Liberals Vow to Cancel Jet Fighter Project

[Mrs.Robinson]

So know the f35 can't pull 9 g's, even more reason not to get it


You said

"On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced."

In the English language that means it can last forever or at least 20 hours a day at 9 g's for 40 years.

You stated it lasts forever (On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced.)

Now you tell me the f35 can't do 9 g's


I have one question. Do you make up everything you say?

You where denying something you wrote yesterday even after I quoted yourself 3 times. I know fact and logic confuse you.

WHAT?!?!?!?! Are you mentally handicapped? At what point did I say that the F-35 can't pull 9 Gs? A load isn't just force, it's force over time, and pulling 9 Gs over 20 hours is a significant load. And how could you possibly extrapolate "it can last forever or at least 20 hours a day at 9 g's for 40 years" from "modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced"? How long an aircraft can last says nothing about what loads it has to handle. 737s can be maintained indefinitely; does that mean they have to be able to pull 9 Gs 20 hours a day for 40 years? Nothing you say makes any logical sense.
I corrected myself and apologized for my mistake. If you're still on that then you're an immature imbecile, and I have no problem bringing up the post you made that angered me in the first place: according to you, Canada didn't contribute anything to the Second World War. I know a few vets who are selling poppies for Remembrance Day who would take issue with that stupidity.

Can you give me the unit for this so called Load that is not the only load?

I always thought a force was M* A or kg*m/s^2

So this new unit is (kg*m/s^2)/s



How long this aircraft will last is not know by anyone as it has not even entered service (to my knowledge), but you claim to know all about it.

[modi13]

G force is caused by acceleration, that being either a change in velocity or a change in direction, and acceleration is a function of time. One cannot apply Gs to an aircraft by simply flying straight and level, one must accelerate it in order to apply the force to it. The longer the aircraft is subjected to G forces the greater the stress applied to the airframe. If the load were the same regardless of the amount of time the aircraft flew, why would it matter whether it could handle 20 hours a day for 40 years? One second of that load would destroy the aircraft according to your "logic".
If we shouldn't purchase an aircraft until we know how it's going to last, then should we not purchase them until after other air forces have retired theirs? That's the only way to really know their service life, so in reality we should only be buying the CF-18s now. How could any air force purchase a fighter that's unproven? No one should ever buy new aircraft, according to you. You seem to have no faith whatsoever in engineers or aircraft designers; they have a century of research and experimentation on which to base their calculations, and I'm sure they have a much better idea how long their designs will last than you do.

[Mrs.Robinson]

G force is caused by acceleration, that being either a change in velocity or a change in direction, and acceleration is a function of time. One cannot apply Gs to an aircraft by simply flying straight and level, one must accelerate it in order to apply the force to it. The longer the aircraft is subjected to G forces the greater the stress applied to the airframe. If the load were the same regardless of the amount of time the aircraft flew, why would it matter whether it could handle 20 hours a day for 40 years? One second of that load would destroy the aircraft according to your "logic".
If we shouldn't purchase an aircraft until we know how it's going to last, then should we not purchase them until after other air forces have retired theirs? That's the only way to really know their service life, so in reality we should only be buying the CF-18s now. How could any air force purchase a fighter that's unproven? No one should ever buy new aircraft, according to you. You seem to have no faith whatsoever in engineers or aircraft designers; they have a century of research and experimentation on which to base their calculations, and I'm sure they have a much better idea how long their designs will last than you do.

Ok I understand now. When you said that load is unrealistic (9 g's 20hours/ day for 40 years) you really meant to say that stress/strain is unrealistic. When you said load I thought you meant load factor (live load /dead load).

Any aircraft can last a long time, what generation the aircraft it is does not really have any bearing on it as you claimed. The B 52 will have been in service for 100 years before it finally retires in 2050.

So a first generation Jet bomber lasting a 100 years, How long did the f 117A bomber last?



You said "On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced"

why can't a slightly less modern aircraft not stay airworthy with proper maintenance?

I say any aircraft without an inherent design flaw can stay airworthy with proper maintenance.

[modi13]

So a first generation Jet bomber lasting a 100 years, How long did the f 117A bomber last?



You said "On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced"

why can't a slightly less modern aircraft not stay airworthy with proper maintenance?

I say any aircraft without an inherent design flaw can stay airworthy with proper maintenance.

I wouldn't argue with that; the F-18s could last forever if we wanted to keep them. The problem is that it's not cost effective, which was one of your original concerns, and they're fast becoming obsolete. The F-117 wasn't retired because it was worn out, it was because the B-1 and B-2 were more effective and modern designs. I said many, many posts ago that the F-35 will become outdated before it falls apart.

[Expat]

Some of you guys seem to read a lot about the subject, but how many have spent any time in a war theatre? I have been here more than six years now, and based on observations, no more than 5% of the jet fuel used in Af is burned in fighters. Actually, may be 1%!
Air ops are basically troop transport, VIP flights, and a huge number of re-supply flights! ...And some covert ops...
Most combat and troop relocation is done with helos, and that is where the Canadians call for help. Air support is using most of the time helicopter gunships. Of course, when they have large operations, the fighters go up circling, but it looks more to me that the pilots need air time, than they actually have anything to do up there.

Seriously, what is the need in this war, for multi target acquisition and tracking, EW jamming, etc...,
when everytime they use the fighters for ground attacks, it results in innocents being blown up, and more opposition to our presence here?

Fighters are needed for our sovereignty in Canada! We need to be able to patrol are huge skies. We need many planes, not the most expensive ones... I would say that 200 is a minimum, split in five wings across Canada.
It seems that everytime we update the fleet, it is more expensive, and we have fewer...

When I was in the military, it was known that with older equipment, we constantly beat the US teams at Maple Flag.

[Canuck223]

Some of you guys seem to read a lot about the subject, but how many have spent any time in a war theatre? I have been here more than six years now, and based on observations, no more than 5% of the jet fuel used in Af is burned in fighters. Actually, may be 1%!
Air ops are basically troop transport, VIP flights, and a huge number of re-supply flights! ...And some covert ops...
Most combat and troop relocation is done with helos, and that is where the Canadians call for help. Air support is using most of the time helicopter gunships. Of course, when they have large operations, the fighters go up circling, but it looks more to me that the pilots need air time, than they actually have anything to do up there.

Seriously, what is the need in this war, for multi target acquisition and tracking, EW jamming, etc...,
when everytime they use the fighters for ground attacks, it results in innocents being blown up, and more opposition to our presence here?

Fighters are needed for our sovereignty in Canada! We need to be able to patrol are huge skies. We need many planes, not the most expensive ones... I would say that 200 is a minimum, split in five wings across Canada.
It seems that everytime we update the fleet, it is more expensive, and we have fewer...

When I was in the military, it was known that with older equipment, we constantly beat the US teams at Maple Flag.

If Canada had a bigger capacity to afford diverse systems, I'd love to see us purchase helicopter gun ships and in a perfect world, a modern replacement for the A-10 so we could offer low and slow support for our infantry. In a pefect world, we'd still have a healthy fleet of F-35, but a larger fleet of fourth generation fighters, like the F-16 or perhaps more of the CF-18's which I believe are still in production.

Since we don't live in a perfect world, and don't have the capacity to afford all these systems, it seems wise to buy one system that addresses the largest need into the future, and support the shit out of it.

[2R]

As Yogi Bear said "ITS DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN"
Wait until you see what the Germans produce with their new titanium forges that allow long forge casts that reduce machine and construction time.
With injection carbon moulding parts their factories should be able to spew out small fighters and UAVs at about the same price of a luxury car.
Combined with the new engine technology they could be green killing machines as well.
Although the Germans would probably not sell us any high tech weapons ,they wanted Canada out of Nato because of the free ride most Germans think Canada has been getting when it comes to defence and cost sharing of the NATO alliances.

[Shiny Side Up]

Seriously, what is the need in this war, for multi target acquisition and tracking, EW jamming, etc...,
when everytime they use the fighters for ground attacks, it results in innocents being blown up, and more opposition to our presence here?

No one has said that we need fighters to help the current operations in Afghanistan, this would of course relate directly to the purchace of the Chinooks which we do - as you have pointed out above - need in Afghanistan. Yes, yes, I would agree that ideally Mil's product would be a better choice for that theatre of operations, but the thing to remember is that the Chinooks (hopefully) won't be there forever, and someday we're going to be letting our boys practicing parachuting out of them again in which case long run the Boeing product is going to be better logistically.

Personally I'll also say that I don't think that the F-35 is the ideal aircraft for the task, but there are no other realistic options at this point in time.

Fighters are needed for our sovereignty in Canada! We need to be able to patrol are huge skies. We need many planes, not the most expensive ones... I would say that 200 is a minimum, split in five wings across Canada.
It seems that everytime we update the fleet, it is more expensive, and we have fewer...

This in my opinion should always be the number one job the fighter purchace will will have to commit to every few decades is to accomplish. Canadians had better get used to the fact that every 30 or maybe 40 years we're going to have to dole out a large sum to protect our airspace. While it would be a nice dream for us to purchace a variety of equipment for a variety of jobs, Not even the bloated defense budget of the US can do that anymore hence now they are moving to two types of combat jet where before there were at least half a dozen - which has even shrunk down since the century fighter days of maybe a dozen different types of combat jet.

The aircraft's number one mission should always be the best long range interceptor we can get. Personally I think right now that would be the F-22 (though one might wonder that since the F-22 isn't available, if the F-23 would be...) but that ain't happening.

[BibleMonkey]

Slap a few of these together, coupla' Iroquois engines, and call it good.



( first flight video with that polish feller driving...what'sHisname...) :

http://ca.video.yahoo.com/watch/210755/1234199

Avro Arrow

designed and made in Canada

length 85 feet

width 50 feet

two pilots

two engines

1524 mph

62,431 max wt pounds


F 35

Length 50 feet

width 35 feet

designed and made in the USA

one pilot
one engine

1200 mph

60,000 max wt pounds

Close enough!

Do a few circuits so you know it's good to go-before putting nuclear weapons on it.

We should re-invest back into nuclear weapons, too ,strap them on.

Not because we really need them-but then at military meetings lunch breaks -we could sit at the cool kids table.

[crankedup]

The f-35 is going to replace all the a/c in the american forces because of the different options that are available. (army, navy, air force)

Ever hear of the dope that put all his eggs in one basket?

Well said Mr. Wings. But some dopes don't even realize they are the dopes so I'm not certain the impact will be felt.

[Shiny Side Up]

The f-35 is going to replace all the a/c in the american forces because of the different options that are available. (army, navy, air force)

Ever hear of the dope that put all his eggs in one basket?

Well said Mr. Wings. But some dopes don't even realize they are the dopes so I'm not certain the impact will be felt.

Umm, actually they aren't putting their eggs in one basket. First, they also have the F-22 which will be the mainstay of their air defense plans. Secondly the Super hornet production line is going to remain available unitl both aircraft reach full operational status in case there are any problems with either.

Interestingly enough it appears that the Aussies and the Japanese are both pressing the US to open up export of the F-22 which they both view as more fitting of their needs.

[teacher]

Anyone else find it strange that the Liberals claim that the F-35 doesn't meet our needs but the Air Force obviously feel it does? Who would you trust to know the truth?

[Expat]

Anyone else find it strange that the Liberals claim that the F-35 doesn't meet our needs but the Air Force obviously feel it does? Who would you trust to know the truth?

The need... What is the need?
The defense of our land, does not require a VTOL/STOL plane. Come on...

Generals are public servants, and will say what their boss wants them to say. If not, they get fired.
Decisions about what plane to buy are political, but the politicians ask the generals to speak out. They need their expertize... The generals' points of view are seen as the bible, but they are b**st.
No self-respecting general would go out and say that Canada needs F-35s.

Even the pilots are against them...

[shitdisturber]

The need... What is the need?
The defense of our land, does not require a VTOL/STOL plane. Come on...

That's probably why we're not getting the VTOL/STOL version.

[teacher]

That's probably why we're not getting the VTOL/STOL version.

Exactly.

You're telling me that the Generals in charge don't know what we need but the political class do?

[Expat]

What I said what that we were paying for the development costs of all versions...

[alctel]

Anyone else find it strange that the Liberals claim that the F-35 doesn't meet our needs but the Air Force obviously feel it does? Who would you trust to know the truth?

Neither of them, actually. The best bet would be a neutral acquisition board, which I believe is the usual process (which was mysteriously skipped over in this case in favour of shoveling large amounts of cash to American companies).

The F22 would be even less use than the F35, why would we need an even MORE expensive stealth dogfighter that can't even do ground support! I guess 737s get pretty fast with a tailwind though! Even the Americans stopped making them once they realised they would be useless in todays world.

I didn't realise they were still making Super Hornets, which makes it even more mysterious as to why we don't get any of those instead.

Some of you guys seem to read a lot about the subject, but how many have spent any time in a war theatre? I have been here more than six years now, and based on observations, no more than 5% of the jet fuel used in Af is burned in fighters. Actually, may be 1%!
Air ops are basically troop transport, VIP flights, and a huge number of re-supply flights! ...And some covert ops...
Most combat and troop relocation is done with helos, and that is where the Canadians call for help. Air support is using most of the time helicopter gunships. Of course, when they have large operations, the fighters go up circling, but it looks more to me that the pilots need air time, than they actually have anything to do up there.

Seriously, what is the need in this war, for multi target acquisition and tracking, EW jamming, etc...,
when everytime they use the fighters for ground attacks, it results in innocents being blown up, and more opposition to our presence here?

Fighters are needed for our sovereignty in Canada! We need to be able to patrol are huge skies. We need many planes, not the most expensive ones... I would say that 200 is a minimum, split in five wings across Canada.
It seems that everytime we update the fleet, it is more expensive, and we have fewer...

When I was in the military, it was known that with older equipment, we constantly beat the US teams at Maple Flag.

Yeah I agree with all this

[trampbike]

My point was not about wether f35 is the good choice or not for Canada. My point was that the way Mrs. Robinson "argues" guarrantees that whatever he says will not be valid

name me one thing that I said that was not valid? Can you back it up with fact.

"The sentences composing an argument are referred to as being either true or false, not as being valid or invalid; deductive arguments are referred to as being valid or invalid, not as being true or false."

"Arguments may be either valid or invalid. If an argument is valid, and its premises are true, the conclusion must be true: a valid argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.

The validity of an argument depends, however, not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises and conclusions, but solely on whether or not the argument has a valid logical form. The validity of an argument is not a guarantee of the truth of its conclusion. A valid argument may have false premises and a false conclusion"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

Facts cannot affect the validity of your arguments. Again (I hate to repeat myself, but you obvioulsy are wearing logical binders), I'm not saying you are right or not. I'm saying that if you want to argue in a constructive and relevant way, you have to change your methods.

[Expat]

Why not think, and talk sensibly? Canada is not an aggressor. Our history shows that we do not aggress countries. Therefore, our defense forces should be equipped to defend us against aggression. That means defending Canada against invaders.
Ground support capable is not really a requirement for our new fighters, as we will not be invaded by foot soldiers.
Ground support is like the cavalry, an obsolete concept, for Canada, unless we plan to be sucked in another Af type conflict...

We need a quick fighter with legs, to intercept and escort or destroy ennemies coming from the air, on all sides.
We need Mach 3 planes, and if they don't sell them, then let's make them.
We have a history of being a great aviation country. What we need...well... may be a different government...

[55+]

Already started..........

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-1 ... years.html

[Brize]

Lets stop wasting our money on the military and live like a sane peaceful people. Not war monger allies like the country we have become.

[Expat]

Seriously, I think that if we gave that money to Bombardier, they would deliver the jet we need...

[alctel]

Already started..........

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-1 ... years.html

Well that didn't take long at all. I would say I was surprised but...

[trampbike]

Lets stop wasting our money on the military and live like a sane peaceful people. Not war monger allies like the country we have become.

I don't know what kind of world you are living in, but it sure looks very very nice... I'd love to live in your Utopia, how do I get there?

I'm wondering what Britain would have been like by the end of 1940 if your philosophy would have been applied during the 1930's. It would have led to no Hurricane and no Spitfire developped and aquired by the RAF. Now you tell me the rest of this hypothetical story...

[fortis risk]

I think what bothers me is that the right wingers on this forum and in government seem to have a problem with the public questioning their decisions. This is a democracy, its more than my right to question these sorts of decisions, its my responsibility. This aircraft doesn't just represent an enormous expenditure representing hard earned tax dollars, it also represents a direction for our military.

How many fighter pilots have we lost in combat in the past 10 years, how many ground troops. The fighter jet is designed for a type of war that hasn't been fought in some time. IEDs, suicide bombers and gorilla tactics indicative of asymmetrical warfare are the new normal. If we want to protect our troops that is where I would like to see resources directed.

If its an interceptor we need lets buy interceptors, not the JSF.

Either way I find it offensive that the right wing thinks that as a citizen I have somehow less of a say than the Military Industrial Complex. I do not trust the military leaders or the politicians in charge of this process. More discussion and consultation is needed not less.