F-35 issues - Page 7 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
 

Go Back   Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums > Not the Digital Home > News, Weather, and Sports

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 2011-05-09, 10:25 AM   #91
GrimJack
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Finally, the decision to purchase the F-18 as our interceptor is not for it's capability, but rather because it was the only fighter that met our requirements.
1. 2 engined, 2. Price.

F-16 had one engine, Mirages were dated, Tornados, F-15s, F-14s were too expensive. So, we got the F-18s.
What has changed that it is suddenly acceptable to have a single engined fighter in Canada? This requirement has existed as long as fighter jets as far as I know. Even in the US the decision to make the F35 a single engine fighter is still highly debated.

Quote:
As stated before, to properly detect and intercept stealth fighters or bombers, one would need to use stealth fighters.
Either that or station a SAM battery or compatible networked radar every 4000km^2 along the border. Good luck with that!
Could you explain why stealth is a requirement for an interceptor? Unless you're suggesting that we have enough fighters in the air at a time that we can visually screen our huge perimeter? If you're suggesting that visual acquisition is a requirement to combat stealth aircraft than a network of unmanned long stay drones guiding in faster non-stealth interceptors seems like a much more applicable solution.


Quote:
But a good rule of thumb is the Life time operating cost of a fighter jet, including spares and maintenance, is typically double that of the procurement cost.
Does this rule of thumb hold for untested first generation designs?
Has Canada ever purchased an untested/vetted design before?


Quote:
We are not there today. Modern day fighter jets are at the point where we need to make a decision to kill or not to kill during an intercept Long before visual confirmation.
We simply Cannot give the AI the permission to make that decision, not until we can accurately determine the exact type of aircraft that is flying some hundred KM away.
See Iran Flight 655
Can you explain why a person sitting in a seat reading instrument output is different than a person sitting in a control room reading the same thing will make a better decision?
Can you explain how adrenalin of the moment is less likely to affect a fighter pilot than a person watching a monitor?

Quote:
Before you suggest it, relying on a human controller on the ground to make this decision is unreliable. Should any competent EW(Electronic Warfare) systems be used, ground controllers could easily lose communications with the drones.
See Gulf War, where many Cruise Missiles were jammed and failed to stay on course.
Can you explain who has a transportable EW system that is compatible with stealth? Or are you suggesting that border defense is now the same as attacking over an entrenched enemy?
GrimJack is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 2011-05-09, 10:30 AM   #92
JamesK
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 5,906
Default

Quote:
Could you explain why stealth is a requirement for an interceptor?
The same you'd want stealth on any mission. It's to keep the enemy from detecting you. The most important type of stealth is radar, along with thermal, but visual and acoustic stealth are also important for ground attack.
__________________
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.
JamesK is online now  
Old 2011-05-09, 10:38 AM   #93
GrimJack
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesK View Post
The same you'd want stealth on any mission. It's to keep the enemy from detecting you. The most important type of stealth is radar, along with thermal, but visual and acoustic stealth are also important for ground attack.
All current combat tested stealth aircraft do not use radar or radios and are subsonic, aka bombers.

Explain how this is compatible with how you intercept an enemy aircraft.

No one has ever had an opportunity to test what an F22 can actually do, but you can be sure that people are thinking of alternate ways to figure out how to 'see' it.
GrimJack is offline  
Old 2011-05-09, 12:01 PM   #94
JamesK
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 5,906
Default

Quote:
Explain how this is compatible with how you intercept an enemy aircraft.
The whole point of stealth is to avoid being detected by the enemy whether they're on the ground or in the air. You use radar stealth, so your plane won't be detected by the enemy's radar. You use thermal stealth, so your plane won't be detected by infrared sensors. Both of these methods are used for automatic targeting of *YOUR* plane by the enemy and so you want to provide as small a target as is possible, no matter what your mission is.

BTW, the '60s vintange SR-71 Blackbird employed some early stealth technologies. It could do better than 3x the speed of sound and while never engaged in combat (it carried no weapons), it was certainly targeted.

Bottom line, if you're likely to be shot at or want to use the element of surprise, stealth comes in handy.
__________________
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.
JamesK is online now  
Old 2011-05-09, 12:21 PM   #95
stampeder
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Delta, BC (96Av x 116St)
Posts: 23,459
Default

cr9527, welcome here and thanks for citing previous posts.

Nothing personal, but I can't just take your word on it, and I hope you won't use the "um, no" anymore. I get the sense that your replies somewhat agree but generally don't agree with many of my concerns, but I'm not sensing a convincing set of proofs that the F-35 is the right aircraft for our needs. I think you've misread some previous posts too (i.e. confusing air-to-air refueling with intercontinental air-to-air refueling capability, "ground-based detection" and it's command-and-control with SAMs, remotely-piloted drones with Artificial Intelligence, etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cr9527
Unless you suggest we team up with the Americans
I remind you that we have been doing that (within NORAD) since 1958. They don't want to sell us F-22s, so we should not be stampeded into buying F-35s on the basis that they intend to buy them too. The Americans are buying more Super Hornets, and so should we (more below on that).

As the North and the Arctic are opened to greater investment and the coastal ice floes melt away, speed and reliability are of the essence for interceptor/patrol aircraft investigating sudden incursions and irregularities in our air space. While routine patrols by more traditional aircraft will remain important, the rapid response of NORAD-controlled interceptor aircraft will be increasingly important to sovereignty.

So, for the interceptor role, the F-35 would be a slower, more expensive, single engined aircraft with wasted features. By comparison, a tried-and-true aircraft such as the Super Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter, or equivalent would do what is required at a much higher speed, along with the increased survivability of a twin-engine layout, all at a lower cost for the package now and in the future. As I've stated, the Super Hornet is the most sensible way to go.

Today we face the need for speed and reliability of our interceptors in our air space. For many reasons, the F-35 is not the answer.

Last edited by stampeder; 2011-05-09 at 01:06 PM.
stampeder is offline  
Old 2011-05-09, 12:25 PM   #96
GrimJack
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesK View Post
The whole point of stealth is to avoid being detected by the enemy whether they're on the ground or in the air. You use radar stealth, so your plane won't be detected by the enemy's radar. You use thermal stealth, so your plane won't be detected by infrared sensors. Both of these methods are used for automatic targeting of *YOUR* plane by the enemy and so you want to provide as small a target as is possible, no matter what your mission is.
Right. Except that when you're an interceptor, which to my knowledge is the main reason these planes are being purchased, you're the hunter. They don't have the range to fly around and hope to passively encounter the enemy.
The second you turn on your air combat radar or use your radios you are no longer in any way stealthy.

Quote:
BTW, the '60s vintange SR-71 Blackbird employed some early stealth technologies. It could do better than 3x the speed of sound and while never engaged in combat (it carried no weapons), it was certainly targeted.
Yes, but it wasn't an interceptor, and as you say it wasn't a combat aircraft. The rumored Stealth version of the SR71 makes much more sense for its role of sneak in to get photographs before the enemy knows you're there.

Quote:
Bottom line, if you're likely to be shot at or want to use the element of surprise, stealth comes in handy.
Right. But that's not really the role of an interceptor, who's job is to get there fast and find the enemy.
GrimJack is offline  
Old 2011-05-09, 12:51 PM   #97
stampeder
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Delta, BC (96Av x 116St)
Posts: 23,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cr9527
Sorry Admin, but you are dead wrong on both of these statements.
Everything you said after that seemed to confirm what I'd said about both items.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesK
BTW, the '60s vintange SR-71 Blackbird employed some early stealth technologies.
I used to teach at Beale AFB a few times a year when those were still flying - Unix admins from The Company and USAF.
stampeder is offline  
Old 2011-05-09, 12:54 PM   #98
JamesK
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 5,906
Default

^^^^
And not be detected while getting there fast. If your target doesn't see you coming (they also use radar etc. just to find you) you're more likely to be successful as the enemy is less likely to be able to evade or fire back at you.

The Blackbird's defences relied largely on altitude and speed. It could simply out climb anything chasing it. However, reduced radar signature etc. means it'll also take longer for the enemy to find you. Also, the Blackbird had the same "ancestor" as the YF-12 Interceptor. Interceptors and reconnaisance planes share some common characteristics such as high speed, altitude and *STEALTH*.
__________________
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.
JamesK is online now  
Old 2011-05-09, 01:17 PM   #99
stampeder
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Delta, BC (96Av x 116St)
Posts: 23,459
Default Interceptors Don't Need Stealth

NORAD interceptors are vectored towards their targets based on satellite and ground-based detection, along with other less direct means (SIGINT, spycraft, etc.) so any aircrew aboard a hostile aircraft already know that we are trying hard to "paint" their aircraft for lock-on and that our birds are coming at them. Our interceptors would never have the element of surprise, so the need for our interceptors to likewise be stealthy is moot since they know just as well as we do that a world of hurt is on the way. They hope that their stealthiness will either prevail or at least buy them some time to attack their secondary if the main objective is aborted.

By the same token, sovereignty flights definitely don't need stealth as they are meant to show the flag!
stampeder is offline  
Old 2011-05-09, 08:10 PM   #100
cr9527
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimJack View Post
What has changed that it is suddenly acceptable to have a single engined fighter in Canada? This requirement has existed as long as fighter jets as far as I know. Even in the US the decision to make the F35 a single engine fighter is still highly debated.
Engine technology and reliability has improved drastically since the 80s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimJack View Post
Could you explain why stealth is a requirement for an interceptor? Unless you're suggesting that we have enough fighters in the air at a time that we can visually screen our huge perimeter? If you're suggesting that visual acquisition is a requirement to combat stealth aircraft than a network of unmanned long stay drones guiding in faster non-stealth interceptors seems like a much more applicable solution.
Look at it this way, when somebody truly has intent on striking us with bombers, their bombers won't act alone. Stealth escorts is expected to lead the assault. Once we have detected their bombers, legacy fighters simply will not be able to perform the intercept as they'd get shot down by hostile stealth fighters.

Looking at it another way, should the enemy perform SEAD/DEAD missions against us, legacy fighters will be completely useless should they use stealth fighters for cover, along with our SAM network.

And yes, having fighters patrolling the arctic provides far more coverage than a SAM network against a competent foe. Fighters are far less vulnerable to NOE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimJack View Post
All current combat tested stealth aircraft do not use radar or radios and are subsonic, aka bombers.

Explain how this is compatible with how you intercept an enemy aircraft.

No one has ever had an opportunity to test what an F22 can actually do, but you can be sure that people are thinking of alternate ways to figure out how to 'see' it.
F-22s have intercepted Russian bears before, and in combat exercises, performed unbelievably well against legacy fighters.

Stealth, while the purpose is to remain hidden, also provides excellent survivability in aerial combat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampeder View Post
but I'm not sensing a convincing set of proofs that the F-35 is the right aircraft for our needs.
Alright, I can try to provide proof.

Let us remove stealth from the equation, and strap on wing tanks on the F-35.

What we get is a great fighter with the most advanced active and passive sensors in the world, second only to the F-22, with tremendous range. Adding onto that, the fighter is fully network integrated, meaning all data, including those that supply targeting data, allowing for shared sensors and weapons between aircraft. This is unparalleled by any other fighter, including the F-22.

On range, F-35 while maintaining stealth, has a combat radius of a patrol missing > 750nm.
This is comparable to the competitors, i.e. Typhoon of 750nm, although rafale with 3 giant fuel tanks can put out 1000nm.
F-35, when having 8,000lb of external fuel in theory can achieve as well.

Then we have flexibility, when NATO calls us to provide air support, or air cover, F-35's multirole capability is unmatched by any other aircraft. This is due to the combination of F-35's EOTS, HMDS, network integration and large payload capability.

Then we have price. F-35 at roughly the price of 75 million a plane as shown in my previous post, is comparable to the Super Hornets and Rafale, while lower than the Typhoon. Gripens while relatively cheaper at ~50 Million, is no where near as capable in payload, range, sensors, avionics, or just about any aspect of the plane.

So to sum it up, F-35, while disregarding stealth, costs less, performs better, and can fly just as far as the competitors.

QED?

Quote:
So, for the interceptor role, the F-35 would be a slower,
None of the competition can cruise at a useful higher speed than the F-35, no air force in their right mind would tell their pilots to use afterburner to perform routine intercepts.

Quote:
more expensive
It isn't, as demonstrated before and above.

Quote:
single engined aircraft
Yes, but do keep in mind, European engines are typically less reliable when you look at the MTBOs.
This leaves the super hornet as the only contender, but if you look at the capabilities of the super hornet, the F-35 is still a better choice.

Quote:
Today we face the need for speed and reliability of our interceptors in our air space. For many reasons, the F-35 is not the answer.
For speed, you can't just look at the Maximum speed, as that is rarely ever used in a war. The cruise speeds of the F-35 and all other "contenders" are roughly the same, ~Mach 1


Quote:
Does this rule of thumb hold for untested first generation designs?
F-35 isn't the first of the 5th generation.

Quote:
Has Canada ever purchased an untested/vetted design before?
Has Canada ever had to choose between one current generation fighter, and several previous generations that cost roughly equal?


Quote:
Can you explain why a person sitting in a seat reading instrument output is different than a person sitting in a control room reading the same thing will make a better decision?
When it comes to making the decision, not much. But when it comes to CAN you make the decision, it's a lot. Under heavy EW interference such as the case of most modern conflicts, it has already been established that one cannot reliably control drones.

Quote:
Can you explain how adrenalin of the moment is less likely to affect a fighter pilot than a person watching a monitor?
And how much would visual contact with eyeballs over watching through a camera? Keep in mind, flying in person allows you to see the surroundings much better.

Quote:
Can you explain who has a transportable EW system that is compatible with stealth? Or are you suggesting that border defense is now the same as attacking over an entrenched enemy?
F-35 has been suggested to have it. Plus, you do not necessarily need it to be on the same platform. SEAD for example was performed with stealth fighters in conjunction with dedicated EW platforms.

[QUOTE=GrimJack;1259644]Right. Except that when you're an interceptor, which to my knowledge is the main reason these planes are being purchased, you're the hunter. They don't have the range to fly around and hope to passively encounter the enemy.

Another mission for interceptors is routine patrols.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimJack View Post
The second you turn on your air combat radar or use your radios you are no longer in any way stealthy.
Common mistake. You can turn on the radar and remain "Stealthy", heck you can even broadcast to everyone in the area your exact location and direction to remain "Stealthy"

Remember you require 3 things in order for an enemy to shoot at you.

1. He needs to detect you. Turning on radar would allow the enemy to know your presence, but not necessarily where you are.

2. He needs to track you with his radar. This means, his radar must be able to maintain prolonged detection of your aircraft, and has nothing to do with your radar being on.

3. Finally, the hardest of all, his Missile needs to track you. The tiny radar head of the missile makes it extremely difficult tot rack onto a stealth fighter.

So, even if you are waving a giant EM flag that you are here, they still can't shoot at you, therefore, you are still "Stealthy".

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampeder View Post
NORAD interceptors are vectored towards their targets based on satellite and ground-based detection, along with other less direct means (SIGINT, spycraft, etc.) so any aircrew aboard a hostile aircraft already know that we are trying hard to "paint" their aircraft for lock-on and that our birds are coming at them. Our interceptors would never have the element of surprise, so the need for our interceptors to likewise be stealthy is moot since they know just as well as we do that a world of hurt is on the way. They hope that their stealthiness will either prevail or at least buy them some time to attack their secondary if the main objective is aborted.
The advantage of having stealth is beyond simply getting the jump on the enemy.

As one fighter pilot said when fighting against F-22 in mock exercises, The most frustrating part was when "I"'m right behind the Raptor, I still cannot provide a lock.

While surprise is a big advantage of stealth, Survivability is a far more important one.

People always confuse air to air combat as if once a fighter knows where the stealth aircraft is, then the fighter can provide a firing solution.
cr9527 is offline  
Old 2011-05-09, 11:21 PM   #101
stampeder
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Delta, BC (96Av x 116St)
Posts: 23,459
Default

I see that there is still confusion about SAMs, misunderstandings about the interceptor role of our new fighter, as well as disbelief of financial estimates from the government watchdogs responsible for tracking such expenses. I do not accept enthusiastic superlatives as "proof". To me it is the kind of cheerleading that got us into this mess in the first place, especially with no competitive bid process that would be based on a well published, debated, and transparent definition of the role it must fill.

My stake in this deal is as a taxpayer, and I do not accept that it has been properly handled. What is your stake in the decision?
stampeder is offline  
Old 2011-05-09, 11:47 PM   #102
cr9527
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampeder View Post
I see that there is still confusion about SAMs, misunderstandings about the interceptor role of our new fighter, as well as disbelief of financial estimates from the government watchdogs responsible for tracking such expenses. I do not accept enthusiastic superlatives as "proof". To me it is the kind of cheerleading that got us into this mess in the first place, especially with no competitive bid process that would be based on a well published, debated, and transparent definition of the role it must fill.

My stake in this deal is as a taxpayer, and I do not accept that it has been properly handled. What is your stake in the decision?
There is no cheaper aircraft than the F-35 in any significant differences that fills in our role.

Australia for example purchased Super Hornets at $191.7 Million per copy including infrastructure, training, and support for 10 years

Using Harper Government's calculations,
We are paying $138.5 Million per copy with infrastructure + $92.3 Million per copy for support over 20 years, or $46.15 million for 10 years.

or

Using my calculations based on DoD's budget data, $121.5 Million per copy with infrastructure, training, etc + $121.5 million per copy for support over life time, assume life time costs of 30 years, meaning for 10 years, $40.5 million for maintenance and support per plane.

Or from pentagon on $443 Billion for 35 years for 2443 aircraft for support and maintenance in 2002 inflation rate, putting it @ $121.5 Million + $62.3 Million for 10 years

Hell, for a good measure, according to NAVAIR, F-35 will cost $30.7 thousand per flight hour to operate. Given the full service life of an aircraft is 8,000 flight hours, and for 10 years/35, the maintenance costs is estimated at around $70.2 Million for 10 years.

To compare the 2,

Purchasing Super Hornets will cost us $191.7 million for 10 years vs
F-35 costing us $184.7 Million(Harper), or $162 million (mine) or $183.8 Million (pentagon) or $191.7 Million (NAVAIR) for 10 years.

Food for thought, F-35 out performs the Super Hornet in EVERY aspect of a fighter imaginable, and yet comes out cheaper (or same with NAVAIR est)

No other "contender" costs less than the F-35, or performs better in any task.

What more do you need to know?

P.S. The Sec of Air Force has officially stated that F-35 is the best and only jet to meet our requirements. I don't know about you, but this is a strong indicator that F-35 fills in our needs.

So, something that costs less, and fills our role better than any other fighter, I think it's a no brainer.

Last edited by cr9527; 2011-05-10 at 12:24 AM.
cr9527 is offline  
Old 2011-05-10, 01:07 AM   #103
stampeder
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Delta, BC (96Av x 116St)
Posts: 23,459
Default

Your arithmetic is contradicted by governmental authorities who officially go on record with documentation. Since we can sink our teeth into those numbers, they prevail.

BTW, I am not Admin. Again I ask you, what is your stake in all this?
stampeder is offline  
Old 2011-05-10, 03:31 AM   #104
cr9527
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampeder View Post
Your arithmetic is contradicted by governmental authorities who officially go on record with documentation. Since we can sink our teeth into those numbers, they prevail.

BTW, I am not Admin. Again I ask you, what is your stake in all this?
The only authorities that contradict this is the PBO and the GAO.

PBO's methodology in estimating price is flawed and has been demonstrated as such by numerous sources.

GAO's Mike Sullivan doesn't know heads or tails with regards to acquisition process as evident by his contradictory statement compared to the Actual official budget estimates here:

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/me...110211-038.pdf

Both of them have demonstrated zero knowledge in this field.

Here is the comparison between costs of PBO, SAR, and actual costs.



My arithmetic based on actual budget information is far more accurate than PBO's claim of 130-150 million and GAO's 100-130 million a piece.

My stake, is that I love the plane, and I am sick and tired of seeing misinformation, both official and unofficial.
cr9527 is offline  
Old 2011-05-10, 09:42 AM   #105
travisc
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Uxbridge, ON
Posts: 3,599
Default

Wouldn't it be more fair to say you love the "concept" of the plane, since the real plane is still far away? It's certainly less than clear, as far as I can tell, that it'll end up performing anywhere near to what it's supposed to.
travisc is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 AM.

Search Digital Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.