Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 11-02-2011, 09:57 PM   #81
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

We do build unarmed unmanned drones, I believe we sent a bunch to help the rebels in Libya,

We also have dis

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/.../index-eng.asp

Made in Israel
__________________
Just when you think you have the answers, I change the questions
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 11-08-2011, 01:45 PM   #82
FlameOn
Franchise Player
 
FlameOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Looks like there will be more delays to the F-35 program
Quote:
Maj.-Gen. Jay Lindell told members of the U.S. congressional subcommittee on tactical air and land forces earlier this month the U.S. Air Force had expected the aircraft to be ready for initial use in 2016.

However, restructuring in the $66-billion program, which is already five years behind schedule, may push things back to 2018, he said.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...-for-50-years/
http://www.canada.com/faces+year+del...783/story.html
FlameOn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 08:39 PM   #83
Bindair Dundat
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Albert
Exp:
Default

Damn...gets me every time. (Wipes tears out of his eyes and tries to "man up")

Edit: Referencing the Remembrance day tribute, prior to the Minny game (and that damned trumpet).

Last edited by Bindair Dundat; 11-08-2011 at 08:45 PM.
Bindair Dundat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 09:20 AM   #84
Byrns
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Byrns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

Gord Lowe is an idiot. I'm glad the city found some bucks to restore these old warbirds.

Quote:
With the city’s commitment of $800,000, the restoration of two Second World War-era aircraft is set for take-off.
Though the Calgary Mosquito Society has raised only $32,000, it won the bid from the city on late Wednesday to restore the De Havilland Mosquito fighter-bomber and Hawker Hurricane fighter.
The city will now put up the matching funds that should see work begin in late January on the two aero-relics, said group president Richard de Boer.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/12/22...vintage-planes
Byrns is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Byrns For This Useful Post:
Old 03-22-2012, 09:03 AM   #85
Byrns
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Byrns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

Not specifically about Canada, but the F-35 is looking grim. My prediction is that Harper will cut the plane in the budget, and begin a search for an alternative. I don't think the current CF-18 airframes will hold out long enough for this thing to get finished.

http://gizmodo.com/5895483/pentagon-...etary-disaster

Quote:
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the supposed backbone of the Pentagon's future air arsenal, could need additional years of work and billions of dollars in unplanned fixes, the Air Force and the Government Accountability Office revealed on Tuesday.
Byrns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 09:09 AM   #86
Bigtime
Franchise Player
 
Bigtime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I was reading about that yesterday, if they do can the F-35 I'll put my money on the Super Hornet plus a larger order of drones for Arctic duties.

Last edited by Bigtime; 03-22-2012 at 09:19 AM.
Bigtime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 10:41 AM   #87
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

I'm dissapointed in the F-35 program and totally torn by the whole thing. I'm still convinced that the capabilities, the expected lifeterm, the benefits for international deployment if necessary and the technology benefits would make the F-35 the right fit for Canada going forward for the next 35 to 40 years.

I'm not sure that the F-18 Super hornet is that plane.

The idea of buying a plane that all of our allies were/are going to buy has some real key benefits.

The Super Hornet is a nice plane, but it is completely different then the CF-18 in technology and characteristics so its not like we could use the same procurement, maintenance and pilot training that we use currently. We would have to revamp our airforce infrastructure to use the Super Hornet. On top of that, part of the Air Force strategy behind the F-35 was that the force miltiplier was so great that we could get away with less jets then we currently have. With the Super Hornet you don't get the same force multiplier.

On top of that the Super Hornet is a fourth generation fighter or a fourth generation airframe which means that the possible upgrade paths will limit the life of the plane. It would be a stop gap and nothing more, especially now where the major aviation powers are working frantically on 5th generation stealth platorms, the Super Hornet could be outclassed in the next 15 years.

I don't understand the prevailing sentiment of the whole drone theory. The Canadian arctic airforce defense is built around the concept of intercepting and shooting down fighters, and being able to bring maximum air to ground force against an invading force. A drone doesn't carry enough of a payload to be effective on long sorties and drones aren't effective air to air platforms and probably won't be for a long time yet.

You can use drones for intelligence gathering and selective targeting due to a smaller payload. But drones can't beat an F-35 or a F-18 carrying 18000 pounds of mixed ordinance.

Technology specs wise the F-35 is the best platform that Canada would get, especially with the limited size of our airforce and the demand that it have a nearly half century life requirements.

Cost wise, I'm not so certain, however all of the allies are looking at this price and hedging which might make Lockheed Martin fix price it just to save the plane.

I belive that we are tied in lockstep with the North American aviation industry and buying a plane like the F-35 or even a Super Hornet would create jobs and other economic benefits. I don't believe that we can effectively buy outside of North America because most of those perspective partners shouldn't be involved in our defense strategy.

I would think that the smart move would be to not do another panic exploration of alternatives and to see what the cost would be of a crash extention of the F-18 line for another 5 years until the F-35 shakes out.
__________________
Just when you think you have the answers, I change the questions
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 03-22-2012, 11:01 AM   #88
Byrns
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Byrns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

I think the idea of a shared platform amongst allies is all but dead with the F-35. Too many countries are backing out now, and the snowball is picking up steam.

I'm not a fan of Canada dropping the two engine specification in order to go with this plane so if they can investigate options for a Plan B I'm all for it.
Byrns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 11:04 AM   #89
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Byrns View Post
I think the idea of a shared platform amongst allies is all but dead with the F-35. Too many countries are backing out now, and the snowball is picking up steam.

I'm not a fan of Canada dropping the two engine specification in order to go with this plane so if they can investigate options for a Plan B I'm all for it.
I've never bought the whole two engine theory being all that important. If you look at fighter jet engine reliability in design, the F-16 actually has better reliability then the twin engine F18 (read that in a popular mechanics a couple of years back I think).

Plus 1 engine planes are cheaper to maintain and its quicker to do an engine replacement.
__________________
Just when you think you have the answers, I change the questions
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 12:19 PM   #90
speede5
First Line Centre
 
speede5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

Dual engine is a red herring at this point. DND has done the risk analysis and is ok with it. When the 18 was purchased engine reliability was much worse than it is these days. Not having to haul around an extra 3000 lbs of engine has serious benefits.

There is also talk in DND in keeping some of the current 18 fleet for the northern operations where a single engine may still be a concern, however the longer the delay in the F-35, the more likely it is we will be stuck with Super Hornets, not a terrible result but it sure doesn't put Canada near the forefront. A 15 year old design over state of the art.

This aircraft has to carry Canada beyond 2030, why would we start with an aircraft that debuted in 97?

Maybe an option would be a small fleet of Super's, say 20-30, and when the F-35 comes on line in 5 years grab 30+ of them. That is what we really need, multi fleets instead of one fleet fits all.
speede5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 12:33 PM   #91
Lt.Spears
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Exp:
Default

Maybe i am just ignorant, but i cant believe how long these things take to R&D, Its almost as if by the time the plane gets into the air, the design is already a decade old. Pretty crazy IMO.
Lt.Spears is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 01:45 PM   #92
Barnes
Franchise Player
 
Barnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Violating Copyrights
Exp:
Default

What about the F-15SE Silent Eagle? The F-15 has really transformed into a multi-role fighter and it's newer than the Super Hornet.
Barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 02:11 PM   #93
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnes View Post
What about the F-15SE Silent Eagle? The F-15 has really transformed into a multi-role fighter and it's newer than the Super Hornet.
The SE is an interesting concept of trying to marry a fourth generation airframe to 5th generation stealth technology.

But its still got a long ways to go in it development, and its not something that's really in the U.S. Airforces road map.

There's thoughts that it might just be a pure for export plane because its still going to be inferior to a 5th generation fighter plane.

On top of that, you've still got the problem that its based on a older airframe and avionics package and it would have a limited upgrade roadmap.

With it still being fairly early in development it would still lag far behind the F-35 in terms of capability and price point.
__________________
Just when you think you have the answers, I change the questions
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 02:19 PM   #94
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speede5 View Post
Dual engine is a red herring at this point. DND has done the risk analysis and is ok with it. When the 18 was purchased engine reliability was much worse than it is these days. Not having to haul around an extra 3000 lbs of engine has serious benefits.

There is also talk in DND in keeping some of the current 18 fleet for the northern operations where a single engine may still be a concern, however the longer the delay in the F-35, the more likely it is we will be stuck with Super Hornets, not a terrible result but it sure doesn't put Canada near the forefront. A 15 year old design over state of the art.

This aircraft has to carry Canada beyond 2030, why would we start with an aircraft that debuted in 97?

Maybe an option would be a small fleet of Super's, say 20-30, and when the F-35 comes on line in 5 years grab 30+ of them. That is what we really need, multi fleets instead of one fleet fits all.
I don't think Canada could afford to have a mixed airforce, you would need two logistical services instead of one and two training programs for ground and air crews instead of one.

Plus a mixed airforce should be made up of different classes that are superior in their roles. For example the Airforce used the A-10 and the F-15, the Marines the Harriers and the F-18s. But even the American's are trying to amalgamate everything to one F-35 platform.
__________________
Just when you think you have the answers, I change the questions
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 02:42 PM   #95
FlameOn
Franchise Player
 
FlameOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Auditor general releases scathing report on F-35 budget and potential costs to tax payers given current overruns saying it lacks due diligence. Government claims that the program would cost only $16billion are understated and may actually be closer to $25billion. Assertions that the Canadian economy stands to $12billion in contracts due to the F-35 program may also be overstated from the AGs office.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...al-report.html

Government responds by offering a full public review and potential opening to competitors
http://www.canada.com/technology/Con...024/story.html

As much as I like the idea of the F-35 as a fighter, cost overruns and lockheed martin mismanagement of the project seem more and more likely to kill it as a viable replacement for the our CF-18s
FlameOn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 03:14 PM   #96
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Yeah I kinda figured that this was going to happen.

I think that in terms of features and capabilities that the F35 is probably the best choice based on Canada's strategic needs.

As with any bleeding edge military weapons platform the developement is bound to be incredibly painfull and problematic.

Lockheed Martin has really screwed the pooch on this project, but I believe that most of the nations that have committed to the F-35 will eventually own the F-35. Lockheed Martin might have to eat some significant money on it.

If they open the competition up, there aren't really any other jet fighters that can compare, and based on strategic reauirements for the next 30 years, price can't be the primary deciding point.

There's no question that Canada has to replace its current inventory of F-18 in the next 7 years at a maximum.

I don't think you can buy European jets because of not only logistical issues but strategic concerns. You certainly can't buy jets from Russia, or China.

you need to look at American made jets, but they all require the same sort of logistical and training upheaval during the tchange over cycle.
__________________
Just when you think you have the answers, I change the questions
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 04:13 PM   #97
Byrns
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Byrns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
I don't think you can buy European jets because of not only logistical issues but strategic concerns. You certainly can't buy jets from Russia, or China.
What concerns would that be? It didn't stop the government from buying EH101s, Leopard IIs, or used lemon submarines.
Byrns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 04:25 PM   #98
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Byrns View Post
What concerns would that be? It didn't stop the government from buying EH101s, Leopard IIs, or used lemon submarines.
The one problem that I had with all of those purchases is an overseas logistical chain. I'm not sure that I trust it if things go sour. The one nice thing about using American Military technology is that the logistical chain is tied closly with our closest ally, and Norad requirements allow us to pressure to keep the pricing reasonable.

And the Lemon subs probably not the best example. I could write a page and a half about that purchase.

Buying armaments from the Russians or Chinese is out from a security concern, and though they can use NATO armaments, the best marriage of armaments to plains are the Russian or Chinese made weapons.

I'm not a fan of planes like the Rafale or the SAABS for example.

Canada might need to look at a mid term replacement purchase for Planes that could push out a advanced fighter for 10 or 15 years.
__________________
Just when you think you have the answers, I change the questions
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2012, 06:32 PM   #99
afc wimbledon
Franchise Player
 
afc wimbledon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: east van
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Byrns View Post
What concerns would that be? It didn't stop the government from buying EH101s, Leopard IIs, or used lemon submarines.
As a Brit I resent that dig at our subs, they were perfectly good for what the first operational spec sheet called for, a couple of subs that could be tied up in Halifax and Esquimalt so we could say 'look we got some subs!'
afc wimbledon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2015, 08:31 AM   #100
Harry Lime
First Line Centre
 
Harry Lime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Exp:
Default

Yes, other than the fire on the Protecteur that was talked about sometime in 2013, this is how far back I had to look to find where the submarine thread was hiding. I bumped it, because that just adds to the ridiculousness.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle23236697/

Sir, your submarines are ready.
__________________
"Writer's block is a fancy term made up by whiners so they can have an excuse to drink alcohol." - Steve Martin
Harry Lime is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:57 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016