Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:25 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
The only requirement that would realistically fly in terms of the engine reliability specifications would be "Engine(s) must have a demonstrated reliability equal or better than the CF-18".

You can easily demand the likelyhood of a total engine failure to be X% less than for the CF-18 with 2 F404.

It is well within the rights of the buyer to demand an improvement over the product to be replaced.

And I dare say beating the F414 will be hard for the F-35.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:44 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 50):
And I dare say beating the F414 will be hard for the F-35.

Not really, the F414 has had a number in in-flight shutdowns and engine failures on the F/A-18 Super Hornet. In fact, in one particularly memorable F/A-18F mishap, the pilots kept the damaged F414 engine at high thrust, after a PERF90 caution. The pilots were later forced to shut the engine down, and they subsequently lost the jet.

In comparison, in the famous F-16 vs tree mishap, the pilot had to reduce to minimum thrust for flight and was able to land safely.

And do note that the F135 is based off the F119 as found on the F-22, which has a best-in-class engine reliability record. Also, a lot of F135 and F119 technology made its way into the F100-PW-229 EEP, which is an extremely reliable and durable engine as well.

Edit: A narrated video of the F-16 vs tree incident by the incident pilot himself is here, if you are curious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i7rVD8kRFU

[Edited 2015-10-20 01:50:05]
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:59 am

We will see. The recent ground incident will have put the F-35 under some pressure. And while it might be hard to keep the F-35 out of the tender, it is not so hard to set the criteria in a way that it won´t win, although this gets harder with every months as F-35 is getting mature and racking up customers, while the competition goes out of production and becomes obsolete. Yet for a government interested in keeping a political promise and not in buying the best plane for the armed forces, this never was a problem.

So please stop convincing me of the superiority of the F-35, as I know it the best plane on offer, but I also know what political pressure can do to tenders.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:02 pm

Let's go back to the basics, Canada has not entered into a purchase agreement for the F-35. The previous government only entered into exploratory talks before the procurement was shelved. As such, if they chose not to buy, LM has no legal recourse but to play big bully and hope.

Since there is no contract, the new government can revisit the entire military "want" list and redefine the goals with whatever systems they feel are within their budget.

It does not matter at all that one government was enthusiastic and the next isn't because there is no contract. Who ever signs the contract has the power to say what it contains and if the costs are beyond the budget they will seek either a significant cost reduction or a compatible product that is within the budget.

This really has nothing to do with the F-35's abilities, and everything to do with the systems cost.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10263
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:20 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16):
According to the Dash One, for the F-16, if there is an engine warning light, the procedure is for the pilot to reduce engine power and maintain the power level at a fixed setting until the pilot is able to recover at base. For the F-15, the instructions is for the affected engine to be shut off, and for the pilot to recover at base, even for the same issue.

Well if the F-35 had two engines I expect the procedure would be the same. In the twin engine a/c, shutting down the engine immediately allows the a/c to continue flight and prevent further damage to the engine. On a single engine a/c you have to try to "nurse" the engine since it's the only one you have, so...........

I would prefer to address the issue from an ETOPS perspective where the reliability of the single engine is addressed, not the procedures in the event of failure.

In relation to the Navy and its previous use and now current use of single engine a/c, if they do not use the F-35 what else are they going to use? The promoters of the F-35 ensured that it was the only game in town, so short of the Navy just giving up on the latest type a/c and staying with the older generation F-18 what are they supposed to do, initiate a new program for a twin engine naval a/c?
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:27 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 53):
This really has nothing to do with the F-35's abilities, and everything to do with the systems cost.

The irony being that the longer Canada waits the more likely the F-35 will be the cheapest option. Not only that but the industry aspects of a deal that allows Canadian industry to assist in manufacturing and supporting a global fleet of 2000 aircraft make any of the other contenders pale in comparison.

Quoting kanban (Reply 53):
It does not matter at all that one government was enthusiastic and the next isn't because there is no contract. Who ever signs the contract has the power to say what it contains and if the costs are beyond the budget they will seek either a significant cost reduction or a compatible product that is within the budget.

There is a contract. Canada is a Lvl 3 partner in the JSF program and has already contributed US$150 mill to the SDD phase. There are hooks associated with leaving the program and if Canada do withdraw from their Lvl 3 status it is doubtful they will be re-admitted at that level again, even if they do end up ordering the aircraft.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 52):
I also know what political pressure can do to tenders.

I agree, if the Canadian Government doesn't want the F-35 then they will find a loop hole to remove it. Would be a risky move though as all it requires is LM to publically release a competitive through life costing and make a song and dance about lost industry jobs and investment. If the new Liberal Government is focused on economic and social issues as they claim, then this would be a good first test to establish what they consider a priority.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:47 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 53):
Let's go back to the basics, Canada has not entered into a purchase agreement for the F-35. The previous government only entered into exploratory talks before the procurement was shelved. As such, if they chose not to buy, LM has no legal recourse but to play big bully and hope.

Most observers know that very likely, the F-35 would be the cheapest and most cost effective fighter; every other option is significantly more expensive and less capable overall. Remember all of the ancillary systems other fighters will need in order to be combat effective; targeting pods, jamming pods, pylons, etc. Those all don't come standard with older fighters.

It's like comparing two cars; say a stripper model Toyota Yaris hatchback with no air conditioning and a manual transmission to a mid model Toyota Corolla. Sure, the Yaris starts cheaper.

But once you start adding on options like an automatic transmission, air conditioning, 4 doors, keyless entry, and such, the price is well within a few hundred bucks for a mid level Toyota Corolla with all of those options included. And the Corolla would be a better vehicle altogether as a day to day driving car as well, so why not just get a mid-level Corolla?

Also, by the time the Canadian government actually will get around to making a decision, there will be less options on the table.

The F/A-18 Super Hornet is essentially done in terms of production; all future orders are for the EA-18G variant, and that has a number of system and structural differences in a number of key areas compared to the regular Super Hornet. Production, before the production rate cuts was expected to end in 2016, but with the cuts, it could be mid 2017.

The Rafale's production line is realistically only guaranteed until 2018 at the current sluggish production rate, and that includes the Egyptian, Qatar export orders (let's face it, the Indian order will not materialize).

Assembly for the Eurofighter across all partner nations is expected to end in 2017-18, barring a massive export order.

So unless the government manages to get it's act together NOW and get an order in before the end of this year, a lot of options will start disappearing off the table. And with how long it will take for Parliament to open, get the new government settled in and briefed, it could take another half year before they can act on the file, plus the time it will take for a competition (usually, 6 months to a year, minimum). Decisions need to be made NOW to get an order in to secure the long term lead items, which generally need around 2 year lead time before actual delivery of a final product is possible.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Oct 21, 2015 5:10 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 56):

You seem to be pushing the line that even if Canada doesn't fell it's either the best fit or is within their budget, they are obligated to proceed or face court action.. and to hell with fiscal responsibility to their taxpayers..

Quoting Ozair (Reply 55):

Does this level 3 partnership include planes or is it only a developmental partnership where the government at the time supplier design input? I may have missed it somewhere, however what I've read strongly implies that no actual aircraft purchase contract was signed.. now if there is developmental monies committed as part of the Lvl3 partnership, yes Canada is obligated to pay those even if they now believe the plane is unsuited for their requirements..

Similar to the commercial airplane market where sometimes an airline is a strategic development partner, then never buys the product because their needs have changed.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Oct 21, 2015 5:26 am

If Canada leaves level 3, they will not get the money that they have already paid into the program back
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:10 am

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 58):

If Canada leaves level 3, they will not get the money that they have already paid into the program back

Yep. And if Canada picks F-35 in the future, Canada will have to pay full US FMS fees, which are a percentage of the value of the contract. Currently, under the F-35 Partnership, partner nations do not have to pay FMS fees. Remember, foreign buyers of US military hardware usually purchase them through the US FMS programme, which tacks on an additional 3.5% of the value of the contract as its Administrative Surcharge, plus an additional 1.2% as a Contract Management Fee.

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):
You seem to be pushing the line that even if Canada doesn't fell it's either the best fit or is within their budget, they are obligated to proceed or face court action.. and to hell with fiscal responsibility to their taxpayers..

Because Canada is running out of options fast if the government wants to proceed on any other option. And trying to doctor the requirements to deliberately exclude a vendor will backfire on the government, as the vendor will challenge the requirements in tribunal or in court.

Remember when Jean Chretien back in 1993 cancelled the purchase of the EH-101 as part of his election promise, only for his government to purchase almost the exact same helicopter for search and rescue a few years later? He in the end, bought a less capable version of the exact same model of helicopter for MORE money and less Canadian content had he let the original purchase go through. And let's not get into the mess called the CH-148 Cyclone and the very convoluted and drawn out process that took to even select a winning design because the government didn't want to buy more EH-101's again.
 
bmacleod
Topic Author
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:38 pm

Just for fun say Hillary wins and GOP keeps control of Congress; they may pressure her to make a deal - pass her Pentagon budget in return for restarting F-22 production and maybe loosen ban on international purchases - I know far out and crazy but still anything can happen!!!...  

Reagan did build 100 B-1 Lancers (a newer and upgraded version) after kicking out Carter who cancelled it.

A new version of the F-22 can be developed possibly cheaper.

[Edited 2015-10-21 06:53:30]
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Oct 21, 2015 5:24 pm

There is a new version of the F-22, it is called F-35.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Oct 21, 2015 5:42 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):
and to hell with fiscal responsibility to their taxpayers..

To hell with operational requirements too eh. Let make this decision based on politics rather than what the rcaf needs to do its job.  
 
JohnM
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:01 pm

I read that the new guy wants to ramp up government spending along with other things to somehow help the country. No worries about spending on the military, the USA will take care of that need for them I'm sure. Mean anti-islamic combat aircraft would cut into the unicorn budget, so the F-35 must be cut.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:10 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 61):
There is a new version of the F-22, it is called F-35.

Not even close. The F-35 was never supposed to do the job of the F-22.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 62):
To hell with operational requirements too eh. Let make this decision based on politics rather than what the rcaf needs to do its job.  

The politicians set the parameters of the job that needs to be done, the RCAF doesn't make up its own role.

With such actions as withdrawing combat operations from Syria etc, the new Canadian government could easily redefine the role of the RCAF and that would change the operational requirements as well.

So yes, its *all* based on politics - any other way would be the tail wagging the dog.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Oct 21, 2015 11:10 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 64):
Not even close. The F-35 was never supposed to do the job of the F-22.

Correct, but with only 140 or so combat coded F-22s it will substitute where required. For a number of possible A2A scenarios the F-35 will also likely be more effective than the F-22 given its increased range, improved sensor suite and better interoperability with existing 4th gen assets.

Quoting moo (Reply 64):
The politicians set the parameters of the job that needs to be done, the RCAF doesn't make up its own role.

While politicians state the strategic requirements that must be met the Canadian Armed Forces determine the capability required to complete the tasks and request Government funding to develop, acquire and operate the respective capability.

Quoting kanban (Reply 57):
Does this level 3 partnership include planes or is it only a developmental partnership where the government at the time supplier design input? I may have missed it somewhere, however what I've read strongly implies that no actual aircraft purchase contract was signed.. now if there is developmental monies committed as part of the Lvl3 partnership, yes Canada is obligated to pay those even if they now believe the plane is unsuited for their requirements..

There are aircraft commitments that Canada has essentially weaselled out of with all the other partner nations contributing airframe time to the SDD program. As Canada hasn't placed any firm orders they have managed to squeeze by with the afore mentioned payment. Leaving the program as a Lvl 3 partner comes with downsides including

1. The already mentioned increased cost of the F-35 if they decide to purchase at a later date.
2. Canada would miss out on royalty payments on every F-35 sold.
3. Not be able to bid on industrial work.
4. Be restricted on the intelligence sharing associated with partners of the F-35 program
5. Potentially operate a jet that has no commonality with 95% of partner nations they may conduct Coalition operations with.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 60):
Just for fun say Hillary wins and GOP keeps control of Congress; they may pressure her to make a deal - pass her Pentagon budget in return for restarting F-22 production and maybe loosen ban on international purchases - I know far out and crazy but still anything can happen!!!...

I doubt it would ever be approved. We have discussed this before but the costs required to restart the production line, as well as the necessity of upgrading the F-22 before manufacture begins, would be prohibitive.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 60):
Reagan did build 100 B-1 Lancers (a newer and upgraded version) after kicking out Carter who cancelled it.

The B-1 was still a program with already funded testing continuing of the B-1A airframes and the B-1B dropped several key requirements from the B-1A making it potentially cheaper to acquire and operate. Also be mindful that shortly after Carter cancelled the B-1A he initiated the advanced technology bomber (ATB) program which would become the B-2.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 60):
A new version of the F-22 can be developed possibly cheaper.

I doubt it....
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Oct 22, 2015 12:16 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 65):
Leaving the program as a Lvl 3 partner comes with downsides including

1. The already mentioned increased cost of the F-35 if they decide to purchase at a later date.
2. Canada would miss out on royalty payments on every F-35 sold.
3. Not be able to bid on industrial work.
4. Be restricted on the intelligence sharing associated with partners of the F-35 program
5. Potentially operate a jet that has no commonality with 95% of partner nations they may conduct Coalition operations with.

But will that really impact them or only impact the F-35 fan club.. if they go with a cheaper alternative there are pluses, and the F-35 is not the last fighter in the history of fighters, there is always another coming off the boards that exceeds the last or we'd still be flying cold war era planes.

Quoting JohnM (Reply 63):

I think he's looking for jobs to put Canadians to work, not buy US products.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:20 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 66):
But will that really impact them or only impact the F-35 fan club

The F-35 program will carry on regardless of a Canadian order. The Canadians intended to purchase between 60-100 with the most recent number being 65.

Quoting kanban (Reply 66):
if they go with a cheaper alternative there are pluses

Like? Depending upon what they choose they may save some up front costs but spend more in the long run upgrading. No other option, including SAAB, can offer the industry participation that the F-35 program has.

Quoting kanban (Reply 66):
the F-35 is not the last fighter in the history of fighters, there is always another coming off the boards that exceeds the last or we'd still be flying cold war era planes.

That is certainly open to debate. It may very well be the last exportable manned fighter the US will produce. I can't see a new fighter jet coming out of Europe in the next 25 years and the next US fighter jet will be a sixth Gen F-22 replacement and way out of any Canadian budget if even exportable. Any F-35 replacement, manned or unmanned, won't appear until at least 2040 either.

Remember by the time this competition occurs, China and Russia will both likely have 5th generation aircraft in initial operational service, both if which may see export to Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

Quoting kanban (Reply 66):
I think he's looking for jobs to put Canadians to work, not buy US products.

Given Canada won't design, develop and manufacture their own fighter jet then the F-35 promises the most industry participation and investment over the operational life the RCAF is expecting.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:36 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 67):
Given Canada won't design, develop and manufacture their own fighter jet then the F-35 promises the most industry participation and investment over the operational life the RCAF is expecting.

sorry, my comment was not related to the F-35 , it was in response to the more general nature of the post referenced.

as far as the future, the only thing for certain is that we're all guessing based on our biases, which are a kind of blinders.. I do disagree that the F-35 is the end of the line for 15-20 years..
 
Oroka
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:50 am

lol and here we go

 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:22 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 68):
as far as the future, the only thing for certain is that we're all guessing based on our biases, which are a kind of blinders.. I do disagree that the F-35 is the end of the line for 15-20 years..

Bias has nothing to do with it. Look at the length of time it has taken to bring all the 4.5 and 5th gen aircraft into service. None of them have made it to IOC in under 15 years. Excluding the Russians, Chinese and the Gripen E the options are slim to nothing. I doubt the Korean, Japanese or Turkish aircraft will come to fruition and I can't see the Indian AMCA being available for export before at least 2035.

Where else could a modern fighter aircraft come from that Canada would actually want to buy?

Quoting Oroka (Reply 69):
lol and here we go

Very nice lines although the two seats are redundant.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:58 am

Quoting moo (Reply 64):
Not even close. The F-35 was never supposed to do the job of the F-22.

Right, F-35 can do more jobs and it can do them better.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12856
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Oct 22, 2015 10:46 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 71):
Right, F-35 can do more jobs and it can do them better.

So far that's unproven.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:25 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 71):
Right, F-35 can do more jobs and it can do them better.

Uh, it comprehensively cannot dog fight as well as the F-22 can, and it comprehensively cannot carry the same air-to-air armament as the F-22 can, so that statement is a little incorrect.

The F-35 will be able to do the tasks its designed to do, but how well it will do them remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the F-22 has already carried out bombing missions over Syria, so its combat proven - its already doing some of the tasks the F-35 has yet to accomplish.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:00 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 73):
The F-35 will be able to do the tasks its designed to do, but how well it will do them remains to be seen.

a fair assessment, and if it doesn't there will be a major push for another airframe to fill the gaps
 
solarflyer22
Posts: 1517
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:48 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 1):
I get the reasoning that given the weather and the Canadian wilderness, a twin engined fighter might be more desirable.

That does make some sense. The Super Hornet does make a lot of sense but I just saw a Ad that says it only pulls 7.4Gs? Is that right? I thought it was 9 or is that the original model?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 59):
Yep. And if Canada picks F-35 in the future, Canada will have to pay full US FMS fees, which are a percentage of the value of the contract. Cur

Canada isnt likely to fight a war without the US lets face it. They need something cheap and in large enough numbers to cover their huge territory. If F35 has a total lifecycle cost below F18 E/F fine, if not then you go Super Hornet or even the new F-16 V. Yes, its single engined but its more than enough plane, has a AESA Radar, its cheap and agile.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:59 am

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 72):

So far that's unproven.

It is proven, The situational awareness of the F-35 due to networking capabilities and better sensors is so far ahead of any other fighter, that it does not need to dogfight. F-35 kills with one shot and remains hidden during the whole process.
 
rlwynn
Posts: 1492
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 3:35 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:07 am

I would think that there would be many places that Canadians fly that would it would not be possible for the pilot to be picked up if he went down. That right there is a big plus for a twin engined fighter.
I can drive faster than you
 
angad84
Posts: 2077
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:50 am

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 75):
That does make some sense. The Super Hornet does make a lot of sense but I just saw a Ad that says it only pulls 7.4Gs? Is that right? I thought it was 9 or is that the original model?

I believe the in-service limit is 7.5g although the aircraft structure will take instantaneous (and even sustained) loads much higher - this applies for both the legacy and the super hornet. That said, the Hornet is a nose-pointing fighter, not really a high-g fighter, so the its ACM proficiency, particularly WVR, doesn't suffer from the G-limits.

Plus, the lower limits help with airframe fatigue life. With the forces of arrested landings and catapult shots (both of which I've recently had the pleasure of experiencing - and they are IMMENSE), it's smarter not to thrash the bird in the air as well. Better to dial it back a touch to even things out. The Russians did the same thing with the MiG-29K/KUB, limiting them to 8g versus 9g for their land-based counterparts, and I suspect the 0.5g difference has something to with the fact that STOBAR puts less stress on an airframe than CATOBAR, since there is only one particularly violent transition (the landing).

Cheers
Angad
 
bmacleod
Topic Author
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:53 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 65):
I doubt it would ever be approved. We have discussed this before but the costs required to restart the production line, as well as the necessity of upgrading the F-22 before manufacture begins, would be prohibitive.

Which means Hillary will likely focus on better drone stealth development.

Likely giving Boeing more time to work on its sixth-generation fighter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-XX_Program

[Edited 2015-10-23 06:54:46]
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1758
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sat Oct 24, 2015 11:01 am

Don't buy anything, save the money. Who is going to attack Canada anyway? Or buy JAS or other modern but decent and not-ridiculously priced tools instead.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sat Oct 24, 2015 4:39 pm

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 80):
Don't buy anything, save the money. Who is going to attack Canada anyway? Or buy JAS or other modern but decent and not-ridiculously priced tools instead.

We should pay the 'Mericans to defend our airspace. Throw them a pair of tickets to a football game for every intercept. As far as international operations, its not our problem, we'll be wearing blue helmets in no time with Trudeau running the hill.
 
bmacleod
Topic Author
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:05 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 81):

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 80):
Don't buy anything, save the money. Who is going to attack Canada anyway? Or buy JAS or other modern but decent and not-ridiculously priced tools instead.

We should pay the 'Mericans to defend our airspace. Throw them a pair of tickets to a football game for every intercept. As far as international operations, its not our problem, we'll be wearing blue helmets in no time with Trudeau running the hill.

For the sake of trying to keep to topic - whether or not Canada will order F-35 it may be in our best interest to wait for a better upgraded version - if it ever does happen.
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:41 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 82):
For the sake of trying to keep to topic - whether or not Canada will order F-35 it may be in our best interest to wait for a better upgraded version - if it ever does happen.

yeah, but how long can Canada wait ? How old are your F-18's ?
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sat Oct 24, 2015 9:00 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 83):
How old are your F-18's ?

The plates say McDonald Douglas, St. Louis MO. 1982.

  
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sat Oct 24, 2015 9:09 pm

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 72):
So far that's unproven.
Quoting moo (Reply 73):

Uh, it comprehensively cannot dog fight as well as the F-22 can

Not that it matters bu I wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 and F-22 are pretty close WVR. Both are high AoA fighters similar to the Super Hornet and subsonically the F-22 and F-35 are very close with respect to acceleration. Its only when the F-22 gets past the transonic region that it pulls away.

Quoting moo (Reply 73):
its already doing some of the tasks the F-35 has yet to accomplish.

A stupid statement. The F-35B has dropped a laser guided bomb, something the F-22 will never do, and probably landed vertically at the end of the sortie as well. Should we claim the F-35 is already doing some of the tasks that the F-22 has yet to accomplish...

Quoting moo (Reply 73):
Meanwhile, the F-22 has already carried out bombing missions over Syria, so its combat proven

Combat proven means absolutely nothing. The Gripen has never conducted a combat mission and yet it is lauded with praise. Until Mali in 2012 the Rafale, which had been in service for 11 years, had never seen combat either.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 78):

I believe the in-service limit is 7.5g although the aircraft structure will take instantaneous (and even sustained) loads much higher - this applies for both the legacy and the super hornet.

Not much higher and the system is software limited to 7.5G. You can snatch the jet while in a low fuel state past 7.5G but then the software limiter brings you back.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 78):
the lower limits help with airframe fatigue life.

I don't think it makes a difference. Much of the Hornet fleet has undergone center barrel replacement including both Canadian and Australian Hornets which have never landed on a carrier.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 79):
Which means Hillary will likely focus on better drone stealth development.

Drones are not as capable as manned aircraft and when one is built that can pull the high G, has the stealth and can process data like an F-35 can do you honestly think it will cost less than an F-35 does today?

Additionally, none of the three US services want a stealth drone over the F-35. The F-35 remains the highest acquisition priority. I trust the military to understand the threat and request the weapons they require.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 80):
Don't buy anything, save the money. Who is going to attack Canada anyway?

Any fighter jet purchase by Canada is expected to last at least 40 years from today. Can you guarantee that Canada will not need a fighter jet in the next 40 years?

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 80):
Or buy JAS or other modern but decent and not-ridiculously priced tools instead.

Based on the price of the Gripen offered to the Swiss and bought by the Brazilians it is not much cheaper than an F-35 and a lot less survivable. With a Gripen you may pay 80% of the cost but get only 40% of the capability...

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 82):
whether or not Canada will order F-35 it may be in our best interest to wait for a better upgraded version - if it ever does happen.

The F-35 has been designed to allow modular upgrade. All the processors and other systems are modular and can be upgraded at major block points. The question should not be about an upgraded version and more about the cost difference between extending the life of the Hornet compared to acquiring new F-35s or something else. In the Australian context, the F-111 was replaced by the SH because there was no cost difference between the fleets for the expected 10 year service life, including SH acquisition.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 83):
but how long can Canada wait ? How old are your F-18's ?

At a cost, the fleet is being extended to 2025. The differecne is the Canadian F-18s start from a lower point of capability. They have not received the same upgrades as the RAAF or US Hornets so are not as survivable in a higher intensity conflict.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24515
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sat Oct 24, 2015 10:14 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 85):
The Gripen has never conducted a combat mission

Sure they have.

With 8 aircraft they flew 650 missions almost 2,000 flight hours in Libya.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sun Oct 25, 2015 1:09 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 86):
Sure they have.

With 8 aircraft they flew 650 missions almost 2,000 flight hours in Libya.

Combat ... combat ... Depends on what one means with that word ....


Purely air survailance / policing . They did not use any wheapons, like Norwegian and Danish F-16's did.


Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 80):
Don't buy anything, save the money. Who is going to attack Canada anyway?

Our American friends thought the same thing before 9/11 ... They also thought they were and island and that there was a large ocean between them and any danger ...
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:06 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 86):
Sure they have.

With 8 aircraft they flew 650 missions almost 2,000 flight hours in Libya.

Thanks for the correction and that actually reinforces my point. The Gripen entered service in 1997 and yet it wasn't until 2011 that it debuted in combat, 14 years later. Did the internet decry the Gripen because it hadn't seen operational service?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:15 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 85):

At a cost, the fleet is being extended to 2025. The differecne is the Canadian F-18s start from a lower point of capability. They have not received the same upgrades as the RAAF or US Hornets so are not as survivable in a higher intensity conflict.

And serviceability is starting to become an issue. In short, certain parts are starting to get hard to find, or getting very expensive to purchase.

People in military circles remember the Jean Chretien and the EH-101, and comparisons are already being made. This decision will be a lot worse than that, because of entrenched bureaucratic support.

And it's very clear that Justin Trudeau is politically shaped after Jean Chretien, who was a protege of his father, Pierre Trudeau. And Jean Chretien was more than happy to spend half a billion dollars in cancellation penalties to buy exactly ZERO helicopters, plus the billions already spent up to the point of cancellation, then buying the same helicopter for SAR for less air frames at greater cost, plus the costs of buying the CH-148 Cyclone and its ongoing saga, and not to mention the deaths and injuries caused by old CH-113 Labrador's and CH-128 Sea Kings crashing because they are too old for cheap politics. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

It should also be reminded here is that there is a governmental report created by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat that clearly says that the F-35 is the best option in terms of capabilities, price and industrial benefits. The Liberals can either pull it out and use it to their advantage in justifying the about turn around on a campaign promise, or try suppress it, then likely see it leaked to the press and it become a major political liability.

Furthermore, F-35 Partnership countries and other customers are all expected to place pressure on the Canadian government to continue with the F-35 purchase, especially as their costs will increase; see this article on the possible Australian ramifications of a Canadian pull out:

http://abc.net.au/news/2015-10-22/au...ets-could-cost-$100m-extra/6877028

So, an extra $1 million dollars per aircraft to cover the costs of Canada pulling out for every F-35 customer and partner. You bet Justin Trudeau will soon be getting some upset national leaders calling him about his decision.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:05 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 89):
So, an extra $1 million dollars per aircraft to cover the costs of Canada pulling out for every F-35 customer and partner. You bet Justin Trudeau will soon be getting some upset national leaders calling him about his decision.

I doubt there will be much said about it. The small increase in per unit cost would be more than made up by the fact Canada was expected to win a very decent percentage of the industrial work and this will now be distributed around the rest of the partner countries.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:49 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 90):
I doubt there will be much said about it. The small increase in per unit cost would be more than made up by the fact Canada was expected to win a very decent percentage of the industrial work and this will now be distributed around the rest of the partner countries.

seeing how far the f-35 is in production (all be it a slow rate) one wonders when they would have expected to see some of that "industrial work".. the absence of it having materialized may also be a factor.. If that were a condition for replacement F-18's, you can bet Boeing would have them building parts immediately, even if they were used on commercial planes.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:58 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 91):
seeing how far the f-35 is in production (all be it a slow rate) one wonders when they would have expected to see some of that "industrial work".. the absence of it having materialized may also be a factor.. If that were a condition for replacement F-18's, you can bet Boeing would have them building parts immediately, even if they were used on commercial planes.

Probably because one has to commit to actually buying F-35 before getting industrial work.

And Boeing is the worst offenders in providing industrial benefits; what they have done in the past is every time they get a Canadian government contract and need to provide industrial benefits, they just claim building of existing aircraft structures already in production as part of their commitments at Boeing Canada. Industrial benefits are supposed to be NEW investments, not just re-issuing PO's to a subsidiary.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:26 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 91):
seeing how far the f-35 is in production (all be it a slow rate) one wonders when they would have expected to see some of that "industrial work".. the absence of it having materialized may also be a factor.

You need to do a bit more research...

Companies in Canada have thus far participated in the design/development and early production phases of the F-35 JSF Program. Based on the summer 2014 updates, thirty-three (33) companies currently have active contracts. This number is expected to fluctuate as some contracts finish and others are added. Companies in Canada have secured $637 million US Dollars (USD) in contracts, an increase of $50 million USD over the results in the Summer 2014 Report. This is work across a range of aerospace subsectors, including airframe, propulsion, tooling, software and mission systems, which would not have been available to our industry if Canada were not a partner in the F-35 JSF Program.

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03972.html

Above is the work to date. Below is a statement on the identified opportunities.

Beyond reporting on the value of contracts, the prime contractors also report on identified work for which companies in Canada will be eligible to compete, based on the currently estimated partner country buy of approximately 3,100 aircraft. This includes opportunities related to the extension of existing production contracts, as well as new opportunities that have not yet been awarded through competition. In order to secure the extension of existing contracts, companies must continue to successfully demonstrate their ability to provide best value, "competitive technologies at competitive prices," throughout the aircraft's production phase. A company's likelihood of securing a contract extension also depends on the type of work it is performing. Some companies in Canada have a decisive advantage in their area of work (for instance, a unique capability or control of vital intellectual property), increasing the likelihood of receiving contract extensions. Other contracts will be more difficult for companies to secure extensions, because there are a greater number of competitors.

As long as companies continue to demonstrate best value and remain competitive, the extension of production contracts is currently estimated at up to $9.615 billion USD. This represents an increase of $383 million USD since the previous report, and is primarily due to upward revisions in the value of some future work.

In addition to the continuation of work associated with existing contracts, companies in Canada will have the opportunity to bid on additional production and sustainment work (as the Program moves into higher rates of aircraft production and requires a broader supply chain). Currently, the total of additional identified production and sustainment opportunities could be up to $0.556 billion USD. This represents a decrease of $495 million USD from the previous report due to some opportunities that did not materialize.


No other manufacturer can offer anywhere near the opportunity of Canadian work. Given Canadian companies have already secured contracts, it seems crazy to walk away from that much potential work and future jobs...
 
jouy31
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 4:59 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:17 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 85):
Until Mali in 2012 the Rafale, which had been in service for 11 years, had never seen combat either

Unless I am mistaken, Rafale joined in operations over Afghanistan in 2007 and in 2011 over Libya.

And opération Serval was launched in 2013, not 2012.

[Edited 2015-10-25 02:20:29]
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:32 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 84):

Drones are not as capable as manned aircraft and when one is built that can pull the high G, has the stealth and can process data like an F-35 can do you honestly think it will cost less than an F-35 does today?


Additionally, none of the three US services want a stealth drone over the F-35. The F-35 remains the highest acquisition priority. I trust the military to understand the threat and request the weapons they require.

That's just silly....it's significantly easier to build a non-piloted aircraft that can outmanouver any manned aircraft. Fighters are only restricted to whatever G load a pilot can handle. Manned aircraft also have to have the structure and life support solely for the use of a pilot...structure that could go to sensors, payload, fuel, etc.

Drones can go much deeper into harm's way since you don't worry about having to rescue a pilot.

Get rid of the pilot and maneuvers are limited by mechanical constraints...not biological ones.

As for the military being able to decide what's best for them....that's a laugh too. By the time a person is far enough up the ladder to be able to make a procurement decision, he has lost any perspective he ever may have had about the troops, and his head is so far up the butt of the defense contractor he has sent his cv to, that he is more concerned with job security than combat effectiveness.

History is littered with useless, short sighted, completely bone headed wastes of time and money dreamed up by generals.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 85):

Any fighter jet purchase by Canada is expected to last at least 40 years from today. Can you guarantee that Canada will not need a fighter jet in the next 40 years?

Canada hasn't needed a fighter jet ever, and the next 40 years won't change that. What Canada does need is to spend those billions of dollars on maritime patrol, arctic surveillance, ice breakers, a new DEW line, SAR and maybe actually taking care of the veterans who did serve and their families.

For national defense, take a page from the Israelis; missile defense. Way better bang for the buck and they can actually be positioned at the borders of the country, instead of a couple of inland bases like we now have. Drones are much better for mindless patrol duties than human pilots. Maybe we should focus some energy and resources into advancing our domestic industries...maybe develop some CRJ or Q400 patrol aircraft.

Canada isn't a first strike nation. There hasn't been a conflict since WW2 in which Canadian air involvement made the smallest difference in the outcome. Besides...just what does anybody expect 60 shiny fighters to actually accomplish in defending Canada? The place they would really be needed to enforce sovereignty is the arctic, and there isn't a chance in hell that any of the planes would be stationed in Resolute, Inuvik or Alert...where they might actually be needed.

If people want Canada to make an actual, meaningful contribution in combat, we need to expand the special ops forces on the ground, where Canadian troops have a long and respected track record of making a real difference in real combat situations. Canada trains some the best sneaky troops on the planet and those guys have a damned sight more kills than our jet fighters ever could dream of.

What do we have...6...planes fighting ISIS? How much good has that done so far? Saudi, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, the EU and almost everyone else on the planet has exponentially more air resources than Canada does, and are closer. Yet, they don't think the threat is serious enough to get involved in any meaningful way.

A handful of unequaled Canadian snipers would be much more effective.

Wars need patrols, surveillance, medical services, tankers....all sorts of things that actually can make a difference. There are many much better and more effective ways for Canada to contribute than a very costly and mostly useless fighter group. Most of what a war really needs is also what can be used for national sovereignty protection as well.

A few token fighter bombers in a fray is a very expensive, resource wasting joke.

The fact is that there are much better options for Canada's defense dollars than fighters. It's time to be realistic about what actually needs protecting, what needs attacking and how to best do those.

We need about twice as many helicopters, ice breakers, naval, SAR units than we now have...and we can barely support the ones we do have. People complain about the F-18's but everything else we have is even older and actually important for Canadian security and sovereignty protection. How about those Aurora's? Those are actually useful...where does the money come from to replace those?

More billions spent on fighters is nothing more than an ego stroking waste of time, effort and money. "hey look....we have pointy planes too....!", isn't a good enough reason to buy any fighters.

[Edited 2015-10-26 20:33:37]
What the...?
 
solarflyer22
Posts: 1517
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:11 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
That also excludes the amount of money that was already spent up to the point of cancellation; total amount of money spent on NOT buying helicopters was closer to $2 billion dollars,

That's just crazy. You might as well piss it away.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 12):
They chose the F-35 and their endorsement speaks volumes!

Ney. They wanted stealth and some kind of Iran deterrent. Not that anything they have could drop a MOP or that MOP would even be enough for Fordow.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
None of those countries have the vast wilderness Canada has.

Why didn't Canada ever get the F15 in the first place? Seems like the perfect plane. Twin engines, high performance, E model for multirole.

The truth is they don't NEED to have 2 engines but it would be nice. They are only getting 65 planes. Chances are you might lose 1 or 2 into the wilderness.

Anyone read about the ejection seat problems? Apparently if you are under 150 LBS you will have a 50% higher chance of death. Also, the big heavy helmet mounted cue might break your neck.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:22 am

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 96):
Anyone read about the ejection seat problems? Apparently if you are under 150 LBS you will have a 50% higher chance of death. Also, the big heavy helmet mounted cue might break your neck.

If you're going to raise the ejection seat problem it might be worth putting it into context...

The F-35 ejection seat, manufactured by Martin Baker, is already better than legacy aircraft for lightweight pilots. Here is what LT Gen Bogdan had to say at the recent House Armed Services Committee hearing,

The F-35 escape system was designed to provide safe escape for the widest range of both aircrew weight (103 to 245 pounds) and anthropometry (sizes), well beyond current legacy fighters. The only issue we currently have with the system effects only lightweight pilots (those less than 136 pounds). There is an increased risk of neck injury to these lightweight pilots during the three phases of the escape sequence: Catapult, Wind Blast, and Parachute Opening. The reason there is an increased risk only for lightweight pilots is because these pilots are assumed to have lower neck strength than heavier pilots and therefore are unable to sustain higher neck loads we are seeing during ejection.

The program is working with our industry partners on three specific improvements that will provide lightweight pilots that same level of protection and safety as all other F-35 pilots. These three improvements are: one, a reduced weight helmet that weighs 6 ounces less than the current helmet that will reduce neck loads during catapult and windblast phases; two, a pilot “weight switch” on the ejection seat that reduces the opening shock of the parachute by slightly delaying the parachute’s opening for lightweight pilots; and three, a head support that will be sewn into the parachute risers that will reduce the rearward head movement of the pilot when the main chute of the ejection seat opens reducing the pilot’s neck loads. The combination of three improvements will provide the needed protection for lightweight pilots.


Forget the fact that nearly everyone who has ejected from a fighter jet in the last 50 years has suffered some sort of medical issue, including broken bones and noses etc.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 95):
That's just silly....it's significantly easier to build a non-piloted aircraft that can outmanouver any manned aircraft.

Don't know why Powerslide came up with that quote as it was me you were quoting.

If you think it is so easy, please provide me with an example of an unmanned vehicle that is more manoeuvrable than a current 4th or 5th gen fighter aircraft?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 95):
Drones can go much deeper into harm's way since you don't worry about having to rescue a pilot.

While conveniently ignoring how it operates over enemy territory when its data-link is being jammed or it is being denied GPS to know where it actually is?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 95):
As for the military being able to decide what's best for them....that's a laugh too. By the time a person is far enough up the ladder to be able to make a procurement decision, he has lost any perspective he ever may have had about the troops, and his head is so far up the butt of the defense contractor he has sent his cv to, that he is more concerned with job security than combat effectiveness.

Do you think a whole bunch of generals sit around a room and decide the specifications for combat aircraft? It is done by current and recent serving aircrew and engineers. They don’t make this stuff up on a whim, thousands of hours and testing, war gaming and analysis go into these decisions. If you had worked in the project office of any military acquisition agency you would have a very clear understanding of how recommendations are made and who actually signs off on the procurement.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 95):
Canada hasn't needed a fighter jet ever, and the next 40 years won't change that.

You can make that argument but that is not what the thread is about. Even the new Liberal government acknowledge the need to buy a new fighter jet, they only have an issue with which one.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 96):
Ney. They wanted stealth and some kind of Iran deterrent.

Why would they want those requirements? Perhaps because of all the operational experience they have they understand its advantages on the modern battlefield...

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 96):
Why didn't Canada ever get the F15 in the first place? Seems like the perfect plane. Twin engines, high performance, E model for multirole.

The E model wasn't around when Canada opted for the F/A-18 which was the only true multi-role aircraft of the options available. The F-15 is also significantly more expensive to operate per hour than the F-16, 18 or F-35. Today the F-35 will outperform an F-15 at less cost and more supportable for the next 40 years. There is a reason the only people buying new F-15s are the Saudi’s.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:44 am

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 96):
Anyone read about the ejection seat problems? Apparently if you are under 150 LBS you will have a 50% higher chance of death. Also, the big heavy helmet mounted cue might break your neck.

This is not an issue. The F-35's ejection seat limit of 136lb minimum weight limit is in fact, EXACTLY the same as the ejection seat limit of the NACES ejection seat, which is found in T-45 Goshawk and the F/A-18 Hornet (both versions).

See the USN NATOPS for the F/A-18 Super Hornet as an example:

info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf

Quote:

17.1.1 Ejection Seat Restrictions. During ejection seat development and testing, the SJU-17(V) 1/A, 2/A, and 9/A NACES seats were qualified for use by aviators with nude weights from 136 to 213 pounds, while the SJU-17A (V)1/A, 2/A, and 9/A NACES seats were qualified for use by aviators with nude body weights from 136 to 245 pounds. The minimum and maximum nude body weights allowed by OPNAVINST 3710.7 Series for those on aviation duty are 100 pounds and 235 pounds, respectively.

Therefore, a gap exists between the ejection seat certified weight range and the weights of the current aviator population.

WARNING
• Operation of the ejection seat by personnel weighing less than the qualified minimum nude weight, or more than the maximum qualified weight (noted above), subjects the occupant to increased risk of injury.
• An increased risk of severe injury or death during parachute landing fall (PLF) exists with surface winds exceeding 25 knots. High surface winds contribute directly to total landing velocity. When time permits, select parachute steering and turn into the wind to reduce landing velocity.
• Pilots should be trained in additional ejection risks associated with JHMCS. Ejection with JHMCS may cause severe or fatal injury.

The ejection seat catapult was designed for the qualified weight range only. Ejection seat stability is directly related to occupant restraint. All occupants should be properly restrained in the seat by the torso harness for optimum performance and minimum injury risk. Inertial reel performance may be degraded for occupants outside of the certified weight range

17.1.1.1 Injury Risks - Nude Weight Less than 136 Pounds. Lighter weight occupants are subject to a higher risk of injury due to the following factors:

1. Excessive pull back during inertial reel retraction.
2. Poor positioning during ejection.
3. Greater acceleration during catapult firing.
4. Higher parachute opening shock during ejections near the upper end of Mode 1 (approaching 300 KCAS).
5. Seat instability during drogue deployment during ejections above 300 KCAS.

WARNING
Lighter weight aircrew have greater risk of neck injury during ejection while using the JHMCS configuration. Minimum nude aircrew weights authorized to fly with the JHMCS helmet system is 136 pounds. Aircrew weighing less than the authorized minimum nude weight are restricted from flying with the JHMCS helmet system.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:55 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 95):
What do we have...6...planes fighting ISIS

6 fighters can do a lot of damage. You don't need an aircraft carrier to make a difference.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChairmanRobbo, TWA772LR and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos