* AvCanada's Home Page * Photo Gallery * Topsites *Weather * Media Kit
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:07 pm



All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 967 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 39  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:19 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm
Posts: 362
Location: YEGish
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.


If we can afford to keep the CBC going year, after painful year, we can afford to field a fleet of F-35's. Everything else costs more and doesn't even come close to what the JSF has for tech. Hell, the F-22 is basically a 4.5gen fighter until it gets the F35's avionics.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:59 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am
Posts: 872
frosti wrote:
If we can afford to keep the CBC going year, after painful year, we can afford to field a fleet of F-35's.


Even though I agree with you on the F35 subject, I must say that this sort of false argument (or is "logical fallacy" more appropriate in this case? My english is not good enough to discern both) doesn't bring anything to the debate and reduces the credibility of your posts.


_________________
Think ahead or fall behind!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 3:51 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 5280
frosti wrote:
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.


If we can afford to keep the CBC going year, after painful year, we can afford to field a fleet of F-35's. Everything else costs more and doesn't even come close to what the JSF has for tech. Hell, the F-22 is basically a 4.5gen fighter until it gets the F35's avionics.


Nobody knows how much the F35's will cost except so far there doesn't seem to be an upper end. Lockheed doesn't even know so neither does the US DOD or US government. Since they don't know (and are pretty damned worried about it) it's impossible that the Canadian government would know either.

But we're supposed to believe frosti and AuxBatOn do?

I don't think so.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:44 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm
Posts: 362
Location: YEGish
trampbike wrote:
Even though I agree with you on the F35 subject, I must say that this sort of false argument (or is "logical fallacy" more appropriate in this case? My english is not good enough to discern both) doesn't bring anything to the debate and reduces the credibility of your posts.


The debate really is pointless. People will believe what they feel, not what facts and rational thought prove otherwise.



Like I've said before, the JSF outcome in Canada will not depend on what your average Canadian citizen thinks. With a Conservative majority we basically elected to buy the F35. I have a strange suspicion that those against the purchase are also still sour from last May.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:53 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 5280
Personally I'm against purchasing anything I don't know the cost of regardless of who the government is. I dare say if it were the Liberals you would be too, but for some reason because the Conservatives are in power it's A-OK.

AuxBatOn I think is just looking forward to a shiny new toy. In his position I might be too.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:19 pm 
Online
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm
Posts: 1802
Quote:
I have a strange suspicion that those against the purchase are also still sour from last May.


Couldn't be further from the truth, at least for me.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:53 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:10 am
Posts: 227
Location: Betelgeuse
It was the Liberals who originally brokered the deal for the F 35's, and it just happens to be the Conservatives who are in power to finalize the deal; it was the Liberal's who chose the F 35 and put our money into the project in order to secure some of the research and construction contracts, in order to create some jobs for Canadians out of the deal.

I don't really care what we buy at this point, but we need to buy something to replace our F 18's. For those who want nothing... you live in a lovely fantasy world and I hope the weather there is nice and that the skies are pink and filled with cotton candy clouds. For those arguing that we need to buy F 18's again because we have them now and the other planes are new and therefore scary... well, with that logic, I think we should buy Sabre's. We had them a long time ago, and they performed great. They can be had cheap and we know them. Of course, they are only single engine... maybe we need to start producing the CF 100 again. That has 2 engines, was made in Canada and it is a proven type.

God people... get a grip. We piss and moan in this country every time the government needs to spend money on the military, only to bitch about the fact our military has no capability when we need them... or that we depend upon the US for our sovereign defence and that we have no autonomy to make our own decisions in the world. You CAN'T have it both ways. The reason we are having to spend massive amounts of money on our military now is because it has been the budgetary whipping boy of the government for decades now... every government, Liberal and Conservative alike... and it is so damn run down that they are falling apart. We need new planes... NEW planes. We need new ships. We need new vehicles, and all the crap that comes with it. Every branch has received new equipment or is in the process of receiving new equipment. New ships are being built... not one of you is bitching about that. New trucks were bought... not a peep. The amount of griping over new planes has reached a point that it is just downright frustrating. Military doctrine... control the high ground. Since world war 2, that has meant the sky. Because everything on the ground and sea can be destroyed by a plane. Since I doubt any of us knows the exact (and secret) capabilities of any of these aircraft, none of us is an expert. If it is really this big of a deal to you, personally, join the military and get involved in the procurement process or, run for election and join the procurement process. But quit bitching. I hope that at the end of the day, we get something useful in a quantity large enough to do the job, at a fair price... unlike the EH 101 fiasco. A Helicopter so nice, we bought it twice... all over this kind of political bullshit.

I'm off to pour myself a drink.


_________________
My God, it’s full of stars!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:13 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

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

Nobody knows how much the F35's will cost except so far there doesn't seem to be an upper end. Lockheed doesn't even know so neither does the US DOD or US government. Since they don't know (and are pretty damned worried about it) it's impossible that the Canadian government would know either.

But we're supposed to believe frosti and AuxBatOn do?

I don't think so.


I'm basing my remarks on facts. Here they are again:

F-35 LRIP 4 airframe (with engine): 125M$
F/A-18E/F: 130M$
Rafale: 125M$
Eurofighter: 140M$

The first one is still in low rate initial production and the price is expected to reduce. The last 3 are what the planes were bought for. Like I said, even if the program is 170% the expected purchase price (75M$, not including inflation), we are still doing well, and that is not including the economic benefits of having the JSF in Canada (parts building, technology and returns when non-participant countries buy the JSF) and the obvious tactical advantage the JSF will being over the other 3.


_________________
Going for the deck at corner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:14 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 5280
I know what you're basing them on. Regarding those numbers as facts particularly where the F35 is concerned is where you're making the mistake. If those were in fact "facts" there would be no issue. That most definitely is not the case and you know it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:21 am 
Online
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Posts: 4180
Location: West Coast
AuxBatOn wrote:
Rockie wrote:

Nobody knows how much the F35's will cost except so far there doesn't seem to be an upper end. Lockheed doesn't even know so neither does the US DOD or US government. Since they don't know (and are pretty damned worried about it) it's impossible that the Canadian government would know either.

But we're supposed to believe frosti and AuxBatOn do?

I don't think so.


I'm basing my remarks on facts. Here they are again:

F-35 LRIP 4 airframe (with engine): 125M$
F/A-18E/F: 130M$
Rafale: 125M$
Eurofighter: 140M$

The first one is still in low rate initial production and the price is expected to reduce. The last 3 are what the planes were bought for. Like I said, even if the program is 170% the expected purchase price (75M$, not including inflation), we are still doing well, and that is not including the economic benefits of having the JSF in Canada (parts building, technology and returns when non-participant countries buy the JSF) and the obvious tactical advantage the JSF will being over the other 3.


Unit costs are a meaningless metric for comparison. The only true comparator is the total program cost over the life of the airframe ( usually calculated at 25 years). This includes all costs to own and operate the airplane and an estimate for the cost of airframe updates. A true understanding of total costs only comes with a mature airframe that has been in operational service for a number of years. Since this is obviously not the case for the F 35 what the final number will be for the F 35 will not be known until at least the 2020 time frame. Of note there has never been a new fighter development program where the costs projections during the aircraft development were significantly understated by the manufacturer. In the case of the Eurofighter the projected total cost of the aircraft when it was in the equivalent of the LRIP 4 stage of development turned out to be approximately half of what has turned out to be the actual costs now being experienced by air forces operating the type...........



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:45 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

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

Unit costs are a meaningless metric for comparison. The only true comparator is the total program cost over the life of the airframe ( usually calculated at 25 years). This includes all costs to own and operate the airplane and an estimate for the cost of airframe updates. A true understanding of total costs only comes with a mature airframe that has been in operational service for a number of years. Since this is obviously not the case for the F 35 what the final number will be for the F 35 will not be known until at least the 2020 time frame. Of note there has never been a new fighter development program where the costs projections during the aircraft development were significantly understated by the manufacturer. In the case of the Eurofighter the projected total cost of the aircraft when it was in the equivalent of the LRIP 4 stage of development turned out to be approximately half of what has turned out to be the actual costs now being experienced by air forces operating the type...........


Well, even for a mature fleet, it's impossible to know the real total program cost until you retire the airframe. Anything before are estimates.

The major difference between Eurofighter and JSF is the economy of scale. There are 471 Eurofighter orders, 300 are built to date (since 2003). The JSF production line will almost build 300 a year at peak production. This is where you save money.

Rockie: Those numbers are facts, you can look it up.


_________________
Going for the deck at corner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:48 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 5280
AuxBatOn wrote:
Rockie: Those numbers are facts, you can look it up.


Right. I can look up fairy tales and conspiracy theories too.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:55 am 
Offline
Rank 6
Rank 6

Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am
Posts: 437
If Avcanada had existed in the fifties, I bet this same argument would have been raging over the Arrow...

LnS.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:59 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Posts: 2010
Location: CYBG
Rockie wrote:
AuxBatOn wrote:
Rockie: Those numbers are facts, you can look it up.


Right. I can look up fairy tales and conspiracy theories too.


I don't think there is any point reasoning with you anymore....


_________________
Going for the deck at corner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:34 am 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am
Posts: 872
Rockie wrote:
AuxBatOn wrote:
Rockie: Those numbers are facts, you can look it up.


Right. I can look up fairy tales and conspiracy theories too.


Can you elaborate on how a real life contract between the US and LM is comparable to a fairy tale, or even worse, conspiracy theories?


_________________
Think ahead or fall behind!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:05 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 5280
Can you tell me how cost figures that are "looked up" can be factual when not even Lockheed knows how much the airplane's going to cost?

So they're "looked up"...BFD.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:46 am 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Posts: 3869
Location: left coast
Maybe we should just fly kites.Not those war kites that the Japanese used against the Portugese in 1638 or those early war kites designed by Cody.
If Canada cannot defend its borders against a realistic threat we might as well fly kites and spend the money on beer.
If we are not allowed to have A-10's,F-22's and weapons that would protect our sovereignty in the north we might as well fly kites while the Russian reassert their claims to the Artic.We can sit back and watch the Corporations and their lackies down south panic as the Chinese and Russians develop the Artic.
We could have nice picnics and kite flying contests while those with real weapons decide what to do with the Artic :wink: :wink:



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:50 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 6:36 am
Posts: 22
Mostly Harmless wrote:
I'm off to pour myself a drink.


You and me, both.

Some people love to argue for argument's sake. Nice post though, I think you hit the nail on the head.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:01 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 6:36 am
Posts: 22
AuxBatOn wrote:
I don't think there is any point reasoning with you anymore....


...SUPER DRINK-OFF!!!!

(ahem)

With all due respect Rockie, summarizing AuxBatOn's arguments and expertise with a one-liner like "he just wants a shiny new toy," is pretty shallow. It shows bias, and stubbornness. I know for a fact and can state that ABO's opinions are not ones based on selfishness.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:06 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm
Posts: 362
Location: YEGish
Rockie wrote:
AuxBatOn I think is just looking forward to a shiny new toy. In his position I might be too.


I highly doubt this considering the majority of CF35 pilots haven't even started college yet.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:58 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:03 pm
Posts: 617
Location: CANADA
AuxBatOn wrote:
Read the accident report.

Done - it's still not complete, just the initial "From the Investigator"
Quote:
The root cause was not having the landing light one at night in a snowstorm.

You're right, the root cause goes further into the training and experience of our drivers. The landing light and use of NVGs only further exacerbated the error chain that was bound to happen to someone.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:32 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Posts: 7566
Location: Over Macho Grande
US slows down on pricey F-35:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/26 ... hter-jets/

Quote:
OTTAWA — U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta confirmed Thursday that $488 billion U.S. in Pentagon budget cuts will affect his country’s plans to purchase the troubled F-35 joint strike fighter — which likely will threaten Canada’s timeline for acquiring the stealth fighter as well.


Quote:
Israel, concerned about the potential for delays in the project, has reportedly joined Australia and the U.S. navy in upgrading its current fleet of fighters.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:00 am 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:50 pm
Posts: 374
Location: Here today, gone tomorrow
US losing faith?

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/02/04/u-s-air-force-starts-its-plan-b-to-deal-with-f-35-delays-by-upgrading-f-16s-but-canada-still-without-one/

Opposition members in the Commons have failed to pry out details from Associated Defence Minister Julian Fantino of any plan the Canadian Forces/DND has to deal with delays in the delivery of the F-35.

Mr. Fantino has stuck to his pre-approved lines, which essentially state that Canada is monitoring the situation but that the F-35 program is proceeding as planned. There are no concerns at the Canadian end about F-35 delays as well as U.S. plans to slow down the arrival/purchase of the planes.

But in the U.S. and other countries that plan to operate the F-35, contingency plans are being put in place for the expected delays in the delivery of the stealth aircraft.

The U.S. Air Force confirmed Thursday it will move ahead with a $2.8 billion upgrade of about 350 of its aging F-16 multi-role fighter planes. According to reports that upgrade will help offset the F-35 delays and the Pentagon plan to slow down purchases of the joint strike fighter.

The idea behind the upgrade is to extend the service life of selected F-16 airframes. Other upgrades include advanced radar, sensors, cockpit display, electronic warfare and communications capabilities, according to Reuter’s news agency.

“We have worked through the implications of the delays in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program,” Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told a meeting of the Air Force Association. “And we have made a further commitment this year to modernize about 350 F-16s in the fleet going forward.”

The upgraded F-16s would receive active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.

“Overall, the program will run into the 2020s and have an estimated total cost of $2.8 billion,” a U.S. Air Force spokesperson said in an emailed reply to queries from Reuters about Donley’s remarks.

The Air Force will pick the “best of the fleet” to undergo the modernization for later-model Block 50 and some Block 40 F-16s, the email noted. The program is “scalable” based on the service’s fighter needs.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:17 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Posts: 3869
Location: left coast
Eventually,those in charge will come round to agree with my un-educated guess that the F-35 is not a war winner.

Canada could make good use of A-10's especially if modified to support SAR.
A limited production run under licence might also provide some work to help support the aviation manufacturing industry and allow for some of the recent grads from engineering schools to modify it for use in the high artic.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:55 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm
Posts: 362
Location: YEGish
2R wrote:
un-educated guess

Canada could make good use of A-10's....... to modify it for use in the high artic.


Uneducated is right. :lol: No one is stupid enough to modify aircraft designed for CAS and killing tanks to fly around the frozen arctic. Probably one of the dumbest things I've read here. :lol:

From my educated guess, I'm willing to bet we will be doing another airframe upgrade on our hornets. This should keep them flying until 2025 when all the F35's are operational and combat ready.



Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 967 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 39  Next


All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 300_hour_wonder, All DAY EVERY DAY, Baidu [Spider], Bajan Pilot, Bing [Bot], cdnpilot77, fish4life, flyer 1492, Justjohn, KenoraPilot, kmf.kenif, L-1011, martian, Rowdy, sky_hi, Spank-me, Whiskey25 and 111 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:  
cron
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.