The F-35 is not dead

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
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Rockie »

frosti wrote:How many engine failures has the CF18 had over the arctic? Not precautionary shutdowns, complete failures.
I don't know. Can you tell me how many of the 224 precautionary shutdowns would have resulted in a complete failure if they didn't have the option of shutting it down before it did?

There is also the extreme likelihood that the F-35's will be spending much more time over the arctic protecting Prime Minister Yosemite Sam's wet dream of maximum exploitation of arctic resources than the CF-18 has. I guess you haven't noticed the extremely expensive photo ops he's staged there with the Canadian Military since coming to office. Why do you suppose he's doing that?
---------- ADS -----------
 
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by frosti »

Rockie wrote:
frosti wrote:How many engine failures has the CF18 had over the arctic? Not precautionary shutdowns, complete failures.
I don't know. Can you tell me how many of the 224 precautionary shutdowns would have resulted in a complete failure if they didn't have the option of shutting it down before it did?
Lets stick to the arctic discussion here. How many of those 224 incidents happened north of the 65th? To go further, how many F-16s have been lost in the Arctic regions due to engine failure and no airfields around? The USAF and Norway have been operating them up north regularly so they probably have an idea. Furthermore, if they thought the F-16, and its less-reliable and highly dangerous single engine, was a liability in the north then why would they purchase another less-reliable and highly dangerous single engine fighter in the F35?
There is also the extreme likelihood that the F-35's will be spending much more time over the arctic protecting Prime Minister Yosemite Sam's wet dream of maximum exploitation of arctic resources than the CF-18 has. I guess you haven't noticed the extremely expensive photo ops he's staged there with the Canadian Military since coming to office. Why do you suppose he's doing that?
They are nothing more than photo ops. In reality there is no way an Air Force base will be set up north of Cold Lake. On the one side it is extremely expensive and secondly, Cold Lake has a hard time retaining people. Putting a permanent posting in the far north would result in mass-releases.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Diadem »

Rockie wrote:Abandoning an aircraft somewhere in southern Canada is very serious and we do have terrain that makes finding and rescuing the pilot challenging. But we at least have some resources in southern Canada to apply to the problem. Up in the high arctic we have none. The advantages of two engines in such an operating area with no hope of timely rescue should be plainly obvious to any layman much less a pilot.
That's not what I asked. I'm not comparing SAR in northern and southern Canada. Your opposition to the F-35 is based on it having one engine; SAR is another matter entirely, and one which stands completely separate from the issue of having one engine or two. I've been very explicit in the question I want you to answer, and so far you've completely avoided it. I'm going to ask one more time, and if you don't directly address the issue I'm raising I'm going to assume that you know I'm right and you're ignoring me so you don't have to concede the point. Here it is, one last time: Can aircraft crash for reasons other than engine failures? If so, could a twin-engine aircraft be just as susceptible to non-engine related issues which would cause it to crash in the Arctic? Should fighter pilots, whether they're operating the F-18 or F-35, be prepared for that eventuality or do you think that the "advantages of two engines" negate any possibility of a pilot ending up stranded in the Arctic? If you really think the only thing that would put a plane down in the far north is an engine failure, and you don't think the pilots are prepared for that situation regardless of the aircraft they fly, then I dare say it is you who has failed to understand the matter at hand.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Rockie »

frosti wrote:How many of those 224 incidents happened north of the 65th?
I don't know but I am wondering why that matters. Do you think an engine knows when it's north of 65 and somehow steels itself to not quit until it's further south? As for northern F-16's, the USAF in Alaska uses the one squadron of them as aggressors training the rest of the pacific air force. They stick close to home where there are plenty of SAR assets and you will not find them over the Beaufort Sea intercepting Russian aircraft. I've already addressed the differences between Canada and Norway. Please stop comparing Canada with Alaska and Norway in this context because they are nothing alike as I've pointed out numerous times.
frosti wrote:They are nothing more than photo ops. In reality there is no way an Air Force base will be set up north of Cold Lake.


I completely agree, but Harper is hell bent on exploiting northern resources thanks to the global warming he pretends doesn't exist. There will soon be a lot of traffic plying the Northwest Passage, and Harper is equally bent on exerting sovereignty up north to defend those resources. While there won't be an airbase up there, the F-35's along with the Navy and Army will be spending a lot more of their time up there. It would be nice if along with that increased activity there was also a capable SAR apparatus put in place, but we both know that isn't going to happen. So, what we will have is more single engine fighters spending a lot more of their time waaaayyy up north with no search and rescue to back them up.
Diadem wrote:Can aircraft crash for reasons other than engine failures? If so, could a twin-engine aircraft be just as susceptible to non-engine related issues which would cause it to crash in the Arctic? Should fighter pilots, whether they're operating the F-18 or F-35, be prepared for that eventuality or do you think that the "advantages of two engines" negate any possibility of a pilot ending up stranded in the Arctic?
1. Yes an airplane can crash for reasons other than an engine failure.
2. Yes a twin is just as susceptible to non-engine related issues which would cause a crash in the arctic.
3. Yes, fighter pilots must always be prepared for that eventuality.
4. No, two engines will never totally negate the possibility of a pilot ending up stranded in the arctic. What it will do though which seems frighteningly difficult to get across to you, is that it will almost eliminate the possibility that same pilot will be stranded in the arctic due to engine problems.

Why is that childishly simple concept so hard to understand?

By the way Diadem, I have nothing against single engine fighters. I do have a problem with operating them in the vast Canadian arctic hundreds of miles from the nearest little village and well over a thousand miles from the nearest search and rescue aircraft. I don't get how you failed to see that connection since I've only made it about a hundred times.
---------- ADS -----------
 
hoptwoit
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:43 am

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by hoptwoit »

There is so much information required for good decisions when it comes to picking a replacement to the CF 18. Much of it we will never see for various reasons. The turmoil around this aircraft (the F 35) has been largely political. You see it on the news, this forum everywhere you look. Can we please move away from the politics and the idea that its wrong because its what that nasty old Steven Harper wants. We all know that any aircraft design is a compromise on every aspect. We can make it very fast but not manoeuvrable we can make it light but not tough. With respect to the twin engine aspect it is yet another compromise that has been made in the design of the aircraft. lets face it we still fly single engine piston aircraft over very inhospitable terrain at night for fun in this country. This is a combat aircraft, the pilot who fly's this aircraft will not be as safe as the pilot flying an A 320. The role is different the aircraft will be different any comparison between the two is foolish. I also would say that purchasing a commercial aircraft from Europe is fine but military aircraft I would think you would be best to stay on the continent.
I think that we as a country should supply our military the best equipment we can to get the job done. I think that given the choices our government has tried to do that our government is not alone in selecting the F 35. There may be further problems down the road that may make a change in direction but to the point we are at now I think the politics are the biggest issue.

Flame away.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Diadem »

Rockie wrote:1. Yes an airplane can crash for reasons other than an engine failure.
2. Yes a twin is just as susceptible to non-engine related issues which would cause a crash in the arctic.
3. Yes, fighter pilots must always be prepared for that eventuality.
4. No, two engines will never totally negate the possibility of a pilot ending up stranded in the arctic. What it will do though which seems frighteningly difficult to get across to you, is that it will almost eliminate the possibility that same pilot will be stranded in the arctic due to engine problems.

Why is that childishly simple concept so hard to understand?

By the way Diadem, I have nothing against single engine fighters. I do have a problem with operating them in the vast Canadian arctic hundreds of miles from the nearest little village and well over a thousand miles from the nearest search and rescue aircraft. I don't get how you failed to see that connection since I've only made it about a hundred times.
But then the issue isn't with the number of engines on the aircraft, it's with the SAR system. I think you do, in fact, have a problem with single-engine fighters, or perhaps the F-35 in particular, and that bias is creating some kind of cognitive dissonance for you. Airplanes crash, and usually for reasons not related to the engine, so any pilot, of any fighter aircraft, could find him/herself stranded in the Arctic. I really don't see what it matters what the cause of the accident is; the pilots are, as you stated, prepared to survive in those elements. Let's look at the TSB's accident stats from 2000 to 2010, which are, admittedly, for civilian aircraft, but since I can't find anything from the RCAF it'll have to do: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/aviation/2010/ss10.asp The number of accidents caused by engine failures is so small that it doesn't even warrant a mention. It's statistically negligible. A pilot has a far, far, far higher probability of being involved in a CFIT, colliding with an object, overrunning the runway, having the gear collapse or retract on landing, or losing control of the aircraft. Pilot error is by far the most significant cause of aircraft crashes. That's certainly the case for single-engine fighters: "F-16 manufacturer Lockheed Martin determined that half of Class A F-16 accidents were caused by pilot error." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... losses.htm Hell, even birdstrikes took out twenty Canadian military aircraft between 1944 and 2004: http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/08/ ... esearcher/. The probability of having an engine failure is negligible, and that's the key: probability. Is it possible the engine will fail? Yes, but it's also possible the aircraft will fly into a lump of antimatter. That doesn't mean it's likely to happen. The probability of the F135 ever failing is miniscule; the probability of the F135 failing while in the Arctic is microscopic; the probability of the F135 failing in the Arctic while beyond glide range of an airstrip is so pitifully small that it's negligible. Statistically speaking, it's practically impossible, which isn't to say that it won't happen, but there are much bigger things to worry about. It's more probable, much more probable, that the aircraft will run out of fuel, or be flown into the ground, or hit a bird. In that case, what does it matter whether it's a CF-18, an F-35, or a Eurofighter? A pilot bailing out over the Arctic is a pilot bailing out over the Arctic, regardless of whether the aircraft from which they bailed had one engine or two, and their chances of surviving have much more to do with SAR's ability to reach them before they starve or freeze to death. As I stated earlier, SAR's capabilities are the real crux of the matter. Would you be satisfied if we had a Herc and a team of SAR techs based in YRB full time, or a C-17 on permanent standby to get the SAR techs anywhere in Canada in a matter of hours? Perhaps that might please you in regards to the issue of SAR in the north, but I suspect you would still be opposed to the F-35 regardless, most likely based on your political views, as evinced by posts in other threads. Your dislike of this aircraft runs deeper than it only having one engine, but that's an easy target you think you can exploit.
If your concern is redundancy, then considering the amount of pilot error or the possibility of the pilot suffering an unforeseen medical emergency, why aren't you calling for Canada to only order aircraft that have two seats? Wouldn't a two-crew aircraft significantly reduce the risk to the crew? Maybe we should order an aircraft with an automated laser on the nose to shoot down birds that pose a threat. Or maybe, since there's a chance that the gear could collapse, we should get fighters with fixed gear.
---------- ADS -----------
 
shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by shimmydampner »

Could you please provide us with the probability of engine failure for the F-35?
Also, the glide ratio of the F-35?
And your best guess as to how long a human being can survive while exposed to the elements of an arctic winter?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Rockie »

Diadem wrote:But then the issue isn't with the number of engines on the aircraft, it's with the SAR system. I think you do, in fact, have a problem with single-engine fighters, or perhaps the F-35 in particular, and that bias is creating some kind of cognitive dissonance for you.
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I have no issue with the airplane itself. I know almost nothing about it or its tactical capabilities but I can count the number of engines. If you would prefer to say the problem is with the SAR system then I'll go along with that. If you can somehow convince the government to establish a capable SAR system in the far north that will protect not only the F-35 and other military assets that will find themselves there on an increasing basis, but the inevitable activity in the Northwest passage then I won't have a problem. But I think you know the government isn't going to do that. So we're back to the single engine. Tom-A-to...Tom-AH-to.

You are also incorrect in thinking a F-35 pilot is "prepared" to survive in the arctic given only the contents of his seat pan. It would be interesting to watch you try.
Diadem wrote: but I suspect you would still be opposed to the F-35 regardless, most likely based on your political views,
Once again, my "political" opposition to this deal has nothing to do with the plane itself and really nothing to do with the political party in power. If the NDP, Liberals, Green Party, Communist Party or the Freemen of Canada had been in power and utterly failed to adhere to any established procedures for capital expenditures like the current government has I would be just as critical. Whether you want to call what the Harper government did extreme incompetence or a deliberate violation of established procedure matters not to me. What I also find reprehensible (and would find equally reprehensible regardless of who was in power) is their continuing dishonesty in this whole affair. You might find it excusable because of who is in power, but I find it inexcusable no matter what party happens to form government.
Diadem wrote:The probability of the F135 ever failing is miniscule; the probability of the F135 failing while in the Arctic is microscopic; the probability of the F135 failing in the Arctic while beyond glide range of an airstrip is so pitifully small that it's negligible. Statistically speaking, it's practically impossible, which isn't to say that it won't happen, but there are much bigger things to worry about.


You're beginning to sound like Peter Mackay.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by YYZSaabGuy »

I think about all we can conclude at this point would be the following:

1. The strategic doctrines which will define the mission mandate over the 40-year service life of whichever aircraft is ultimately chosen are complex and inherently unpredictable. They include issues arising from the decline of the U.S. as a hyperpower, the concurrent restoration of a multi-polar international environment, the continuing incidence of state terrorism, and the increased likelihood of international conflict due to climate change, for starters. Hence the argument for a general-purpose platform which can undertake a variety of roles - a "good enough" approach.

2. The technological environment is equally unpredictable. No, the bugs haven't yet been ironed out and additional effort and money will be required to get the F-35 to serve as a reliable front-line fighter. That is true of most major new technology programs, whether military or civilian - money ultimately solves problems. The F-35's stealth advantage is unlikely to survive a full 40-year deployment, but it can doubtless be upgraded over its service life as new technologies are evolved. Regardless, this will be the last major expenditure we make on a manned fighter aircraft - after the F-35, our money will go to a UAV/UCAV fleet.

3. The previous procurement was badly bungled - it's unclear whether DND zoomed the bureaucrats or the other way around, but insufficient time was spent undertaking a rigorous assessment of the F-35 alternatives, as should have been done. That mistake will not be repeated this time around. Also, the economics will be much more clearly explained so as to make it simple for the morons in our national media who don't understand the distinction between a capital and an operating cost.

4. My guess is that when the assessment is complete, the F-35 will still come out as the aircraft of choice, and we will end up buying it, for a variety of reasons including interoperability/platform commonality with our allies, bang for the technolgoy buck, and the fact that we do benefit from a close relationship with the U.S., something that's going to become more obvious over the next 5-10 years (see #1 above). The point has been made that 65 airframes are not enough to do the job properly. That's true, but we can't (or won't, your choice) afford to buy the several hundred that we should be buying. It's also not a reason to not buy any. It's a reason to continue to work on the U.S. relationship so that we can continue to benefit from their willingness to defend their continental North American interests, which hopefully will continue to align with our own. Buying the F-35 will help in that regard. Not buying it sends the wrong signal at a time when we can't afford to do so.

5. I agree with most of Rockie's points about the single engine issue. That said, I suspect DND will hold its nose and ask its pilots to accept the risk. Hopefully we will be willing to fund a dependable SAR presence in the North to mitigate the risk, but I'm not holding my breath.
---------- ADS -----------
 
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by frosti »

YYZSaabGuy wrote: 5. I agree with most of Rockie's points about the single engine issue. That said, I suspect DND will hold its nose and ask its pilots to accept the risk. Hopefully we will be willing to fund a dependable SAR presence in the North to mitigate the risk, but I'm not holding my breath.
Statistically its just as risky as a twin engine, either way there won't be a shortage of pilots. Fun fact: CF-18 wasn't chosen because it has two engines.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by YYZSaabGuy »

frosti wrote:
YYZSaabGuy wrote: 5. I agree with most of Rockie's points about the single engine issue. That said, I suspect DND will hold its nose and ask its pilots to accept the risk. Hopefully we will be willing to fund a dependable SAR presence in the North to mitigate the risk, but I'm not holding my breath.
Statistically its just as risky as a twin engine, either way there won't be a shortage of pilots. Fun fact: CF-18 wasn't chosen because it has two engines.
It may not have been chosen solely because it has two engines, but that was certainly a consideration during the procurement: see for example the Wikipedia discussion of DND's New Fighter Aircraft Program at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighte ... ft_program. See also the program description in the Canadian American Strategic Review at http://www.casr.ca/id-cf18-1-4.htm: "Canada's air force chose their CF18 for many of the same reasons given by the United States Navy. Some of the key capabilities were twin engine reliability – considered essential for flying over water and the high Arctic – and the excellent radar set. While these features were also available in some of the other contenders such as the F-14 and F-15, the chosen CF18 also had a very significant cost advantage." Regional economic benefits were also a significant factor in the decision.
---------- ADS -----------
 
AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by AuxBatOn »

YYZSaabGuy wrote: 1. The strategic doctrines which will define the mission mandate over the 40-year service life of whichever aircraft is ultimately chosen are complex and inherently unpredictable. They include issues arising from the decline of the U.S. as a hyperpower, the concurrent restoration of a multi-polar international environment, the continuing incidence of state terrorism, and the increased likelihood of international conflict due to climate change, for starters. Hence the argument for a general-purpose platform which can undertake a variety of roles - a "good enough" approach.
All we can do is extrapolate what our enemies will have in the next 20-30 years. The F-35 will be built to counter threats that are developed today. FYI, the SA-2 was first used operationally in the 50s. That generation of threat is what most countries are equipped with today. 50+ years later. It's safe to assume that technology that rolls out today will be widely proliferated in 20-30 years.
YYZSaabGuy wrote: 2. The technological environment is equally unpredictable. No, the bugs haven't yet been ironed out and additional effort and money will be required to get the F-35 to serve as a reliable front-line fighter. That is true of most major new technology programs, whether military or civilian - money ultimately solves problems. The F-35's stealth advantage is unlikely to survive a full 40-year deployment, but it can doubtless be upgraded over its service life as new technologies are evolved. Regardless, this will be the last major expenditure we make on a manned fighter aircraft - after the F-35, our money will go to a UAV/UCAV fleet.
Stealth is a minute technological advantage. There is much, much, much more to it that can't be talked about via those means. Staying with the program now guarantees we will get that technology. Backing out of the program now will give us 1/2 the plane the JSF will be at double the price. We need to stick with our current MOU in order to get the full technological benefits of the aircraft.
YYZSaabGuy wrote: 3. The previous procurement was badly bungled - it's unclear whether DND zoomed the bureaucrats or the other way around, but insufficient time was spent undertaking a rigorous assessment of the F-35 alternatives, as should have been done. That mistake will not be repeated this time around. Also, the economics will be much more clearly explained so as to make it simple for the morons in our national media who don't understand the distinction between a capital and an operating cost.
Turns out the government was saying the truth about the cost. Go figure... Assessments were done internally at DND for other platforms. Somehow, opposition members seem to discredit that, and someone that doesn't know anything about fighters, that is not read into the program (thus, doesn't have any knowledge on the platforms other than what the glossy brochure says) can make a better decision....
YYZSaabGuy wrote: 4. My guess is that when the assessment is complete, the F-35 will still come out as the aircraft of choice, and we will end up buying it, for a variety of reasons including interoperability/platform commonality with our allies, bang for the technolgoy buck, and the fact that we do benefit from a close relationship with the U.S., something that's going to become more obvious over the next 5-10 years (see #1 above). The point has been made that 65 airframes are not enough to do the job properly. That's true, but we can't (or won't, your choice) afford to buy the several hundred that we should be buying. It's also not a reason to not buy any. It's a reason to continue to work on the U.S. relationship so that we can continue to benefit from their willingness to defend their continental North American interests, which hopefully will continue to align with our own. Buying the F-35 will help in that regard. Not buying it sends the wrong signal at a time when we can't afford to do so.
I hope this round of assessment will show that 65 is not enough and that we'll get more as a result. But I am not holding my breath....
YYZSaabGuy wrote: 5. I agree with most of Rockie's points about the single engine issue. That said, I suspect DND will hold its nose and ask its pilots to accept the risk. Hopefully we will be willing to fund a dependable SAR presence in the North to mitigate the risk, but I'm not holding my breath.
It's all about risk management. Flying aircraft is an inherently risky venture. Flying fighters is even riskier. It's all about the level of risk the managers are willing to accept in order to accomplish every mission we do. Out of our yearly flying hours, I'd WAG (Wild ass guess) that less than 10% are spent up North. Most of those mission are very easy on the aircraft (ie: almost no manoeuvring involved...). Of this 10%, it's fair to say that 60% would be spent in cold weather (there is summer up north after all). So, that's a total of less than 6% of our time that we would spend up North in unfavourable conditions. That, combined with a very much increased reliability of the engine makes it an acceptable risk.

Is operating an F-35 up North in 2020 riskier than operating an F-18 in 1983? Given that in 1983 we were still fighting the Cold War and that missions up North were more frequent than they are today, and that engines were not as reliable, etc, etc, I'd say that it could even be safer to operate the F-35s.

It's not Rockies job or any fighter pilot for that matter, to decide whether or not we accept the risk, but to the higher level of the leadership. As a fighter pilot, I would have no issue flying an F-35 up North (and yes Rockie, I might have to do that. I am not that old). The same is shared from my brethren.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mcrit
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:01 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by mcrit »

Here's a little bit of heresy to think on. Why are we so insistent on operating only a single type? Get something suitable for doing intercepts over the high arctic, and another type for multi role missions. Yes, yes; That would be costly, and might require cut backs at the CBC or that the average band council cut back to 2 new skidoos per year per council member vice 3.
---------- ADS -----------
 
frosti
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by frosti »

mcrit wrote:Here's a little bit of heresy to think on. Why are we so insistent on operating only a single type? Get something suitable for doing intercepts over the high arctic, and another type for multi role missions.
Comes down to money and manpower. We don't have either. Until we cut social programs - CBC, and the oil industry in Alberta stops taking young Canadians, a multi-type fleet won't happen. In the last 5 years the exodus of people from 'fighter town Canada' has been enormous.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mcrit
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:01 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by mcrit »

Good points Frosti. Perhaps it's time someone explained to the powers that be that defending the nation requires money and a radical shift in thinking.
---------- ADS -----------
 
old_man
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by old_man »

mcrit wrote:Perhaps it's time someone explained to the powers that be that defending the nation requires money and a radical shift in thinking.
I do believe the 'powers that be' are the general voting (and tax paying) public. They get a lot of their info from the CBC and other media outlets. Especially opinion and analysis.

Oddly enough both the CBC and DND get funding from the tax payers. (url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_B ... on#Finance]Yes the CBC generates some revenue elsewhere[/url]) Give more to DND that usually means you have to take some from somewhere else, either more taxes or cutbacks from another department. Hmmmm, what an interesting set of circumstances.

Also, that being said, the general public will form their opinion from a 30 second news piece. I am no expert by any means but I am willing to bet there is no way to summarize all of this into 30 seconds. Fareed Zakaria wrote a most excellent book that, in part, covered this concept.
---------- ADS -----------
 
North Shore
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5602
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Straight outta Dundarave...

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by North Shore »

frosti wrote: Comes down to money and manpower. We don't have either. Until we cut social programs - CBC, and the oil industry in Alberta stops taking young Canadians, a multi-type fleet won't happen. In the last 5 years the exodus of people from 'fighter town Canada' has been enormous.
'Course, working for DND, and wanting those shiny new toys so badly, you've got a really accurate and unbiased view of what those social programs do. :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Rockie »

North Shore wrote:
frosti wrote: Comes down to money and manpower. We don't have either. Until we cut social programs - CBC, and the oil industry in Alberta stops taking young Canadians, a multi-type fleet won't happen. In the last 5 years the exodus of people from 'fighter town Canada' has been enormous.
'Course, working for DND, and wanting those shiny new toys so badly, you've got a really accurate and unbiased view of what those social programs do. :roll:
It's a different perspective that's for sure. I know because I used to have it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by YYZSaabGuy »

Rockie wrote:
North Shore wrote:
frosti wrote: Comes down to money and manpower. We don't have either. Until we cut social programs - CBC, and the oil industry in Alberta stops taking young Canadians, a multi-type fleet won't happen. In the last 5 years the exodus of people from 'fighter town Canada' has been enormous.
'Course, working for DND, and wanting those shiny new toys so badly, you've got a really accurate and unbiased view of what those social programs do. :roll:
It's a different perspective that's for sure. I know because I used to have it.
That's why we don't put DND in charge of deciding on funding for social programs or the CBC.
Mind you, it's also why we don't let the CBC decide on DND's funding.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Moose47
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:45 pm
Location: Home of Canada's Air Defence

Re: The F-35 is not dead

Post by Moose47 »

G'day Gents

Time to put his argument to rest.

If you want to fill the skies with R.C.A.F. fighters, then look below for the solution.

Cheers...Chris
Callsign 'Nostalgic'
---------- ADS -----------
 
Attachments
Clunks.jpg
Clunks.jpg (140.78 KiB) Viewed 1583 times
aircraft_sabre6_2.jpg
aircraft_sabre6_2.jpg (161.51 KiB) Viewed 1583 times
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”