Two Raptors have crashed since the jet entered service in 2005.
The smaller F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, also made by Lockheed, is meant to complement the F-22 starting around 2016. The F-35 was meant from the outset to be more reliable than previous airplanes. But early experience on the JSF indicates it could be as finicky as its bigger cousin, the F-22. The future Air Force could have its hands full just keeping its high-tech planes in the air.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Grounded: Next Generation ... or No Generation Fighters
Look at the bright side; at least Quebec firms will be kept busy fixing things:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I highly recomend the CPAC program with Scott Reid on the F-35. I think this plane is becoming more trouble than it's worth.
Reid's CPAC (hit)piece was highly selective in what it said and what it left out.
It was slick, slimy and typical of Reid.
Remember . .he is a self described military expert who rose to the rank of Cpl.
Or was it Sgt? Because that would make him more of an expert.
There is no other aircraft that fits the CF needs. Get over it. It will be expensive.
It is simply immoral to buy an old aircraft like a F18SH, F15, F16, Rafael or Eurofighter that is barely good enough now and will be obsolete in 10 years.
Or troops deserve proper kit.
Two Raptors have crashed in six years of service? I'll remind you that when Canada was fielding the flying coffin called the Star fighter ( which was about as basic an aircraft as you could get..) many nations, especially the Germans, experienced dozens of crashes..it was nicknamed the widow maker. Canada lost over half of its 200 Star fighters to accidents..the Germans had 66 go down by the early 60's..the U.S was averaging between 15 and 20 Star fighter losses between '68 and '72..
Losses are a part of the game.
It's also "immoral" to crush CF budgets and hence other branches of the Force for the sake of an over-priced white elephant whose unique capabilities do not fit with current Canadian foreign policy. There are, after all, many CF supporters and informed individuals who do not agree with this supposed purchase.
Sure, and they crashed a lot more Spads during trials as well. Apples ... Elephants :)
Exactly. And see the end of this post for why the F-35's "unique capabilities" may become very much less relevant in the not too distant future:
"
F-35: Price Still Not Right/UCAVs"
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=217
Mark
Ottawa
What budgets are being crushed? I call red herring on that claim.
The F35 allotments are within the current budget. We are about to spend $5.2 Billion just to BUY some new trucks, there a huge bucket for ship building . . . etc etc.
What the hell is the point of spending 80% or 90% . . . or 125% in the case of the Eurofighter of the cost to buy new multirole fighter aircraft - our old, old, old old CF-18's have to be replaced, with something that can't do what the F-35 can do now and will be able to do for 30-40 years ?
Doesn't make sense.
The real issue is the paltry 1.3% of GDP we spend on our forces. We should be up north of 2%.
The Conservatives have barely increased defence spending as a percentage of GDP since 2006 and there is no way they will bring it anywhere near 2%.
Pity.
Mark
Ottawa
with something that can't do what the F-35 can do now and will be able to do for 30-40 years ?
The only valuable functions the F-35 provides that others can't is VTOL and stealth; and stealth will never be used. In fact, by the time we get the most expensive aircraft on the planet, pilots won't be needed for first strike at all ... and if so, Canada will never have the political will to use them.
The point of defining the problem (Foreign Policy) FIRST before buying the 'tools' makes absolute sense. Doing it assbackwards is a political-economic disaster in the making.
As for comparing the F22 to the F35 still makes no sense, irresctive of the F22 not being offered for non-US sales. That also never made any sense, being as how the F35 is supposed to be the more advanced design.
The only explanation is that Locheed Martin wants all foreign sales directed at its newest greatest, not split.
I still think the single engine choice is nuts...
Harper/the PMO is correct . . . ask any zoomie if he wants more stealth or less stealth on EVERY mission and the answer is yes. Stealth is so much more than not appearing on radar. It is about being "slippery" making it very hard to get a radar lock on - and a lock is what you need not just detection.
You should look up the F35 capabilities and see what it does vis a vis any competitor - it is pretty amazing and it it will have the best sensor fusion on any flying aircraft.
Tell me how we do ECM now with our CG18 classics or how we would do it with any potential competitor?
A bit of peripheral news. <a href="http://www.military.com/news/article/May-2011/air-force-grounds-f22-raptors.html?ESRC=airforce.nl>The entire USAF F-22 fleet has just been grounded for yet another systemic problem.</a> This time, it's the oxygen system. The F-22, at a breath-taking quarter billion each, is quickly becoming another "hanger queen", like the B-2. Just what the USAF needs. NOT.
I suppose the moral is that any cutting edge modern military aircraft is expensive, and none are immune to unforeseen technical problems. Whatever aircraft is chosen to keep the Canadian Air Force at the cutting edge of modernity for the next couple of decades, the Canadian taxpayer is going to have to cut hefty checks to buy and maintain 'em.
(Re the CPAC program with Scott Reid. Isn't Scott Reid the vulgar "Alberta can blow me" hyper-partisan, look-down-his-nose-at-non-Easterners-and-non-Liberals Liberal? The problem with such people, to borrow a Reagan quote, is that they know so much that isn't so. Besides crass arrogance, what military education and/or experience does Scott Reid bring to the question? Other than what it may present for uninformed cheap shot sound bytes to bash Harper and the Conservatives?)
Boy, did Disqus butcher the comment I just posted! It dropped the entire first paragraph, and made the whole remainder of the comment a hyperlink, when I'd only hyperlinked 1 sentence.
At Military.com, there's an article about the entire F-22 fleet today being subjected to a safety grounding.
http://www.military.com/news/article/May-2011/air-force-grounds-f22-raptors.html?ESRC=airforce.nl
LOL ... I added a ( " ).
Dave in PA; heh, what do you want to bet that Lockheed Martin 'borrowed' the F22's oxygen supply system design for the F35...why would they reinvent the wheel? I can see some project manager slitting his wrists as we speak.
Wups! My bad. I apologize to Disqus! :-)
Yeah, makes sense, and they apparently do that a lot in high tech weapons systems design, from what I've read. To do that in the right circumstances -doing it correctly- makes sense and can save beaucoup bucks.
Doing it incorrectly means when the sh*t hits the fan, your division chief comes to your office, hands you a pistol with one bullet in it, then walks out. Afterwards, like in Stalinist Russia, you're airbrushed out of all the official staff photos. :-)
Post a Comment