F-35 looking more like white elephant

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
Tom H
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:29 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Tom H »

You sure about that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_ ... -18_Hornet
Yes I am, it's not in the DND upgrades
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouve ... 00&id=3317
Which matches the information I have been given and read

Mind you L-3 has done CBR replacement work for RAAF
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f18 ... ing-02816/
March 6/06: L-3 Communications MAS announces [PDF] a C$ 20 million ($17.6 million) contract from the Australian Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) for design and prototype work under the RAAF’s F/A-18 Centre Barrel Replacement (CBR) Program. The work related to this contract actually started on Dec 22/05 and is being performed in the L-3 MAS facilities in Mirabel, QB, Canada.
and
July 10/08: L-3 Communications MAS in Montreal, Canada announces a contract under Australia’s F/A-18 Centre Barrel Replacement (CBR) program, which is part of their Structural Refurbishment Project Phase 2 (SRP2). L-3 MAS began its SRP relationship with Australia’s DMO in 2002, and Australia’s initial CBR contract with was awarded in December 2005. The second phase of that CBR contract is worth up to USD$ 106 million, and was awarded n June 2008. 2007.
With the industrial benifits of the JSF that is exactly what will happen.
If the program happens, when the program happens and equivalents permitted most dollars leaving Canada by any comparison.

As opposed to keeping in country, spending the same or less for more aircraft and the continuing benefits.
You don't seem to understand when stealth is needed and for what.
A very good understanding of stealth and how it's used, but like England and France (Euro Fighter, Rafele) as well as other countries I don't see it as an extra cost priority given the missions and used anticipated. Especially considering the advances in Thermal tracking and Wake tracking that will mitigate any advantage it currently has.
I said professionals, not politicians, you are the one putting words in my mouth. The JSF was chosen by the military for the military.
No it was put in place with the Liberal government by the politicians to get our finger in the economics. The politicians, as with every military acquisition program from the Iltis to the Subs have dictated the process, selection, budget and numbers...same old, same old. Doesn't matter which party they all have done and continue to do it.
This whole acquisition program should have been blacked out from the media in the beginning, like the F117. Military weapon details should not be splattered all over the internet.
No...in an open and democratic society which we claim to be nothing regarding the reasons, process or costs should ever be held back from the people. While it sometimes feels like it we are not a third world dictatorship...which you seem to support by this comment.

In my opinion
Tom
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Colonel Sanders »

same old, same old
Indeed. My father flew the F-86 and CF-104 for the RCAF. He was
at Cold Lake at CEPE and was (briefly) the Chairman of the Cockpit
Configuration Committee for the "new" CF-104, which was to be
licensed built in Quebec (of course). For the newbies here - including
the ones in uniform - the -104 was Canada's front-line fighter, before
the CF-188.

My father looked at the cockpit, and had some ideas on how to
improve the ergonomics. But the costs and delays were horrendous
to even make the smallest changes.

So, he came back, and thinking he was being respectful of the taxpayer's
money, reported that Canada should take the -104 "as-is".

A Group Captain pulled him aside, and explained the facts of life to him.
There were hundreds of people who's jobs depended upon making these
changes, and it didn't matter if hundreds of millions of dollars of the
taxpayer's money was wasted in the process, the -104 needed to be
changed, and it really didn't matter what the changes were. It was all
about a bigger bureaucracy.

My father, revolted, resigned as the Chairman. The same Group Captain
told him that you don't get promoted in the RCAF by acting like that.
That was ok with him - he resigned his permanent commission in 1965
after getting all the good flying in on the -104.

I'm sure little has changed in the government bureaucracy since then.
Didn't I just read recently that a General's report said that the DND HQ
staff head count was out of control and needed paring back?

And you expect me to believe that the JSF was chosen on it's own
merits, free of any bureaucratic or political interference? How dumb
do you think we are?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5861
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

Colonel

You just need to drink a cold "Frosti" one to become a believer :smt040
---------- ADS -----------
 
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by xsbank »

I remember working for Provincial fire agency once, we were on a tight budget and no discretionary spending, until we would actually get a fire then everyone went crazy, even replacing office computers with the latest, because now it could all be "..charged to the fire!" Managers used to get their bonuses based on the size of their budget and if they were clever, they would spend every cent allotted for that year because if any were saved, their budgets were cut for the next year. When Bombardier bought Canadair from the gov'mint, they had a hell of a time with existing management whom were all used to working for a crown corporation, exactly for this reason.

If you really believe the bureaucracy cares one whit for the taxpayer, you have your head where the sun don't shine. The bureaucracy is all about pensions, pay and increasing its own size, full stop.

Rant Switch..........................OFF
---------- ADS -----------
 
Old Dog Flying
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:18 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Old Dog Flying »

Col S: Just a small point in your last post; the CF-104 was not a fighter. It was a low level bomber and recon a/c..nuclear strike..and that is all it was good for. It wasn't until the late '60s that it had a gun and never did have missiles
---------- ADS -----------
 
Tom H
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:29 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Tom H »

Old Dog Flying wrote:Col S: Just a small point in your last post; the CF-104 was not a fighter. It was a low level bomber and recon a/c..nuclear strike..and that is all it was good for. It wasn't until the late '60s that it had a gun and never did have missiles
I believe you are mistaken on a couple points here:
http://canadianstarfighterassociation.o ... rcraft.htm

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/equ ... er-eng.asp
(you can see the air to air systems in some of the photos)

The confusion comes from the US and other use of the aircraft and Canadian.
As you can see the Canadian 104 (CL 90) was equipped with the "gun" (except all the 2 seaters, none had the gun) and was used earlier with air to air missiles and retained the capability.

But its main roles in Canada were reconnaissance and tactical (nuclear at one time) strike.

That said there are a few guys around our museum that were Zip drivers that would be surprised to hear it wasn't a good fighter! Several here were instructors at 417 Sqn when they were the OTU and taught fighter tactics.

While not their primary NATO role, in the right hands, they laid a lickin on a lot of other aircraft and even the "18"s during the transition.

In the US it was conceived and built as a point defense fighter/day fighter, in Canada we did something it wasn't designed for. (how unusual)

Tom
---------- ADS -----------
 
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by frosti »

xsbank wrote:You think that's funny, eh? You have a funny sense of humour. You think there's a magical pot of money that exists only to buy militaria? Perhaps when you get your first cancer and you can't see the specialist for 4 months, while you wait you can fall back on your special sense of humour, then visit the closest military base and watch your wonderful jets fly just to pass the time - maybe you'll get it then.
Sorry, but I have had family members with cancerous medical issues that had to wait for treatment. Not once did I place blame on the defence budget on their ailments, I'm not that naive or ignorant.
Colonel Sanders wrote:
same old, same old
And you expect me to believe that the JSF was chosen on it's own
merits, free of any bureaucratic or political interference? How dumb
do you think we are?


So what IF it was chosen solely because of political reasons? You are going to do what about it, whine on internet forums? :smt014
A very good understanding of stealth and how it's used, but like England and France (Euro Fighter, Rafele) as well as other countries I don't see it as an extra cost priority given the missions and used anticipated.
The U/K will be ordering F35's to replace their already ageing and overpriced Typhoons http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03 ... _analysis/
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by trampbike »

Colonel Sanders wrote: And you expect me to believe that the JSF was chosen on it's own
merits, free of any bureaucratic or political interference?
No, we don't expect you to believe that, and I don't think anyone here, either neutral, for or against the F35 purchase, believes that.
I expect thought, that when someone wants to argue reasonably, he comes with arguments. I asked you 4 very simple questions (which were directly linked to the claims you made before), and yet you failed to even try to answer them.

Colonel Sanders wrote: How dumb
do you think we are?
I'd love to ask you the very same question.



EDIT: here is my post again, in case you do not want to have to search for it in the other pages of this thread:
Colonel Sanders wrote: They're going to blow billions of dollars we don't have, on junk that doesn't work, that we don't need anyways.
Could you please explain to us as to how you know that the F35 is junk and won't work, and why we don't need it?
I'm not a politician nor am I condescending. I'm just asking you to elaborate on what you propose. Is this really too much to ask?
So far you just act as thought the whole world is always stupid and against you (it might be close to the reality, but it's not exactly like that), so instead of arguing reasonnably, you prefer personal attacks and logical fallacies.
Pretty much everyone on this board knows you are much better than that.

Colonel Sanders wrote: And if you dare to question them, they screech and honk at you that you are too stupid and aren't even worthy enough to ask a question.
You are the one who doubts the authorities on the matter, therefore it would be normal to expect that you offer us some arguments, not some personnal attacks and half truths.

Colonel Sanders wrote: And even if they did allow you to ask a question, they wouldn't answer it on the grounds of "National Security".


You don't accept the fact that some information about military procurement might be classified for good reasons? I'm willing to read your explanations.

Colonel Sanders wrote: As taxpayers, we can only hope that the USA pulls the plug on the F35. Looks like they're moving in that direction.
Why do you think they're moving in that direction?
So far they only delayed the purchase of a tiny fraction of the airplanes they plan on buying.

I see you often point out everything that might seem bad for the F35. Things like the fact that Japan chose this airplane after an open competition, and said that the price was a big part of their decision, pass right through you don't they?

Tom H wrote: With those nice big flat surfaces...so much for stealth.
Nothing is perfectly stealth(y?). It's not either "I see you on my radar" or "damn you are invisible". It's much more like "If you are at X distance from me, I think I can see you".
For missions that need the maximum stealth, they'll carry what they need internally. For missions that need more armaments, they'll add pylons, which will indeed reduce the stealth(iness?), not negate totally the advantages of the design.



So CS, I'll try again to get you to elaborate. Previously, I asked you this:
trampbike wrote: 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? Notice how I don't say that you are stupid and that it is obvious that the F35 would be cheaper. I'm really just asking

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? Notice how I don't say you don't know crap and that there is no way a Russian jet could do the job. I'm really just asking.

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? Notice I don't say you never heard anything about military jets and that the systems of the F35 make it the best fighter in world. I'm really just asking.

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? Notice I don't say russian stuff is junk, I'm just pointing out that last decades combat records show a clear Western fighters domination. Is it the pilot, the airplanes or both? I don't even go there. I'm really just asking.

See, I really just want to read a good debate (my position on the F35 neither for it nor against it, my position is that we probably just can't know enough to have a clear cut opinion about it), and I know you are smart enough and have the knowledge to contribute to such a debate.

Thanks in advance

Olivier Savaria
PPL
2/3 of a meteorology degree
177h TT, on 6 different types of low performance SE airplanes
Most manoeuverable airplane ever flown: Grumman AA1c
Fire breathing dragon taildragger flown: Aeronca Champ :lol:


(see what I did there, I don't even hide behind a screen name (see here, I'm not even implying that you do that, I know very well who you are and everyone knows it too on this forum, partly because you make sure everyone hears about you and see picture of your nice inverted takeoff, partly because you contribute a lot to the forum and help a lot of people improve their flying skills), and I do not pretend I'm an awesome pilot with tons of experience.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Olivier: I know nothing about aviation compared to you. Nobody gives
a sh1t what anyone says about the F35 here, so why bother?

All you guys who love spending big money making big bureaucracies
have very bright futures in the government, I am sure.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Hawkerflyer
Rank 5
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

Post by Hawkerflyer »

I bet Russia wants Canada to buy the F35. :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
 
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by frosti »

Hawkerflyer wrote:I bet Russia wants Canada to buy the F35. :lol:
Ya, Russia needs to test their new ejection seats, looks like Airshows are too far apart to get enough data. :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Tom H
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:29 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Tom H »

frosti
The U/K will be ordering F35's to replace their already ageing and overpriced Typhoons http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03 ... _analysis/
The point you missed was that Britain, France, India and other do not see stealth as a priority..my point.

As far as the RAF, well as my friends at the RAF Museum put it..."One more budget cut and the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight will be the RAF."

At the rate the current British Government is cutting programs you can bet the F-35 is on the block.

Trampbike
Nothing is perfectly stealth(y?). It's not either "I see you on my radar" or "damn you are invisible". It's much more like "If you are at X distance from me, I think I can see you".
For missions that need the maximum stealth, they'll carry what they need internally. For missions that need more armaments, they'll add pylons, which will indeed reduce the stealth(iness?), not negate totally the advantages of the design.
I'm very familiar with stealth which is why I wrote...
A very good understanding of stealth and how it's used, but like England and France (Euro Fighter, Rafele) as well as other countries I don't see it as an extra cost priority given the missions and use anticipated. Especially considering the advances in Thermal tracking and Wake tracking that will mitigate any advantage it currently has.
In a first strike scenario I believe stealth is very important...but we are not aggressors and nor should we be. We support NATO and the UN within our missions, key word is of course support. Allies, the US, have the Stealth Capability and the Cruise missile systems to deal with first strike and there are other better means to deal with modern SAM systems and future systems using the under development sophisticated thermal tracking and wake tracking will take the bulk of stealth advantage away in any event.

IMO
Tom

For our missions I do not see it as a priority especially at the increased cost.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Tom H
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:29 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Tom H »

BTW and for the record

It's not the F-35 I have problem with per se'.

I am sure with Lockheed's skill and reputation it will, in the goodness of time (and money), turn out to be a great aircraft for it's intended mission.

But I firmly believe that with our traditional mission, our overall needs and the need to create a larger fleet that it is the wrong aircraft for Canada and we cannot get enough of them.

Tom
---------- ADS -----------
 
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by xsbank »

"I'm not that naive or ignorant." Apologize or face the wrath of Sully (you twat).



I don't know where you people think the money comes from that buys this stuff but there's only one pot. In a proper, accountable government, they are supposed to justify their expenditures and explain why some things are funded and others are not. Those without foreheads, like a certain poster here, swallow all this sleight of hand and downright fraud perpetrated on us tax-payers and make us feel somehow unpatriotic because we happen to think saving lives, both through the medical system and search and rescue are more important than buying gold-plated toys we can't afford and don't fit the missions we make them do.
---------- ADS -----------
 
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by frosti »

Tom H wrote:The point you missed was that Britain, France, India and other do not see stealth as a priority..my point.
If they don't need stealth, that is their priority. Ours is different.
In a first strike scenario I believe stealth is very important...but we are not aggressors and nor should we be. For our missions I do not see it as a priority especially at the increased cost.
Stealth is not just for first strike and Tomahawks can't destroy everything. Mobile SAM sites are the greatest threat and Russia will sell them to anyone with enough money. Our mission is always changing, gone are the days of us wearing blue UN helmets. You can bet that the RCAF will participate in any further UN/NATO conflicts like Libya for decades to come.
Tom H wrote:But I firmly believe that with our traditional mission, our overall needs and the need to create a larger fleet that it is the wrong aircraft for Canada and we cannot get enough of them.
Again, gone are the days of the Canadian Peacekeeper, the Canadian public has to realize that. As far as quantity, the JSF line will be open for decades, there is nothing to say we won't order more of them as time goes on.
xsbank wrote:more important than buying gold-plated toys we can't afford and don't fit the missions we make them do.
Thank you for your opinion.
---------- ADS -----------
 
North Shore
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5602
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Straight outta Dundarave...

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by North Shore »

Again, gone are the days of the Canadian Peacekeeper, the Canadian public has to realize that.
Really? I think that the current semi-bellicose stance of our country is a product of the Government running it. IF the Government changes then the peacekeeping could be back in in a hurry. While we as a country have earned a lot of international respect through the bravery of our armed forces through two World Wars, and Korea, I'd like to think that we have gained more respect for our earnest peacekeeping efforts over the decades since..
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by trampbike »

Canada as a peacekeeper is sort of a myth.The founding of the myth is strong, with Pearson and the Suez crisis, but since a couple of decades, we can't say we are champions of the peace, that's for sure.

For example, since 1991, the Canadian contribution to peacekeeping never stopped falling, reaching to almost nothing at the beggining of Harper government.
http://www.cigionline.org/articles/2007/02/myth-canada-peacekeeper wrote: Canada's contribution to UN peacekeeping*
Area Troops Police Military observers
MINUSTAH Haiti 4 72 -
MONUC Democratic Republic of the Congo - - 9
UNAMI Iraq - - 1
UNDOF Golan Heights 3 - -
UNFYCIP Cyprus 1 - -
UNMIS Sudan 7 2 24
UNMIT East Timor - 6 -
UNOCI Ivory Coast - 5 -
UNTSO Middle East - - 7
Total 15 85 41
*As of Jan. 31, 2007
Total military personnel on UN peacekeeping operations
Jan., 2007: 72,784, Canada's contribution: 56 (0.077%)
Aug., 1991: 10,801, Canada's contribution: 1,149 (10.6%)
---------- ADS -----------
 
akoch
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 2:37 pm
Location: CYPK

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by akoch »

"Canada as a peacekeeper is sort of a myth".

Yes, and it is strongly nurtured for the internal consumtion. Seem to find a fair number of people who believe what the "TV says".
---------- ADS -----------
 
Old Dog Flying
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:18 pm

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Old Dog Flying »

TomH: You added a link that refutes my statement that The CF-104 was not used as a fighter with photos of the -104 at Kool Pool firing rockets. True the aircraft did fire rockets but they were CRV-7s , a 2.75" folding fin GROUND ATTACK unguided weapon...not something that we would use in a dog fight.

And on that subject I can recall being jumped by a pair of F-4s south of Karlesrua and the only way out of that was a half roll and pull...into cloud.

And I don't know of too many guys of the era that referred to themselves as Zipper pilots...that is a modern day kiddie expression.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: F-35 looking more like white elephant

Post by Colonel Sanders »

The F-104 was designed by Kelly Johnson in response to the USAF pilots complaining that the MiG-17 could fly higher and faster than their heavier North American F-86 Sabres.

Remember, everyone here says Russian stuff is junk, and they must be right.

Anyways, Kelly designed an airplane in the early 1950's that, at the time, could fly faster and higher than anything else. It didn't do anything else very well - like turn. It had an incredibly high wing loading. It was strictly a slash-and-run airplane. To try to do otherwise was guaranteed to get your @ss shot out of the air if the other guy had a clue. Ask the pilots of the two F-104's that were shot down by MiGs during the India-Pakistan war in 1971.

Remember, everyone here says Russian stuff is junk, and they must be right.

The F-104 and CF-104 had a marvellous M61 gatling gun - made a wonderful sound, with an incredible rate of fire.

Of course, the RCAF bought it and tried to make it into something it wasn't. This was a problem with the RCAF then, and is a problem with the RCAF now. They want one airframe to do everything, and when you try to do that, you end up with something hideously expensive that doesn't do anything very well. Every engineer learned that in the 1950's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel

but the RCAF still hasn't, as we can see them repeating the same mistake today, which is typical of people whom wish to remain ignorant of the lessons of history.

Anyways. Back to the -104, which was NOT intended by Kelly to be an all-weather bomber. But it had a radar which could read ground terrain pretty well - you could even spot other aircraft with it, sometimes - and it was proposed in the RCAF that the -104 could be used as an all-weather low-altitude nuclear strike aircraft.

Everybody laughed. Generals and admirals from all sorts of countries came to Canada and said it couldn't be done.

Guess who was the first -104 pilot to demonstrate, in actual IMC, the profile?

PS It involved aerobatics in cloud at low altitude. Go figure. Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose. See CanLii to learn why double jeopardy doesn't apply to administrative law in Canada.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Colonel Sanders on Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”