New "Stealthy" Super Hornet

[Rockie]

Perhaps you should stand back a bit trampbike and look at the forest. The costs for this airplane have spun out of control to a degree none of the currently in service aircraft have. Its cost has doubled between 2001-2012 and is still going up with no end in sight especially given the development troubles it's experiencing. It's an open ended cost that we already cannot afford even given the insufficient numbers of them we've scaled back to. That hasn't happened to any other fighter we've bought, and wouldn't to any of the ones currently in service. You and others equate the deplorable lack of a final cost of the F-35 to some uncertainty that its not the most expensive fighter ever built given its too numerous to mention difficulties. Nonsense.

Canada bought 138 plus CF-18s back in the 80's. How many were we operating in the year 2001, 2005, 2010 and today? We've already reduced the number of F-35's to less than half that number given the obscene cost before the first one is even delivered. The number 65 is already the bare bones minimum, and even that number is suspect, and the moment we lose the first one we now have less than the bare bones minimum and it won't be replaced. Now the government is reducing hanger upgrades, weapons, air refueling capability and so on because guess what...the cost is still going up and they've reduced the plane to a skeleton just to try and sell it as a fixed cost program.

In the first gulf war it took the resources of the entire fighter community to maintain a war time operational tempo for just 1 squadron in Qatar for a few months. For Libya we only had six airplanes or so on operational tempo in Italy, and I'll bet that was a real drain on the entire military budget never mind what's left of the fighter community. What that means is that it's very unlikely we'll be using the F-35 outside Canada very much given their paltry numbers. They are for Canadian defense. There is no reason to get the most expensive airplane just because of a stealth capability that likely will never be called upon to save the jet (personally I'd much rather have another engine as you know). We need something a little less first class that we can get in sufficient numbers, we can support, and that we can afford.

[Beefitarian]

F-35 thread

[trampbike]

Rockie, my comment was only directed at the logic of your previous argument, which was not valid.
Don't make me say anything more. I never said the price was good or that it was a good purchase for sure. Heck I'm not even convince we need fighters.

There is no reason to get the most expensive airplane just because of a stealth capability that likely will never be called upon to save the jet

Will you stop it with the "only stealth" argument, you were a fighter pilot were you not? You should know better. Stealth is not the main advantage of the F-35.

[DonutHole]

So... what *ARE* the advantages of the f-35?

[Rockie]

Will you stop it with the "only stealth" argument, you were a fighter pilot were you not? You should know better. Stealth is not the main advantage of the F-35.

I was and so know that survival in a fighter does not rely solely on the best technology. And I also know that technology touted by the manufacturer is sometimes highly overrated. So, in general terms without giving away any secrets what advantages does the F-35 have over the other options besides stealth that offset the considerable disadvantages? Give me a reason to like this jet and think we can't do without it.

[Beefitarian]

It has certainly dominated the thread, eliminating the super hornet from conversation.

[trampbike]

Give me a reason to like this jet and think we can't do without it.

I don't personally have any, as you would know from my many posts on this topic. I am mostly playing the "logic police" role.

It has certainly dominated the thread, eliminating the super hornet from conversation.

There you go!
What would we do without you Beef?

[Colonel Sanders]

I'd be happy if they would restart production
of the F/A-18C for us. Too inexpensive, too
proven, I know We would get too many
airframes, and the pilots would be able to fly
too many hours, instead of spending their
career in the sim with the F-35.

[Moose47]

G'day Tom

Canadair Sabre Mk. 1 - 1
Canadair Sabre Mk. 2 - 350
Canadair Sabre Mk. 3 - 1
Canadair Sabre Mk. 4 - 71
Canadair Sabre Mk. 5 - 370
Canadair Sabre Mk. 6 - 390

The above numbers are those built for the Royal Canadian Air Force

Total = 1,777 all Mk.'s built for the R.C.A.F. and foreign air forces

Canadair CF-104 Starfighter Mk.- 200
Canadair F-104G Starfighter – 140 built for U. S. Mutual Assistance Program destined for N.A.T.O. Countries

Total = 340

Canadair T-33AN Silver Star Mk. 3

Total = 656

Canadair CF-5A - 74
Canadair CF-5D - 42
Canadair NF-5A – for Royal Netherlands Air Force - 75
Canadair NF-5B – for Royal Netherlands Air Force – 30
Canadair CF-5 – for the Venezuelan Air Force -19

Total = 240

Cheers...Chris

[frosti]

I don't need to quote numbers. All those other airplanes are already in service whereas the F-35 still isn't, and it's already the most expensive weapon system the United States has ever developed. That means everything else is cheaper.

Now I understand your logic and why it's out to left field. "Because its older, it's somehow magically cheaper".

Show me numbers! Until then, you are just talking out your back side and no one will take you seriously.

because it's older.


STL, I'm not going to discuss why we need fighter jets. Nice try though.

[Colonel Sanders]

no one will take you seriously

Because of your high rank and enormous tactical
pilot experience, I take everything you say very
seriously.

[sky's the limit]

STL, I'm not going to discuss why we need fighter jets. Nice try though.

It's not a "try" Frosti, it's a question.

You're the unabashed F-35/Military apologist on Avcanada, and I would like to believe you have good reason for it - it's an opportunity for you to present your case, but you're avoiding it. Seems like you don't have a case, just a passion for expensive military hardware. Fair enough, I used to have that too growing up, but then I started paying taxes many years ago and became more interested in all areas of their use, then I starting going to Afghanistan and Pakistan among other places and started to understand more about the roles modern militaries (Our own included) play in the world, and more importantly why. So, I have a vested interest in this as a citizen and I have done my best to educate myself in the area. Please, take the stage and tell us all why we are idiots and you are right? Why people even within the military and Gov't are struggling with this procurement? Why it is so simple and we just don't get it?

You seem very sure of your stance, the least you can do is tell us all what you are basing it on so we can further inform ourselves - who knows, you may even change some minds. Take your time, this space isn't going anywhere.

stl

[iflyforpie]

I am mostly playing the "logic police" role.

Deductive logic has no role in this discussion. We don't know the final price of the F-35, so you simply cannot argue for or against it on a cost basis using deductive logic. That means pretty much everyones' arguments are invalid... including those who will say it is cheaper.

Using inductive logic, however, does not paint a pretty picture for the F-35.

The F-35 is a warplane.

War planes are expensive.

War planes have been getting more expensive for each successive generation (B-2 vs B-1, F-22 vs F-15).

We do not know the final price of the F-35.

Therefore, we have a strong argument that it will most likely be more expensive than alternatives already built, rather than cheaper.


The only way the F-35 could be cheaper over the long run is if it has a long service life. This seems unlikely for two reasons. #1 The rapidly changing technology. #2 The inevitable attrition of airframes either due to wear and age or accidents.

[Rockie]

We don't know the final price of the F-35, so you simply cannot argue for or against it on a cost basis using deductive logic.

I disagree. We don't know the upper limit of the unit cost price, but we do know the lower limit, which has been going up steadily since the beginning of the program and shows no realistic sign of stopping. Deductive logic fairly screams that the unit cost won't go down. So how hard is it to say it's more expensive than anything else out there? Sure, we can reduce the ongoing operating cost as much as we like to make it seem more palatable, but how realistic is that? Are we going to use it or not? And are we going to use it the way it's designed to be used or are we going to hang dumb 500lb bombs off it like we did for years on the CF-18 and fire unguided missiles?

We used to call it delivering pizza with a Cadillac.

Here's a question. If we sacrificed the probe/drogue refuelling system to save money how are we going to fly the thing up north without getting tanker support from the Americans? We're sacrificing so much ongoing support to keep the cost in line we won't be able to fly the damn thing or have weapons to use with it. Why get them?

[frosti]

It's not a "try" Frosti, it's a question.

"It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.
It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.
It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.”
― Charles M. Province

Deductive logic fairly screams that the unit cost won't go down.

Except that price is now trending *downwards* and that Canadian military acquisitions have NEVER been always decided by competition. Sometimes the military just picks something it wants, sometimes there are a lot of options and it runs a selection. We need a fighter that'll last about 30-40 years, the RCAF thinks the F-35 is it and is planning accordingly. The politics, not capability, of it all says we may not get what we want, fine. Sometimes we run a selection to appease all concerned and it still all burns down in a retarded popularity contest like the Sea King fiasco. Canadians highly skewed view of the F-35's performance and role of stealth just further underlines why it's an incredibly bad idea for military procurement to attract public attention. It's one thing to suggest your favourite internet fighter jet, it's another to suggest that we buy something that'd make the RCAF irrelevant for the next few decades.

[sky's the limit]

It's not a "try" Frosti, it's a question.

"It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

That's all very moving and romantic Frosti, but even these top few lines in Mr. Province's poem are so far off the truth it is not worth acknowledging. Shall I show you the mountains of paperwork I have signed for various nations militaries subjecting me to colossal fines, editorial control, and yes, even prosecution resulting in jail time for writing something they do not agree with?

The soldier has not given us these things Frosti, through human history it is often in spite of the soldier that these milestones have been achieved. One needs not look too far for examples.

So, once again, I fail to see how a flawed, complex, exotically expensive weapon system is a "need" for a nation such as ours? Soldiers love to think they are doing "right," in fact they have to or you'd never have anyone sign up - you see it from every military on Earth, unfortunately the facts seldom support those assertions. Which is not to for one minute suggest there are not a lot of good people in various militaries... but it's not that simple unfortunately.

stl

[Rockie]

Deductive logic fairly screams that the unit cost won't go down.

Except that price is now trending *downwards*

There some land in the Antarctic and a couple of bridges you might be interested in as well.

[frosti]

I fail to see

Not my problem or my job to convince you. What do I care or what difference does it make.

[reality check]

I fail to see

Not my problem or my job to convince you. What do I care or what difference does it make.

INTERNET speak for "I've got nuth'n."


Rockie makes a very good point though, how can we possibly accept this at face value when its been a moving target the whole time and is already WAY WAY WAY over budget? Big mess.

[trampbike]

Deductive logic has no role in this discussion.

So I observed...

We don't know the final price of the F-35, so you simply cannot argue for or against it on a cost basis using deductive logic.

Pretty sure I did not do that. I simply pointed out Rockie's non-sequitur.

That means pretty much everyones' arguments are invalid... including those who will say it is cheaper.

An argument can be valid even if the premises on which it was constructed turn out to be false.

If we sacrificed the probe/drogue refuelling system to save money how are we going to fly the thing up north without getting tanker support from the Americans?

Getting fuel from the Americans is extremely common right now.

[shitdisturber]

We need a fighter that'll last about 30-40 years, the RCAF thinks the F-35 is it and is planning accordingly.

Really? Then perhaps you'd like to explain while General Tom Lawson; you've heard of him, the CDS, who I knew when he was a Major and fighter pilot by the way, started backing off from the F-35 as soon as he got his fourth leaf? Here's the salient quote.

There are countries around the world flying the [other aircraft with stealth capabilities] to great success these days," Lawson told MPs on Thursday.

Lawson, himself a former fighter pilot, downplayed the importance of Canada buying a so-called "fifth generation" aircraft. The marketing classification "fifth generation" is used in the United States to signify aircraft with the latest technology as of 2012, including advanced stealth capabilities.

"Fourth and fifth generation is not a very helpful way of looking at that aircraft," Lawson told reporters in a scrum after his testimony


The long and the short of it; he knows a lot more about the subject than you do, he knows more about the subject than I do, he knows more about the subject than anyone on this forum, including the current batch of Hornet drivers; and he's not convinced.

[shurshot17]

This is just a question, I have zero knowledge behind it. People are saying that stealth is useless and will be shot down before you know it. Is the B-2 stealth still undetectable from radar?

[trampbike]

Is the B-2 stealth still undetectable from radar?

Stealth doesn't mean undetectable. If you know where to look for and how, are close enough and have the appropriate equipment, you will detect stealthy aircrafts. The word "stealth" is misleading. I think "low observability" is a better term.

[frosti]

People are saying that stealth is useless

The majority of these people are internet whiners with ZERO experience in the field. The future of fighter jet, bomber and drone technology is stealth. There is a reason why Russia and China are trying to get into the stealth game for their in-house built jets. Go ask a current fighter pilot, not a Ace Combat xbox controller driver, what he'd rather fly into a high threat environment. This pointless "Stealth" hornet that boeing is trying to peddle won't work and won't sell. It might be stealthy in an airshow configuration, but once you start hanging crap off the wing pylons your stealth just disappeared.