F-22 or F-35

[George Wallace]

Is this "Truth or Dare"?  I am sure you know darn well why the Air Force isn't there and you are just toying with us, or maybe you really don't know. 

 

[armyvern]

Way out of my lanes ... but I'm thinking that despite AF leadership -- IF the Government of Canada WANTED those AC at war ... they WOULD be.

Isn't that how it actually works in this great land of ours?

Same as -- IF the Government wants the ARMY out of Afghanistan in 09 ... we WILL be out.

BIGGER pictures exist than Leadership when you're talking wars, doctrine and policy.

Let's not write this lack of Canadian fast air in Afghanistan off to simple AF Leadership -- that's not on at all and is quite misleading of how our democratic government works.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Folks, before the tone slips any more.

 

[Harry Potter]

Folks, before the tone slips any more.

True.  I think we all made our point.  Good night gentlemen.  I enjoyed the debate. 
Cheers.

 

[Slackeur]

But a lot of you are in for a big surprise if you think that you will convince Treasury Board to caught up $5B for a capability your leadership has been unwilling to commit to WAR.  Quit basking is the past guys.  Your leadership has seen fit to pass more than once on an opportunity to deliver REAL kinetic effects in Afghanistan.  So when money will be dolled out, it will be assigned to elements that are NEEDED and familiar.  Cargo, fix wing SAR, Tac Hel. 

So you are saying that only elements related to the Afstan operation are essential and should be funded? What are you basing that on, that the mission will continue in perpetuity, or that every future mission will be the same? Do you know that back here for several months elements of the fighter force have been away from home doing a real mission? (PS, and its not just tracking Santa).

The CF is learning to fight a WAR with someone else's CAS because its own Air Force declined to send fighters.  You don't need F-35 to go to Afghanistan.  Why are you not there now??  If you're not there now, why would we believe that you will go later?  Come on, get your head out of the sand!           

Are you aware that it is a mission being conducted under NATO, hence why other nations are contributing where they can. Some take the lead in the dangerous areas, others provide air power, etc. I don't know what else to say, other than maybe you should heed your own advice regarding that last line.

 

[George Wallace]

Gents

This topic was started by someone who has little to no knowledge of the subject.  There is no need to create a bun fight as a result of a kid's expressing himself outside his realm of knowledge. 

Sometimes it is a good precaution to check the profile and previous posts of the author, prior to commenting or entering the debate.  Often the lack of credentials means the end of 'serious' debate.

 

[Loachman]

Tac Hel guys want to be there.

Slightly off topic, we have been there for a couple of years. Unfortunately, that presence is related to TUAV rather than actually flying. The 1 Wg Op O for the first CH146 deployment, however, was signed five days ago.

The CF is learning to fight a WAR with someone else's CAS because its own Air Force declined to send fighters.

So much bovine excrement in so few words...

There is no shortage of CAS capability in theatre.

The decision to send/not send anything, as has been pointed out, is a government rather than CF or CAS decision.

You don't need F-35 to go to Afghanistan.  Why are you not there now??  If you're not there now, why would we believe that you will go later?

CF18 replacement has nothing to do with current ops whatsoever. It has everything to do with the next three decades or so.

If you have the ability to see that far ahead then you are being grossly undervalued, both of which I doubt.

I think that you have some deep issues which deserve exploration. Did you unsuccessfully attempt Portage at some point in the past?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I can't believe I actually lowered myself to defend fighter pukes...

 

[Loachman]

I can't believe I actually lowered myself to defend fighter pukes...

Ditto. I've felt so ... dirty ... since I typed that last post of mine.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Lockheed's first STOVL F-35 - a closer look
Lockheed Martin has rolled out the first supersonic STOVL F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. Think about those words - "supersonic" and "STOVL". I worked in future projects at Hawker Siddeley in the late 1970s, so I have an idea of how hard it is to get those two characteristics together in one aircraft. Most of the designs I worked on used Harrier-style vectored thrust, which put a big fat engine right in the middle of the airframe - not exactly what you want for supersonic fineness. Remember Boeing's X-32?

But the F-35B looks quite sleek. The secret is its shaft-driven lift fan, installed behind the cockpit under a massive rear-hinged door that engineers have dubbed "the 56 Chevy hood". The lift system allows the engine to produce about 40,000lb of vertical thrust without needing reheat. About half that comes from the lift fan and the rest from the roll posts and rear swivelling nozzle. The system worked extremely well on Lockheed's X-32B concept demonstrator.

More and two pics on the link (1/2 below): http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2007/12/lockheeds-first-stovl-f35-a-cl.html

 

[MarkOttawa]

Harry Potter: Decisions on fighter deployment are very political.  One who knows has said the Hornets will be sent to Afstan "when they can build schools."  Aerial kinetics that kill civilians are not in political favour in Canada, even though we are happy to have others do them to support us.  Doing it ourselves would be another thing in this rather hypocritical country.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[belka]

That F-35B looks really purdy. I don't think that we will get the STOVL version if we do indeed decide to purchase the F-35.

 

[evil drunken-fool]

The only way we are getting the STOVL version, is if we have a STOVL carrier.

Personally I think a STOVL carrier in the 30,000 ton range with a squadron of F-35s and associated support aircraft could be feasible.
It would not require a crazy amount of personnel as some have insisted that a carrier would require.
Lots of other countries with similar military expenditures (Spain) that have STOVL carriers.
It at least should be something that is looked into.

Certainly this is to early in the ballgame to say a flat out "No" to it right now.

 

[aesop081]

The only way we are getting the STOVL version, is if we have a STOVL carrier.

I have no idea what makes you think that. A carrier is not required in order to operate STOVL aircraft. The Harrier after all did not start life as a naval aircraft.

It would not require a crazy amount of personnel as some have insisted that a carrier would require.

We are already very short naval and air personel so, even though on single carrier, would not require that many people, we dont have enough to man the ships we have now, nevermind adding a major warship.

Then we have to make sure we have enough escort ships.

And of course, a single carrier is not available all the time so you need at least 2 ( 3 is better) so that you always have one available for operations......

Really starts to add up

 

[evil drunken-fool]

I have no idea what makes you think that. A carrier is not required in order to operate STOVL aircraft. The Harrier after all did not start life as a naval aircraft.

It is more of an assumption based on the fact the government in all their wisdom will almost ulitimately go for the less expensive F-35A version for land based operations.  But you are right in what you say, I just personally don't think Canada will buy any STOVL unless we have a STOVL carrier.

We are already very short naval and air personel so, even though on single carrier, would not require that many people, we dont have enough to man the ships we have now, nevermind adding a major warship.

Then we have to make sure we have enough escort ships.

And of course, a single carrier is not available all the time so you need at least 2 ( 3 is better) so that you always have one available for operations......

Really starts to add up

I do not disagree with you here. Like I said, it is something that should be looked into. I am assuming this is 10 years down the road at least. The Navy might be very different then it is now.

 

[aesop081]

I am assuming this is 10 years down the road at least. The Navy might be very different then it is now.

In 10 years the Navy will face alot of challenges and i dont know if the idea of a CV will survive any of that.


1- The Halifax class FFH will be close to the grave. At the very least they will require major ( read : expensive) work .......$$$
2- The DDH replacement should be starting.......$$$
3- The SSKs will be toast and we will need new ones.....$$$
4- We dont have an AOR replacement yet so IMHO, 10 years from now is when we will see them.....$$$
5- MCDV / Orca will need refit......$$$

Your right.....10 years from now will be interesting indeed

But, this not being a Navy thread, lets move back to track

 

[evil drunken-fool]

But, this not being a Navy thread, lets move back to track

Agree.

 

[navy-nesop]

How long can we keep flying our current F-18  safely....?

It seems to me that whenever Canada is trying to choose a piece of equipment, we are always stuck with the choice of multiple role platforms.  We have such a small budget for the the amount of roles and territory that we have to cover.

On top of all of these factors there is the political side of things.  Most of the time a project will overlap 2 political mandates or more.  Since the numbers are enormous, it's influence the average people to vote on one side or the other depending on their views.  So it becomes a strategy to cut, reduce or delay any procurement.

The result is that we now need new fighters, helicopters, AOR, destroyers.  We are half way on the life of the CPF and I don't know anything for the army but I am sure they need some things too, probably tanks!

So what is the best multi role aircraft out there?  Can we built one in Canada?

 

[tomahawk6]

First intercept of the F-22 of a Russian bomber.

 

[aesop081]

Those silly Russians refusing to go away, dont they know the cold war is over ?