* AvCanada's Home Page * Photo Gallery * Topsites *Weather * Media Kit
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:53 pm



All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 967 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ... 39  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:11 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm
Posts: 362
Location: YEGish
Big Pistons Forever wrote:
There has also been no discussion about F 35 specific infrastructure costs, which could again become another hidden but nonetheless real cost


A necessary cost. Putting brand new fighter aircraft in 50 year old hangars that weren't designed for them is stupid.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:50 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 6:36 am
Posts: 22
Big Pistons Forever wrote:
Well it would seem that the extra cost of extending the existing CF18's would be solely due to the fact that Lockheed can't deliver the F 35 before the current end of service date. It is a fact that any existing gen 4.5 fighter could be delivered well before the CF18 retirement therefore I think it is entirely appropriate that when discussing the total program costs of the F35 buy, the costs of a further CF 18 extension should be applied.


Well using that logic why don't we factor into the cost of the F35 things like the salaries of pilots and techs? And since bases like Cold Lake and Bagotville exist solely to support fighter operations, why don't we include the costs of running those bases as well? I'm sure anybody with a basic understanding of accounting could inflate the price even further. We don't use that sort of logic because it's unreasonable. There's a cost of doing business in here somewhere.

No matter what we're flying in 2017, or whenever the F35 gets here, flying fighters is going to cost money. Putting it on one balance sheet, or another is not going to change anything.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:47 pm 
Online
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Posts: 4184
Location: West Coast
Banger wrote:
Big Pistons Forever wrote:
Well it would seem that the extra cost of extending the existing CF18's would be solely due to the fact that Lockheed can't deliver the F 35 before the current end of service date. It is a fact that any existing gen 4.5 fighter could be delivered well before the CF18 retirement therefore I think it is entirely appropriate that when discussing the total program costs of the F35 buy, the costs of a further CF 18 extension should be applied.


Well using that logic why don't we factor into the cost of the F35 things like the salaries of pilots and techs?


Because any aircraft we buy is going to obviously require pilots and techs. It is Only if we buy the F 35, that we have to spend the extra money to extend the CF 18.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:12 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:35 am
Posts: 165
I scrolled back 10 pages, so not sure if its been posted or not,

but go onto youtube and check out the carrier trails... like it or not, its an impressive piece of kit.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:24 am 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Posts: 3869
Location: left coast
As Yogi bear says "It is Deja vu all over again"
Anyone in procurement should look at the General Dynamics/McDonnel Douglas A-12 project.
The F-35 project was really just a trap to catch foreign spies.

The real weapon systems that will win any future air conflict are still as secret as the Aurora :mrgreen: :mrgreen:



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:42 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 2165
Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty
2R wrote:
As Yogi bear says "It is Deja vu all over again"
Anyone in procurement should look at the General Dynamics/McDonnel Douglas A-12 project.
The F-35 project was really just a trap to catch foreign spies.

The real weapon systems that will win any future air conflict are still as secret as the Aurora :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Not to be a nit picker but that would be Yogi Berra. One was a baseball manager, the other was a cartoon bear. :mrgreen:



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:51 am 
Online
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm
Posts: 1808
Here I fixed it for you but not to nit pick :D
shitdisturber wrote:
Not to be a nit picker but that would be Yogi Berra. One was a baseball CATCHER, the other was a cartoon bear. :mrgreen:



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:19 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 2165
Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty
cdnpilot77 wrote:
Here I fixed it for you but not to nit pick :D
shitdisturber wrote:
Not to be a nit picker but that would be Yogi Berra. One was a baseball CATCHER, the other was a cartoon bear. :mrgreen:


Sorry cdn but you didn't fix diddly, he was also the manager of both the Yankees and the Mets. I have no proof but I have some deeply recessed memory that suggests his famous mangled quote was from his days as a manager. (edit) Just found a reference, that one was from his playing days.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:32 pm 
Online
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm
Posts: 1808
He was more known as the greatest catcher of all time, but yes he did throw a few years of mediocre managing in there too...however, his quotes come from throughout his entire basebll career and it is often said that the cartoon bear was named after him which he was repeatedly upset about being called "yogi bear"....off topic but interesting none the less.

So do you think we will avtually take delivery of F-35's or go for something else?



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:50 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 2165
Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty
cdnpilot77 wrote:
He was more known as the greatest catcher of all time, but yes he did throw a few years of mediocre managing in there too...however, his quotes come from throughout his entire basebll career and it is often said that the cartoon bear was named after him which he was repeatedly upset about being called "yogi bear"....off topic but interesting none the less.

So do you think we will avtually take delivery of F-35's or go for something else?


I suspect now that the Japanese have ordered them we will get them eventually; whether or not that's a good thing is an entirely different matter. No matter how you cut and slice it; sixty-five is not enough and they've left no room for attrition either. There will be accidents, especially during the early years; the Hornet is a case in point. We lost several during the early 80's due to our unfamiliarity with their manoueverability and g loading. It's also inevitable that we're going to lose some due to engine failures caused by bird strikes. Back when I was a rampy on the Hornet we'd have probably on average a birdstrike a week during prime bird season. If you take said bird up the intake of a single engine aircraft you get an ejection, just like the guys in the Hawk in Moose Jaw. If you're in the Arctic far from civilization, you're probably going to die before anybody gets to you; that's just the way it is! McKay can guarantee all he wants that there won't be engine failures; but I did my time wearing blue, they're going to happen, for any number of potential reasons!



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:00 pm 
Online
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm
Posts: 1808
I think you are Bang on! I wish it weren't true though, there has to be a better option, it just hasn't been thought of yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:28 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Posts: 5903
Location: History
I can't believe it took 21 pages before this one could get derailed into a productive discussion.

_________________
No, I did not get a well deserved forum ban, I got a job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:34 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Posts: 2010
Location: CYBG
shitdisturber wrote:
We lost several during the early 80's due to our unfamiliarity with their manoueverability and g loading.


Manoeuvrability and g loading are very similar to the Hornet's. The F-15/16/18 series was a novelty, in terms of manoeuvrability because they were the result of John Boyd's studies about just that. No plane before then were built the way these were/are built using the principles preached by Boyd. Yes, there will be other challenges (the Helmet being one), but with today's simulators, I don't think we're going to lose as many JSF as Hornets.


shitdisturber wrote:
If you take said bird up the intake of a single engine aircraft you get an ejection, just like the guys in the Hawk in Moose Jaw. If you're in the Arctic far from civilization, you're probably going to die before anybody gets to you; that's just the way it is! McKay can guarantee all he wants that there won't be engine failures; but I did my time wearing blue, they're going to happen, for any number of potential reasons!


Are you really comparing that shitty Adour engine to the P&W F135? You can't even compare it to the Hornet's engines. They were designed and built 30 years apart.

I agree, they will fail. It's designed by a human, built by a human, maintained by a human and operated by a human. It will eventually fail. However, I believe their fail rate will be much lower than what we are used to. In the end, it's risk management. How many catastrophic engine failures did we get in the last 30+ years? Pretty much everybody I know had to shut down and engine at one point or another, however had it been the only engine, you can bet we would have milked that engine all the way to a place to land or punch out safely.

As far as not having contingency planning for attrition, well, the line will be opened for many years after we buy them. I am sure that when the needs come to get new airframe, we will be able to buy more.

In the end, the JSF is great for us. It brings expertise and technology in Canada, by having companies building parts and we get a cut on every JSF that is sold, being a participant nation. If we were to pull out of the program now, we get off that wagon and get nothing, when we decide to buy it again in 5 years (because it is the plane we need)


_________________
Going for the deck at corner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:48 pm 
Online
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Posts: 4184
Location: West Coast
AuxBatOn wrote:
shitdisturber wrote:
We lost several during the early 80's due to our unfamiliarity with their manoueverability and g loading.


Manoeuvrability and g loading are very similar to the Hornet's. The F-15/16/18 series was a novelty, in terms of manoeuvrability because they were the result of John Boyd's studies about just that. No plane before then were built the way these were/are built using the principles preached by Boyd. Yes, there will be other challenges (the Helmet being one), but with today's simulators, I don't think we're going to lose as many JSF as Hornets.


shitdisturber wrote:
If you take said bird up the intake of a single engine aircraft you get an ejection, just like the guys in the Hawk in Moose Jaw. If you're in the Arctic far from civilization, you're probably going to die before anybody gets to you; that's just the way it is! McKay can guarantee all he wants that there won't be engine failures; but I did my time wearing blue, they're going to happen, for any number of potential reasons!


Are you really comparing that shitty Adour engine to the P&W F135? You can't even compare it to the Hornet's engines. They were designed and built 30 years apart.

I agree, they will fail. It's designed by a human, built by a human, maintained by a human and operated by a human. It will eventually fail. However, I believe their fail rate will be much lower than what we are used to. In the end, it's risk management. How many catastrophic engine failures did we get in the last 30+ years? Pretty much everybody I know had to shut down and engine at one point or another, however had it been the only engine, you can bet we would have milked that engine all the way to a place to land or punch out safely.

As far as not having contingency planning for attrition, well, the line will be opened for many years after we buy them. I am sure that when the needs come to get new airframe, we will be able to buy more.

In the end, the JSF is great for us. It brings expertise and technology in Canada, by having companies building parts and we get a cut on every JSF that is sold, being a participant nation. If we were to pull out of the program now, we get off that wagon and get nothing, when we decide to buy it again in 5 years (because it is the plane we need)


Nobody is disputing the amazing technology and capability the F 35 represents, the issue in my mind is can we afford it. There is only so much money to go around and I think we are spending a disproportionate amount on one capability, especially when there is so little cost certainty in the program. F35 program cost escalation will come out of other re-equipment programs and that will effect the overall capability of the CF. It is past time we started talking about a plan B and that has to start with how much total procurement money can we realistically spend on the F35 program and what is the money PNR.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:33 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Posts: 2010
Location: CYBG
Big Pistons Forever wrote:
Nobody is disputing the amazing technology and capability the F 35 represents, the issue in my mind is can we afford it. There is only so much money to go around and I think we are spending a disproportionate amount on one capability, especially when there is so little cost certainty in the program. F35 program cost escalation will come out of other re-equipment programs and that will effect the overall capability of the CF. It is past time we started talking about a plan B and that has to start with how much total procurement money can we realistically spend on the F35 program and what is the money PNR.


The JSF, overall, is the cheapest solution.


_________________
Going for the deck at corner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:47 pm 
Online
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Posts: 4184
Location: West Coast
AuxBatOn wrote:

The JSF, overall, is the cheapest solution.


On what information are you basing that statement on ?



Last edited by Big Pistons Forever on Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:52 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 5280
Big Pistons Forever wrote:
AuxBatOn wrote:

The JSF, overall, is the cheapest solution.


On what information are you basing that statement one ?


The detailed cost analysis provided by the Conservatives.

No wait, it couldn't be that because they still haven't provided one....



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:58 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Posts: 2010
Location: CYBG
Big Pistons Forever wrote:
AuxBatOn wrote:

The JSF, overall, is the cheapest solution.


On what information are you basing that statement one ?


LRIP 4 F-35A cost 125M$ a piece. We are buying Block 3 aircraft, which should put us under the 100M$ price tag. Production increase=price decrease.

The Super Hornet would cost us 130M$ a piece. That's what Australia paid for the airframes. That's not including training and maintenance.

The Rafale would be around the same price, 125M$. Then you have to increase maintenance cost since the supply line is across the ocean.

The Typhoon was bought for 140M$ by Germany in 2009. The cost of the Typhoon is currently increasing.

So, even if the price of the airframe alone is 50M$ more expensive than what the government says it will be (75M$), we are better off buying the JSF over any 4.5 Generation airframe. Other airframes will not give us economical and technological benefits the JSF will bring us.

Rockie: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro- ... it-eng.asp


_________________
Going for the deck at corner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:23 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 5280
You should testify before the US Congress and Senate. They're pretty worried and would benefit greatly from your reassurance that the costs are in fact known and completely under control. Send them that link before you do though so they have the proper information to work from.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:25 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 2165
Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty
AuxBatOn wrote:


As far as not having contingency planning for attrition, well, the line will be opened for many years after we buy them. I am sure that when the needs come to get new airframe, we will be able to buy more.



How many of the Hornets that we lost for one reason or another were replaced, even though the line was open? If you're unsure, I can tell you; that'd be NONE! If you're making an argument in favour of something you should at least use reasonable statements as part of your arguments.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:50 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 11:17 am
Posts: 680
has no one been listening kill ratio is where it is at when it comes to fighter aircraft always has been always will be .

87to 1 f22 for 45to 1 f35 18 to 25to 1 for f18 missle loading giving the variable and of course the proficiency of pilot.


quick history lesson what eventually suppressed the luftwaffe over germany before dday ? massive # day after day massive overwhemling bombers covered by p51 mustangs allowed the bomber command to wreck havoc on german industry . fuel and other war making materials .


canada needs the fighters yes but i would also feel more comfortable sitting as we are on the biggest pile of natural resources ,in the 2nd largest land mass with more numbers alot more in fact. could we not impose a 5 $a barrel export tax on oil to the us so that we can cover the cost of the new fighter program and have several hundred fighter jets ? at 2 million barrels a day we would have it paid for in spades pronto . check 6 have a safe new year and 2012



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:28 pm 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:52 pm
Posts: 1377
Location: Over there.
oldncold wrote:
canada needs the fighters yes but i would also feel more comfortable sitting as we are on the biggest pile of natural resources ,in the 2nd largest land mass with more numbers alot more in fact. could we not impose a 5 $a barrel export tax on oil to the us so that we can cover the cost of the new fighter program and have several hundred fighter jets ? at 2 million barrels a day we would have it paid for in spades pronto . check 6 have a safe new year and 2012


Great idea, however we have this funny little thing called NAFTA that prevents us from imposing tariffs on stuff going to our "partners" in the US - particularly on oil...


_________________
Come with me if you want to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:21 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:03 pm
Posts: 617
Location: CANADA
AuxBatOn wrote:
As far as not having contingency planning for attrition, well, the line will be opened for many years after we buy them. I am sure that when the needs come to get new airframe, we will be able to buy more.

Don't count on that. We lost 1 of 15 Cormorant SAR helicopters and no replacement was ever considered. Same goes for all the E/H model Hercs that we have lost over the years. Heck - they're still making/refurbing Sea Kings and no replacements have been sought for them over the years either.

My point - we will be lucky to get 65 jets, don't plan on getting any more. My advice to the plastic F.A.G. community - take it easy with the fleet you have (ie don't screw around on your first operational solo mission and don't turn your landing lights on at night in a snow storm).



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:05 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Posts: 2010
Location: CYBG
shitdisturber wrote:

How many of the Hornets that we lost for one reason or another were replaced, even though the line was open? If you're unsure, I can tell you; that'd be NONE! If you're making an argument in favour of something you should at least use reasonable statements as part of your arguments.


The Hornet procurement 35 years ago and the JSF procurement today are 2 very different things. The mindset buying the JSF is different. I would not be surprised at all to see that in the contract (buying more later to take attrition into account), especially while they are still at peak production, when the aircraft are cheapest. After all, all you have to pay at that point is the airframe, since maintenance and training is already taken into account.

I think I have a good understanding of the fighter force... No need to school me on that.


_________________
Going for the deck at corner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:09 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Posts: 2010
Location: CYBG
SAR_YQQ wrote:
Don't count on that. We lost 1 of 15 Cormorant SAR helicopters and no replacement was ever considered. Same goes for all the E/H model Hercs that we have lost over the years. Heck - they're still making/refurbing Sea Kings and no replacements have been sought for them over the years either.


We bought those aircraft in a sufficient number to account for attrition. Different ball game..

SAR_YQQ wrote:
(ie don't screw around on your first operational solo mission


Must have missed something. Are you talking about 2005 in Bagotville?

SAR_YQQ wrote:
don't turn your landing lights on at night in a snow storm).


Cheap shot. Read the accident report. The root cause was not having the landing light one at night in a snowstorm.


_________________
Going for the deck at corner


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 967 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ... 39  Next


All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], CFR, Driving Rain, eh3fifty, Exabot [Bot], kev994, nightbird, nopilot, rac007, spongebob, tired of the ground and 95 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

 
For questions/comments please send them to
webmaster@avcanada.ca


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this  forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as  quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a  topic or post is inappropriate email us at support@avcanada.ca .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that  all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and  not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these  people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site.   

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
  When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal  behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.