Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

?Impact · November 25, 2016

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

Again, this is the first time in Canadian history that the life-cycle costs, and not the purchase costs of a weapons system were bandied about.

Yes, when the government wants to sell us on something they lowball the cost by hiding as much as they can. While I have no idea if this is the first time lifecycle costs have been used to evaluate a program, but they certainly should be.

Wilber · November 25, 2016

32 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, when the government wants to sell us on something they lowball the cost by hiding as much as they can. While I have no idea if this is the first time lifecycle costs have been used to evaluate a program, but they certainly should be.

I'm sure lifecycle costs are used to evaluate a programs but they have never been factored into the purchase price before. If you are going to do it for the F-35, you had better do it for all its competitors as well, including the cost of early replacement of legacy aircraft compared to buying state of the art.

Why buy F18/E's when you may be replacing them with F-35's or something even more expensive twenty years from now.

Wilber · November 25, 2016

51 minutes ago, Omni said:

Overheated SINGLE engines suffering from turbine rub blowing up on the runway when T/O power is applied is scary no matter where you read about it.

That will be fixed, it always is with new engines. You just don't want to be a launch customer, which we won't be.

DogOnPorch · November 25, 2016

3 hours ago, Wilber said:

Trudeau accelerated the rot alright but I don't know that he started it.

The Bonaventure wasn't big enough to operate as a fleet carrier. It's flight deck was too short for modern high performance aircraft, it was short even for the Korean War vintage Banshees it did have. They should have never done its refit in the first place. When you consider our NATO allies already have a good 80% of the worlds in service carriers, there was never a need for us to have one in the first place. Our defense money would be better spent elsewhere, for both our own and our allies benefit.

Britain's new QE class carriers are costing 5B US each, plus their aircraft on top of that.

1. They were fleet carriers: that is...capable of making better than 20 knots...25 knots in this case. The US converted many similar sized light carriers to jet ops by installing full angled decks and catapult systems.

2. Never claimed they'd be useful today with Super Hornets or anything. The Marine F-35 could operate off of one, I suppose.

3. Canada used to be a bigger player at sea. Not anymore. But, we do like to waste money on vintage subs that don't submerge...so spare me the fiscal 'can't-do-attitude' Canada is famous for.

Derek 2.0 · November 25, 2016

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

That's the thing, without new aircraft, the Bonney was losing its usefulness and there were few new aircraft it could handle.

It handled the Trackers and Sea Kings just fine.........as noted, its sisters handled Skyhawks without a problem.

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

There is no way a Banshee could catch a Bear or anything else and the A4 wasn't a whole lot better.

An A-4 could "handle" a Bear far better then the twin 3" on the steamers..........

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

The ship was also marginal for the old Trackers it was operating.

First, the Trackers weren't old then, and served for several more decades........second, and most important of all, the Bonnie was able to generate continual flight ops, 24/7, at a rate greater than larger American Essex anti-submarine groups.

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

It could have used Harriers but would need a ski jump to use them effectively and the Sea Harrier didn't come into service until 1978.

A ski jump wouldn't have been a deal breaker, but even then, using the entire deck for a rolling (short) take off is perfectly effective for a Sea Harrier with an anti-air or light anti-ship load.....ask the USMC, they do the like with far heavier strike loads from their current and past LHDs and LHAs......

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Even if we could have got some by 1980, the Bonaventure would have been 35 years old by then.

The Bonaventure didn't serve for those continual 35 years, regardless HMAS Melbourne did serve into the 80s, likewise the Brazilian and Indian sisters of the Bonnie serving into the late 90s and early 2000s.......despite none of these carriers receiving the same extensive upgrade that the Bonnie received in her last refit......Bonaventure could have made it into the mid to late 80s no problem.

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

The only realistic option would be converting it solely to helicopters.

And even that would have been better than our task groups operating with only a handful of helicopters........but as noted, historically we operated the Tracker for several more decades, as such, continuing with this air group into the 1980s would have been better then not.

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

A few more frigates with good ASW helicopters would have been far more useful.

The Sea Kings operated by Bonaventure (and the Steamers) were state of the art then.....and no, it wouldn't have been more "useful"......in no universe, certainly not during the Cold War, was a surface only task force "more useful" then a task force centered around a carrier with an anti-submarine air group.......a sole Tracker could cover more ocean in several hours then what our old destroyer escorts could do in several days, even when said escort had its own helicopter.........in the decades to follow Bonaventure going, the British, Italians and Spanish all commissioned their own "anti submarine centric" carriers for this very reason.

It was a bad choice by Trudeau then, just as the purchase of Super Hornets is a bad move by his idiot son now.

Wilber · November 25, 2016

19 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

1. They were fleet carriers: that is...capable of making better than 20 knots...25 knots in this case. The US converted many similar sized light carriers to jet ops by installing full angled decks and catapult systems.

2. Never claimed they'd be useful today with Super Hornets or anything. The Marine F-35 could operate off of one, I suppose.

3. Canada used to be a bigger player at sea. Not anymore. But, we do like to waste money on vintage subs that don't submerge...so spare me the fiscal 'can't-do-attitude' Canada is famous for.

The Bonney had an angled flight deck and steam catapults. The US carriers were larger. The only WW2 carrier the Brits converted was HMS Victorious, a larger Illustrious class fleet carrier. It was decommissioned in 1968. If you look at all the countries that used Majestic class carriers, only two ships stayed in service after the early seventies.

This country has its share of bad decisions but getting rid of the Bonaventure wasn't one of them. Refitting it was.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Wilber

Derek 2.0 · November 25, 2016

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

If you look at all the countries that used Majestic class carriers, only two ships stayed in service after the early seventies.

No........Australia, Brazil, India and Argentina all operated light fleets into the 80s, 90s and the early 2000s.

Wilber · November 25, 2016

3 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

No........Australia, Brazil, India and Argentina all operated light fleets into the 80s, 90s and the early 2000s.

Sorry, three ships out of sixteen, not two. India's was converted to operate Harriers but it is gone now as well.

Derek 2.0 · November 25, 2016

Just now, Wilber said:

Sorry, three ships out of sixteen, not two. India's was converted to operate Harriers but it is gone now as well.

Well four ships....the Indians operated Sea Hawks and Sea Harriers, and the other three Skyhawks and Super Etendards with the Argies.....

dre · November 25, 2016

On 11/22/2016 at 4:51 PM, Wilber said:

The Gripen is a good aircraft but a lightweight. It's maximum takeoff weight is less than half that of the F-18E or F-35A. I don't know how well it would suit our needs.

Well almost our entire need is just to fly routine patrols. We don't need bombers. The F35 is specifically designed to bomb random dark-skinned people thousands of miles away. Military interventionalism jeopardizes our national security and we should starve the government of the tools that give it that ability.

Derek 2.0 · November 25, 2016

9 minutes ago, dre said:

Well almost our entire need is just to fly routine patrols. We don't need bombers.

Why would you want the Gripen then? It was designed to fit a Swedish need to attack wave after wave of Soviet armor...

Wilber · November 25, 2016

57 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Well four ships....the Indians operated Sea Hawks and Sea Harriers, and the other three Skyhawks and Super Etendards with the Argies.....

OK four but during the Falklands War, Argentina couldn't protect theirs and its aircraft had to operate from land.

DogOnPorch · November 25, 2016

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

The Bonney had an angled flight deck and steam catapults. The US carriers were larger. The only WW2 carrier the Brits converted was HMS Victorious, a larger Illustrious class fleet carrier. It was decommissioned in 1968. If you look at all the countries that used Majestic class carriers, only two ships stayed in service after the early seventies.

This country has its share of bad decisions but getting rid of the Bonaventure wasn't one of them. Refitting it was.

A generation difference re: aircraft. Catapults and decks capable of handling F4 Phantom IIs (etc)...an aircraft we missed-out on. Not creaky old Banshees.

As for more modern gear....again we missed-out on Putin's French Mistral carriers. Egypt has them...and we all know how superior Egypt is to Canada in EVERY way.

Wilber · November 25, 2016

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

A generation difference re: aircraft. Catapults and decks capable of handling F4 Phantom IIs (etc)...an aircraft we missed-out on. Not creaky old Banshees.

As for more modern gear....again we missed-out on Putin's French Mistral carriers. Egypt has them...and we all know how superior Egypt is to Canada in EVERY way.

No way F4's could have operated off the Bonney. Matter of fact, a lot of Americans refused to land on the thing. Another thing carriers can't operate on their own, they need anti aircraft ships and attack subs to protect them. This is one thing the Brits are wrestling with right now. They have these two great ships being built but they worried that if they form two carrier battle groups, they won't have much of a navy left for other jobs.

Carrier Battle Group

Derek 2.0 · November 25, 2016

4 minutes ago, Wilber said:

OK four but during the Falklands War, Argentina couldn't protect theirs and its aircraft had to operate from land.

Sure, and that is a fault with their navy and its tactics, not the aircraft or the carrier itself.......even then, their naval aviators took more than a pound of flesh from the British Armada.........The PET government took away very useful tools from a very capable Canadian navy, which in turn, made it far less capable through the remainder of the Cold War.

Our current Prime Minister is proposing making our air force less capable then when compared with our NATO allies....and this politically motivated choice will have a lasting impact on our air force going forward.....much like his father's moves did to our navy decades ago.

dre · November 25, 2016

13 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Why would you want the Gripen then? It was designed to fit a Swedish need to attack wave after wave of Soviet armor...

I never said I did. I don't know much about the subject, and I don't know what the best craft is for routine long range patrols. Sweden also has defensive defense doctrine. If we had that I would be less worried about arming our politicians.

DogOnPorch · November 25, 2016

The A4 Skyhawk would have been a far more likely critter. But that would have taken brains to achieve...we were operating f---ing Banshees, after-all. Brains and the 60s didn't go hand-in-hand.

:lol:

Wilber · November 25, 2016

24 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

The A4 Skyhawk would have been a far more likely critter. But that would have taken brains to achieve...we were operating f---ing Banshees, after-all. Brains and the 60s didn't go hand-in-hand.

. If you can't protect your carrier from other aircraft and subs, it won't survive very long against a real enemy. Ask Argentina.

Derek 2.0 · November 25, 2016

2 minutes ago, Wilber said:

No way F4's could have operated off the Bonney.

Correct, even the next size up (Hermes and her sisters) were too small for regular operations.....Ark Royal (R09) was the smallest operator of F-4s, even the modified Essex carriers would have been a stretch, which led to the development of the Hornet in the 70s (to replace Crusaders on what was thought to be continued use of the old Essex flattops)

13 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Another thing carriers can't operate on their own, they need anti aircraft ships and attack subs to protect them.

That's subjective.......a major fleet unit that is the center of large task force intent on going to war with another such fleet or a small country.....sure.......an anti submarine group centered around a light carrier? A tanker, destroyer and a couple of frigates is all we (or the Americans and British) would typically operate with.

17 minutes ago, Wilber said:

This is one thing the Brits are wrestling with right now. They have these two great ships being built but they worried that if they form two carrier battle groups, they won't have much of a navy left for other jobs.

The Royal Navy doesn't intended to operate both carriers at once........even so, they have enough combatants to provide an escort for both their carrier and their amphib groups......to operate the second carrier would require pulling escorts from their various other taskings or operating it in concert with the other carrier (and its escorts) and/or allies.........but again, the new British carriers will operate in a similar fashion to the Americans, French, Indians and eventually the Chinese..........

An anti-sub carrier, through the 40s to the 80s was in the same category as a cruiser.....could operate by itself, as a flag for other smaller escorts in its own group or as an escort itself to a much larger force.

Derek 2.0 · November 25, 2016

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

. If you can't protect your carrier from other aircraft and subs, it won't survive very long against a real enemy. Ask Argentina.

In the Cold War North Atlantic, being unable to splash a trailing Bear (long range patrol aircraft) would have been the kiss of death.......they found the targets for Soviet bombers and subs......any surface group or convoy without even rudimentary air cover would result in the Bear following said group......outside of triple A and SAM range....and relaying target information to the Red subs and regiments of bombers.

Argentina couldn't protect its force because, though very brave, they were a second rate navy up against the varsity.

Wilber · November 25, 2016

Quote

The Royal Navy doesn't intended to operate both carriers at once........even so, they have enough combatants to provide an escort for both their carrier and their amphib groups......to operate the second carrier would require pulling escorts from their various other taskings or operating it in concert with the other carrier (and its escorts) and/or allies.........but again, the new British carriers will operate in a similar fashion to the Americans, French, Indians and eventually the Chinese..........

No they can't but at least they will always be in the right place. We are a three ocean country so in reality we would need a carriers in both the Atlantic and Pacific if we are going to be serious about them. We don't have any combat aircraft within 600 miles of he west coast, let alone a carrier.

Do we even need them for coastal defence and do we have the support ships to operate them half way around the world without sponging off our allies? No.

Wilber · November 25, 2016

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

In the Cold War North Atlantic, being unable to splash a trailing Bear (long range patrol aircraft) would have been the kiss of death.......they found the targets for Soviet bombers and subs......any surface group or convoy without even rudimentary air cover would result in the Bear following said group......outside of triple A and SAM range....and relaying target information to the Red subs and regiments of bombers.

Argentina couldn't protect its force because, though very brave, they were a second rate navy up against the varsity.

Exactly. That's the position we would be in without the ability to intercept the Bear.

Air to air. Harriers 21, Argentines 0.

Derek 2.0 · November 25, 2016

Just now, Wilber said:

No they can't but at least they will always be in the right place. We are a three ocean country so in reality we would need a carriers in both the Atlantic and Pacific if we are going to be serious about them. We don't have any combat aircraft within 600 miles of he west coast, let alone a carrier.

No.....they won't..........none the less, you're confusing the issue, during the the Cold War, we didn't need carriers on the West Coast........if we had of went to war with the Soviets, North America wouldn't have resupplied Europe through the Pacific and Indian oceans............inversely, if one were to assume the next major threat being the Chinese (but looks like the Russians are giving it a go), we could base one on the West Coast and not the Atlantic.....

Derek 2.0 · November 25, 2016

9 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Do we even need them for coastal defence and do we have the support ships to operate them half way around the world without sponging off our allies? No.

When we had our last carrier our support ships were brand new our about to enter service.

Derek 2.0 · November 25, 2016

4 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Exactly. That's the position we would be in without the ability to intercept the Bear.

Air to air. Harriers 21, Argentines 0.

Then why would you suggest more escorts instead of a carrier......a Skyhawk and latter a Sea Harrier is more than capable of splashing a Soviet Bear.....and is why American and British anti-submarine task forces carried them.....