http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17042065
Interesting little piece in last month's Combat Aircraft about the F-35 and it's competition as well. This was an overview of what the story was about:
AN AFFORDABLE FORCE?
Everywhere you look, the high cost of fighters is having a major impact on world air forces, big and small. With Switzerland having selected the Saab Gripen in preference to heavyweight competition Jon Lake evaluates the likelihood of a renaissance for the lightweight fighter concept
over here the Gripen is still discussed as it is obviously the cheapest plane that was evaluated.
i will be glad if they go with SAAB i do not see the need for more spending at all.
It will definitely be interesting to see how everything comes down. There is a massive number of F-5's and and other older "economy" aircraft out there will need to be replaced and due to cost the F-35 won't be an option. I suspect there will be quite a market for refurbished F-16's, F-18's and F-15's along with new Gripen (and maybe F-15) airframes.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F57%2FSaab_JAS_39_Gripen_Czech_Air_Force.jpg%2F800px-Saab_JAS_39_Gripen_Czech_Air_Force.jpg&hash=4a783adfff3045ac050a186c4cfe35665c5b0144)
Good looking bird.
Yeah - it looks sexy! They are actually working on multiple variants from what I've been reading and there is going to be a top tier version that will provide advanced avionics and weapons suites.
Interesting Marketing - I love the slogan "Designed with Freedom in Mind" At this point it may be cheaper to create a navalized version of the F-22...........
https://www.f35.com/
the F35s at Eglin have finally been cleared to fly
http://defensetech.org/2012/02/28/eglin-f-35as-cleared-for-flight/
does anyone remember this level of scrutiny for the F16 or F18 as it went through its initial development and production?
I don't even remember this level of scrutiny for the Longbow Apaches...
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 29, 2012, 10:48:37 AM
the F35s at Eglin have finally been cleared to fly
http://defensetech.org/2012/02/28/eglin-f-35as-cleared-for-flight/
does anyone remember this level of scrutiny for the F16 or F18 as it went through its initial development and production?
I don't even remember this level of scrutiny for the Longbow Apaches...
I'm not up on the politics or testing procedures so I can only speculate - perhaps no other plane has ever cost so much? Or maybe the tech is so bleeding edge we need to triple check it?
I think you're right on both accounts.
The Gripen is shit. the newest wikileaks discussion over here...
The development of the F-35 reminds me of when the F-16 was still on the drawing board. The plan was that the F-16 would be a cheaper airframe counterpart to the F-15 and was originally going to have very limited, focused capabilities. But then Congressional games started with all the Congressmen wanting a piece of the jobs, and the price went up and up. Some things never change.
Exactly - the made the exact same point in Combat Aircraft (Feb Issue) talking about the fact feature creep is killing the concept of a moderatley priced fighter.
Some new negative press:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/26/pol-f35s-fighter-jets.html
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 27, 2012, 01:58:21 PM
Some new negative press:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/26/pol-f35s-fighter-jets.html
The fact that they might not be the right birds for us only goes to guarantee that we'll buy them!! ::)
Quote from: Centurion40 on March 27, 2012, 02:38:56 PM
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 27, 2012, 01:58:21 PM
Some new negative press:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/26/pol-f35s-fighter-jets.html
The fact that they might not be the right birds for us only goes to guarantee that we'll buy them!! ::)
At least they won't be a pre-used puchase but that will be small comfort if the F35 doesn't live up to its hype.
Quote from: Centurion40 on March 27, 2012, 02:38:56 PM
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 27, 2012, 01:58:21 PM
Some new negative press:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/26/pol-f35s-fighter-jets.html
The fact that they might not be the right birds for us only goes to guarantee that we'll buy them!! ::)
how was the Hornet not a right buy?
Quote from: Centurion40 on March 27, 2012, 02:38:56 PM
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 27, 2012, 01:58:21 PM
Some new negative press:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/26/pol-f35s-fighter-jets.html
The fact that they might not be the right birds for us only goes to guarantee that we'll buy them!! ::)
I'll be the Brits can get a deal on them with screen doors included for no extra charge ;)
Quote from: Windigo on March 27, 2012, 03:26:56 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on March 27, 2012, 02:38:56 PM
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 27, 2012, 01:58:21 PM
Some new negative press:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/26/pol-f35s-fighter-jets.html
The fact that they might not be the right birds for us only goes to guarantee that we'll buy them!! ::)
how was the Hornet not a right buy?
I would have bought a mix of F-16s and and A-10s & saved some $$, but overall I'm fine with the Hornets.
However, might I interest you in a sub?
Quote from: Centurion40 on March 27, 2012, 05:44:44 PM
However, might I interest you in a sub?
I dunno, does it come equipped with the screen doors LB mentioned? :o
Why, there's no front door at all!
I'm really starting to think we should be going with Super Hornets as the number of F-35's is dropping rapidly. Australia has ordered 2 :o Doesn't make much sense to me ??? We're going to end up fighting in asymmetrical warfare scenarios with an aircraft equipped for air to air and stand-off strike missions.... Meanwhile we still have no dedicated helo gunships or close air support which would be more relevant to our current operational needs.
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 28, 2012, 06:53:12 AM
We're going to end up fighting in asymmetrical warfare scenarios with an aircraft equipped for air to air and stand-off strike missions.... Meanwhile we still have no dedicated helo gunships or close air support which would be more relevant to our current operational needs.
I dunno. Everyone seems to make the mistake of planning for the last war. I certainly don't want to see two well-organized militaries tangle, but deterrence is part of the game.
I agree that two jets is not likely to get Australia very far, though they will look good at air shows.
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 28, 2012, 06:53:12 AM
I'm really starting to think we should be going with Super Hornets as the number of F-35's is dropping rapidly. Australia has ordered 2 :o Doesn't make much sense to me ??? We're going to end up fighting in asymmetrical warfare scenarios with an aircraft equipped for air to air and stand-off strike missions.... Meanwhile we still have no dedicated helo gunships or close air support which would be more relevant to our current operational needs.
We (Canadians) need to look long-term. In the next 20 years, who are we likely to face in combat? Are we going to face a major military power like Russia or China in a total war? Or are we going to be in more smaller wars like Afghanistan and/or peace making/keeping ops? What is the bang for the buck?
I'd vote for a dozen F-35s (or Super Hornets or Rafales) to keep the Russkies and UFOs at bay. Then I'd try to get my hands on a lot more A-10s or AH-64s for ground support.
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 28, 2012, 06:53:12 AM
I'm really starting to think we should be going with Super Hornets as the number of F-35's is dropping rapidly. Australia has ordered 2 :o Doesn't make much sense to me ??? We're going to end up fighting in asymmetrical warfare scenarios with an aircraft equipped for air to air and stand-off strike missions.... Meanwhile we still have no dedicated helo gunships or close air support which would be more relevant to our current operational needs.
I say go for a self defence force as 1st priority, then go with an uber equipped land force for our overseas dalliances... the ameros can provide cap .... hell if they get that magrail gun working properly it will dominate!
Quote from: Windigo on March 28, 2012, 10:18:34 AM
... the ameros can provide cap .... hell if they get that magrail gun working properly it will dominate!
I think I prefer 'Amis' or 'Muricans to 'Ameros'. The latter sounds too much like a unit of currency in a post-apocalyptic
amalgam of the US and MeHico...
Quote from: Staggerwing on March 28, 2012, 08:02:27 PM
Quote from: Windigo on March 28, 2012, 10:18:34 AM
... the ameros can provide cap .... hell if they get that magrail gun working properly it will dominate!
I think I prefer 'Amis' or 'Muricans to 'Ameros'. The latter sounds too much like a unit of currency in a post-apocalyptic
amalgam of the US and MeHico...
Ameros (LIKE ARROWS) rolls off the tongue so nicely it has a bit of sci-fi poetry to it. But it can be changed to Amis if you like. Amis sounds French though and some people here don't seem to like the french
I always used the term Yanks until I found some people from the Southern US that were offended - then I laughed and mocked their southern drawl and that was the end of my career in tourism. Tune in next week when I tell you about my brief career as a milk man ;)
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 28, 2012, 09:38:51 PM
Tune in next week when I tell you about my brief career as a milk man ;)
There are a lot of kids along your route with eyes that match yours???
Quote from: Steelgrave on March 28, 2012, 10:19:21 PM
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 28, 2012, 09:38:51 PM
Tune in next week when I tell you about my brief career as a milk man ;)
There are a lot of kids along your route with eyes that match yours???
Nope. :) Nobody bought his milk!! ;) ;D
Eeooh...I even find that disturbing ;)
I have achieved success!!
Interesting phrasing in the Federal budget re the F18 replacement.
"...the government will buy an "affordable" replacement for the current CF-18 fighter fleet."
It's not clear yet what impact the other cuts to the military's budget will have.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget/SOMNIA/article2386038/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget/SOMNIA/article2386038/)
I'm hoping that they will buy a certain number of F-35's and then supplement it with an updated current generation fighter like the Superhornet or stealthy F-15. I'm still at a loss to figure out why we wouldn't buy F-22's which are already in service and are probably just as an effective platform as the F-35 would be for our purposes. The Only reason I can figued is the F-22 is open for export.
I think the no export clause rules out the F22, which is also a bit of a hangar queen in terms of maintenance costs. This article makes a case for the Eurofighter as a interim measure and to supplement a smaller fleet of F35s.
http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/develop_f35_alternatives_or_face_consequences_03-28-2012 (http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/develop_f35_alternatives_or_face_consequences_03-28-2012)
From this:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F49%2FLockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_mock-up_04.JPG%2F800px-Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_mock-up_04.JPG&hash=8590edf6a1523106be103ec2f665477a2077df7c)
to this:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F40%2FTyphoon_5.jpg%2F800px-Typhoon_5.jpg&hash=643f6e3483eea29fcde85aad29eae8c692352ccc)
Hmmm...
I was thinking more like Superhornet as the transition would probably be smoother given our current "installed base" (if you will) of Hornets
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F8e%2FSuper_Hornet_on_flight_deck.jpg%2F800px-Super_Hornet_on_flight_deck.jpg&hash=b956c286606bb5f732e83b13ff7c4b0dbd4fcf82)
I like the idea of a longer-range air superiority fighter. We have a long-range nation.
That's why the F-22 makes sense. A plane already in operation ! Even if we only bought 20. regardless, I suspect the political pressure from other memeber nations on the F-35 project would be quite intense if we wanted to pull out. As someone had mentioned before the F-35 is too big to fail - even if it turns out to be less than successful.
Yeah, the F-22 does. But will the Americans sell them to us? Maybe DND should start lobbying Lockheed Martin!
Yeah, this works for me:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F46%2FLockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpg%2F800px-Lockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpg&hash=48ab8f9aa076ff2cf57b49c8868c7560d9c75752)
That F-22 would sure look good with a maple leaf emblazoned on it but I doubt that our recent intelligence leak will help us in any negotiations with the US government.
Quote from: Shelldrake on March 30, 2012, 10:59:33 AM
That F-22 would sure look good with a maple leaf emblazoned on it but I doubt that our recent intelligence leak will help us in any negotiations with the US government.
Yeah, but the traitor was RCN. These birds would be going to the RCAF. I know, I know, they're the same org at the heart.
Off that they'd let us buy F-35s but not F-22s.
I'm hoping they replace the CP-140 Aurora's with the P-8A Poseidon in the near future. Maritime aircraft will certainly be a necessary commodity in the future - it would be nice to get that right
I figure that they'll replace the Aurora with drones.
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer the Poseidon. I'd guess that we'd call it the Neptune, but we've already had a Neptune. So maybe we'd call it the Aquaman! ;)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F21%2FP_8_and_P_3_over_Pax_River.jpg%2F800px-P_8_and_P_3_over_Pax_River.jpg&hash=4d082eb8405b975055efdacc3a54d89dfecc016a)
We just need a bunch of aerial tankers... to refuel amero planes flying patrol for us ;)
what we really need are WMD towable and launchable behind snowmobiles
Quote from: LongBlade on February 29, 2012, 11:33:38 AM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 29, 2012, 10:48:37 AM
the F35s at Eglin have finally been cleared to fly
http://defensetech.org/2012/02/28/eglin-f-35as-cleared-for-flight/ (http://defensetech.org/2012/02/28/eglin-f-35as-cleared-for-flight/)
does anyone remember this level of scrutiny for the F16 or F18 as it went through its initial development and production?
I don't even remember this level of scrutiny for the Longbow Apaches...
I'm not up on the politics or testing procedures so I can only speculate - perhaps no other plane has ever cost so much? Or maybe the tech is so bleeding edge we need to triple check it?
I will add my speculation based on the idea that modern, twitchy, maneuverable aircraft are unstable in flight with the computers moving the control surfaces to keep it from becoming a boomerang.
Therefore they must check for bugs like never before.
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 30, 2012, 08:30:38 AM
I was thinking more like Superhornet as the transition would probably be smoother given our current "installed base" (if you will) of Hornets
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F8e%2FSuper_Hornet_on_flight_deck.jpg%2F800px-Super_Hornet_on_flight_deck.jpg&hash=b956c286606bb5f732e83b13ff7c4b0dbd4fcf82)
2nd that!
Quote from: Centurion40 on March 30, 2012, 08:32:20 AM
I like the idea of a longer-range air superiority fighter. We have a long-range nation.
To my little mind the F35 has only 1 real advantage. That is for strike missions into other countries against heavy air defences. Is that a Canadian mission in support of NATO or UN mandates? I would think missiles would do it better, cheaper, safer.
For Canadian defence the F35 is a gold plated turkey.
And the saga continues:
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/f-35-program-to-get-overhaul-after-scathing-ag-report
It is looking more and more like Ottawa will back off on the F-35 purchase.
Quote from: Shelldrake on April 03, 2012, 06:50:54 AM
It is looking more and more like Ottawa will back off on the F-35 purchase.
Our airspace is too big to buy fewer and fewer of the more expensive toys. And being able to perform up in the arctic is not a nice to have.
This paper provides some really good background info on the F-35 program:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf
Fun little follow-on to the whole F-35 affair - One thing is for sure the F-35 is defintely getting some attention now ;)
http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorials/81118-f-35-fiasco-no-lipstick-helps-pig
OK... so what are the contenders?
Follow India's lead?
Quote from: Windigo on April 05, 2012, 12:52:16 PM
OK... so what are the contenders?
Follow India's lead?
SU-30MKI's??!!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F64%2FSU-30MKI-g4sp_-_edit_2%2528clipped%2529.jpg%2F800px-SU-30MKI-g4sp_-_edit_2%2528clipped%2529.jpg&hash=762775f4ef5cbda273fd925a0e534fcc0bbb859e)
and Mirage's??!!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fde%2FMirage_2000C_in-flight_2.jpg%2F750px-Mirage_2000C_in-flight_2.jpg&hash=e9da949141a63603363ed2677b38c1d5544b1b6e)
Quote from: MIGMaster on April 05, 2012, 12:48:52 PM
Fun little follow-on to the whole F-35 affair - One thing is for sure the F-35 is defintely getting some attention now ;)
http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorials/81118-f-35-fiasco-no-lipstick-helps-pig
Great headline!
Quote
F-35 fiasco: No lipstick helps this pig
I think we should be looking at something already in service - if the F-22 is not obtainable then there is the Rafale, the EF 2000, Gripen, Super Hornet, F-15 SE (Silent Eagle) - I think these are all considered 4.5 or 5th generation fighters.
Quote from: MIGMaster on April 05, 2012, 01:47:45 PM
I think we should be looking at something already in service - if the F-22 is not obtainable then there is the Rafale, the EF 2000, Gripen, Super Hornet, F-15 SE (Silent Eagle) - I think these are all considered 4.5 or 5th generation fighters.
But which one???????????????????????????????
Details my friend (so we can at least mock you in the choice you made a little)
I think that the choice be made according to which one looks the coolest at an airshow.
Quote from: Centurion40 on April 05, 2012, 02:16:23 PM
I think that the choice be made according to which one looks the coolest at an airshow.
absolutely..... the Ruski planes are contenders too then
Totally! I'd put them in front, along with the Gripen and Typhoon.
I'm surprised that Canada didn't opt for Super Hornets in the first place. Very capable aircraft that can be had at the "reasonable" price of about $70 million each.
The Typhoon is a nice bit of kit.
Changing the subject slightly, but staying in the air, I was interested to read somewhere that there are calls to put the OV10 Bronco back into production as a COIN / light ground-attack aircraft. Now that's a great looking 'plane (and one of my favorites in FS).
Quote from: bob48 on April 05, 2012, 04:04:57 PM
The Typhoon is a nice bit of kit.
Changing the subject slightly, but staying in the air, I was interested to read somewhere that there are calls to put the OV10 Bronco back into production as a COIN / light ground-attack aircraft. Now that's a great looking 'plane (and one of my favorites in FS).
Agreed - Totally cool look !
I'm fond of the Super Hornet - which would make most sense given we already have trained pilots and that we could use some 18's configured in the Growler ECM role without changing airframes.
Super Hornet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet
Rafale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
Silent Eagle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Eagle
EF 2000 Typhoon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
Gripen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gripen
+1
Quote from: bob48 on April 05, 2012, 04:04:57 PM
The Typhoon is a nice bit of kit.
Changing the subject slightly, but staying in the air, I was interested to read somewhere that there are calls to put the OV10 Bronco back into production as a COIN / light ground-attack aircraft. Now that's a great looking 'plane (and one of my favorites in FS).
It would be great to have a modernized OV-10 in service. I always liked it's look too and it was effective in the light attack role.
I didn't know that it could be used off carriers & amphibious assault ships. Makes sense though.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ff5%2FOV-10A_over_USS_Nassau_1983.jpeg%2F220px-OV-10A_over_USS_Nassau_1983.jpeg&hash=6c9310951dda68cec496437eba2bc51ad4e7c7cb)
These are armament options for the proposed new version
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fea%2FOV-10X_Bronco.png&hash=76e7ba9f32f9484bc41a0a18331ba5c1e02db31d)
That is sweet ! Hellfires on that baby ! What a great flight sim that would make ! :)
^Man that would be fun in a flight sim. I wonder if the Bronco has ever been a flyable aircraft in any flight sim.
Well the OV-10's been done as an FSX add-on at least:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flightsim.com%2Fvbfs%2Fattachment.php%3Fattachmentid%3D119483%26amp%3Bstc%3D1%26amp%3Bd%3D1328482596&hash=4dd77ad4920a5a91a9120bb97d3b6d7d1fffa704)
That is fickin' sweet - That's it I gotta pick up FSX !!!!
There are multiple versions for both FS9 and FSX done by Tim 'piglet' Conrad, really excellent models.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/13/f-vp-stewart-f-35.html
Another take on the whole F-35 process !
Quote from: MIGMaster on April 16, 2012, 06:29:19 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/13/f-vp-stewart-f-35.html
Another take on the whole F-35 process !
It seems like he's got some interesting thoughts there.
Pretty soon the entire F-35 program will be down to the 5 that we build in the States.
And why stop posting on the whole fiasco now:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/18/pol-f35-costs-commons-committee.html
And now there's a strike !
QuoteLockheed Martin has told IHS Jane's it expects no short-term affect on its production schedule for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter after thousands of employees went on strike at its factory in Fort Worth, Texas.
About 3,600 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) union went on strike after midnight on 23 April following rejection of Lockheed Martin's new contract benefit proposals, said the company.
The employees work primarily on production of F-35 and F-16 aircraft at the site, which employs 14,000 people in total.
Quote from: MIGMaster on April 19, 2012, 06:31:52 AM
And why stop posting on the whole fiasco now:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/18/pol-f35-costs-commons-committee.html
From the above:
QuoteDefence Minister Peter MacKay insisted the $10-billion cost estimate discrepancy was simply a matter of accounting "differences"
Gotta love those 10 billion dollar "accounting differences".
The bastards are privatizing my beloved National Parks... they gotta go!!!!!!!!!!
Here's the deal Windy, why don't we converge on Quebec, send everybody there to Cuba - where there's free education and an already corrupt adminsistration (they won't notice the difference) - and then turn it into a nice federal wilderness park. I'll even throw in some Atlantic Canadian wolves to sweeten the pot!
The Supersonic Albatross
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_jet_that_ate_the_pentagon?page=0,0
The way things are going with this program, we're going to need those Spitfires from Burma.
Quote from: mirth on May 02, 2012, 02:09:14 PM
The way things are going with this program, we're going to need those Spitfires from Burma.
the coolness factor alone would keep our enemies at bay
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2012/05/orders-of-the-day---the-league-of-extraordinary-f-35-deputy-ministers-returns-to-public-accounts.html
Quote from: MIGMaster on May 02, 2012, 12:11:36 PM
Here's the deal Windy, why don't we converge on Quebec, send everybody there to Cuba - where there's free education and an already corrupt adminsistration (they won't notice the difference) - and then turn it into a nice federal wilderness park. I'll even throw in some Atlantic Canadian wolves to sweeten the pot!
Why should THEY get the sunshine, rum and palm trees??!! Why not send the all of the Cubans to Quebec and we'll move the Atlantic Canadians to Cuba and let them deal with the wolves and the snow! We'll get the sunshine and we'll build a bridge to Florida, build casinos, decriminalize marijuana and live large off of the tourist $$$!!! :D
Quote from: Centurion40 on May 03, 2012, 09:15:01 AM
Quote from: MIGMaster on May 02, 2012, 12:11:36 PM
Here's the deal Windy, why don't we converge on Quebec, send everybody there to Cuba - where there's free education and an already corrupt adminsistration (they won't notice the difference) - and then turn it into a nice federal wilderness park. I'll even throw in some Atlantic Canadian wolves to sweeten the pot!
Why should THEY get the sunshine, rum and palm trees??!! Why not send the all of the Cubans to Quebec and we'll move the Atlantic Canadians to Cuba and let them deal with the wolves and the snow! We'll get the sunshine and we'll build a bridge to Florida, build casinos, decriminalize marijuana and live large off of the tourist $$$!!! :D
draw up the plans....
Aye, aye, Cap'n.
Quote from: Centurion40 on May 03, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
Aye, aye, Cap'n.
A navy Captain is what rank equivelancy in the LANDFOR?
Quote from: Windigo on May 03, 2012, 02:40:21 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on May 03, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
Aye, aye, Cap'n.
A navy Captain is what rank equivelancy in the LANDFOR?
Colonel. Unless you're in the south, then Colonel is a rank of generic respect. As in Sanders.
Quote from: LongBlade on May 03, 2012, 02:41:27 PM
Quote from: Windigo on May 03, 2012, 02:40:21 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on May 03, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
Aye, aye, Cap'n.
A navy Captain is what rank equivelancy in the LANDFOR?
Colonel. Unless you're in the south, then Colonel is a rank of generic respect. As in Sanders.
nice.... but I am afraid I am off chicken for a while... till I figure out whats going on
No chicken in Canada is pumped full of hormones like the US. Its all safe.
Back on topic what is wrong with fewer F35s with many more drones with bacon? Convert 65 f35s to 16 with 200 drones?
Quote from: LongBlade on May 03, 2012, 02:41:27 PM
Quote from: Windigo on May 03, 2012, 02:40:21 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on May 03, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
Aye, aye, Cap'n.
A navy Captain is what rank equivelancy in the LANDFOR?
Colonel. Unless you're in the south, then Colonel is a rank of generic respect. As in Sanders.
Only in Kentuck!
The oxygen issue may kill the F35 in Canada. The US wont let the F22 do long missions in Alaska.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18081936 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18081936)
The latest press on the F-35:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/08/21/pol-cp-f-35-ndp-hearing-critics.html
If Canada buys the F-35, won't they need to upgrade or replace the existing air refuel tanker fleet? Does the Canadian CC-150T tankers already have both boom and probe refueling systems installed?
An interesting article on Fox today about the aging US Air Force.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/04/inside-geriatric-unit-us-air-force-struggles-to-keep-aging-aircraft-flying
Good piece - Thanks for posting it, LB!
The F-35 is really becoming an issue for the Harper government.... I suspect we will be a Super Hornet user down the road.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTTAWA – The Conservative government will signal it is serious about buying an alternative to the F-35 fighter jet by asking rival manufacturers about the cost and availability of their planes, according to defence industry sources.
The formal request for information will be issued to rivals like Boeing, which produces the Superhornet, and the consortium that makes the Eurofighter Typhoon, asking them what jets are available, and at what cost, if the Canadian government decides to ditch the trouble-plagued F-35 purchase.
The pricing and availability information request falls short of a formal tender but government sources said the "market analysis" will send a signal to voters and industry that it is taking seriously the Auditor-General's spring report that was heavily critical of the F-35 procurement process.
The Super Hornet was such a no brainer back when this requisition process started....
Now I say Eurofighter
Yeah man!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clavework-graphics.co.uk%2Faircraft%2Ffantasy_1%2FF043_Typhoon_Canada.jpg&hash=7ab81c18db452bc35272a49ab9ef6767b5d91a91)
Wall papered
That is tres sweet 40Cent!
where are the fuzzy dice?
Y'can't see 'em - they're the stealth version.
That's a cool site, 40. I think the US should dump the F-35 and go with this-
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clavework-graphics.co.uk%2Faircraft%2Ffantasy_4%2FF314_Viper_USA.jpg&hash=ab8c53e7a1c2139baa254ca9c0514b2ad6b8011c)
Good call!
That reminds me that there are so many cool sci-fi models that I have yet to buy, assemble, and paint.
Or rather, buy, not assemble, and not paint.
Should be this:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clavework-graphics.co.uk%2Faircraft%2Ffantasy_4%2FF356_F22A_Canada.jpg&hash=3df47ebd675500694ad777c0be548b7f75604940)
or this:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clavework-graphics.co.uk%2Faircraft%2Ffantasy_3%2FF215_Thunderbird_3_Canada.jpg&hash=bc29de5461d6f6f8c628ed5062989914bd283457)
since we are flogging Canada...
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clavework-graphics.co.uk%2Faircraft%2Ffantasy_1%2FF061_Me262A_Canada_1.jpg&hash=c718dcb16a297a8304d7f97e561c80a18f7f0844)
That would be fantastic at an air show.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ijJUHzV676I%2FT6Pi5sRQ6CI%2FAAAAAAAAAI4%2FgQKZNq_zb8Q%2Fs1600%2Fcanada%2Bgripen.png&hash=313b670ee6fc9d8631de17dd33e7afdd720e051e)
How about the Gripen !
I'd be ok with that.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fcd%2FJAS_Gripen.jpg%2F800px-JAS_Gripen.jpg&hash=6d23e91ca962875bfcf5ddd3efedb02c04ac6407)
Laying the groundwork for a switch.....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/06/poli-f35-pmo-government-fighter-jets.html
I am not sure what the back pedalling on the proposed F35 purchase by the Harper government means for Mackay but I suspect that his days as MOD are numbered. Otherwise I doubt that CODS Lawson would be contradicting MacKay.
Yeah, I agree, it will happen soon - he's done. They'll need to get rid of him due to his association with the program.
Heh...Petey does not look happy at the "hit the reset decision".
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/canada/244846-fighter-jet-effort-in-holding-pattern (http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/canada/244846-fighter-jet-effort-in-holding-pattern)
If the F-35 is off of the table, what would everyone else choose? Super Hornet, Typhoon, Gripen, or other?
Super Hornet.
Quote from: mirth on December 13, 2012, 09:13:22 AM
Super Hornet.
I am seriously torn here, but I'd go with the Typhoon.... the scale tipper here is that its best before date is further out than the Super Hornet.
But only 65 jets? For all of Canada and its three coasts???? FMTT but thats less than half of what I think we really need to be serious. Plus getting ships for northern Canada and a northern base.... cripes on a crutch
Quote from: Centurion40 on December 13, 2012, 08:39:31 AM
If the F-35 is off of the table, what would everyone else choose? Super Hornet, Typhoon, Gripen, or other?
In 2004, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter, "I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter."[95][96]
The Typhoon's combat performance, compared to the F-22 Raptor and the upcoming F-35 Lightning II fighters and the French Dassault Rafale, has been the subject of much discussion.[97] In March 2005, Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Raptor, talked to Air Force Print News about these two aircraft. He said,
The Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. They are different kinds of airplanes to start with; it's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula One car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance. ...The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high g forces), very impressive. That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. — all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive.
—[98]
</blockquote>
But how does it work in the frozen north? We've got lots of that.
Quote from: Centurion40 on December 14, 2012, 03:24:43 AM
But how does it work in the frozen north? We've got lots of that.
That's a good point. Gripen may be the best fit. Easy to maintain, able to operate from rough strips, short take-off run.
I suspect we could buy more fighters if we went with a lower cost options - I suspect it would be in the 90-100 range given our past history. I think we would go with the Super Hornet given our current infrastructure and the transition would probably be much more seamless. That said, logic will probably play no part in the whole affair.
I suspect the cost of this purchase will be considered as part of a bigger price tag to update out Maritime patrol platforms, transport and future helo requirements.
I think Gripen is the least expensive of the bunch.
Interesting article from the Ottawa Citizen discussing the proposed F-35 purchase by Canada in light of US interest in developing a 6th generation fighter for deployment in 2030.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canada+purchase+stalls+already+pushing+sixth+generation+fighter+2030/7690204/story.html (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canada+purchase+stalls+already+pushing+sixth+generation+fighter+2030/7690204/story.html)
Quote from: MIGMaster on December 14, 2012, 08:48:14 AM
I suspect we could buy more fighters if we went with a lower cost options - I suspect it would be in the 90-100 range given our past history. I think we would go with the Super Hornet given our current infrastructure and the transition would probably be much more seamless. That said, logic will probably play no part in the whole affair.
I suspect the cost of this purchase will be considered as part of a bigger price tag to update out Maritime patrol platforms, transport and future helo requirements.
I heard that they were considering drones for maritime patrol.
I like the idea of the Gripen or Typhoon because they look sexy. The Hornet has the been-there, done-that look about it.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.defenseindustrydaily.com%2Fimages%2FAIR_JAS-39D_Gripen_Rotated_lg.jpg&hash=fcd41d4a1dcbcc536758b905b22dcdaeb86bd28c)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.key.aero%2Fcentral%2Fimages%2Fnews%2F1370.jpg&hash=f858e2364a0a8f6262e195dc42ba1b9542951ffb)
Hopefully the RCAF is taking more factors into consideration, other than looks!!
Quote from: Shelldrake on December 14, 2012, 09:49:30 AM
Interesting article from the Ottawa Citizen discussing the proposed F-35 purchase by Canada in light of US interest in developing a 6th generation fighter for deployment in 2030.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canada+purchase+stalls+already+pushing+sixth+generation+fighter+2030/7690204/story.html (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canada+purchase+stalls+already+pushing+sixth+generation+fighter+2030/7690204/story.html)
Then perhaps the Super Hornet is the best stop-gap, for 20 years when the next, next-gen fighter comes out.
Quote from: Shelldrake on December 14, 2012, 09:49:30 AM
Interesting article from the Ottawa Citizen discussing the proposed F-35 purchase by Canada in light of US interest in developing a 6th generation fighter for deployment in 2030.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canada+purchase+stalls+already+pushing+sixth+generation+fighter+2030/7690204/story.html (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canada+purchase+stalls+already+pushing+sixth+generation+fighter+2030/7690204/story.html)
If anyone believes it will actually be deployed anywhere near 2030, then I have some lovely oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you...
Canadian American Strategic Review argues for a mix of Super Hornets and its Growler electronic attack variant.
http://www.casr.ca/mp-northern-growler-daly.htm (http://www.casr.ca/mp-northern-growler-daly.htm)
Quote from: Shelldrake on December 14, 2012, 11:10:11 AM
Canadian American Strategic Review argues for a mix of Super Hornets and its Growler electronic attack variant.
http://www.casr.ca/mp-northern-growler-daly.htm (http://www.casr.ca/mp-northern-growler-daly.htm)
That's a real plus for the Super Hornet !
Quote from: Shelldrake on December 14, 2012, 11:10:11 AM
Canadian American Strategic Review argues for a mix of Super Hornets and its Growler electronic attack variant.
http://www.casr.ca/mp-northern-growler-daly.htm (http://www.casr.ca/mp-northern-growler-daly.htm)
Too rational. It won't fly (no pun intended... really, please no more punny posts!!).
65 Super Hornets and 15-20 of the Growler variant, very sensible. You're right 40, it will never work ;D
We'll probably end-up doing nothing until our existing fleet of Hornets are u/s, then we'll lease some used Typhoons from the Brits. Then we'll ground the Typhoon fleet after a couple catch fire in-flight because we left them in storage too long while we were sorting-out the deal with the Brits.
Quote from: Centurion40 on December 14, 2012, 03:10:54 PM
We'll probably end-up doing nothing until our existing fleet of Hornets are u/s, then we'll lease some used Typhoons from the Brits. Then we'll ground the Typhoon fleet after a couple catch fire in-flight because we left them in storage too long while we were sorting-out the deal with the Brits.
It will turn out that exposure to air causes the wiring in the Typhoon's to catch fire.
See, now all you need to do is drive a couple of hours northwest, and you could be Minister of National Defence!
Quote from: Centurion40 on December 14, 2012, 03:48:55 PM
See, now all you need to do is drive a couple of hours northwest, and you could be Minister of National Defence!
Thanks but I have enough problems as it is.
i can give you some more problems if there ever is a shortage of concern Mirth.
i'll be happy to do so in my merry christian mood.
Ha. I was asking why can't we have the Growler EW variant like 2 years ago. Somebody buy me a Maple Danish.
That I can do.
Thank you, you are most kind.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/260328-taylor-f-35-might-be-wrong-plane-at-any-cost
Now that Scott Taylor has commented, I feel uniquely qualified to offer an expert opinion. ::)
Is any funding so far transferred to the replacement? Are there cancellation penalties?
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on December 18, 2012, 03:37:03 PM
Is any funding so far transferred to the replacement? Are there cancellation penalties?
As far as I know just an investment in R&D but no cancellation penalties since a contract hasn't actually been signed.
Retired general Lewis MacKenzie has some interesting views on the F-35 controversy in this Ottawa Citizen article.
http://www.theprovince.com/story_print.html?id=7781681&sponsor= (http://www.theprovince.com/story_print.html?id=7781681&sponsor=)
Dassault is offering the Rafale as an option if the Harper government changes its mind on the F-35 purchase.
The twin engine Rafale would be an advantage in the Canadian North. The Rafale can also carry a buddy-buddy refueling pod, which is a plus for long range missions.
QuoteFrench plane-maker Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA: Quote) will respond to an information demand from Canada on its Rafale fighter plane and would be ready to participate in a tender, were Ottawa to backtrack on its support of Lockheed Martin's (LMT.N: Quote) F-35, new chief executive Eric Trappier told French daily Les Echos.
"Canada is potentially the first country that could challenge the F-35," Trappier said.
"We are ready to explain what a Rafale offer could be, its operational capabilities and an industrial cooperation," he added in an interview due to be published in Les Echos' Wednesday edition.
http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE9070ZH20130108 (http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE9070ZH20130108)
Works for me. But I really don't think that our current regime would go against the US Military Industrial Complex. It's just political manoeuvring for a better price/deal.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldwide-military.com%2FMilitary%2520Aircraft%2FEU%2520Fighters%2520plaatjes%2FGrote%2520foto%26%23039%3Bs%2FRafale_001.jpg&hash=4502e015782c322161499ecea2c6f3790c59111c)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg14.imageshack.us%2Fimg14%2F9312%2Fimg28699248.jpg&hash=03a14709da8fd2cecdf9fe8d185d1caad9f50995)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-www.airliners.net%2Faviation-photos%2Fphotos%2F0%2F9%2F1%2F0630190.jpg&hash=9e8abc28eaafbc455c70c667c807a943b956f67f)
The F-35 as it stands now with its price tag IS just too expensive - and currently very much underperforming. GPS probably has the current list of fails on the F35.
I absolutely will never darken the door of the federal conservatives for 2 election cylcles if they stay the course on the F35 ... bang for buck is totally at the suckage level.
The thing is, is we buy enough Rafales from the French, they just might throw-in an aircraft carrier to sweeten the deal. 40 wants an aircraft carrier!!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acus.org%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fap%25204%25204%252011%2520Rafale%2520jet%2520Charles%2520de%2520Gaulle.preview.jpg&hash=86b10aff4994b0c0ba99976160e4af8a429e5ce9)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airpowerworld.info%2Fjet-fighter-planes%2Fdassault-rafale-m.jpg&hash=b3c1b54c72b8b7d64c808e3bba7add2de71c1e46)
Quote from: Centurion40 on January 10, 2013, 12:58:24 PM
The thing is, is we buy enough Rafales from the French, they just might throw-in an aircraft carrier to sweeten the deal. 40 wants an aircraft carrier!!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acus.org%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fap%25204%25204%252011%2520Rafale%2520jet%2520Charles%2520de%2520Gaulle.preview.jpg&hash=86b10aff4994b0c0ba99976160e4af8a429e5ce9)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airpowerworld.info%2Fjet-fighter-planes%2Fdassault-rafale-m.jpg&hash=b3c1b54c72b8b7d64c808e3bba7add2de71c1e46)
Our serious intentions to protect our sovereignity and Northern Coast would be taken a lot more seriously. Fuck, Nova Scotia's population would double when a carrier came to port.
And think what THAT would do to the local sex trade economy. It's win-win!
I thought Canada already had an aircraft carrier?
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic4.fjcdn.com%2Fcomments%2FCanada%2B_6039f9c95c29135235a023f7ba6eba27.jpg&hash=8bc38949d9a716d146a8d6f0939def02c323496b)
Quote from: Centurion40 on January 10, 2013, 12:58:24 PM
The thing is, is we buy enough Rafales from the French, they just might throw-in an aircraft carrier to sweeten the deal. 40 wants an aircraft carrier!!
What on earth would you guys do with an aircraft carrier? Send it on a worldwide Apology Tour?
Quote from: Martok on January 10, 2013, 01:07:29 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on January 10, 2013, 12:58:24 PM
The thing is, is we buy enough Rafales from the French, they just might throw-in an aircraft carrier to sweeten the deal. 40 wants an aircraft carrier!!
What on earth would you guys do with an aircraft carrier? Send it on a worldwide Apology Tour?
They can't. Obama is still our president.
They could bring some friends to ride on ours, though.
Quote from: Martok on January 10, 2013, 01:07:29 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on January 10, 2013, 12:58:24 PM
The thing is, is we buy enough Rafales from the French, they just might throw-in an aircraft carrier to sweeten the deal. 40 wants an aircraft carrier!!
What on earth would you guys do with an aircraft carrier? Send it on a worldwide Apology Tour?
You say that like it's a bad thing!
We need more of our sailors (of both sexes) sampling the trim in foreign ports. I can't think of a better floating bus than a carrier.
Quote from: LongBlade on January 10, 2013, 01:18:47 PM
Quote from: Martok on January 10, 2013, 01:07:29 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on January 10, 2013, 12:58:24 PM
The thing is, is we buy enough Rafales from the French, they just might throw-in an aircraft carrier to sweeten the deal. 40 wants an aircraft carrier!!
What on earth would you guys do with an aircraft carrier? Send it on a worldwide Apology Tour?
They can't. Obama is still our president.
They could bring some friends to ride on ours, though.
We're always hitching a ride with y'all. We need to start pulling our own freight.
Quote from: Centurion40 on January 10, 2013, 01:27:56 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on January 10, 2013, 01:18:47 PM
Quote from: Martok on January 10, 2013, 01:07:29 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on January 10, 2013, 12:58:24 PM
The thing is, is we buy enough Rafales from the French, they just might throw-in an aircraft carrier to sweeten the deal. 40 wants an aircraft carrier!!
What on earth would you guys do with an aircraft carrier? Send it on a worldwide Apology Tour?
They can't. Obama is still our president.
They could bring some friends to ride on ours, though.
We're always hitching a ride with y'all. We need to start pulling our own freight.
Yeah, but we still have dibs on the USS Barak Obama Aircraft Carrier Apology Tour!
Quote from: Martok on January 10, 2013, 01:07:29 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on January 10, 2013, 12:58:24 PM
The thing is, is we buy enough Rafales from the French, they just might throw-in an aircraft carrier to sweeten the deal. 40 wants an aircraft carrier!!
What on earth would you guys do with an aircraft carrier? Send it on a worldwide Apology Tour?
Good idea!
but I was thinking it would be a great venue for our politicians to proclaim mutiple mission accomplished statements
The only thing is that if the French toss-in a carrier on the deal, we'd need to let if air-out for a couple of months to get the tobacco & BO smell out!
Quote from: Centurion40 on January 10, 2013, 01:37:51 PM
The only thing is that if the French toss-in a carrier on the deal, we'd need to let if air-out for a couple of months to get the tobacco smell out!
its got to be a better deal than those subs eh?
So long as it doesn't catch fire when it gets wet, then yes.
Quote from: Centurion40 on January 10, 2013, 01:42:53 PM
So long as it doesn't catch fire when it gets wet, then yes.
I wonder what the hell it would take to run one of those things? Cost and personale wise
We could always tow it around with some supertugs ..... like a semi-mobile airfield
We could even put a roller coaster on the flight deck and charge admission!
Canadistanians with a military...
how cute.
pats Canada on the head.
I wonder if the Frenchies would sell us some of these?
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash4%2F391237_281640671965379_573805778_n.jpg&hash=1d3632609d1cc593bc642ad6ba5ae058878468cc)
Quote from: Windigo on January 10, 2013, 01:44:47 PM
Quote from: Centurion40 on January 10, 2013, 01:42:53 PM
So long as it doesn't catch fire when it gets wet, then yes.
I wonder what the hell it would take to run one of those things? Cost and personale wise
We could always tow it around with some supertugs ..... like a semi-mobile airfield
I want giant Arctic Zepplins that drift east with the jet stream. Big enough to carry a radar and a missile battery. They don't consume fuel. They are packed up for a boxcar ride back west. They are always hovering in unknown locations. Watching. Waiting.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on January 29, 2013, 02:02:10 AM
I want giant Arctic Zepplins that drift east with the jet stream. Big enough to carry a radar and a missile battery. They don't consume fuel. They are packed up for a boxcar ride back west. They are always hovering in unknown locations. Watching. Waiting.
In truth the modern equivalent is probably closer to a satellite or loitering UAV.
True, but not nearly as visually impressive as a Zeppelin!
Satellites have known orbits. UAVs are good. They have a lot of mechanicals that need to be cloaked from radar. Zeppelins could be almost radar invisible as thin plastic sheets at very little cost. You would need to stealth the radar and the missile battery. You can have stealth angles using a vaccum tent structure over PTFE membrane.
And you get your steam-punk fix. I know it sucks having a stealth armada over your territory for $20k each when fancy UAVs are millions each. ;-)
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on January 29, 2013, 12:51:44 PM
Satellites have known orbits. UAVs are good. They have a lot of mechanicals that need to be cloaked from radar. Zeppelins could be almost radar invisible as thin plastic sheets at very little cost. You would need to stealth the radar and the missile battery.
And you get your steam-punk fix.
I say arm them with high tech Coke-mentos shooters... better than a rail gun and invisible to radar
Quote from: Windigo on January 29, 2013, 12:59:26 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on January 29, 2013, 12:51:44 PM
Satellites have known orbits. UAVs are good. They have a lot of mechanicals that need to be cloaked from radar. Zeppelins could be almost radar invisible as thin plastic sheets at very little cost. You would need to stealth the radar and the missile battery.
And you get your steam-punk fix.
I say arm them with high tech Coke-mentos shooters... better than a rail gun and invisible to radar
Laser! Who needs laser sharks when you can have laser Zepplins!
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on January 29, 2013, 01:02:37 PM
Quote from: Windigo on January 29, 2013, 12:59:26 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on January 29, 2013, 12:51:44 PM
Satellites have known orbits. UAVs are good. They have a lot of mechanicals that need to be cloaked from radar. Zeppelins could be almost radar invisible as thin plastic sheets at very little cost. You would need to stealth the radar and the missile battery.
And you get your steam-punk fix.
I say arm them with high tech Coke-mentos shooters... better than a rail gun and invisible to radar
Laser! Who needs laser sharks when you can have laser Zepplins!
and if we used a lot of transparent materials.... they'd be super stealthy
Yeah, and if anyone does see them it lasers their fricken eye out.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on January 29, 2013, 01:21:16 PM
Yeah, and if anyone does see them it lasers their fricken eye out.
Canadian Cruise Missles too?
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2F0803%2Fsergey25%2FArtwork2%2FImageD.jpg&hash=3dce8c8e01df9f26f262195092b00577fc777063)
Nice drawing.
Is Bruce Campbell remote piloting it?
tar sands powered ;)
The latest:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/683974-f-35-critiques-watered-down-in-commons-report
^Typical! >:(
According to CBC, Boeing is making an aggressive pitch for Canada to buy the Superhornet at half the cost of the F-35 with equivalent or better economic spinoffs. With budget cuts looming for DND this seems like a no-brainer, but then again this is the Harper government we are talking about.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/27/pol-fighter-jets-boeing-superhornet-f-35-milewski.html (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/27/pol-fighter-jets-boeing-superhornet-f-35-milewski.html)
About time - I really think this is the way to go. The USA is planning to keep their 15's, 16's and 18's in the air longer now due to the problems with the F-35. Hopefully, the transition would be relatively painless due to our current use of the CF-18.
+1 The decision to dump the 35 is overdue. Super Hornets are the obvious choice as the replacement.
Im really on the fence as to whether or not the proliferation of UAVs has made the F-35 useless. for air superiority I always want a pilot in the plane and on the scene. for a glorified bomb truck... not so much.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 02, 2013, 06:21:35 PM
Im really on the fence as to whether or not the proliferation of UAVs has made the F-35 useless. for air superiority I always want a pilot in the plane and on the scene. for a glorified bomb truck... not so much.
I can't wait to buy my ice cream from a UICT.
Jobs in 45 US Congressional districts at stake...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html
"The F-35 funnels business to a global network of contractors that includes Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) and Kongsberg Gruppen ASA of Norway. It counts 1,300 suppliers in 45 states supporting 133,000 jobs -- and more in nine other countries, according to Lockheed. "
Quote from: eyebiter on March 05, 2013, 08:52:50 PM
Jobs in 45 US Congressional districts at stake...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html
"The F-35 funnels business to a global network of contractors that includes Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) and Kongsberg Gruppen ASA of Norway. It counts 1,300 suppliers in 45 states supporting 133,000 jobs -- and more in nine other countries, according to Lockheed. "
thats a shitty reason to keep floging a dead horse
Quote from: Windigo on March 05, 2013, 08:57:20 PM
Quote from: eyebiter on March 05, 2013, 08:52:50 PM
Jobs in 45 US Congressional districts at stake...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html
"The F-35 funnels business to a global network of contractors that includes Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) and Kongsberg Gruppen ASA of Norway. It counts 1,300 suppliers in 45 states supporting 133,000 jobs -- and more in nine other countries, according to Lockheed. "
thats a shitty reason to keep floging a dead horse
That's
exactly why they spread defense appropriations out among so many different districts and among both parties. It's an old game....and it sucks a$$
I'm really starting to think that the F-35 program may be the first fighter program, in recent memory anyway, to collapse. They tried to skip a generation without the technology to do it..........
Boeing proposed the F-15SE Silent Eagle for South Korean FX program, along with the F-35 and Eurofighter.
we need to start building new F-22s and let it follow the Eagles development life.
I actually think that we need to drop the idea of a manned air superiority solution altogether while staying with real people driving our tactical bomb trucks. A UCAV will be able to preform far past the wet-ware boundaries of a manned fighter but when it comes to dropping enough ordinance to destroy an entire city block then we have to keep the human hand in to make the final call on whether to release or not.
^You think UCAV's are there yet? I'm nowhere near up to speed on the tech, but I'm surprised to hear that nonetheless.
UAVs cannot handle the air supremacy side of things yet. IMHO it wont be able to for some time.
Not now of course but I'll be willing to bet that by the time I'm 60 there will be a UCAV in service. Question is, who will field it first.
in a air defence capacity sure. 10 to 20 aid defence UAVs over a fleet or anti COIN/SAS missions over the FEBA, I see it.
but projecting that power. not so much. its the offensive end you need the human part of on scene.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 06, 2013, 11:10:15 PM
in a air defence capacity sure. 10 to 20 aid defence UAVs over a fleet or anti COIN/SAS missions over the FEBA, I see it.
but projecting that power. not so much. its the offensive end you need the human part of on scene.
+1
Nothing like having a human on scene to fully take in the situation. Offensive air patrols would be extremely hard to do from a couch in the US somewhere.... and no enemy would take you seriously.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 06, 2013, 11:10:15 PM
in a air defence capacity sure. 10 to 20 aid defence UAVs over a fleet or anti COIN/SAS missions over the FEBA, I see it.
but projecting that power. not so much. its the offensive end you need the human part of on scene.
Could not agree more.
Computers are garbage-in-garbage-out. A Mark I eyeball and Mark I brain never hurt.
Pilots start F-35 training flights as Pentagon report pans jet
Wed, Mar 6 2013
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some students in the U.S. Air Force's F-35 fighter pilot school took their first flights on Wednesday in the new radar-evading jet as a report by the Pentagon's chief tester found fault with early versions of the plane's radar, pilot helmet and other systems.
The report by Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department's director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E), was sent to Congress last month, but was first published by the watchdog group, Project on Government Oversight, on Wednesday.
Gilmore has been critical of the U.S. Air Force's decision to start training F-35 pilots while the new Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) plane is still in development, arguing that pilots are at risk until the jet has amassed more flight hours in testing.
The latest report by Gilmore's office comes at a difficult time for the $396 billion weapons program, which has already been grounded twice this year, and faces possible cuts as a result of the mounting pressure on the U.S. defense budgets.
Defense officials said they were not surprised by the negative tone of the report given Gilmore's views, but said it included no "showstoppers" that jeopardized the program, which must complete several more years of development before it moves into combat testing and is declared ready for operational use.
The report reviewed an "operational utility evaluation" conducted by the Air Force last year before it decided to start training seasoned pilots to fly the F-35 fighter. The training lasts three months and includes time in the classroom, on sophisticated simulators, and in the air.
This year, the Air Force says it plans to train about 72 pilots and 711 mechanics to maintain the new planes. The first official class just completed the academic portion of their training and are now taking to the skies.
Gilmore's report said there was little to be gained by training pilots at this point, given technical issues and flight limitations on the new airplane.
"The limitations, workarounds, and restrictions in place in an air system this early in development limit the utility of training," the report said. "Little can be learned from evaluating training in a system this immature."
The report said the plane's radar, the display in the pilot helmet and the cockpit interfaces for controlling the plane's radios and navigational functions all needed improvement.
Pilots were unable to fly at night or during cloudy weather during the Air Force evaluation, given the immaturity of the current version of the plane. They were unable to practice advanced handling, slow flight, dives and use of the plane's afterburners, according to the Pentagon report.
It said pilots faced risks because the plane's water-activated ejection system was not installed on the early jets, the ejection seat had not yet been fully tested, and the jet did not have a qualified lightning protection system.
The report also included comments from the four experienced pilots who flew the jets during the Air Force evaluation, in which they expressed concerns about problems with the plane's radar and visibility during combat or more intense training.
Referring to close-range visual combat, one of the pilots said, "The head rest is too large and will impede aft visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements," and, "Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time."
Winslow Wheeler, a long-time critic of the plane who posted the report for the watchdog group, said the new report showed that the Air Force, or conventional takeoff and landing model of the F-35 was "flawed beyond redemption."
The Air Force's Air Education and Training Command, which approved the start of training in December, said it believed the training system was performing adequately and should continue.
Lockheed, the prime contractor on the F-35 program, said it agreed with the Air Force's decision to start training pilots on the F-35, and said it was confident that the service was able to conduct safe and effective flight training operations.
It said it would continue to refine the operating and tactical procedures for the jet as needed.
Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office, said Gilmore's latest report was based on the Air Force's report about its evaluation, which had found no reason to hold off on training experienced pilots to fly the new plane.
He said the Air Force and F-35 program office already knew about the issues raised in the report and were working to resolve them.
Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Britain's BAE Systems (BAES.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) are key subcontractors on the plane. United Technologies Corp's (UTX.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Pratt & Whitney unit supplies the engine for the single-seat, single-engine F-35.
(Editing by Lisa Shumaker)
something about the term 'water activated ejection system' doesnt sit right.
nor does not being lightning strike certified in a plane with so much emphasis on electronics.
Reading through that article is like a comedy of errors.
I'd like to think that it's created as disinformation to throw off the Chinese.
But I can't make myself take that theory seriously.
Perhaps it's time to adopt the 'fly before buy' policy the US abandoned during the Vietnam War.
We can no longer afford to buy the most expensive aircraft in history, then spend billions more over the next decade trying to fix all the problems with it.
That is quite the damning report, yet I'm in no way surprised that the Air Force bureaucracy is pushing ahead with the plane. It's the variation of the "build it and they will come" philosophy. Keep digging the hole deeper, train personnel for a plane that is perhaps fatally flawed, polish the brass and add on more chrome, divide the spoils between as many bases/congressional districts as possible. Fighter planes are sexy.
I think that the aerospace market needs a good shake-up. Maybe they should follow the new space exploration model and look at new private companies or ventures. I suspect Richard Branson could build one hell of a fighter! All the big companies like Boeing and Lockheed are so integrated with and dependent on gov't that they are effectively ineffective.
I suspect there's almost a quorum here to put together a privately created fighter.
Of course we'd face out own challenges. Like arguing over whether it should also be able to go underwater and if a zeppelin aircraft carrier is really, really, really necessary to deploy it.
no zepplins.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2Fabramsv%2FSNA6wQ45lGI%2FAAAAAAAAe1w%2FbbXF0NSxWM4%2Fs640%2F37uyehgfnhdcvx.jpg&hash=ea0c8f5f1f8114ee9dbbe95dcef56f7a65077d4d)
Quote from: LongBlade on March 08, 2013, 09:53:48 AM
I suspect there's almost a quorum here to put together a privately created fighter.
Of course we'd face out own challenges. Like arguing over whether it should also be able to go underwater and if a zeppelin aircraft carrier is really, really, really necessary to deploy it.
if it fires steam powered rockets with warheads loaded with victoria secret models.... I am in
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 08, 2013, 10:18:50 AM
no zepplins.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2Fabramsv%2FSNA6wQ45lGI%2FAAAAAAAAe1w%2FbbXF0NSxWM4%2Fs640%2F37uyehgfnhdcvx.jpg&hash=ea0c8f5f1f8114ee9dbbe95dcef56f7a65077d4d)
That looks like something from a Tom Swift novel.
IIRC it was an actual Lockheed proposal.
I had no idea Tom Swift worked for Lockheed ! He always was a bright kid.
Pretty sure I saw that plane in an episode of Jonny Quest. It kicked ass against the giant spider robot.
Quote from: mirth on March 09, 2013, 05:05:26 PM
Pretty sure I saw that plane in an episode of Jonny Quest. It kicked ass against the giant spider robot.
We need to work on a giant spider robot. I think our research is well underway on zeppelin aircraft carriers, but we're way behind on giant spider robots.
Probably Martok is doing some kind of sabotage. We'll need to look into this.
take your pick:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mywargame.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2FSpider-III.jpg&hash=cb72840af50678d1e8b0297f6550e9052e946fe6)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5133%2F5528097500_88e198e9a0_z.jpg&hash=0e09136f96685c696328252cb3ebcf4bd0264eb9)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages1.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20130219142537%2Fdestiny2579%2Fimages%2F1%2F16%2FFallen_Concept_Art.jpg&hash=6239ecfd4f4128bf3fe7c1f41364252b995fc628)
That third pic is uber-awesome.
+2.
I have a soft spot for Tau stuff, too.
Quote from: mirth on March 09, 2013, 05:05:26 PM
Pretty sure I saw that plane in an episode of Jonny Quest. It kicked ass against the giant spider robot.
Everything about Jonny Quest kicked ass! That was can't miss tv for me as a kid.
Quote from: LongBlade on March 09, 2013, 07:26:18 PM
We need to work on a giant spider robot. I think our research is well underway on zeppelin aircraft carriers, but we're way behind on giant spider robots.
Probably Martok is doing some kind of sabotage. We'll need to look into this.
So long as it's obviously robotic and doesn't appear organic, I'm cool with it.
On the other hand, if it's realistic enough to resemble Shelob or Ungoliant, I'm dropping a motherf**king nuke on it. (Or more -- however many it takes.)
Quote from: Martok on March 10, 2013, 03:07:55 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on March 09, 2013, 07:26:18 PM
We need to work on a giant spider robot. I think our research is well underway on zeppelin aircraft carriers, but we're way behind on giant spider robots.
Probably Martok is doing some kind of sabotage. We'll need to look into this.
So long as it's obvious robotic and doesn't appear organic, I'm cool with it.
On the other hand, if it's realistic enough to resemble Shelob or Ungoliant, I'm dropping a motherf**king nuke on it. (Or more -- however many it takes.)
Nuke 'em from orbit...it's the only way to be sure.
Apparently the F-35 can't even make a flight from Texas to Nevada.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/12/us-lockheed-fighter-landing-idUSBRE92B01M20130312
Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2013, 09:46:14 AM
Apparently the F-35 can't even make a flight from Texas to Nevada.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/12/us-lockheed-fighter-landing-idUSBRE92B01M20130312
In fairness, Texas is a big state. It probably won't have to fly that far in combat since most countries aren't as big as Texas.
^Good point.
Quote from: LongBlade on March 12, 2013, 09:55:51 AM
Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2013, 09:46:14 AM
Apparently the F-35 can't even make a flight from Texas to Nevada.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/12/us-lockheed-fighter-landing-idUSBRE92B01M20130312
In fairness, Texas is a big state. It probably won't have to fly that far in combat since most countries aren't as big as Texas.
*cough*
Its important to have range for interception and patrol... especially up here in the Great White
Aft visibility, who needs it?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/
Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2013, 12:38:02 PM
Aft visibility, who needs it?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/
It's like tracers: they work both ways.
But if you can't see them, they can't see you.
Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2013, 12:38:02 PM
Aft visibility, who needs it?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/
did you read the whole article?
while the helmet mounted system doesnt work yet when it does the pilot will be able to look all around the aircraft and not even see the airframe. youll be able to look straight down at the cockpit floor and see the ground underneath you. as sick as I am of the project as a whole thats a pretty frikin cool system!
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 12, 2013, 05:27:12 PM
Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2013, 12:38:02 PM
Aft visibility, who needs it?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/
did you read the whole article?
while the helmet mounted system doesnt work yet when it does the pilot will be able to look all around the aircraft and not even see the airframe. youll be able to look straight down at the cockpit floor and see the ground underneath you. as sick as I am of the project as a whole thats a pretty frikin cool system!
I read it. The helmet system doesn't work and it may never. It's entirely possible that the F-35 will be in active service for a period of time, years perhaps, without the helmet camera system operational. Even if they do get it working, what happens if it goes down during a dogfight?
Building a fighter with a bubble canopy and good all-around views seems like a no-brainer. That's the way we've been doing it for 70 years.
Quote from: LongBlade on March 12, 2013, 02:33:43 PM
Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2013, 12:38:02 PM
Aft visibility, who needs it?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/
But if you can't see them, they can't see you.
I thought that only worked on the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. ???
Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2013, 07:34:52 PM
That's the way we've been doing it for 70 years.
actually no. the F-15/16/18 were the perfection on the idea but its not very stealthy. most Soviet aircraft had almost no rear visibility nor the majority of NATO designs. I think the main problem with the F-35 is how wide that part of the canopy is.
Quote from: Staggerwing on March 12, 2013, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on March 12, 2013, 02:33:43 PM
Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2013, 12:38:02 PM
Aft visibility, who needs it?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/f-35-blind-spot/
But if you can't see them, they can't see you.
I thought that only worked on the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. ???
you need a towel for that trick.
You mean they are not yet standard issue for the F-35? I'm almost certain Bed, Bath, and Beyond has successfully lobbied to secure the contract.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 12, 2013, 08:20:58 PM
Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2013, 07:34:52 PM
That's the way we've been doing it for 70 years.
actually no. the F-15/16/18 were the perfection on the idea but its not very stealthy. most Soviet aircraft had almost no rear visibility nor the majority of NATO designs. I think the main problem with the F-35 is how wide that part of the canopy is.
We (the US) have been doing bubble canopies since mid WW2 was my point. There haven't been many fighters since that haven't used a bubble canopy. The Delta Dagger/Dart being two of the more notable exceptions and they were both designed as interceptors, not dogfighters.
you might want to go back and look at US fighter design since WW2 Mirth. bubble canopys were the exception not the rule. not a single Century series fighter had one. in fact Id like you to find 1 bubble topped jet fighter between the F-86 series and the F-14.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 12, 2013, 10:15:37 PM
in fact Id like you to find 1 bubble topped jet fighter between the F-86 series and the F-14.
F-89 Scorpion.
that predates the F-86 honey and its an update of the F-80 platform.
just double checked and its in pretty much the exact same time frame.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 12, 2013, 10:39:19 PM
that predates the F-86 honey and its an update of the F-80 platform.
just double checked and its in pretty much the exact same time frame.
The F-86 predates it by first flight and entry into service. You asked for this:
Quotein fact Id like you to find 1 bubble topped jet fighter between the F-86 series and the F-14.
And I gave it to you. See also the F-94 Starfire. Also predated by the F-86.
If you prefer Navy fighters, I can offer the F-9 Cougar. Indisputably after the F-86 and completely unrelated to the F-80.
the F-94 is most definetly an updated F-80. the F-87 follows the same idea. the F-86 is a completely different beast. so while you are technically correct due to service date they are all in the same time frame give or take a few months. next I expect youll use the naval variant as an example. my point still stands. bubble canopies were the exception not the rule. theres still no century series fighter that had one. nor did most NATO or Warsaw Pact fighters have them.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 12, 2013, 10:56:22 PM
the F-94 is most definetly an updated F-80. the F-87 follows the same idea. the F-86 is a completely different beast. so while you are technically correct due to service date they are all in the same time frame give or take a few months. next I expect youll use the naval variant as an example. my point still stands. bubble canopies were the exception not the rule. theres still no century series fighter that had one. nor did any NATO or Warsaw Pact fighter.
You made a big show of asking for one example between the F-86 and F-14 and I've already given you three. The F-94 was a further development of the F-80. The F-89 and the F-9 were not based on the F-80. The F-89 may have a similar looking airframe, but it was a common design of the era.
Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2013, 10:53:25 PM
If you prefer Navy fighters, I can offer the F-9 Cougar. Indisputably after the F-86 and completely unrelated to the F-80.
but also a late 40's design. the catch here is that as fighters broke through the sound barrier it was though to be a structural weakness so the idea was dropped for a long time. as for the F-9 being a bubble top... thats really streching the concept but Ill give it to ya just because you look great in the dress.
Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2013, 11:02:49 PM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 12, 2013, 10:56:22 PM
the F-94 is most definetly an updated F-80. the F-87 follows the same idea. the F-86 is a completely different beast. so while you are technically correct due to service date they are all in the same time frame give or take a few months. next I expect youll use the naval variant as an example. my point still stands. bubble canopies were the exception not the rule. theres still no century series fighter that had one. nor did any NATO or Warsaw Pact fighter.
You made a big show of asking for one example between the F-86 and F-14 and I've already given you three. The F-94 was a further development of the F-80. The F-89 and the F-9 were not based on the F-80. The F-89 may have a similar looking airframe, but it was a common design of the era.
did I say F-86... I ment post war supersonic fighters since the F-86 ;) and no the F-100 nor the F-11 are bubble topped fighters.
and yes good examples you have and my foot tastes good.
You have a point about bubble canopies not being as common as I made them out to be. However I'd argue that the F-101 had a bubble canopy at least as much as the F-14 can be thought of as one. And I do recognize that there is a major difference between the canopies of the F-86 and F-16 and other so-called bubble canopies.
thats kinda the reason I didnt include the 14 in my original list. and to be fair I think we can both agree that no fighter before the F-5/16/18 group had that 'on top of the plane visibility. all of the examples we brought up have the pilot well inside the frame of the aircraft. having said that they did figure out a way to get the F-22 RCS down while keeping the pilot up and out. the problem here is that one F-35 variant with the lift engine right behind the cockpit.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 12, 2013, 11:41:46 PM
thats kinda the reason I didnt include the 14 in my original list. and to be fair I think we can both agree that no fighter before the F-5/16/18 group had that 'on top of the plane visibility. all of the examples we brought up have the pilot well inside the frame of the aircraft. having said that they did figure out a way to get the F-22 RCS down while keeping the pilot up and out. the problem here is that one F-35 variant with the lift engine right behind the cockpit.
I do agree with all of those points. And I did pick up on the engine issue with the F-35 Marine variant. That's the problem with trying to make it be all things to all the branches.
I suspect the USMC Harriers will be in service a long time yet !
as will A-10s. thank God!
Quote from: MIGMaster on March 13, 2013, 07:41:43 AM
I suspect the USMC Harriers will be in service a long time yet !
Unfortunately there aren't all that many left.
7 active USMC squadrons plus 1 training squadron.
Yep that's about 80 Harriers. There was that attack last year in Afghanistan on a base that took out 6 Harriers and that was a very big deal. It was 6-7% of the total USMC force.
We did have the foresight to buy up a bunch of them that the RAF retired, but I think that was just for spares. I don't think we're flying any of them.
Inventory: 7 squadrons with 20 aircraft each and 1 training squadron with 20 AV-8B and 15 TAV-8B aircraft for a total 175 aircraft.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 13, 2013, 10:41:24 AM
Inventory: 7 squadrons with 20 aircraft each and 1 training squadron with 20 AV-8B and 15 TAV-8B aircraft for a total 175 aircraft.
I thought Harrier squadrons were about 10 aircraft each? You probably know better than I do though.
The good news is that with the spares purchased from the RAF the current Harrier force could be kept flying until 2030.
http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/usmcs-harriers-could-fly-until-2030/
Quote from: mirth on March 13, 2013, 10:46:55 AM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 13, 2013, 10:41:24 AM
Inventory: 7 squadrons with 20 aircraft each and 1 training squadron with 20 AV-8B and 15 TAV-8B aircraft for a total 175 aircraft.
I thought Harrier squadrons were about 10 aircraft each? You probably know better than I do though.
I had to goggle to make sure. I would have thought 12 to 16 airframes. after the bubbletop fiasco Im not letting you get smug on me. ;)
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 13, 2013, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: mirth on March 13, 2013, 10:46:55 AM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 13, 2013, 10:41:24 AM
Inventory: 7 squadrons with 20 aircraft each and 1 training squadron with 20 AV-8B and 15 TAV-8B aircraft for a total 175 aircraft.
I thought Harrier squadrons were about 10 aircraft each? You probably know better than I do though.
I had to goggle to make sure. I would have thought 12 to 16 airframes. after the bubbletop fiasco Im not letting you get smug on me. ;)
lol! Don't worry, you know this stuff better than I do. I'm just somewhat more knowledgeable than the average guy on the street. 20 years ago I was big into military aviation stuff and kept up on it a lot more. I just recently forced myself to jettison of all my old copies of Air & Space Magazine, Air Forces Monthly and others.
As an aside, I have a friend who works at Bath Iron Works and I get to talk naval stuff with him each Friday night. He's actively involved in the production of the DDG-1000 and he knows his stuff. He's the only friend I have who knows what ASW, CIWS, etc means. All my other friends just nod politely and think I'm nuts (totally true of course).
oh, I could pick his brain about things!
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 13, 2013, 11:56:56 AM
oh, I could pick his brain about things!
I'm sure you could. He likes talking about his job and I'm one of the only people he knows outside of BIW that can talk with him semi-intelligently about it. He knows a ton about the Burkes too. Cool guy.
Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2013, 11:02:49 PM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 12, 2013, 10:56:22 PM
the F-94 is most definetly an updated F-80. the F-87 follows the same idea. the F-86 is a completely different beast. so while you are technically correct due to service date they are all in the same time frame give or take a few months. next I expect youll use the naval variant as an example. my point still stands. bubble canopies were the exception not the rule. theres still no century series fighter that had one. nor did any NATO or Warsaw Pact fighter.
You made a big show of asking for one example between the F-86 and F-14 and I've already given you three. The F-94 was a further development of the F-80. The F-89 and the F-9 were not based on the F-80. The F-89 may have a similar looking airframe, but it was a common design of the era.
Mirth flies off the top rope...
Starfury is gaping...
;)