Forum: General F-35 Forum

Whatever happened to ViperAllTheWay and loading up an FB-X35 with 36 extra long SDB II's on top with a cardboard RCS cover?

F-16.net Sponsor

"I would take Laurie's word over the arm-chair generals in this forum. Considering he was in the Canadian military and has flown CF-18s, his opinion has a lot of weight."

Big, fat, hairy deal. He is now a politician and depends on his party's success for advancement.

"We want one that is at the start of its development cycle and one that will be in production for at least the next 25 years."

That's what is called a circular argument. The JSF business case relies on putting all other fighters out of production, outside Russia and China. If you believe this will happen the JSF is the logical choice irrespective of costs or capability.

However, if you commit to JSF and it then follows the trajectory of four out of six major US military aircraft programs in the last 30 years, you have screwed up bigtime.

shep1978 wrote:

Another thread derailed with talk of fantasy fighters that the nation in question doesn't want and never will want, this time within just 12 posts. Are we gunning for a new record Geogen?

MODS: Can we perhaps have a "fanatsy fighters for dreamers" section of the forum so that we might have a chance of keeping each forum thread on topic in future. It's frustrating when every single damn topic is derailed by the usual suspects spouting the same old tired crap.

I second the motion and call for a vote. Maybe a "WhatIf" forum? Oh, wait, aren't there enough other sites that are filled with this non-information?
fisk

"fanatsy fighters for dreamers"

You mean those "Get Your Three-For-One, Do Anything Better and Cheaper than Anything Else, or Your Money Back!" fighters, right?

And here I thought there was already a whole forum devoted to that particular 'fanatsy'...

JL

geogen wrote:

Personally though, I think an F-15SE-type is Canada's best option.

If you are going to throw the F-15SE non sense around, might as well suggest Russian or European made fighters. Rolling Eyes

[quote="underhill"]"I would take Laurie's word over the arm-chair generals in this forum. Considering he was in the Canadian military and has flown CF-18s, his opinion has a lot of weight."

Big, fat, hairy deal. He is now a politician and depends on his party's success for advancement.

"We want one that is at the start of its development cycle and one that will be in production for at least the next 25 years."

That's what is called a circular argument. The JSF business case relies on putting all other fighters out of production, outside Russia and China. If you believe this will happen the JSF is the logical choice irrespective of costs or capability.

quote]

Once a fighter pilot always a fighter pilot, it is kinda an exclusive club in Canada lately. Again his credentials carry a lot of weight. If you would be so kind to include yours some readers might be able to compare the two and see which opinion should be listened to more closely. If not the phrases "arm-chair generals and opinions are like a$#holes everyone has one and (you know the rest)" would be very fitting.

So the business case for buying a fighter at the end of it's production cycle and will have to be replaced in 15 years is a better arguement? If that is the case I have some ocean front property in Saskatchewan I can sell you.

geogen wrote:

But for argument sake, no, I would not want to be in an entry level block III F-35A flying in Red Flag and opposing AESA + Grolwer-lite + next-gen SoJ + 11" LW IRST-configured Supers armed with EMMM-174 (evolved multi-mission-missile Smile

) imho. Respects, m8.

By the time such a hypothetical aircraft(and sensor/armament) could be in service, the F-35 would already be in the Block IV/V configuration.

pushoksti wrote:

geogen wrote:

Personally though, I think an F-15SE-type is Canada's best option.

If you are going to throw the F-15SE non sense around, might as well suggest Russian or European made fighters. Rolling Eyes

Fuel and maintenance costs would be unbearable, F-15 aren't know to be the most maintenance friendly.

Plus training a whole new set of WSOs, we are still trying to fill the vacant pilot spots in the CAF. Not a good idea to have a 2 seater again.

Shep -

Nothing being derailed sir. I'm sorry but please read the Honourable Laurie Hawn's email again. A significant portion of his argument in support of the F-35 is clearly based on his perceived deficiencies of other potential gen 4.5 alternatives. He is making considerable effort to make COMPARISONS between strengths and weaknesses of which sould in his mind disqualify ALL other 4.5 alternatives (not merely the EF and E/F Super).

Thus, imho it's a perfectly open and green-lighted thread for debating the comparisons between F-35 and potential alternatives.

One of my main contentions though is with regards to these dang assumed F-35 production numbers (3k-5,000 F-35s) and future costs per unit, etc. The assumption based in the email is that with Canada's first orders placed in 2015, that this will coincide with maximal economies of scale being realized thus giving Canada the expected cheap fighter deal (at the same time creating major industrial exploits). I'm sorry, but this is a bad assumption. It's an unfortunate miscalculation and not the most competent reasoning from a seemingly intelligent Parliamentarian and Secy. imho.

To CAFPILOT, I respect your service and well articulated comments sir and if you were personally involved with air sovereignty flights covering Alaska when F-15 Eagles were grounded you've got my added salute. With regards to a hypothetical F-15SE option, I would concur that gas bill and maintenance would be likely higher than a new Super Hornet and even possibly a future F-35. But it's important to also compare such hypothetical new-build F-15 maintenance as being LOWER than currently operated and OLD USAF F-15 C/D/E. A new GE engine derivative or improvement of the F110-132, downrated in Thrust output would likely equate to even further savings in maintenance, over say, new build F-15K/SG.

Fair point on the 2-seat issue, unless some of the sorties can be flown with 1 pilot?? Or some future missions having WSO operated via AWACS with AESA high speed data transfer? Perhaps it can even be conceived that future (2020'ish) F-15SE blocks be 'man-optional'? IIRC, Boeing is working in that field of R&D.

Regarding fuel burn, sure - it won't be a Gripen... but when making an operational patrol and even training sortie, the extended range compared to F-35A (or Super) might not require as many additional In Flight Refuellings/sorties to begin with? But multi-sensor BVR situational awareness A2A/A2G could be interesting to compare too, imho.

Anyway, not sure If Boeing would even make an F-15 proposal (if betting on an upgraded Super block), or if Canadian Govt/AF would accept it, just saying that the Honourable man's views as expressed in his email raise more questions than he is attempting to prove answered.

I'm in the camp supporting further Canadian review of alternatives and revisions to their F-35 Programme assessments so Canada may make more informed decisions.

So, when did Canada express any interest in the F-15...?

Geogen: But Canada would have to fund the development of the F-15XLSREIOWHGSD Mega-Ultra Diamond Platinum Eagle itself, which would not be cheap. It makes no sense to all the trouble to try and redesign an old airframe with all these capabilities when your best buds down south are already paying for the vast majority of the development cost of a new aircraft that is superior in nearly every way.

Every little thing you are talking about to make your ideal Eagle (or Idealgle) with require separate development and testing (and integration), and then will have to be supported throughout it's lifetime. Since we're only talking about less than a hundred aircraft, that means maintenance costs are going to be absurd since the economies of scale simply aren't there. And Canada is not the UAE.

The Idealgle might in some specific circumstances beat an F-35, but the problem is that it is simply a terrible idea to try and make one.

geogen wrote:

One of my main contentions though is with regards to these dang assumed F-35 production numbers (3k-5,000 F-35s) and future costs per unit, etc. The assumption based in the email is that with Canada's first orders placed in 2015, that this will coincide with maximal economies of scale being realized thus giving Canada the expected cheap fighter deal (at the same time creating major industrial exploits). I'm sorry, but this is a bad assumption. It's an unfortunate miscalculation and not the most competent reasoning from a seemingly intelligent Parliamentarian and Secy. imho.

It wouldn't take numbers like that, for there to be cost advantages in favor of the F-35. Even in LRIP quantities, the price has come down more, than the difference that remains to the target price.

geogen wrote:

To CAFPILOT, I respect your service and well articulated comments sir and if you were personally involved with air sovereignty flights covering Alaska when F-15 Eagles were grounded you've got my added salute. With regards to a hypothetical F-15SE option, I would concur that gas bill and maintenance would be likely higher than a new Super Hornet and even possibly a future F-35. But it's important to also compare such hypothetical new-build F-15 maintenance as being LOWER than currently operated and OLD USAF F-15 C/D/E. A new GE engine derivative or improvement of the F110-132, downrated in Thrust output would likely equate to even further savings in maintenance, over say, new build F-15K/SG.

Fair point on the 2-seat issue, unless some of the sorties can be flown with 1 pilot?? Or some future missions having WSO operated via AWACS with AESA high speed data transfer? Perhaps it can even be conceived that future (2020'ish) F-15SE blocks be 'man-optional'? IIRC, Boeing is working in that field of R&D.

Regarding fuel burn, sure - it won't be a Gripen... but when making an operational patrol and even training sortie, the extended range compared to F-35A (or Super) might not require as many additional In Flight Refuellings/sorties to begin with? But multi-sensor BVR situational awareness A2A/A2G could be interesting to compare too, imho.

Anyway, not sure If Boeing would even make an F-15 proposal (if betting on an upgraded Super block), or if Canadian Govt/AF would accept it, just saying that the Honourable man's views as expressed in his email raise more questions than he is attempting to prove answered.

I'm in the camp supporting further Canadian review of alternatives and revisions to their F-35 Programme assessments so Canada may make more informed decisions.

Thanks GEO, but I am not on patrol yet another year at this rate and I should be close. The maintenance issue is the problem of 2 engines and stealth coatings. The idea with the F-35 is that the lack of a second engine (engines being the biggest chunk of maintenance time and money) would provide money to cover the stealth material maintenance. The problem with a F-15 Silent eagle is you have 2 bigger engines and stealth coatings on top of that, which would make it an immediate no go.

I would love to fly a F-15 but I know it won't happen the jet is just too big for what Canada has traditionally flown. Plus the time issue, we need to start replacing the hornets by 2017 (some hornets will be retired before that), I can't see Boeing delivering a new Silent Eagle in that time period with all the updated avionics and millions of lines of code. Even the F-35 camp is going to have a hard time and they have hired whacks of new programmers.

The biggest thing with Mr.Hawn's letter and have heard it from many of the planners is to have a jet at the beginning of the development cycle to ensure continuous upgrades and supply of parts. It seemed to work for the CF-18 and I am sure it will work for the F-35. The other contenders will have a hard time doing so, look at the Typhoon in British service. Very few pilots are trained to do the air to ground role, due to lack of parts. We don't want that in Canada, we already deal with that on the Cormorant.

cafpilot wrote:

Even the F-35 camp is going to have a hard time and they have hired whacks of new programmers.

Thanks, cafpilot, I have often wondered what a group of codehammers should be called! Now I know, "whacks"!
Smile

fisk

Forum: General F-35 Forum

MP Laurie Hawn on the F-35