- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
cameron said:
Su-35S
http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html
Su-35S
http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html
- Reaction score
- 5,962
- Points
- 1,260
D
dinicthus
Guest
I know they're costly. But air superiority is the number one priority in any armed conflict, is it not?
After you own the air, and only after you own the air, can you commit your full strength on the ground.
I remember reading about how a pair of U.S. pilots in A-10s (a plane that needs air superiority to be established before it does its best work) destroyed something like 110 tanks in one day, or some ridiculous number. at, say, 300 grand per tank, plus death benefits, etc., that's over 30 million dollars and on up inflicted by 2 planes in 24 hours.
Planes, especially the ones that deliver air superiority on a platter, are expensive because they're worth it. You may not be able to put an exact price tag on air superiority, but whatever it costs, it facilitates a broad spectrum of capability to be brought to bear by forces that are better used focusing on destroying ground and sea targets than they are always having to look out for enemy aircraft.
Armour: 300,000+ bucks per tank
Aircraft: 9B$
Ability to concentrate on "close with and destroy the enemy" instead of having to duck for shelter from enemy air: Priceless.
After you own the air, and only after you own the air, can you commit your full strength on the ground.
I remember reading about how a pair of U.S. pilots in A-10s (a plane that needs air superiority to be established before it does its best work) destroyed something like 110 tanks in one day, or some ridiculous number. at, say, 300 grand per tank, plus death benefits, etc., that's over 30 million dollars and on up inflicted by 2 planes in 24 hours.
Planes, especially the ones that deliver air superiority on a platter, are expensive because they're worth it. You may not be able to put an exact price tag on air superiority, but whatever it costs, it facilitates a broad spectrum of capability to be brought to bear by forces that are better used focusing on destroying ground and sea targets than they are always having to look out for enemy aircraft.
Armour: 300,000+ bucks per tank
Aircraft: 9B$
Ability to concentrate on "close with and destroy the enemy" instead of having to duck for shelter from enemy air: Priceless.
SoldierInAYear
Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I read on Wikipedia
"
CF-35
The Canadian CF-35 will differ from the American F-35A through the addition of a drag chute and an F-35B/C style refueling probe.[260][261] Norway may also use the drag chute option, as they also have icy runways.[127]"
"
CF-35
The Canadian CF-35 will differ from the American F-35A through the addition of a drag chute and an F-35B/C style refueling probe.[260][261] Norway may also use the drag chute option, as they also have icy runways.[127]"
- Reaction score
- 1,705
- Points
- 1,140
anyone said:
If the JSF's mission was Air Superiority, it would make sense... But... This aircraft is a multi-role aircraft (read self-escort in a conventional war). The F-22 is an Air Supremacy platform...
Just like the PBO report stated, there is no other aircraft that meets the SAR. ONLY the F-35 meets CF needs.
Here's why
Senior Researchers Center for Security Studies
"ZURICH, Switzerland, May 5, 2011/ Troy Media – Canadians are missing something when it comes to their debate over the purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter, also knows as the F-35: two unprecedented shifts are rocking the global arms market for fighter jets.
First, there’s a quasi-revolution taking place in fighter jet technology. We are now entering a period that will be dominated by “fifth generation” aircraft, fighters which will have “all-aspect” stealth abilities with internal weapons systems, integrated avionics at the pilot’s fingertips, and “supercruise” capabilities that greatly enhance flying performance. There’s no question that when it becomes operative, the F-35 will be the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world.
Opponents missing the big picture
While opponents of the F-35 argue that Canada’s aging CF-18 Hornets can be replaced with fourth (and “fourth+”) generation aircraft, they’re missing the broader point. Upgraded fourth generation aircraft – like the F-18 Super Hornet – will be able to fly future combat missions, but that won’t stop them from becoming increasingly obsolete. It won’t happen overnight, but eventually fourth generation aircraft will go the way of third and second generation aircraft: to the dump.
The F-35 will have a qualitative edge over older aircraft models no matter what the upgrade. The only comparable fighter is the F-22 Raptor, flown exclusively by the U.S. Air Force. But Washington has already phased out the Raptor’s production, having placed all of its bets on the F-35. Our allies have gotten the message: Britain, Australia, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Norway will all be flying F-35s by 2020. Israel, Japan and others are likely to follow.
If Canadians want to equip their air force with the best available tools, they need to focus on next generation technology. There’s little point in looking backwards. The future rests with fifth, not fourth, generation technology. The risk in spending a lesser fortune today on a supped-up version of the CF-18 is that Canada will find itself replacing outdated hardware before long. That’s an expensive proposition.
Second, the fighter-jet industry has become increasingly polarized. The Americans, the Russians, and the Chinese are tomorrow’s heavyweights. While some Canadians find it suspicious that no alternative bids were entertained when selecting the F-35, in reality, there are virtually no competitors.
When a government decides to purchase military hardware from another country, it isn’t only thinking about improving the quality of its armed forces. It’s also thinking about the political and strategic signals it’s sending to others. The arms trade can be a political minefield. Ideally, Canada will buy its fighters from an ally. In doing so, we’ll avoid sending an unintended message with our purchase and we’ll pre-emptively grease the wheels in the event spare parts are needed during periods of crisis. It’s important, too, that Canada signs off with a manufacturer that will survive over the long haul. That will ease with maintenance, upgrades, and future developments.
Buy Russian? Chinese?
Where does that leave Canada? We could approach the French or the Swedes. Both have sophisticated options in the Rafale and Gripen but, like the Super Hornet, these planes rely on older technology. And given the huge investment needed to leap into the next generation, both countries are likely to eventually close shop. It’s possible that a European consortium, like the one behind the Eurofighter Typhoon, will emerge in the future, but it’s a long shot. Several European partners have already invested in the F-35 project, so they won’t be inclined to support another risky venture. Like it or not, the era of the European fighter jet is coming to a close.
That leaves Russia and China. Both countries are actively developing next generation fighters to rival the F-35. Russia began testing the PAK-FA a year ago, while China unveiled its J-20 in January. But are Canadians really prepared to fly Russian or Chinese jets into battle? The political and strategic ramification would be monumental. What would our allies think? What would Moscow and Beijing think? Neither option will do.
While the F-35 deal isn’t perfect, it’s the only deal in town.
Alex Wilner and Marco Wyss are Senior Researchers at the Center for Security Studies at the ETH-Zurich, Switzerland. Dr. Wilner is also a Fellow at the Macdonald Laurier Institute in Ottawa."
http://www.troymedia.com/2011/05/05/the ... -the-f-35/
Here's why
Senior Researchers Center for Security Studies
"ZURICH, Switzerland, May 5, 2011/ Troy Media – Canadians are missing something when it comes to their debate over the purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter, also knows as the F-35: two unprecedented shifts are rocking the global arms market for fighter jets.
First, there’s a quasi-revolution taking place in fighter jet technology. We are now entering a period that will be dominated by “fifth generation” aircraft, fighters which will have “all-aspect” stealth abilities with internal weapons systems, integrated avionics at the pilot’s fingertips, and “supercruise” capabilities that greatly enhance flying performance. There’s no question that when it becomes operative, the F-35 will be the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world.
Opponents missing the big picture
While opponents of the F-35 argue that Canada’s aging CF-18 Hornets can be replaced with fourth (and “fourth+”) generation aircraft, they’re missing the broader point. Upgraded fourth generation aircraft – like the F-18 Super Hornet – will be able to fly future combat missions, but that won’t stop them from becoming increasingly obsolete. It won’t happen overnight, but eventually fourth generation aircraft will go the way of third and second generation aircraft: to the dump.
The F-35 will have a qualitative edge over older aircraft models no matter what the upgrade. The only comparable fighter is the F-22 Raptor, flown exclusively by the U.S. Air Force. But Washington has already phased out the Raptor’s production, having placed all of its bets on the F-35. Our allies have gotten the message: Britain, Australia, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Norway will all be flying F-35s by 2020. Israel, Japan and others are likely to follow.
If Canadians want to equip their air force with the best available tools, they need to focus on next generation technology. There’s little point in looking backwards. The future rests with fifth, not fourth, generation technology. The risk in spending a lesser fortune today on a supped-up version of the CF-18 is that Canada will find itself replacing outdated hardware before long. That’s an expensive proposition.
Second, the fighter-jet industry has become increasingly polarized. The Americans, the Russians, and the Chinese are tomorrow’s heavyweights. While some Canadians find it suspicious that no alternative bids were entertained when selecting the F-35, in reality, there are virtually no competitors.
When a government decides to purchase military hardware from another country, it isn’t only thinking about improving the quality of its armed forces. It’s also thinking about the political and strategic signals it’s sending to others. The arms trade can be a political minefield. Ideally, Canada will buy its fighters from an ally. In doing so, we’ll avoid sending an unintended message with our purchase and we’ll pre-emptively grease the wheels in the event spare parts are needed during periods of crisis. It’s important, too, that Canada signs off with a manufacturer that will survive over the long haul. That will ease with maintenance, upgrades, and future developments.
Buy Russian? Chinese?
Where does that leave Canada? We could approach the French or the Swedes. Both have sophisticated options in the Rafale and Gripen but, like the Super Hornet, these planes rely on older technology. And given the huge investment needed to leap into the next generation, both countries are likely to eventually close shop. It’s possible that a European consortium, like the one behind the Eurofighter Typhoon, will emerge in the future, but it’s a long shot. Several European partners have already invested in the F-35 project, so they won’t be inclined to support another risky venture. Like it or not, the era of the European fighter jet is coming to a close.
That leaves Russia and China. Both countries are actively developing next generation fighters to rival the F-35. Russia began testing the PAK-FA a year ago, while China unveiled its J-20 in January. But are Canadians really prepared to fly Russian or Chinese jets into battle? The political and strategic ramification would be monumental. What would our allies think? What would Moscow and Beijing think? Neither option will do.
While the F-35 deal isn’t perfect, it’s the only deal in town.
Alex Wilner and Marco Wyss are Senior Researchers at the Center for Security Studies at the ETH-Zurich, Switzerland. Dr. Wilner is also a Fellow at the Macdonald Laurier Institute in Ottawa."
http://www.troymedia.com/2011/05/05/the ... -the-f-35/
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Haletown said:
They don't, and they shouldn't.
They want the cheapest possible tools, which will allow them to continue ignoring the military.
It's like when you buy airline tickets, you DON'T want to fly on the best possible airplanes that money can buy. You want to fly on the CHEAPEST possible airline that isn't going to crash. And there's nothing wrong with that line of thinking.
It may come back to bite us in the *** if we get involved in a heavy-metal shooting war in the next 50 years, but most Canadian also blissfully have great difficulty conceiving of any scenario where that could ever possibly happen.
- Reaction score
- 21,828
- Points
- 1,360
An interesting piece by LGen (Ret'd) Ken Pennie, past Chief of the Air Staff and DCinC NORAD.
Frontline article - Strategy and the F-35
...excerpt from article, full article at link above:
Frontline article - Strategy and the F-35
...excerpt from article, full article at link above:
Couldn't agree more with the article. Right plane, resulting from the right process coming at the right time. The government botched the roll out PR . . . sometimes I think the tall forehead types in the PMO couldn't organize beer party in a brewery.
The world is going all wobbly really fast . . the middle east is a mess that is getting worse, euroland sovereign debt is a ticking fiscal bomb, the nutters running Iran are oh so close to having a functional nuclear device, India-Pakistan-China are arming up & ready to have at each other in the not too distant future.
I'll go out on a limb and predict we will end up getting at least 100 CF-35's in our inventory before 2020.
Because if you want peace, be prepare for war.
True for the Romans, still true today.
The world is going all wobbly really fast . . the middle east is a mess that is getting worse, euroland sovereign debt is a ticking fiscal bomb, the nutters running Iran are oh so close to having a functional nuclear device, India-Pakistan-China are arming up & ready to have at each other in the not too distant future.
I'll go out on a limb and predict we will end up getting at least 100 CF-35's in our inventory before 2020.
Because if you want peace, be prepare for war.
True for the Romans, still true today.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,229
- Points
- 1,010
I agree with you Haletown.
And while we are at it, lets buy that redundant UK aircraft carrier (in COTL form) so we can deploy 30 to 36 of those F-35's where needed without having to "bum" parking space on someone's airbase, that does not necessarily wants us there. I know this means buying the Navy version of the 35's but hell, we already have done that with the 18's and I gather the fighter jock's community has developed good relations with the US Navy as a result.
And while we are at it, lets buy that redundant UK aircraft carrier (in COTL form) so we can deploy 30 to 36 of those F-35's where needed without having to "bum" parking space on someone's airbase, that does not necessarily wants us there. I know this means buying the Navy version of the 35's but hell, we already have done that with the 18's and I gather the fighter jock's community has developed good relations with the US Navy as a result.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,341
- Points
- 1,260
I profess to know very little of the ins and outs of being a jet fighter pilot and what is the best plane we're looking for.
But why is everyone an "expert" when the subject of jets, tanks, ships, airplanes, etc comes up? Some of you know less than I do, but you insist on challenging fighter pilots and aircrew who know WTH they are talking about.
But why is everyone an "expert" when the subject of jets, tanks, ships, airplanes, etc comes up? Some of you know less than I do, but you insist on challenging fighter pilots and aircrew who know WTH they are talking about.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Jim Seggie said:
Well said.
A
aesop081
Guest
skater021 said:
Surely you are not advocating that Canada buys a jet made in the USA. What will we do when the US invades us and we try to defend ourselves using US-controlled technology ??
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,341
- Points
- 1,260
Ex-Dragoon said:
Thank you. Not totally original as a former CAS (I think) said it far more eloquently than I did. I tend to be blunt to the point of irritation some times.
While I'm at it, how about we that are NOT fighter pilots, or at least Air types- shut up for a bit? We don't fly them nor maintain them, we don't employ them nor do we task them. We don't know diddly about aerodynamics, nor do we know anything about jet engines and thrust to weight ratio etc. So why do we profess expertise about such subjects?
We don't do that to doctors or the medical profession......
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Canada’s F-35s not operational
until 2020, Lockheed Martin says
Posted on Wed, Jun 1, 2011, 4:42 pm by Colin Horgan Canada’s F-35 fighter jets will not be operational until 2020, a Lockheed Martin representative told iPolitics in Ottawa on Wednesday. “Canada has had a slight delay in their production,” says Keith ....
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2cETgm/ipolitics.ca/2011/06/01/canada%E2%80%99s-f-35s-not-operational-until-2020-lockheed/
until 2020, Lockheed Martin says
Posted on Wed, Jun 1, 2011, 4:42 pm by Colin Horgan Canada’s F-35 fighter jets will not be operational until 2020, a Lockheed Martin representative told iPolitics in Ottawa on Wednesday. “Canada has had a slight delay in their production,” says Keith ....
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2cETgm/ipolitics.ca/2011/06/01/canada%E2%80%99s-f-35s-not-operational-until-2020-lockheed/
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,077
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks for illustrating your ignorance of aerospace and reliability engineering (and if that's not the case, you are being disingenuous). Single vs twin engine was a significant factor for norther flying operations in decades past when engines were less reliable - we can the reliability from a single engine of today compared to two engines of past generations.skater021 said:
By your opinion. Have you accounted for the expected increases in capability, or is your analysis simply that the dollar value is greater than less capable platforms?skater021 said:
Neither were any of the platforms that you are now advocating when they were first introduced.skater021 said:
It is in production: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22809/post-1044056.html#msg1044056skater021 said:
A
aesop081
Guest
skater021 said:
You may have had a valid question but you dont get to decide if your statement is valid. You made the decision to post, now you have to live with the response and be prepared for people to disagree with you.
That may be but your own comments display a lack of basic knowledge of the subject. You should be careful before throwing stones......
- Reaction score
- 21,828
- Points
- 1,360
skater021 said:
Perhaps you could help us understand your statement better by providing us with your insight as to why the aircraft (for which there has been no contract signed, thus no confirmed pricing yet) is "overpriced"?
