F-35 is dead

[Mig29]

Just get bunch of new MiG 29s or Su 27s for half the price, heck a third of the cost of JSF and you are set Mr. Harper!

But what do those Ottawa kids know???....they don't even know what a jet is

[Gravol]

Well, they lied for many years knowing the cost of this thing was WAY beyond what they were consistently trying to sell the Canadian public on.

You're well aware Harper didn't just go on airliners.net , see a few photos, and choose the airplane right? You remember that Harper was not exactly in office when this all began? I don't recall him "selling us" a phony idea. He was speaking numbers! In the past few years, these numbers have changed. People imo created an issue out of nothing. See, new numbers released ...program costs sky rocketing ... Harper states that to date, we are getting such and such for such and such. If another review is needed, we will do it. People go effing mental because he didn't do what the opposing parties wanted. Can you explain why someone would commit political suicide by continuing such an endeavour knowing full well the costs would come out 5x the original amount? It doesn't make sense. I ask again Rock, what have we lost?

They attacked opposition MP's for not supporting Canada's troops when they justifiably questioned the decision to buy the F-35.

The two main opposing parties do not have a good record when it comes to supporting our troops and giving them the tools / funds they need to do their jobs. There are numerous books out there on the subject.

I'm not even going to go into the extreme incompetence pervading this entire process that the Conservatives have exhibited and staunchly defended from day one, because it's a matter of record and not necessary here.

You will find that the guys flying these birds generally defend it as well. Many of them do not endorse Harper, but defend the acquisition of the jet. You detest Harper for your own reasons.

Now, after being shamed into putting in place proper acquisition procedures an independent audit is about to be released that exposes this criminally incompetent fiasco as worse than anybody had previously imagined, the Conservatives are finally backing away.

Again, what have we lost? $200 mil in cancellation penalties? ( sound familiar ) . "criminally incompetent" ? Common, seriously...?

You think they deserve any kind of credit for doing so?

Yes. We have not and probably will not buy the damn things.

Our PM has sold our heritage to the USA in the form of rights to our lakes and rivers. Our grandchildren can look forward to driving across what used to be Lake Superior. It's time to realize our government is just there to stoke their ego and could't give a rat's ass about the the legacy we leave to future generations.
Canada needs to spend money on the world's most advanced fighter jet....WHY? So Harper can retire and say "Look what I did..."
Our north is inhabited with indigenous people who can't get DRINKING WATER from their taps.......we want NEW fighter jets? So we can fulfill a commitment to NATO? There's an organization with teeth. When's the last time NATO did anything that worked? 1926? If Harper has any BALLS, he'd do something to PROTECT Canadian interests. Not those of our water sucking southern neighbours. Build a world class coast guard. Tell the Yanks to drink sand. Harper.....you sir, are a PUSSY!!

I'm not too fond of his policies regarding lakes and rivers. Pretty disgusting actually. I am also not fond of what was recently announced with the Chinese takeover of Nexen. But that is just my worthless opinion. Apparently it benefits Canada? This will probably strike a few nerves, but I would rather see him cut funding to the department of aboriginal affairs. Take that money and bail people out who have student loans or who are attending "in demand" training programs. I'm personally sick of being blamed for other peoples actions and choices. Life is hard. If needed I can attach a recently viewed documentary on the diamond trade + civil war in Sierra Leone. Then we can discuss fair play, poverty, equality, etc.

Fund aviation too of course, because there just aren't enough pilots these days. The shortage has finally arrived.

































Kidding about the last part. Just relax.

[2R]

I would give Frosti all the facts,but not on a public forum.
Besides i might have to explain them and i am a lazy ,lazy typist.
The F-35 will get retired early for the same reasons that the F-117 was retired.Its stealth was comprimised and it was getting shot down by LANGUAGE! Next time, it's off to the penalty box. .Never mind the enemy that would require NATO to have 3000 of them.Gee which enemy would require 3000 stealth fighter jets to balance and keep in detente ????
Bon appetite

[Rockie]

Rockie: you appear to be you're very unhappy that
you've won, which I suppose is very Canadian.

Please explain what it is you think I won Hedley. While you're at it maybe you could explain why you think turbines never fail, and how your status as the only steelly eyed single engine superduper fighter jock on this forum qualifies you to make that kind of assertion.

You're well aware Harper didn't just go on airliners.net , see a few photos, and choose the airplane right?

I don't know what he did beyond persistently mislead parliament and the Canadian public from start to finish on this fiasco. What he didn't do though which he as much as admits now was apply any kind of rational, normal or prescribed selection process for such a large capital acquisition.

[Colonel Sanders]

turbines never fail

Look above you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

and while you're at it, count up how many
hours you logged on single-engine jets with
a cold ejection seat.

[Rockie]

So if you're just being sarcastic why the snit about being the only single engine jet pilot on the forum?

[Colonel Sanders]

What snit?

how many hours you logged on single-engine jets with
a cold ejection seat.

Still waiting for an answer for that.

[Rockie]

What snit?

how many hours you logged on single-engine jets with
a cold ejection seat.

Still waiting for an answer for that.

What exactly does that prove except you have more hours in a single engine jet with a cold ejection seat? Does that make you smarter or braver?

[Colonel Sanders]

Still waiting for an answer for that

Goose egg. I thought so.

[Rockie]

Oh you must mean the snit. That was when you went off on another pointless and totally irrelevant rant about being aviation's second coming of christ because you're the only single engine jet pilot on this forum.

That's the snit I'm talking about.

[Colonel Sanders]

Your perception of "snit" is right up there
with your ability to interpret sarcasm.

Goose egg. Got that.

[Rockie]

Ok, I guess you mean how many hours do I have in single engine jets with cold ejection seats.

None that I know of because the seats were all supposed to be hot.

I guess you got me beat there Hedley.

[Colonel Sanders]

Goose egg. Right.

Anyways, one definition of humour is dissonance
or incongruence. I can give you the URL if you
need it.

Anyways, I find it humourous, the yawing chasm
between the incredibly brave keyboard jockeys
here, and the candy-@sses that I meet in real
life that have never even rolled inverted after
takeoff. Not even once.

One has to wonder if I am in the wrong physical
location, to explain my lack of ever encountering
the incredibly brave keyboard jockeys that populate
AvCan.

[teacher]

The single engine debate is long dead and proven to be a dud Cat. Whether it's single engine turbine IFR or over the arctic it has be proven time time time time and time again that you are no longer safer with 2 than 1.

Teacher, usually I can see your point of view. I don't always admit ti though.......but did you really hit "submit" after typing this? Give your head a shake mate. " You are no longer safer with 2 than 1." Get back to us on that thought when the ONE quits.
That is all. Frankly, I grow tired with most of the drivel here....but C'MON MAN!
I'll take 2 please.

I've already researched and posted the stats for a previous thread a year or so back so I won't be doing it again. The accident rates are almost identical. You are no safer, perception in the cockpit aside. In the last few years I can think of no fatal single engine turbine accidents BUT at least 2 engine failure accidents on twins that resulted in fatalities in Canada. I hate to bring it up but those are the facts. Regardless, I can only assume that a 5th generation fighter jet with the latest FADEC and engine technology would be just fine. Comparing it to the current hornet is just plain incorrect.

Having 1 or 2 engines should not be a deciding factor. There are so many other issues like cost, usefulness (do we actually need this kind of fighter plane or will another do just fine for what we use it for), range, payload, parts availability, interoperability with allies and the list goes on and on. The single engine debate is a red hearing.

Truth is almost nobody posting here has any idea what the frig they're talking about. Is ANYONE here a fighter pilot? Is anyone hear actually privy to the REAL insider information about the F35? Can anyone actually compare this jets accurately? Nope.

We're comparing the F35 to a frik'n airliner or bush planes. This discussion should be about so much more. Pilots, good god......

[Rockie]

Anyways, I find it humourous, the yawing chasm
between the incredibly brave keyboard jockeys
here, and the candy-@sses that I meet in real
life that have never even rolled inverted after
takeoff. Not even once.

I don't see how rolling inverted after takeoff somehow blows candy off anyone's ass, but there are more people on here than you know who have done it. They just don't see the need to tell everyone every opportunity they get.

[Colonel Sanders]

So that's a goose egg for you on that, too. Got that.

See the humour in the incongruity yet?

[azimuthaviation]

So that's a goose egg for you on that, too. Got that.

Are you goading him into trying that in an AC Airbus full of passengers?

[Rockie]

Having 1 or 2 engines should not be a deciding factor. There are so many other issues like cost, usefulness (do we actually need this kind of fighter plane or will another do just fine for what we use it for), range, payload, parts availability, interoperability with allies and the list goes on and on. The single engine debate is a red hearing.

Redundancy is a fundamental principle in aircraft, it's why we have two, three or four of all the critical components. I've never had a hydraulic pump fail, yet I have two engine driven pumps plus electric backups. I've never had a generator fail but I have three of them plus an emergency generator. My displays are all inter operable. There are two alternate systems for lowering the landing gear besides the main one.

Tactical aircraft are also equipped with all kinds of redundancies for normal operating reasons, but also for tactical reasons because sometimes by the nature of their work they get shot at and sustain damage. The A-10 is designed for maximum survivability and one of the ways they do that is with two engines separated from each other and the airframe.

Two engines do in fact matter and was one of the factors in choosing the CF-18 over the F-16 due to the nature of Canada's massive and sparsely settled land mass. It mattered then, and it matters now.

Truth is almost nobody posting here has any idea what the frig they're talking about. Is ANYONE here a fighter pilot?

I was. Now I have to ask if you're a pilot of any kind or just somebody who reads reports?

[Rockie]

So that's a goose egg for you on that, too. Got that.

See the humour in the incongruity yet?

All right Hedley, if you absolutely must know. Yes I have. I've also rotated on takeoff straight into a loop with the landing gear cycling up on many occasions.

Do I pass your manly test?

[trey kule]

I like it when people present a question that defines the answer they prefer. I understand a bit of Rockie"s background, so let me pose a question.

How much time CS do you have in CF 18's? In supersonic fighters? In the military doing flying duties?
How much of your cold seat single engine time was over the arctic? Over oceans in general?
We are, after all discussing a CF 18 replacement and flying over sparsely settled areas..Much more relevant of a question. And then compare your answer to Rockie's.

Rockie, I believe is a bit modest, but he can answer all those questions with some nice numbers. As. can many more on here. People skydive..They willingly accept the risk..Flying a single engine trainer jet without ejection..you accept the risk..Some pilots like to minimize risk. Real fighter pilots have to be prepared to live on the edge sometimes and common sense tells them not to take any more risk than they have to.

There are a whole bunch of posters here that I know personally can answer your question with some big numbers...It is not false modesty to not be continually boasting about your experience or knowledge. There are some very knowlegble posters on this thread who post to the subject and do not personalize it. More than one or two that either fly now, or have flown the 18. Ajd a fair selection of other military and civilian jets.

[frosti]

Truth is almost nobody posting here has any idea what the frig they're talking about. Is ANYONE here a fighter pilot? Is anyone hear actually privy to the REAL insider information about the F35?

There is one real CF18 pilot here, AuxBatOn, that commented in the other F35 thread. IIRC he has no issues with the single-engine over the Arctic thing and has laid it out clearly. Do a search. I see he hasn't posted here in a while and I don't blame him. The amount of low-quality posts coming from the peanut gallery are getting worse every day. Too many riff raff posts from the 'clatter and noise' crowd who think they have a clue on the topic.

Two engines do in fact matter and was one of the factors in choosing the CF-18 over the F-16 due to the nature of Canada's massive and sparsely settled land mass. It mattered then, and it matters now.

Repeating the same thing ad nauseum doesn't make it a fact.

Getting back on topic....

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/canad ... story.html

On tap now is a competition among at least five aircraft, including Dassault’s Rafale, Boeing’s Super Hornet, Saab’s Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon, and Lockheed Martin’s F-35, to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s. Industry players have quietly been led to expect this will flow from the current “options analysis” underway in Ottawa.

The usual anti-F-35 crowd are jumping all over this as an opportunity to criticize the program, but this may actually prove to be a positive if Canada actually prices out what a Eurofighter, Rafale or Super Hornet acquisition would cost to purchase and sustain and the numbers become public.

[Meatservo]

Edit. Got to stop posting after drinking. Not productive.

[Colonel Sanders]

That's impressive, Meat, but I'm not sure how relevant
that is to single engine vs two-engine jets.

My point - before I got distracted needling Rockie, which
I admit is somewhat distracting but highly entertaining -
is that unlike the highly opinionated keyboard jockeys,
I have a certain amount of skin in the game. Every time I
take off in a single-engine jet with a cold ejection seat, if
the N1 unwinds at 500 AGL, it's been nice knowing y'all.

I would really, really like a second throttle in my left hand.

And, I think, so would have this guy:



I suspect before nearly all of you were born, he was doing
a maintenance flight on a -104 at Cold Lake. Bearing shifted
right after takeoff, lots of aluminum out the tailpipe. He
ejected - did everything perfectly - but his trajectory carried
him right into the fireball of the aircraft, and that was the end
of Jake.

I suspect Jake would really have liked a second throttle in
his left hand, too. I would wager that he was a better pilot
than 99% of the AvCan experts. And he's quite dead now.

Edit - on second thought, I'd really like three levers in my
left hand. No, make that four.

[teacher]

I was. Now I have to ask if you're a pilot of any kind or just somebody who reads reports?

I am no fighter pilot but have been flying a long time, several aircraft, old and new single and multi engine both VFR and IFR. My biggest argument is that people with little or no relevant experience seem to be the biggest critiques of the f35 (cue the left leaning opposition parties). Those in the actual know are it's biggest supporters.

I read reports and compare stats because my personal opinion matters not one little bit when making decisions based on facts. Both in business and military programs personal biases and opinions are your enemy. I support the people in the know, not the folks shooting from the hip at their computer.

Comparing the engine technology of the F16 especially the first generation to the F35 is once again idiotic.

Redundancy is a very good thing but you only make redundant was is most likely to fail. I am no aerospace engineer so if the guys building this thing are confident in it's ability to only require 1 engine who am I as an arm chair general who has little relevant experience like 99% of the posters here to have an opposite opinion? Actually, no, that's wrong everybody is entitled to an opinion but many here confuse their opinions with fact.

Also in regards to redundancy and the just in case theory wouldn't it be wiser to, just in case, purchase a 5th generation fighter with much greater capabilities that we may need in the future? Or should we buy a 4th generation aircraft that will be obsolete in 1/2 the time as the lifespan of the 5th? If we were talking a 15 to 20 year lifespan maybe but the latest numbers are for a 40+ lifespan for these aircraft. That is according to the much talked about KPMG report that will show a huge cost increase to, wait for it, life cycle costs. Well of course the costs go up if you increase the service life by 20 years on top of the original estimates, but a digress.

I should also add that even though i have flown the pc12 in the past for several years from coast to coast MY personal bias is of course for 2 engines. But people more qualified than me decided other wise and guess what, they were right.

[Colonel Sanders]

if the guys building this thing are confident in it's ability to only require 1 engine

Heh - they're not the guys that are going to have to fly it.

Do you have any idea how many bits and pieces go into
a turbine? You are trusting your life to thousands of
people, and you hope that not one of them ever
makes a mistake.