waldo Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 ...there is no valid comparison between U.S. forces that fly multiple air superiority and strike aircraft and multiple variants of such aircraft to Canada's sole reliance on one strike fighter platform. oh my! Then... why are you and D2.0 presuming to hold land-based focused Canada to those end-life numbers of the USN's Super Hornet usage? Why so? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 And that.........is my point and the contention with the member that claims aerodynamics and g-loading don't effect aircraft that operate from land bases..........Super Hornets for the USN might achieve 9000-10000 hours with an extensive SLEP, yet he claims, (cite outstanding) that Super Hornets for the Danes would have achieved that sans a SLEP. huh! Correct me if I'm wrong... wasn't that described SLEP (extension to 10K) for the USN's usage patterns? Did I miss something here? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Then they're ignorant. My support of the F35 isn't based on reading the meanderings of bloggers but common sense. Twenty year old technology is outdated, which is damned obvious. And no western country has looked at the available fighters and chosen the F-18. Not one. So the opponents who so confidently say the F-35 is crap and not nearly as good as the F-18 like to use all sorts of blogger comments but they gloss over why every single western country has looked at the F-18 and moved on to a better product. You should pop over to CKA and put them right then. http://www.canadaka.net/forums/current-events-f59/canada-to-buy-f-18-super-hornets-as-interim-replacements-t116296.html?sid=e98a59a9d22278716fe47d74822a6e51 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 on paper, you're saying? . On the paper is an engineering outcome of course......with unlimited funds, one could design a life ten times that..........the difference, the F-35 (like most other aircraft) make extensive use of more durable materials (like titanium) in their construction.....the legacy Hornets used very little, and the Super Hornets make use of it in their bulkheads, yet both made extensive use of aluminum and composite materials as a cost cutting measure to reduce costs due to their intended interim status............The problem, started by Dick Cheney during his tenure as SECDEF under Bush the elder, is that the Hornet and later Super Hornet became the nucleus of the fleet for decades.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 We sure heard about the moves made by the Harper Government and the F-35.........what do the Trudeau Liberals have to hide? oh my! (Harper) Government's refusal to release 'public' report on F-35 to overshadow independent panel's stamp of approval But the panel will not be allowed to discuss the actual findings. The government also has no plans to produce a report about those findings that the panel helped produce, despite the fact it was delivered to the government in April and specifically written to be shared with Canadians. Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons Wednesday that the report “has just been received” by the government and not yet been reviewed. But opposition parties alleged the government’s refusal to release it proves the emptiness of the government’s promises to be more open and transparent when it comes to selecting a CF-18 replacement. . . . The panel, which did not make any recommendations on what the government should do,... . still waiting on that report, right? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 On the paper is an engineering outcome of course...... with unlimited funds thankee! Unproven. Yet... you want Canada to be an early adopter of the F-35... the plane that still has huge impacting problems that you simply choose to dismiss - outright dismiss. It's never mattered to you when those damning reports from the U.S. GAO, U.S. DT&E, etc., have been presented here - you've outright ignored them or given them 'short-shift' dismissal. Your quoted reference to "unlimited funds" is perfect - you've always been following a, 'whatever it costs' acceptance in regards the F-35 - whatever it costs! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 huh! Correct me if I'm wrong... wasn't that described SLEP (extension to 10K) for the USN's usage patterns? Did I miss something here? . No, USN "usage patterns" (Carrier landings and take offs) will create extensive wear on an aircraft's landing gear (Landing gear load factor) and associated shock absorbers, combined with material corrosion from operating in a saltwater environment. The center barrel upgrade is intended to address structural fatigue to the aircraft's "center barrel" (the aircraft's fuselage, what the the wings, engines, cockpit etc are attached to)........said fatigue is created by the high g-loading associated with a fighter aircraft, regardless of where it operates.......that is why the USN/USMC legacy Hornets and Super Hornets are/will going through the same "center barrel program" offered to Canada.......and Canada clearly doesn't operate aircraft from carriers........nor the Danes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 still waiting on that report, right? . Yes indeed........I question why the Trudeau Government never released its findings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Yes indeed........I question why the Trudeau Government never released its findings. you question that... but not why Harper never released it... why Harper never acted upon something that, supposedly, gave the "green light"? Say what? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Harper was held to an entirely different standard (like the entire life cycle costs for ships and "jets"), but so far nothing out of the Trudeau Dream Team. What's the big frinkin' secret? Is this "file" so politically supercharged....they are scared of it ? no - Harper was held to the standard that had not been properly followed... as clearly outlined by the AG. Again, I'll alert you to the ongoing 'Defence Policy Review' undertaking. I thought you would have known about this given your unique interest in this subject. I trust once you acquaint yourself with this review process you won't keep asking like questions. By the by, as a claimed American, why would you take such an apparently partisan interest slant as to always speak so positively of Harper and so negatively of Trudeau? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 thankee! Unproven. Yet... you want Canada to be an early adopter of the F-35 . Nothing unproven about titanium, both in terms of its cost and durable strength........I'm not sure about the F-35, but over 30% of the Raptor's weight was titanium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 you question that... but not why Harper never released it... why Harper never acted upon something that, supposedly, gave the "green light"? Say what? . I question it for sure...........it could confirm the Trudeau sole source, or could still recommend the F-35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 They didn't claim that for any service.....absent a SLEP. That runs counter to what they stated - provide evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 That runs counter to what they stated - provide evidence. I did.......its your turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 I did.......its your turn. You provide citations that don't even say what you're asserting. I provided an actual statement from the company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Then they're ignorant. My support of the F35 isn't based on reading the meanderings of bloggers but common sense. Twenty year old technology is outdated, which is damned obvious. The F-35 is twenty year old technology, designed in the 1990s. The SuperHornet just like the F-35 evolves, nobody shut the door on development in either case. You argument boils down to "I want the latest iPhone. Why? Just because" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 The F-35 is twenty year old technology, designed in the 1990s. The SuperHornet just like the F-35 evolves, nobody shut the door on development in either case. You argument boils down to "I want the latest iPhone. Why? Just because" Then why didn't Canada buy the Super Hornet years ago ? Or another "legacy" platform still in production ? Logic seems to be in very short supply regardless of what Canadian procurement is being discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Then why didn't Canada buy the Super Hornet years ago ? Probably because Canada wasn't looking for a platform years ago. The CF-18s have been serving Canada well for years. Yes, Canada did invest in the development phase of the F-35 to keep our options open because we knew we would at some point have to replace the CF-18s. After learning what a dog the F-35 has become, we are obviously exploring other options. That is logical, a welcome change from making some political announcement like we did in 2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Probably because Canada wasn't looking for a platform years ago. Probably ? So Canada be like..."wait for the "jets" to fall out of the sky before buying new ones " ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Probably ? So Canada be like..."wait for the "jets" to fall out of the sky before buying new ones " ? We all know that to be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 (edited) If you keep calling it the old hornet, you might convince someone - maybe. It's a twenty year old airplane. Why is calling it 'old' any less accurate than calling it 'super'? If we build some spitfires will they be 'new'? Edited June 12, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 I'm reading a MLW member asking you repeatedly for cites to that end..\ You mean like I keep asking you why every western country has turned up its nose at the decrepit old Super Hornet and decided to buy something else instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 You should pop over to CKA and put them right then. http://www.canadaka.net/forums/current-events-f59/canada-to-buy-f-18-super-hornets-as-interim-replacements-t116296.html?sid=e98a59a9d22278716fe47d74822a6e51 Oh well, if some guys on an internet forum think the F-18 is a superior aircraft to the F-35 then that's that. What does it matter what all those air forces and their governments think? I mean, it's not like the Israelis or the British have any idea of what makes for a good fighter aircraft anyway, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 (edited) The F-35 is twenty year old technology, designed in the 1990s. The SuperHornet just like the F-35 evolves, nobody shut the door on development in either case. You argument boils down to "I want the latest iPhone. Why? Just because" No. My argument is that if all western air forces and their governments have taken a look at the Super H, sniffed in disdain, and walked away, most of them over to buy the F-35, then maybe they know something some guys on the internet don't. And your contention that an aircraft which has been flying for 20 years is as modern as a new one just finishing its testing phase is laughable and silly. Edited June 12, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 It's a twenty year old airplane. Why is calling it 'old' any less accurate than calling it 'super'? If we build some spitfires will they be 'new'? Well, looking at it that way, even a 20 year old Super Hornet would be brand spanking new for Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.