F-35 looking more like white elephant
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
Many years ago ,while sitting on some wooden boxes at the old Avro plant.Me and some old pals where watching them put up some tents for the "fake roll out " of the first CF-18 at the historic plant that made the Arrow and other secret toys for various military depts.I say fake roll out as no CF-18 where built at the historic plant,but after the fake roll out the Canadian government gave millions of dollars to keep good paying jobs that would support a family in the Toronto area.
One of the guys said that the CF-18 would be the last manned fighter that Canada would makely because the of the developement of missiles that could pull 50 g and attack at mach 9 with good aquisition capabilities.A manned aircraft that was so much slower and had a huge turn would not last long against the next generation of missiles.
Any aircraft can fly over goat herders and camel jockeys with impunity.
The F-35 would not be able to fly up the Volga with impunity.Inspite of the advertised stealth capabilities it is just another target to an upgraded detection system.
Perhaps that is why some of the boffins are working on cloaking sytems that make missile aquisition almost impossible.That technology is what we should be spending our money on not supporting old systems that are probably already redundant against a first world foe.
One of the guys said that the CF-18 would be the last manned fighter that Canada would makely because the of the developement of missiles that could pull 50 g and attack at mach 9 with good aquisition capabilities.A manned aircraft that was so much slower and had a huge turn would not last long against the next generation of missiles.
Any aircraft can fly over goat herders and camel jockeys with impunity.
The F-35 would not be able to fly up the Volga with impunity.Inspite of the advertised stealth capabilities it is just another target to an upgraded detection system.
Perhaps that is why some of the boffins are working on cloaking sytems that make missile aquisition almost impossible.That technology is what we should be spending our money on not supporting old systems that are probably already redundant against a first world foe.
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
2R wrote:Many years ago ,while sitting on some wooden boxes at the old Avro plant.Me and some old pals where watching them put up some tents for the "fake roll out " of the first CF-18 at the historic plant that made the Arrow and other secret toys for various military depts.I say fake roll out as no CF-18 where built at the historic plant,but after the fake roll out the Canadian government gave millions of dollars to keep good paying jobs that would support a family in the Toronto area.
One of the guys said that the CF-18 would be the last manned fighter that Canada would makely because the of the developement of missiles that could pull 50 g and attack at mach 9 with good aquisition capabilities.A manned aircraft that was so much slower and had a huge turn would not last long against the next generation of missiles.
Any aircraft can fly over goat herders and camel jockeys with impunity.
The F-35 would not be able to fly up the Volga with impunity.Inspite of the advertised stealth capabilities it is just another target to an upgraded detection system.
Perhaps that is why some of the boffins are working on cloaking sytems that make missile aquisition almost impossible.That technology is what we should be spending our money on not supporting old systems that are probably already redundant against a first world foe.
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
I hope LM hired you for some consulting about R&D and advanced technology applications. If they did not, they don't know what they are missing, so please call them and offer your services.2R wrote: The F-35 would not be able to fly up the Volga with impunity.Inspite of the advertised stealth capabilities it is just another target to an upgraded detection system.
- Colonel Sanders
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
- Location: Over Macho Grande
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
How about for free, I tell the gov't to buy the PAK FA and put western avionics in it?
And when they have that project completed, sell the result to any other gov't that wants an F-35?
I know, bad politics. Better to have good politics, and end up with something inferior. Got that.
And when they have that project completed, sell the result to any other gov't that wants an F-35?
I know, bad politics. Better to have good politics, and end up with something inferior. Got that.
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
CS, do you have any idea how expensive is the PAK-FA and how much it would cost to change the avionics and operate it?
Can you explain to us how the PAK-FA would be a better choice than the F35 for the role that Canada intends it to have?
Given our total lack of knowledge about complex systems such as DAS, can you povide us with reasons as to why the PAK-FA would outperform the F35?
Given the recently proven combat superiority (let's say since the F15 and F16 are operational) of western fighters against russian jets, what makes you think the PAK-FA kicks ass that much?
Can you explain to us how the PAK-FA would be a better choice than the F35 for the role that Canada intends it to have?
Given our total lack of knowledge about complex systems such as DAS, can you povide us with reasons as to why the PAK-FA would outperform the F35?
Given the recently proven combat superiority (let's say since the F15 and F16 are operational) of western fighters against russian jets, what makes you think the PAK-FA kicks ass that much?
- Colonel Sanders
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
- Location: Over Macho Grande
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
You're right - it's not even worth doing a comparison, because we all know russian stuff is all junk. This is why whenever a western astronaut wants to go into space, he has to ride a russian rocket.
If we agree with your opinion that all russian stuff is junk, why would we need a good airplane anyways?
If we agree with your opinion that all russian stuff is junk, why would we need a good airplane anyways?
Last edited by Colonel Sanders on Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Beefitarian
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6605
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
- Location: A couple of meters away from others.
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
No one said that Russian stuff is junk. Your suggestion of a RCAF PAKFA with western hardware is beyond stupid. Stop trolling.Colonel Sanders wrote:You're right - it's not even worth doing a comparison, because we all know russian stuff is all junk. This is why whenever a western astronaut wants to go into space, he has to ride a russian rocket.
If we agree with your opinion that all russian stuff is junk, why would we need a good airplane anyways?
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
I do not have the correct union card for working at LM.To work there you need a Phd from Purdue,Emery-Riddle,UND or been a member of the Von Braun rocketeers.trampbike wrote:I hope LM hired you for some consulting about R&D and advanced technology applications. If they did not, they don't know what they are missing, so please call them and offer your services.2R wrote: The F-35 would not be able to fly up the Volga with impunity.Inspite of the advertised stealth capabilities it is just another target to an upgraded detection system.
- Colonel Sanders
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
- Location: Over Macho Grande
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
I guess Sukhoi is beyond stupid, too then.Your suggestion of a RCAF PAKFA with western hardware is beyond stupid
http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php ... iew&id=253
What's the name of your fighter jet manufacturing company, frosti?Western avionics, guidance pods and weapons can be fitted optionally
- Shiny Side Up
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5335
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Group W bench
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
To be technical, its been the French and the Israelis who have been busy comming up with western avionics suites to be retrofitted to Russian aircraft. Then again, these two have always had that "like we care what you think" advantage when it comes to the manufacture of war machines and their sale and distribution. Unlike Canada who likes to maintain a pleasent facade when it comes to what we make in this regard. Unfortunante, obviously there's a market we could tap there, though I suppose when it comes to defense our primary goal is to play nice with our friends to the south. After all, wouldn't be the first time we bought stuff that didn't meet our needs to make them happy.I guess Sukhoi is beyond stupid, too then.
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
CS,
Please tell me how the logistical chain would work with a Russian airplane?? Don't forget to include contingency planning like the possibility for Russia to use this as political leverage against us (ie: If you don't give us X piece of land, you will not get any parts for your airplanes anymore).
Please tell me how the logistical chain would work with a Russian airplane?? Don't forget to include contingency planning like the possibility for Russia to use this as political leverage against us (ie: If you don't give us X piece of land, you will not get any parts for your airplanes anymore).
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
I guess it would be harder to get parts for a SU-30 than, say, a particular 3-engine search and rescue helicopter which is made in the West...
Interesting, the SU-30 can do 3000 KM with "internal fuel" and it has 2 engines and 2 seats. How far can an F35 go, say, over the Arctic on one engine...
Somebody listen to Hedley cough Colonel Sanders - he is actually making sense.
"I have decided to buy a new car. Chevrolet says they will build exactly what I want in 2015 but I can run my old POS beater until then, I'll even give them a huge down-payment now, just to be sure I get the colour I want. I decided that buying a 2012 BMW right now makes no sense because there might be a labour problem and I won't be able to get parts from Germany. Besides, the MW radio won't work over here."
Did I get that right?
Interesting, the SU-30 can do 3000 KM with "internal fuel" and it has 2 engines and 2 seats. How far can an F35 go, say, over the Arctic on one engine...
Somebody listen to Hedley cough Colonel Sanders - he is actually making sense.
"I have decided to buy a new car. Chevrolet says they will build exactly what I want in 2015 but I can run my old POS beater until then, I'll even give them a huge down-payment now, just to be sure I get the colour I want. I decided that buying a 2012 BMW right now makes no sense because there might be a labour problem and I won't be able to get parts from Germany. Besides, the MW radio won't work over here."
Did I get that right?
- Hawkerflyer
- Rank 5
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:50 pm
- Location: Here today, gone tomorrow
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
RCAF flying Russian equipment?! That'll be the day.
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
Oh boy, here we go with the one engine thing again..... How about you do some research of Western 5th engine reliability and technology vs that of two Russian made Saturn engines. Results will surprise you. Let me know when Russia fields a 5th gen engine that has over 10k hours on it. Don't let facts get in the way of your obvious obsession of video-game ruski fighter jets. Russia has some catching up to do to Lockheed Martin and Boeing.xsbank wrote: Interesting, the SU-30 can do 3000 KM with "internal fuel" and it has 2 engines and 2 seats. How far can an F35 go, say, over the Arctic on one engine...
P&W's F135 Engine Exceeds 20,000 Hours Powering the F-35 14 Feb 2012
http://www.asdnews.com/news-40979/P&W_s ... e_F-35.htm
"Pratt & Whitney's F135 engine – exclusively powering Lockheed Martin's fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II – exceeded 20,000 total engine hours while powering the fleet of F-35 flight test aircraft, including 17,700 ground test hours and 2,500 flight test hours. This marks yet another milestone for Pratt & Whitney and its partners. Pratt & Whitney is a United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX) company.
"The F135-powered F-35 had an extraordinary 2011 in flight test, completing nearly 1,000 flights and powering the successful STOVL shipboard trials, and it is on track for an even better 2012," said Bennett Croswell, president of Military Engines, Pratt & Whitney...."
- Colonel Sanders
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
- Location: Over Macho Grande
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
Two ways:how the logistical chain would work with a Russian airplane?
1) you buy a crapload of spares with the original purchase. A huge stockpile of them. You can buy a boatload of parts for what one F35 is going to end up costing. What did an F22 end up costing - a third of a BILLION dollars, per unit?
2) Some parts are perishable, so get the drawings so that you can make your own. Everyone has forgotten that once upon a time, Canada licence-built the F-86 and F-104. Yes, in Canada. I have faith that we could get back to where we were again, in the 1950's, with some work.
I know that this option is politically unfeasible, so it is doomed to failure, regardless of it's merits. Apparently it is so ridiculous, it doesn't even deserve consideration.
And that's a problem that a lot of us have, with the F35. We are told that we are so stupid to even look at any other options, because it's the only aircraft that will do the job, regardless of it's eventual cost, delayed delivery dates, or limited capabilities.
Western turbine engines never fail. Got that. A lot of my father's friends died when their turbine engines failed in their F-86's and F-104's. Glad to know we have that problem solved.here we go with the one engine thing again
Remember Jake Mulhall? He died when his engine failed during a maintenance test flight at Cold Lake. He ejected by the book, but his trajectory carried him into the fireball, and that was the end of Jake.
Before your time, I guess. And before western turbine engines stopped failing.
Last edited by Colonel Sanders on Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5868
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
frosti wrote:Oh boy, here we go with the one engine thing again..... How about you do some research of Western 5th engine reliability and technology vs that of two Russian made Saturn engines. Results will surprise you. Let me know when Russia fields a 5th gen engine that has over 10k hours on it. Don't let facts get in the way of your obvious obsession of video-game ruski fighter jets. Russia has some catching up to do to Lockheed Martin and Boeing.xsbank wrote: Interesting, the SU-30 can do 3000 KM with "internal fuel" and it has 2 engines and 2 seats. How far can an F35 go, say, over the Arctic on one engine...
P&W's F135 Engine Exceeds 20,000 Hours Powering the F-35 14 Feb 2012
http://www.asdnews.com/news-40979/P&W_s ... e_F-35.htm
"Pratt & Whitney's F135 engine – exclusively powering Lockheed Martin's fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II – exceeded 20,000 total engine hours while powering the fleet of F-35 flight test aircraft, including 17,700 ground test hours and 2,500 flight test hours. This marks yet another milestone for Pratt & Whitney and its partners. Pratt & Whitney is a United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX) company.
"The F135-powered F-35 had an extraordinary 2011 in flight test, completing nearly 1,000 flights and powering the successful STOVL shipboard trials, and it is on track for an even better 2012," said Bennett Croswell, president of Military Engines, Pratt & Whitney...."
Like he is going to say "our engine is a POS"
Frosti, how about posting some comments on F 35 engine reliability from independent sources ?
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
Yeah, that "one engine thing again." Tell me it doesn't matter that we will send our guys waaay up north on one only?
Just curious, but what part of "it doesn't work yet," and the hours are on "test engines" don't you get? The F35, even the dumbed-down simple model we are buying isn't being built yet and they can't even say when it will be.
Look back on how many Hornets have been lost with their 2 engines and their mature design and tell me you don't think its a huge risk putting our guys in these unproven light singles?
Aren't we supposed to go to tender whenever our government goes out to spend (my) our money? Did that happen? Drink some more Koolaid and let's spend the kickbacks like Ornge did.
The program stinks.
Just curious, but what part of "it doesn't work yet," and the hours are on "test engines" don't you get? The F35, even the dumbed-down simple model we are buying isn't being built yet and they can't even say when it will be.
Look back on how many Hornets have been lost with their 2 engines and their mature design and tell me you don't think its a huge risk putting our guys in these unproven light singles?
Aren't we supposed to go to tender whenever our government goes out to spend (my) our money? Did that happen? Drink some more Koolaid and let's spend the kickbacks like Ornge did.
The program stinks.
- Colonel Sanders
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
- Location: Over Macho Grande
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
See? Regardless of it's merits, it is not an option because people don't want the best equipment.RCAF flying Russian equipment?! That'll be the day.
- Shiny Side Up
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5335
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Group W bench
Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant
There is also another solution. Unlike the Americans, the Russians have long gotten used to the idea that people are going to copy and rip off their airplanes. The Chinese have been doing it for a long time, and the Russians didn't really give them a hard time about it since they invented the idea. What that means is that there are other sources of Russian airplanes, and parts besides, well, Russia. China being the most obvious, where they are also partnering with Russia already to build Sukhois, or whatever name they will eventually give their copy. Less obvious is India, who have been purchasing and operating a large fleet of Russian aircraft. One should note that these are only the two largest players. Maybe we should make India some sort of deal to train pilots over here in exchange for some Sukhois... Should we mention that Boeing has been dallying with joint projects with Sukhoi? So much for national pride being the biggest driver here.Colonel Sanders wrote:Two ways:how the logistical chain would work with a Russian airplane?
1) you buy a crapload of spares with the original purchase. A huge stockpile of them. You can buy a boatload of parts for what one F35 is going to end up costing. What did an F22 end up costing - a third of a BILLION dollars, per unit?
2) Some parts are perishable, so get the drawings so that you can make your own. Everyone has forgotten that once upon a time, Canada licence-built the F-86 and F-104. Yes, in Canada. I have faith that we could get back to where we were again, in the 1950's, with some work.
One should also remember that The US has been operating their own small fleet of MIGs for quite a while, even during the depths of the cold war if you had enough money you could aquire Russian hardware one way or another.
Just a thought.