as if they are in complete control. (Vision is limited to only part of the sky, and motion senses are not present at all.) Designers will have to figure out how to provide a 360 degree view of the sky, with no lag time and a completely secure data link, before drones would be feasible.

AI seem pretty inevitable.

PTSD or moral qualms would likely never be an issue again.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why can't Canada design/build its own replacement "jets" ? Tiny little Sweden can do it.

[Derek 2.0]

I think that it's premature to commit to UCAV's as a sole strategy but they offer so many advantages (more tolerance to G forces, reduced weight, potentially lower cost, no risk to the pilots) that they can't be ignored. Particularly for homeland defense where lag time would be lowest and there would be least opportunity for jamming, we should be looking at them as part of the procurement.

UAV/UCAVs are of very limited use in both polar regions........The Americans don't operate them there for a reason.......you can blame the curvature of the Earth and not my stock portfolio.

[ReeferMadness]

The problem with the whole flawed butterball concept is summed up here.

The short takeoff and vertical landing optimized F-35B is so capable because its close relatives, the USAF's conventional runway operated F-35A and the Navy's catapult and arresting gear ("cat and trap") configured F-35C, paid a huge price aerodynamically and conceptually in order to include the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) requirement into the Joint Strike Fighter's basic design. In the name of commonality, the F-35B, with its huge box-like central lift fan, along with its complex drivetrain and downward swiveling exhaust nozzle, basically handicapped the aerodynamics, and in essence the very concept, of its more conventional Navy and Air Force brethren. In other words, some would say that the F-35 was built as a STOVL aircraft first, and then adapted to a standard and carrier fighter second, instead of the other way around.

The F-35 tries to be all things to all people and winds up being an enormous white elephant. Most problematic is the fact that the F-35's advantages (electronics and stealth) are likely to be short lived while its enormous disadvantages (compromised air frame and engine configuration) can't be changed. When you factor in the problem that the Chinese have stolen most (all?) of the data on the plane, it's crazy to base the defence of western nations on this already flawed concept. So much money has been sunk into it that nobody in the US in a position of authority has the guts to call it out.

But it needs to be addressed. As expensive as it will be to cut everyone's losses (especially for Lockmarts shareholders), that's still the right decision.

[ReeferMadness]

UAV/UCAVs are of very limited use in both polar regions........The Americans don't operate them there for a reason.......you can blame the curvature of the Earth and not my stock portfolio.

It's our territory - we can't put stations up there to communicate with our aircraft?

[On Guard for Thee]

The problem with the whole flawed butterball concept is summed up here.

The F-35 tries to be all things to all people and winds up being an enormous white elephant. Most problematic is the fact that the F-35's advantages (electronics and stealth) are likely to be short lived while its enormous disadvantages (compromised air frame and engine configuration) can't be changed. When you factor in the problem that the Chinese have stolen most (all?) of the data on the plane, it's crazy to base the defence of western nations on this already flawed concept. So much money has been sunk into it that nobody in the US in a position of authority has the guts to call it out.

But it needs to be addressed. As expensive as it will be to cut everyone's losses (especially for Lockmarts shareholders), that's still the right decision.

They sacrificed agility to try and achieve stealth, and that has already been cracked, so you end up with an unstealthy plane that can't turn, climb, or run. Oops!

[Derek 2.0]

It's our territory - we can't put stations up there to communicate with our aircraft?

Sure........and we could also build Imperial Star Destroyers......communications in the Arctic are very limited, let's look at once there is Arctic wide cellphone coverage and high speed internet.

[ReeferMadness]

Sure........and we could also build Imperial Star Destroyers......communications in the Arctic are very limited, let's look at once there is Arctic wide cellphone coverage and high speed internet.

Forgive my ignorance but don't we have radar stations up there already?

ETA: whatever happened to the DEW line?

Edited December 3, 2015 by ReeferMadness