Jump to content

Canada's Buying 65 F-35s


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A Defence Department spokesperson confirms computers at the department's research agency were used to alter a Wikipedia page entry about the Joint Strike Fighter jet and the Conservative government's decision to spend as much as $18 billion on the aircraft.

 

Those edits included the removal of information critical of the government's plan to buy the jets and the addition of insulting comments aimed at Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

 

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/29/wikipedia-dnd.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r4:c0.0883183:b36109938#ixzz0vAZqegf2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they along with the American pilots will run up and down on the runway together, making "whooshing" noises.

 

It's allllll vaporware......expensive vaporware, but just vaporware.

 

Reminds me of a vid showing PLAAF pilots training. They used simple model planes then walked around the tarmac simulating taking off and landing with said model planes which they held on their hands. Mind you, this was in the late 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of a vid showing PLAAF pilots training. They used simple model planes then walked around the tarmac simulating taking off and landing with said model planes which they held on their hands. Mind you, this was in the late 90s.

 

I think it was "Deep Blue Sky"? Movie about Czech pilots in RAF service, which showed them practicing air combat tactics on bicycles, with radios mounted on the bustles of the bikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was "Deep Blue Sky"? Movie about Czech pilots in RAF service, which showed them practicing air combat tactics on bicycles, with radios mounted on the bustles of the bikes.

 

Ayup. Good memory. Only the title was I believe "Dark Blue World" in English. 's a title for one popular pre-war Czech song.

 

There was also a document about the battle for Dukla pass, with parts played, in the beginning there was shown a scene from training the tank crews without tanks - the T-34 crew was marching up and down the field in a tight square formation with the DI shouting commands at them.

Edited by Tuccy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see spending all the money on stealth so that you can fly an F35 into the AAA envelope, let alone small arms. If strafing is part of the F35 mission planning a major re-think is in order.

 

IIRC it actually was early on. They were going to fit a 27mm Mauser cannon and use the FCS to enable it to effectively 'snipe' ground targets from outside of effective MANPADS/AAA range. I think that part of the concept went away when they switched to the GAU-22A. That capability might have been useful in Afghanistan with a virtual absence of effective MANPADS/AAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see spending all the money on stealth so that you can fly an F35 into the AAA envelope, let alone small arms. If strafing is part of the F35 mission planning a major re-think is in order.

 

I can't see them EVER getting closer than about 15,000 ft off the hard deck, so no real worries. For the low-level stuff we'll still depend on the Yanks... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, just out of curiosity, what exactly does the F-35 offer that the F-22 didn't? From what little I know, the F-22 was farther along in development, so why cancel that project and throw money into a newer, unproven one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of a vid showing PLAAF pilots training. They used simple model planes then walked around the tarmac simulating taking off and landing with said model planes which they held on their hands. Mind you, this was in the late 90s.

 

Would you prefer bicycles for training in formation flying?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izhlm5J1wKc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayup. Good memory. Only the title was I believe "Dark Blue World" in English. 's a title for one popular pre-war Czech song.

 

Tmavomodry Svet as you know. Dark Blue World in English. Bloody good movie. The bits outside the flashbacks drive home how much you Czechs got screwed post war. :(

 

Even so, it's a bloody marvelous film. It's in my collection and is one of my favorites.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbcFsUtqRpM&NR=1

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgcim5EtPxM&feature=related

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, just out of curiosity, what exactly does the F-35 offer that the F-22 didn't? From what little I know, the F-22 was farther along in development, so why cancel that project and throw money into a newer, unproven one?

 

F-22 is a balls out Air Superiority fighter. It's meant to clear the skies of the enemy aircraft. The F-35 is meant to be a general purpose fighter/strike aircraft for the Airforce, Navy and Marines, hence the name, Joint Strike Fighter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-22 is a balls out Air Superiority fighter. It's meant to clear the skies of the enemy aircraft. The F-35 is meant to be a general purpose fighter/strike aircraft for the Airforce, Navy and Marines, hence the name, Joint Strike Fighter.

If the only enemies we will be fighting for the next 20 to 30 years are the Taliban (et al) then we don't need to clear the skies of enemy aircraft, do we? Therefore we don't need a "niche" aircraft like the F-22 -- or at least too many of them, anyway. Likewise we don't need the F-15C anymore either. The F-35 can do it all. (Would we lie???)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the only enemies we will be fighting for the next 20 to 30 years are the Taliban (et al) then we don't need to clear the skies of enemy aircraft, do we? Therefore we don't need a "niche" aircraft like the F-22 -- or at least too many of them, anyway. Likewise we don't need the F-15C anymore either. The F-35 can do it all. (Would we lie???)

 

 

Yeah, just like the US Army didn't need to be mucking about with tanks in the 30s because we weren't going to fight any more wars in Europe. Everyone knew that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff

 

Wrong context.

 

The proper context is to view the F35/F22 as the successors to the F15/16 "hi-low" mix of aircraft. The F35 was supposed to be the cheap - around $30M a copy in the start- aircraft and the F22 was supposed to be the expensive aircraft. The F16 program was jammed up the Air Forces ass in the beginning, and it only really became a valid program once the GO corps of the USAF was told they would get additional air wings...

 

The F16 also had major interest from NATO and other allies as it truly was CHEAP. It remains the only aircraft that cost less than the fighter it replaced. I believe the A model was sold close to the $10M a clip tariff. Every country in NATO bought them, and most of America's allies in the Middle East and Far East as well.

 

The F35 is already a cock up, to use British terminology. How badly remains to be seen...be sure, USain tax dollars will be used to keep this dog afloat.

 

As for specific issues, I don't work for Wikileaks...so no go there.

 

 

 

BTW, just out of curiosity, what exactly does the F-35 offer that the F-22 didn't? From what little I know, the F-22 was farther along in development, so why cancel that project and throw money into a newer, unproven one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F16 also had major interest from NATO and other allies as it truly was CHEAP. It remains the only aircraft that cost less than the fighter it replaced. I believe the A model was sold close to the $10M a clip tariff. Every country in NATO bought them,

Really? When did we get them? Or Canada? Germany? France? Spain? And Italy only rented some used models, very late on, pending the arrival of Eurofighter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F16 also had major interest from NATO and other allies as it truly was CHEAP. It remains the only aircraft that cost less than the fighter it replaced.

I agree they were inexpensive for a front line fighter (the F-18A sold to Canada cost about 17 million USD each), but in NATO they mostly replaced F-104G's that cost about a million and a half dollars in the early sixties. Even taking inflation into account, that's worth about four million dollars in 1980 money. In US service, I believe they mostly replaced Phantoms? The F-4E seems to have gone for about two and a half million when new in the mid sixties. That's about seven million in 1980 dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC it actually was early on. They were going to fit a 27mm Mauser cannon and use the FCS to enable it to effectively 'snipe' ground targets from outside of effective MANPADS/AAA range. I think that part of the concept went away when they switched to the GAU-22A. That capability might have been useful in Afghanistan with a virtual absence of effective MANPADS/AAA.

 

If there is an absence of MANPADS/AAA all the reasons for stealth are gone and you can do the role just as well with much cheaper aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is an absence of MANPADS/AAA all the reasons for stealth are gone and you can do the role just as well with much cheaper aircraft.

As I understand it from newspaper reports, the Wikileaks documents reveal that the Taliban do have MANPADS, and have shot down ISAF aircraft with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it from newspaper reports, the Wikileaks documents reveal that the Taliban do have MANPADS, and have shot down ISAF aircraft with them.

 

AFAIK very few, ancient models and have (AFAIK) not shot down any combat aircraft - but I stand to be corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, drones have their issues as well.

 

From StrategyPage; UAVs Deal With A Horrible Past And Scary Future

"August 3, 2010: The U.S. Air Force is trying to figure out how to cope with future combat zones where their UAVs will be operating in a more hostile environment. These fears come from two sources. First, there's increased enemy firepower. In the 1990s, the air force encountered this during the air campaign against Serbia. Of the 17 aircraft lost, 15 were UAVs. The Serbs had more anti-aircraft guns and missiles, and were more aggressive in using them against UAVs.

 

"The second problem, which the air force does not want to discuss in detail, is the electronic link between the UAVs and their controllers. The air force uses a satellite link for its larger (Predator and Reaper) UAVs. There have been increasing problems with people jamming, or otherwise messing with signals between satellites and the ground. The air force apparently believes this situation will get worse. They are working on it, but not talking about it."

(Para 1 & 2)

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20100803.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, drones have their issues as well. First, there's increased enemy firepower. ...The second problem, which the air force does not want to discuss in detail, is the electronic link between the UAVs and their controllers.

A compadre at work who was on the YF-22/YF-23 selection team believes the days of using manned aircraft above a land battlefield against a capable enemy are numbered, because integrated air defense technology is progressing faster than its countermeasures.

 

In his opinion, UAVs are the only solution, and even the UAVs will eventually be driven from the battlespace directly above a land battlefield, once the technology of integrated air defense reaches its full potential.

 

I have pointed out the known problems with data links to UAVs. His standard response has been, "Yes, it's a serious issue. On the other hand, they have no choice but to figure out how to make the data links work."

 

As I've said numerous times before, a crash program will be used to develop UAVs -- lots of them will crash before the most difficult problems are resolved. However, there isn't any other choice but to move forward with them.

Edited by ScottBrim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it from newspaper reports, the Wikileaks documents reveal that the Taliban do have MANPADS, and have shot down ISAF aircraft with them.

 

But if facing manpads, most pilots would prefer an A-10 (with comparable defensive aid systems) to a F-35.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...