HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2012, 2:40 PM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,576
Michael Byers & Stewart Webb: Buyer beware the F-35

Michael Byers & Stewart Webb: Buyer beware the F-35

Full story: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ware-the-f-35/

Quote:
The sorry tale of the F-35 stealth fighter jets just got worse, and not because Auditor General Michael Ferguson is issuing a report on the Department of National Defence’s procurement process next week. For it has emerged that F-35s suffer from — believe it or not — flaky skin.

The ability of F-35s to avoid radar detection depends on a “fibre mat,” which is cured into the composite surfaces of the aircraft.

In December 2011, a test version of the F-35 for the first time achieved the design speed of Mach 1.6. According to Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week, the flight caused “peeling and bubbling” of the stealth coating on the horizontal tails and damage to the engine’s thermal panels, and the entire test fleet was subsequently limited to Mach 1.0.

Repairing and replacing stealth materials is a time- and technology-intensive process that reduces the “mission capable rate” of aircraft. Indeed, it has been reported by the U.S. Congressional Research Service that after five years of service the F-35’s sister plane, the F-22, has a mission capable rate of just 60%.

If the F-35 has a similar mission capable rate, Canada will, at any given time, only be able to deploy approximately 44 of its planned 65 planes. When attrition through accidents is factored in — and Canada has lost 18 of its CF-18s since 1982 — we could soon have an available fleet of just 30-35 planes, or roughly half of what the Department of National Defence says we need.

We’ll also be paying for billions of dollars in additional costs, which might explain why the Canadian government has not released any projections about the maintenance contract it will have to sign with Lockheed Martin, nor indicated whether that contract will be negotiated together with, or after, the contract to purchase the planes.


Anyone who thinks that we’re exaggerating these risks should consider the so-called “legacy costs” imposed by our blind-eyed procurement of submarines from the British Navy.

In 1998, Canada bought four second-hand Upholder class submarines for $750-million. Since then, over $3-billion has been spent on repairs, overhauls and upgrades.

Some of that money went toward refitting the submarines to fire MK-48 American torpedoes. The first test torpedo was fired only last month, 14 years after the submarines were purchased.

Equipment-related accidents have also stricken the fleet: A deadly fire within hours of the first sailing; a dented hull that prevented submerging; and a crash into the ocean floor off British Columbia that, had it compromised the pressure hull, could have resulted in the loss of the vessel and all 48 of its crew.

The international arms trade is based firmly on the motto “buyer beware.” Legacy costs arise when procurement decisions are made without fully investigating all of the financial implications of new equipment, including maintenance. The risk of such costs only increases when decisions are made to acquire unproven technologies such as stealth.

We know the F-35 program is in crisis. Our ally Australia has acted responsibly, buying 24 new F/A-18 Super Hornets as a stopgap measure while it carefully re-assesses the situation.

Isn’t it time for Canada to craft its own “Plan B”?

National Post

Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. Stewart Webb is a research associate with the Salt Spring Forum. They are the authors of “Canada’s F-35 Purchase is a Costly Mistake,” published last month in the peer-reviewed Canadian Foreign Policy Journal.
Between this, software problems, lack of radio operation in the Arctic, lack of blue force tracking, collapsing bulkheads, cracks in the airframe, issues with the oxygen supply system, weight issues, plus the fact that the helmet mounted display doesn't work... Can someone please remind me why our government and the supporters of this flying farce want us to have this plane?
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2012, 2:48 PM
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,626
I think we have to also admit that the US is past it's prime when it comes to technology.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2012, 3:27 PM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by red-paladin View Post
I think we have to also admit that the US is past it's prime when it comes to technology.
Not necessarily. They come out with good stuff and good ideas, but their military-industrial complex is a growing problem, and when you combine it with a vast and ineffective bureaucracy, throw meddlesome politics into the mix and we're left with stuff like the F-22 and F-35; problem-ridden hangar queens.
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2012, 4:22 PM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,776
I think it's safe to say that Lockheed Martin's work has not been impressive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2012, 4:43 PM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,047
Do better alternatives exist? Practically every non-Communist government has expressed interest in the F-35 at some point.

The reality is the only alternative is to do nothing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2012, 4:57 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,703
^certainly might save a buck or three. For that kind of money, you expect more. Just sayin'
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2012, 5:31 PM
VANRIDERFAN's Avatar
VANRIDERFAN VANRIDERFAN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
^certainly might save a buck or three. For that kind of money, you expect more. Just sayin'
My recommendation?
Buy 100 Super Hornets and add more Cyclones (Navy Helicopter), Chinooks (transport Helicopters) and C17 (air Transport)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2012, 7:06 PM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Do better alternatives exist? Practically every non-Communist government has expressed interest in the F-35 at some point.

The reality is the only alternative is to do nothing.
That's a rather extreme exxageration, and many of the involved development partners are either cutting back orders, delaying, or considering backing out entirely.
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2012, 10:44 PM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,921
I'll ask the same question here I've asked elsewhere, why can't we buy Russian equipment?

Designed to meet Russian needs, which are very similar to ours, and they've either replicated similar american technology, or outright stole it for their own aircraft. In this case, the Pak Fa, which is purported to have a longer range, is faster than (both cruise and top speed), and more manueverable than either the F-22 or F-35. Not to mention very durable and robust landing gear, and a take off run of 1500 feet and a landing run of 1300 feet with inferior engines (New ones are in development which will give the aircraft up to 75 000 pounds of thrust). These are better numbers than a Herc, famed for it's STOL abilities. Even if it isn't as stealthy as an F-35, it is purported to be an overall superior aircraft, at 1/2-1/3 the price of the F-35 and F-22. And unlike the American's with the F-22 and some technology built into the F-35, the Russians and Indians are willing to export. Not saying this is what we should be looking at, I'm just curious about any possible hang ups.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid

Last edited by Canadian Mind; Mar 29, 2012 at 10:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 12:53 AM
earl69's Avatar
earl69 earl69 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale View Post
I think it's safe to say that Lockheed Martin's work has not been impressive.
Are you referring to this project or LM overall? Clarify.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 5:08 PM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by earl69 View Post
Are you referring to this project or LM overall? Clarify.
I think it's safe to assume that he was referring to the F-35.
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 6:22 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Mind View Post
I'll ask the same question here I've asked elsewhere, why can't we buy Russian equipment?

Designed to meet Russian needs, which are very similar to ours, and they've either replicated similar american technology, or outright stole it for their own aircraft. In this case, the Pak Fa, which is purported to have a longer range, is faster than (both cruise and top speed), and more manueverable than either the F-22 or F-35. Not to mention very durable and robust landing gear, and a take off run of 1500 feet and a landing run of 1300 feet with inferior engines (New ones are in development which will give the aircraft up to 75 000 pounds of thrust). These are better numbers than a Herc, famed for it's STOL abilities. Even if it isn't as stealthy as an F-35, it is purported to be an overall superior aircraft, at 1/2-1/3 the price of the F-35 and F-22. And unlike the American's with the F-22 and some technology built into the F-35, the Russians and Indians are willing to export. Not saying this is what we should be looking at, I'm just curious about any possible hang ups.
My concern with russian hardware is whether the entire electronics/radar sysems would need to be replaced, and how much maintenance they would need. As for the electronics, I would be more comfortable relying on Euro/US parts and support for those systems, than Russian.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 6:42 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Put me down as a fan of the PAK-FA. Swallow some pride and buy the planes bare boned and outfit them with NATO electoronics, best of both worlds and still cheaper. Might even be able neogiate some resolutions to parts of the Arctic dispute.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 3:49 PM
Wharn's Avatar
Wharn Wharn is offline
Torontonian Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Oxy County
Posts: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Mind View Post
I'll ask the same question here I've asked elsewhere, why can't we buy Russian equipment?
Because we trust the Russians even less than we trust the Americans. Maybe if we could do as jlousa said and install NATO computer hardware it could work, but...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Do better alternatives exist? Practically every non-Communist government has expressed interest in the F-35 at some point.

The reality is the only alternative is to do nothing.
I've said this before, I am a huge fan of the Saab JAS-39 Gripen. It may be a bit of an older design, but it's tried and true. Agile and quick, it's also reliable and easy to maintain, practically the polar opposite of the F-35. If it were up to me, I'd be heading to the Swedes. Not just because they've always been masters at marrying reliability and functionality, but they're also a small democracy without any ulterior motives, and they're probably more willing to provide us with technical data (for maintenance purposes) than our American or Russian friends are.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 5:51 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wharn View Post
I've said this before, I am a huge fan of the Saab JAS-39 Gripen. It may be a bit of an older design, but it's tried and true. Agile and quick, it's also reliable and easy to maintain, practically the polar opposite of the F-35. If it were up to me, I'd be heading to the Swedes. Not just because they've always been masters at marrying reliability and functionality, but they're also a small democracy without any ulterior motives, and they're probably more willing to provide us with technical data (for maintenance purposes) than our American or Russian friends are.
totally agree....this government would never stray from being an american lap dog, but the forward thinking action would be to engage SAAB as a joint venture development of the next generation Gripen.

a SAAB/Bombardier tandem would be a great economic driver.....bring the technology to canada as a true partnership, instead of just buying it off the shelf from the americans....it would also send a message to the world that we not a military extension of the US, aligning ourselves with more neutral armed forces.

the swedes have similar military needs...remote bases, harsh climates, smaller budgets...it could be a perfect match to get a plane tailored to our needs with the economic spin off of it being a 'canadian' design....it could be the catalyst for an entire industry.

always loved the viggen.....

Last edited by trueviking; Mar 31, 2012 at 6:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 5:35 PM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
totally agree....this government would never stray from being an american lap dog, but the forward thinking action would be to engage SAAB as a joint venture development of the next generation Gripen.

a SAAB/Bombardier tandem would be a great economic driver.....bring the technology to canada as a true partnership, instead of just buying it off the shelf from the americans....it would also send a message to the world that we not a military extension of the US, aligning ourselves with more neutral armed forces.

the swedes have similar military needs...remote bases, harsh climates, smaller budgets...it could be a perfect match to get a plane tailored to our needs with the economic spin off of it being a 'canadian' design....it could be the catalyst for an entire industry.

always loved the viggen.....
While that would be great for industry (and I'm all for that, regardless of what aircraft we buy), the Gripen concerns me because of its single-engine and limited range.

In terms of contract-building fighter jets in Canada, only Dassault has so far been open in claiming they would have the Rafales (should we buy them) built almost entirely in Canada. It's also rumoured that either Boeing, BAE Systems, or Saab Aerospace have made a similar offer in private, but it is not confirmed by which of those three.

If it were up to me, I would have an open competition. This sees different groups attempt to make the best possible deal for them and for Canadian industry. Regardless of whichever plane is chosen (except the increasingly troubled F-35), I would encourage industry contracts on the side in the "spirit of friendship" so to speak, and would attempt to have Bombardier and others in Canada get involved with Saab and the next-generation of Gripen.

To keep this growth going, I would put a tender out to Canadian companies only for aircraft replacement, much the same as what we saw recently with shipping contracts.

Viking Air would get the contract to build newer and better Buffalo SAR aircraft. Even the proposed C-27J Spartan does not come close to what the Buffalo is still capable of.

Bombardier Aerospace would get a contract for Aurora replacements, along with new transport and surveillance aircraft in the form of modified C-Series jets, and Challenger Jets.

For a cheap jet trainer/low-intensity fighter/patrol jet, initiate production of the Venga TG-10.

This becomes a huge boon to the Canadian aviation industry, grows said industry and boosts the economy, and replaces aircraft in need of replacement.
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 6:36 PM
Rotax Rotax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
My concern with russian hardware is whether the entire electronics/radar sysems would need to be replaced, and how much maintenance they would need. As for the electronics, I would be more comfortable relying on Euro/US parts and support for those systems, than Russian.
Russians have implemented european and israeli avionics in many planes, notably the indian Su-30MKI.

The MiG-35 (which was one of the contenders for the indian MMRCA competition) uses the western standard MIL-STD-1553 bus, which allows the plane to be fitted with either russian, american, french, indian or israeli avionics and weapon systems.

IMHO, the Su-35S would be a much better option for Canada. It has a range of 3 600 km, can carry up to twelve BVR air to air missiles, has one of the most powerful radar ever fitted on a fighter aircraft, is able of supercruising and has thrust vector control. Oh, and it's less than half the price of the F-35.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2012, 8:40 PM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,576
The Gripen would be an interesting choice as well, even if it is a single-engine. It's range is not much less than that of a CF-18 and it's incredibly affordable.
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 12:41 AM
Rotax Rotax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix View Post
The Gripen would be an interesting choice as well, even if it is a single-engine. It's range is not much less than that of a CF-18 and it's incredibly affordable.
The Gripen is a pretty small aircraft and although the newer Gripen NG version carries more fuel, it has a pretty small combat radius compared to other modern fighters. Its single engine also means it has a lower thrust-to-weight ratio and its manoeuvrability quickly gets amputated when carrying heavier loads, which is less the case of the bigger and twin engined Eurofighter or Su-35S, for example.

Also, the Gripen (just as the F-35) cannot supercruise (i.e. go supersonic without using afterburners), which results in longer interception time, higher fuel consumption and shorter range.

The small Gripen is good for small contries, but becomes irrelevant when you have a huge airspace to defend. Heck, even the good old and huge MiG-31 (which is still available for production) would be a better option than the Gripen or the F-35.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 4:08 AM
Jamaican-Phoenix's Avatar
Jamaican-Phoenix Jamaican-Phoenix is offline
R2-D2's army of death
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 3,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotax View Post
The Gripen is a pretty small aircraft and although the newer Gripen NG version carries more fuel, it has a pretty small combat radius compared to other modern fighters. Its single engine also means it has a lower thrust-to-weight ratio and its manoeuvrability quickly gets amputated when carrying heavier loads, which is less the case of the bigger and twin engined Eurofighter or Su-35S, for example.

Also, the Gripen (just as the F-35) cannot supercruise (i.e. go supersonic without using afterburners), which results in longer interception time, higher fuel consumption and shorter range.

The small Gripen is good for small contries, but becomes irrelevant when you have a huge airspace to defend. Heck, even the good old and huge MiG-31 (which is still available for production) would be a better option than the Gripen or the F-35.
Actually, the Gripen NG can supercruise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercr...th_supercruise
__________________
Franky: Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:55 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.