drunknsubmrnr
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
But it's traditional to buy US aircraft much further along in their cycle.
Actually, the normal Canadian option would be to be the Super Hornets once they're being retired from the USN.
A
aesop081
Guest
drunknsubmrnr said:
The first production F/A-18A flew on 12 April 1980. Canada ordered its CF-188s in 1980 and received the first one in 1982.
hmmmmm . . . maybe a game changer ?
"Republican hopeful Mitt Romney has added a new specific example for how he’d spend 4% of the GDP on defense: Restart production of the F-22 Raptor.
Romney made the statement in a one-on-one interview with a Virginia television station at the Military Aviation Museum, in which he reiterated past pledges to produce 15 ships per year rather than nine and add more than 100,000 active-duty military personnel to the force. But civilian military jobs would likely be lost. Romney is also pledging to reduce the size of the federal workforce by 10% through attrition. "
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:4cbbb840-e3ce-4c81-95e3-fe8e9720178a
"Republican hopeful Mitt Romney has added a new specific example for how he’d spend 4% of the GDP on defense: Restart production of the F-22 Raptor.
Romney made the statement in a one-on-one interview with a Virginia television station at the Military Aviation Museum, in which he reiterated past pledges to produce 15 ships per year rather than nine and add more than 100,000 active-duty military personnel to the force. But civilian military jobs would likely be lost. Romney is also pledging to reduce the size of the federal workforce by 10% through attrition. "
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:4cbbb840-e3ce-4c81-95e3-fe8e9720178a
- Reaction score
- 4,159
- Points
- 1,260
In another vein....
P.S. - Moving the Arrow stuff to the "Arrow instead of F-35" thread.
Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 11 Sept 12
P.S. - Moving the Arrow stuff to the "Arrow instead of F-35" thread.
D
Don2wing
Guest
Here is an article from Defense-Aerospace.com sourced from Reuters:
Pentagon Tells Lockheed to Shape Up on F-35 Fighter (excerpt)
(Source: Reuters; published Sep 18, 2012)
WASHINGTON --- Pentagon officials slammed Lockheed Martin Corp's performance on the $396 billion F-35 fighter jet program and said they would not bail out the program again if problems with the plane's cutting-edge pilot helmet and software were not resolved.
Deputy F-35 program manager Air Force Major General Christopher Bogdan said on Monday the government's relationship with Lockheed was the "worst I've ever seen" in many years of working on complex acquisition programs.
He said those tensions posed a bigger threat to the Pentagon's biggest weapons program than even nagging problems on the plane's software, helmet and a complex computer system that manages functions ranging from parts supply to mission planning. The F-35 was designed to work with a sophisticated helmet that displays all the information the pilot needs to fly the plane.
Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters the Pentagon had no more money to pour into the program after three costly restructurings in recent years. That meant any additional cost overruns would eat into the number of planes to be ordered, schedule delays or reduced capabilities, he said.
"The department is done with major restructures that involve transferring billions of dollars into the F-35 program from somewhere else in the defense budget. There's no further flexibility or tolerance for that approach," Donley said.
The unusually public criticism of Lockheed's work on the F-35 program followed a "very painful" Sept. 7 review that focused an array of ongoing program challenges.
Lockheed responded with a brief statement, saying it would continue to work with the Pentagon's F-35 program office to deliver the new fighter. "We remain committed to continuing our work to solve program challenges and build on the momentum and success we've achieved during the past couple of years," said spokesman Michael Rein. (end of excerpt)
Click here for the full story, on the Reuters website.
Pentagon Tells Lockheed to Shape Up on F-35 Fighter (excerpt)
(Source: Reuters; published Sep 18, 2012)
WASHINGTON --- Pentagon officials slammed Lockheed Martin Corp's performance on the $396 billion F-35 fighter jet program and said they would not bail out the program again if problems with the plane's cutting-edge pilot helmet and software were not resolved.
Deputy F-35 program manager Air Force Major General Christopher Bogdan said on Monday the government's relationship with Lockheed was the "worst I've ever seen" in many years of working on complex acquisition programs.
He said those tensions posed a bigger threat to the Pentagon's biggest weapons program than even nagging problems on the plane's software, helmet and a complex computer system that manages functions ranging from parts supply to mission planning. The F-35 was designed to work with a sophisticated helmet that displays all the information the pilot needs to fly the plane.
Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters the Pentagon had no more money to pour into the program after three costly restructurings in recent years. That meant any additional cost overruns would eat into the number of planes to be ordered, schedule delays or reduced capabilities, he said.
"The department is done with major restructures that involve transferring billions of dollars into the F-35 program from somewhere else in the defense budget. There's no further flexibility or tolerance for that approach," Donley said.
The unusually public criticism of Lockheed's work on the F-35 program followed a "very painful" Sept. 7 review that focused an array of ongoing program challenges.
Lockheed responded with a brief statement, saying it would continue to work with the Pentagon's F-35 program office to deliver the new fighter. "We remain committed to continuing our work to solve program challenges and build on the momentum and success we've achieved during the past couple of years," said spokesman Michael Rein. (end of excerpt)
Click here for the full story, on the Reuters website.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,717
- Points
- 1,160
China is building a F-35 look alike with twin engines, finally a solution to the "we need stealth" vs the "We need two engines" debate. Wonder if they would do an offset for our coal and oil? 8)
- Reaction score
- 1,700
- Points
- 1,140
Shrek1985 said:
Well, performance is more than speed, altitude, climb rate, etc. It involved way more than the average joe canadian will ever be allowed to even know about.
Trust me, we need the JSF. And I have been exposed to the programs. I used to be critical of the JSF. Until I was exposed to it.
- Reaction score
- 1,700
- Points
- 1,140
BobSlob: F-15E is MORE expensive than the JSF....
Both (depending on which model of F-15 you buy). The F-15 is a heavy weight twin engine fighter, with an advanced avionics and two crews. SE reportedly were being shopped around at $100 million dollars, but others have been offered around $75 million. The F-15E runs 28,000 dollars per flying hour, even if the F-35 is 40% more than F-16s, its still less than the F-15E.
Actually they did have numbers for some of those categories, they were just never released. Some were qualitative or an amalgamation of several quantitative figures: survivability is hard to quantify statistically.
There were mandatory requirements and rated requirements. Several aircraft were considered past the mandatory requirements threshold, The Eurofighter, F/A-18E and Rafale. The data on these aircraft are available and we can make a comparison between them. Certainly some of these aircraft possessed performance statistics above that of the F-35: The Eurofighter and Rafale probably possess higher speed and longer endurance (then again, the F-35 often has a higher operational speed because it carries its ordinance internally). However for almost every single other category, the F-35 possessed superior performance, particularly in the areas at the bottom of the list.
Actually that's often how its done. The US calls it Cost as an Independent Variable approach:
https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=142000
Sure you need a benchmark by which to start with, however that is often built on an understanding of what possible options there are out there, and then seeing what the manufacturers can do.
Its also the newest aircraft possible, the cheapest, and possesses the most advanced avionics. Why should stealth be the only category?
Shrek1985 said:
Actually they did have numbers for some of those categories, they were just never released. Some were qualitative or an amalgamation of several quantitative figures: survivability is hard to quantify statistically.
There were mandatory requirements and rated requirements. Several aircraft were considered past the mandatory requirements threshold, The Eurofighter, F/A-18E and Rafale. The data on these aircraft are available and we can make a comparison between them. Certainly some of these aircraft possessed performance statistics above that of the F-35: The Eurofighter and Rafale probably possess higher speed and longer endurance (then again, the F-35 often has a higher operational speed because it carries its ordinance internally). However for almost every single other category, the F-35 possessed superior performance, particularly in the areas at the bottom of the list.
Shrek1985 said:
Actually that's often how its done. The US calls it Cost as an Independent Variable approach:
https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=142000
Sure you need a benchmark by which to start with, however that is often built on an understanding of what possible options there are out there, and then seeing what the manufacturers can do.
Shrek1985 said:
Its also the newest aircraft possible, the cheapest, and possesses the most advanced avionics. Why should stealth be the only category?
BobSlob said:
Fastest way to kill the F-35 program I've heard yet.
Do you not know what country you're in?
I have some pie in the sky, if-i-ruled-the-world-and-we-could-shut-politics-out-of-procurement ideas, but really now? 200 or so F-35s?
Part of why i think this f-35 thing is BS is the quantitative incompetence of 56(!) airframes, but we are fighting for those and the JCS just told lockheed to fly right because the well is dry for the F-35. they aint getting anymore cash from us is ALREADY the answer from the govt, however sincere. 200 canadian F-35s is sillier than reviving the Arrow.
SupersonicMax said:
Honestly, unless and until someone lets me in on the big secret, i'm never going to be convinced.
I see three possible sinaeros for the F-35.
1) We suddenly realize we urgently need more and we can't get them for reasons of cost/single source/demand/priorities, ect. haha. What? is Canada going to slowly develop the ability to make them outselves, when right now they won't even let us service the paint? These are not Mosquitos here.
2) We face a threat against which the F-35 is at normal operational risk (planes do sometimes just crash, you know) against a threat which can't touch the F-35 and the whole thing becomes political kryptonite because of appearances of excessive cost, ect. "why did we spend so much on planes which only do the job as well as these other nations cheaper, less advanced aircraft."
3) no sooner do we become equipped with the F-35 than someone (likely china or russia) reveals/sells/deploys an affordable anti-stealth system. because historically that's how things like this work. nothing revolutionizes warfare. New weapons are at the height of their impact when they are at the apex of their cost and the nadir of their reliability and actual capability. Ie/ subs/tank/rifled firearms/nuclear weapons, ect.
A
aesop081
Guest
Shrek1985 said:
Well, you might as wall walk away from the conversation then. There are some things you just do not need to know.
:rofl:
After that I did not bother to read the rest.
- Reaction score
- 1,700
- Points
- 1,140
Shrek1985 said:
Unless you become a fighter pilot AND you have the required security clearance AND you have the need to know, you will not be convinced? How about you trust the opinion of pretty much every fighter pilot in Canada? I'm guessing you have some incredible insight in fighter operations we do not know about?
Shrek1985 said:
Please explain why purchasing only 65 aircraft is incompetent?
Also where did the US government tell LM that the "well is dry?" If youre talking about Bogdan's statements, then he said there is no more money coming above what they have been promised. That's a lot different than what you're claiming.
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
Shrek1985 said:
I'm not a Pilot or aircrew (closest I've come is being airlifted) but I'm sure the Pilots etc posting in this thread wouldn't be standing behind the F-35 if all it brought to the table was stealth technology. Depending how good of an adversary you have, there will always be technology in place or new developments that will negate certain advantages you have. Stealth or not, it's just a non starter for your argument in my opinion.
