You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
70's engines not being reliable enough for single engine aircraft < F16
If I'm wrong about any of this I would love to know, but please support what your saying with more than "you don't know what your talking about", how about educate me. I'm always open to learning something new.
I think US engines are more reliable / require less maintenance than Russian Kilmov engines.
UK has a lot of mothballed (60 or so) Tranche 1 Eurofighters. Perhaps Harper would want to buy them.
As for defending the nation, we don't really need stealth. I rather have more planes for the same amount of money (preferably F18G much like the Australians) than the F35 purchase would.. especially since we will need to patrol the north pretty soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoostedBB6
70's engines not being reliable enough for single engine aircraft < F16
If I'm wrong about any of this I would love to know, but please support what your saying with more than "you don't know what your talking about", how about educate me. I'm always open to learning something new.
The choice in the end should really come to "What does Canada want from its Fighter Jet"? From a Canadian Air superiority in regards to say NORAD, a jet designed for Air to Air is what you want, say Eurofighter or Silent Eagle. For First day strike missions or contested airspace, F-35 or a Rhino/Growler mix would probably be best, if its wanting both those evenly, maybe Rafale, the Rhino/Growler mix, or Eurofighter as its strike capabilities continue to be upgraded. But then costs also come into play, and if Cheap is important, then Gripen comes into play. Then there is always the 2 vs 1 engine that comes into play. I personally would like either a mix fleet or one of the Euro-canards. I like what the F-35 could have become when it was envisioned, but what was ended up ( due to the same layout as the F-35 B that needed vertical lift, and ditching the F-136 engine that had way more potential then the F-135, among a few other things has me hoping its not the winner of the fighter contest. But in the end, I'll take any upgrade over our old hornets if it comes soon. Our jets need replacing ASAP or they will go the way of the Destroyers and replenishment ships. Taken out of service before being replaced with no real stop gap
__________________
08 Mazdaspeed 3
15 Lincoln MKC 2.3L Ecoboost
07 RAV4 Limited V6 *Sold*
90 CRX *Sold*
B16A, larger throttlebody and wires, lowered, 16" rims, front and rear upper strutbars, intake, white gauges, cross drilled brakes, exhaust, other small mods
f35 is overkill for types of mission canada is going to be part
good to have? yes, needed no!
u r comparing cf-18 to f35 for cost /fuel ? maybe u should compare super f-18 e/f cause thats an updated model.and have they finalized life-cycle cost for the f-35? i highly doubt it. (much like its production cost)
only thing i agree with is having us equipment . rather than converting to European . however not f-35 .
While I far from question what the F-35 is capable of, the fact that the price is constantly going up
Wrong, price is constantly going down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoostedBB6
Considering the F35 does not have a solid operating price, has not meet speed goals, weapons load goals, manoeuvrability goals or really any other initially out lined goal for the project its.
Seeing as I have been following the JSF program since it was announced...I happen to know a thing or two about it.
I don't think you do. The F-35 is being acquired by Israel, South Korea and Japan with the latter two having essentially their choice of the 4.5 gen airframes speaks volumes.
Quote:
It does not matter how reliable an engine is if you suck in a bird on take off/in flight, if you only have one engine
The F135 is far more robust than previous generations. I'm not going to spoon feed you testing results since you obviously "follow the program"
Quote:
"Canada is concerned, that could go up as far as $167 million. But that is nothing compared with Canada’s share in the total program cost, now estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $46 billion over 42 years- an eye-bugging $707.7 million per plane."
Prices are going down year after year, not up. That $46billion over 42 years is a bullshit figure that doesn't mean anything. What are the lifetime cycle costs of our current CF-18s, adjusted for inflation? Until you give me that number those F35 costs mean nothing. Guess what, operating fighter aircraft costs money.
Quote:
Given you are a military aviation expert I show bow out to your much great knowledge....but perhaps you need to learn to work a calculator....math is math....and from the sounds of it you are the fanboy...I could care less what planes they use, I don't fly any of them nor do I care. Only thing I care about is wasting HUGE sums of tax dollars on something not needed and under-performaing.
I'm not an expert nor do I care what we get, however I do look at this issue objectively. Either way we are putting the money towards fighter aircraft in the country. The National Fighter Procurement Secretariat has basically found the F-35 to be the best option, in some cases by more than a little. Canada will stay with the F-35 regardless of who is in charge.
I don't think you do. The F-35 is being acquired by Israel, South Korea and Japan with the latter two having essentially their choice of the 4.5 gen airframes speaks volumes.
Possibly. but at the same time all 3 of these nations listed have a nation next door that they are close to war/ very poor relations with, and First Day strike capability is a high priority. They also operate Gen 4 (or 4+) aircraft to compliment their fleet in the Air to Air and Air to ground (once the main AA threats have been neutralized). I don't mind Canada investing in some, but I don't feel it should be our choice if we are only fielding one fighter type due to its niche role.
__________________
08 Mazdaspeed 3
15 Lincoln MKC 2.3L Ecoboost
07 RAV4 Limited V6 *Sold*
90 CRX *Sold*
B16A, larger throttlebody and wires, lowered, 16" rims, front and rear upper strutbars, intake, white gauges, cross drilled brakes, exhaust, other small mods
Much better post than telling me I know nothing.
Yes, I have seen the testing of the F135. I saw the test aircraft it was initially fitted to when it was doing trials (F16) and it performed well BUT a single engine failure will result in it going down, its that simple.
As for the cost, its a rather moot point to discuss because the program is not complete. They are still developing systems and such which is driving the cost up. There is no debating this is one of the most expensive programs ever undertaken resulting in planes far above initial cost estimations.
The F35 is an impressive aircraft and will do everything Canada needs from a fast jet, but at the end of the day it seems to me like it has for more than we will ever need at a huge cost to tax payers. The last part is what I dont like.
If there are cheaper options that fit the requirements for Canada then why not go that direction?
My understanding is that because we have so much invested into the program as a partner to it, that we are locked in regardless. I know we will fly these jets and that there is no option at this point. Just hate to see my hard earned money be spent on a pointless application of tech for a country that does not require it.
Here is a good documentary on the A-10.. I think key takeaway is air asset is part of a team.. In this day and age, I don't think generations and individual airplane capability matters as much as tactics, communication and training. While the European canards might be cheaper.. we don't have interchangeability in training and service with the US. Our current pilots rely a lot on exchanges.
For the F35, we won't be able to afford to buy enough get even our own depot service eg Israel has to buy 100 in order to get theirs, mostly given as an aid package from Uncle Sam. As a country, I want to be able to service my own planes, not having to go over a border / and have restrictions to the code even if it is at my BFF's yard.
If we go for the Saudi spec F15.. they spent 30bill on 150 of them (80 new, 75 modernized so for this argument say they are all new), $120mil each and yes the cost includes the new R&D and certification for the new control system. In comparison, Kuwait is buying 40 Super hornets for 3billion.
Remember Australia is buying Super Hornets as stop gap.. they want F35s eventually too (of course when block buys becomes cheaper).. Lockheed's software dev is a big employer in Victoria.
In terms of industrial base, some Canadian companies like AVCorp, CAE (for sims) are currently building some parts for F35. So they will suffer if we do withdraw from the program, but the purchase is such a hot potato politically I don't see we will get an answer a few years from now, by that time the program will be at full rate production, so the cost will be clearer.
Replica of the Tsar Bomb now on display in Moscow. Crazy to think how much destructive power comes in the size of a tractor trailer
__________________
08 Mazdaspeed 3
15 Lincoln MKC 2.3L Ecoboost
07 RAV4 Limited V6 *Sold*
90 CRX *Sold*
B16A, larger throttlebody and wires, lowered, 16" rims, front and rear upper strutbars, intake, white gauges, cross drilled brakes, exhaust, other small mods
Oh don't forget F35's range of ~1300mi, we will probably need air tanker support even for missions from Cold Lake to NWT or Yukon. Something we don't have right now.
Yes we can have external drop tanks, but that's negates the stealth factor.
However would be nice if they get deployed at Comox or something
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to replace almost 90 percent of America’s tactical aviation fleet. Too bad it ‘wasn’t optimized for dogfighting,’ according to the Air Force.
The U.S. Air Force has finally admitted that its new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter isn’t maneuverable enough to beat older jets in a dogfight. But despite its earlier promises that the pricey, radar-evading warplane would excel in close combat, now the flying branch insists that the stealthy F-35 doesn’t even need to dogfight.........
so it's over... what is left on the market that we can actually afford to buy?
__________________ "The guy in the CR-V meanwhile, he'll give you a haughty glare. He's responsibly trying to lessen his impact, but there you go lumbering past him with your loud V8, flouting the new reality. You may as well go do some donuts in a strawberry patch and slalom through a litter of kittens." Dan Frio, Automotive Editor, Edmunds
Plenty of choices,
Realistically we have F16 , F18, Gripen, Rafaele the last 3 uses the same GE F414 engine.
At this stage F18 is probably the strongest contender. Most capable? not by a long shot.. usable? yup.
The Liberals, and pundit public's for that matter, view on the F-35 was that its unsafe because of one engine. So going by that, the F16 and Gripen are out. Right now the Liberals are just clueless about these "cheaper" alternatives. They'll get a nice shock once they find out there aren't any.
We once heard of a place where you can climb upon peaks in a rural area deep in Wales. Once you reach them, you can look down and see dozens, NO hundreds of wild jets roam the country side. We thought it was a myth passed down from generation to generation, but lo and behold we went on Youtube and found this mystical place.
Ok fellas, we thought we’d give creative writing a shot just to switch things up, but it’s not looking good so here are some really neat facts.
The F-15s you’ll in this video are a part of the 493rd Fighter Squadron which is tasked with air superiority in Europe and are referred to as the “Grim Reapers.”
This footage was taken in a mountain range commonly called the “Mach Loop.” It’s located in Wales and the name derives from the fact that both the RAF and the USAF practice fast maneuvers in close proximity to the canyon walls and the ground. The training is meant to teach pilots how to fly in mountainous regions without radar detection, and this is where they do it.
This place draws the attention of many spectators as you can imagine. If you ever think of going, we found an actual timetable the British government releases that tells you EXACTLY when these exercises happen. Hope it helps some of you:
__________________ "The guy in the CR-V meanwhile, he'll give you a haughty glare. He's responsibly trying to lessen his impact, but there you go lumbering past him with your loud V8, flouting the new reality. You may as well go do some donuts in a strawberry patch and slalom through a litter of kittens." Dan Frio, Automotive Editor, Edmunds
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
Replica of the Tsar Bomb now on display in Moscow. Crazy to think how much destructive power comes in the size of a tractor trailer
