It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Canadian government to immediately explore buying F-18E/F

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

No, it's called experience. Lots of it.

Japan and the UK aren't building copies of the F-35. Japan is building the F-35, and the UK is getting theirs through Fort Worth. Both Japan and Italy will be final assembly locations for the F-35, largely using components built in the US and shipped to them. As for China, the version they're building will have a similar mission but will be less capable.

As for capabilities "they do not need", their governments disagree with you. They're seeing a lot more Russian activity in their areas, as Russia rebuilds and trains. Their current inventories are getting less and less capable as they age, and more expensive to operate. They want better capabilities and this is the best way they see to get those capabilities.
edit on 11/22/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Also, when I said "alot of room" I did mean that with regard to fighter aircraft. For a fighter apparently the F-18 E has a little wiggle room that other similar planes do not have. Now I learned that from a guy when I was in the Navy that loved the plane he worked on. So probably biased.
I sort of disagree with the conformals as well. SInce they add fuel in other places then it is possible that something else can exist where the original fuel tanks existed.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fools

No, it's called experience. Lots of it.

Japan and the UK aren't building copies of the F-35. Japan is building the F-35, and the UK is getting theirs through Fort Worth. Both Japan and Italy will be final assembly locations for the F-35, largely using components built in the US and shipped to them. As for China, the version they're building will have a similar mission but will be less capable.

As for capabilities "they do not need", their governments disagree with you. They're seeing a lot more Russian activity in their areas, as Russia rebuilds and trains. Their current inventories are getting less and less capable as they age, and more expensive to operate. They want better capabilities and this is the best way they see to get those capabilities.


Nah, I meant the fighters that they are developing themselves.

theaviationist.com...

(I have heard rumors that BaE is still working on it).

AND

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Conformal fuel tanks exist to give you extra fuel, not in place of the fuel you have. They reduce the requirement for wing mounted external fuel tanks that produce a lot of drag, and eliminate space for weapons. The F-18 needs that extra fuel, no matter which version you are talking about. The F-18 conformal fuel tanks will extend their range 120 miles, or up to 30 minutes loiter time.

You also get into the problem of the wings not being stressed to carry other equipment in them. The skin there is very thin, with spars and ribs to support the skin. You start adding equipment and you're going to start throwing your weight and balance off, as well as be putting things where they aren't supposed to be.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Japan isn't currently developing a fifth generation fighter. They're flying a technology demonstrator that will use technologies that will eventually go into the fifth generation aircraft they're talking about, but they're years away from even starting that. They have to determine if the technology they are developing will work, and if they can put it into a new fighter platform. The X-2 isn't going to enter service as a fighter, it's only going to help them develop what they want and need for a new fighter.

Replica keeps popping up every so often, but the UK doesn't have the money for both right now with all the other projects they're buying. Even if they were going to develop their own aircraft it would be many years before it entered service, probably well after the F-35 will be in service.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I see things like the TPP and the F35 in a little different light at times they look similar....
If we keep buying US MIC gear, we loose our own ability to innovate ourselves.....
Plus what back doors exist in the F 35s electronics that may allow an F35 of American flag to dominate any others ?I
I would not put it past the US at all.....



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Snippythehorse

The same back doors that exist in the CF-18, none. All aircraft built for other countries have equipment of their choice added to them. The problem right now is that Canada doesn't have the capability to build their own fighters. Just look at the trouble Bombardier has been having with commercial aircraft, which are much easier. To build the infrastructure to do it would take far longer than buying equipment from other countries.

Canada needs to buy everything from land based equipment, to ships, to aircraft. They don't have the ability to build all that on their own right now, so are buying from other countries.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snippythehorse
We need to reinvent our military services top to bottom.....to our own needs....not according to the needs of our southern ally....especially when that ally would happily carve up our country between it and a foreign invader, ala Poland 1939......


you really do I agree but how exactly will that take shape Independent of the US and her military given you are spending 18.6 billion this FY? Not to mention the total lack of any sort of prime contractor to do this with. The Avro company produced some killer planes but that was a long time ago and Bombardier is primarily a civilian air-frame manufacturer.... It does make killer snow machines


We need Canadians back to work not our "Friends" to the south....who merely want our money and water and oil....not to mention our kids blood for their voracious war machine which maintains the power of the corruption ....
IMHO missile and drone tech superceeds the manned fighters and will replace them very soon.....


Thats what trade is about no? Do you not receive monetary compensation for the tar sands oil. You also forgot timber, cars, mad cow disease free cows etc....... As the 11th biggest exporter on the planet, its kind of your thing no?

he top export destinations of Canada are the United States ($331B), China ($18B), the United Kingdom ($10.6B), Japan ($10.2B) and Mexico ($7.81B). The top import origins are the United States ($241B), China ($50.6B), Mexico ($24.5B), Germany ($13.5B) and Japan ($11.7B).atlas.media.mit.edu...
Also given that the 331 Billion you export to your greedy southern neighbors is more than the rest combined.

And what water are you talking about? I mean I see the 'Red leaf" water at the stores but I'm unclear what you are refering too.

As far as feeding the greedy US war machine, you can also get your planes from the EU, or even the Grippen which would be another good choice IMHO. However, I'm a bit old schooled and since given the state of your navy you will need an air frame optimized for maritime strike and I prefer 2 engines to one for redundancy.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

So when the Russian Navy decides it's going to defend Russian fishing ships harvesting in Canadian territory and assigns a few s-400 class seaborne surface combatants what asset is Canada going to deploy to repel the invaders? The US is possibly posturing to let the world be at its own devices. All of those governments are going to need their own basic interdiction ability that foes will think twice about getting ornery. Don't think it could happen then look to the Asian theatre.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

"Canada Announces They Are Delaying Buying Fighter Planes by Announcing They Are About to Buy Fighter Planes."

...ps: Federal Liberal Party Protests No-Bid Contract to buy F-35 from Lougheed Martin with No-Bid Contract to buy F/A-18 Super-Hornet from Boeing.

(Will immediately enter into "Open" 5th Gen Fighter selection process to be concluded AFTER the next election...)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 06:02 AM
link   
The government set aside $9B for 65 aircraft to replace the CF-18. The money that will be used to by the Rhinos will almost certainly come from that. That will mean less for the actual competition.

Thru haven't announced anything about price, but Kuwait, who had a competition to select the Rhino which brings cost down, just announced a 40 aircraft buy for $10.1B.


edit on 11/23/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Boeing is also coming up with the ADVANCED Super Hornet....

news.usni.org...

I wonder if Kuwait is getting this version?



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

I will answer my own question, no they won't.

The engine for this bird would be four years past the go ahead.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Boeing has been working on the Advanced Super Hornet since 2013. They stopped working in it because there was very little interest. The ASH is a bridge between fourth generation and fifth. It still won't do everything the F-35 or any other fifth generation aircraft will, or be as capable.

Kuwait is getting Super Hornets with some features of the ASH. They're not getting it because it's still years away from being available, where the Rhino will start deliveries within a few years.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Just so you know, my father worked for McDonnell Douglas, so sometimes I can be biased. I am also still in the STL area.

I am curious, do you think that the F35 is still adequate in replacing so many proven aircraft? I find it odd that one plane fits all model was even given a thought. Would we be in better shape had the McD JSF been allowed to be the choice for the USN?

I am still a little concerned that our military put all of our eggs in one basket.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

It's no worse than the Navy going to a single platform. They used to carry three to five fighter sized platforms on a carrier, now they carry one.

The F-35 won't be a direct replacement for the capabilities of some aircraft, such as the A-10, but other than the gun, that mission is currently being performed by everything from F-16s to B-52s.

Direct replacement of platforms is being done away with in favor of groups of systems. It's cheaper and you can get more out of that route than a 1:1 system.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I don't see spending billions on aircraft that a way cheaper missile can blow out of the sky.....
The human pilot cannot dogfight against unmanned drones in certain conditions we do black out....
Future warfighting is bound to be far more automated than we expect right now....
Smart robotics, smart missiles, smart bullets, all on the way sooner than later...
Perhaps even new radars that paint stealth planes like nothing we know of yet....though I have heard rumours or propaganda to that effect already....I think the knights of the air are not irreplaceable at some point entirely....
Perhaps more robust and cheaper planes carrying more sophisticated weaponry? or detection gear?
Its always something nobody thought of that makes this stuff vulnerable.......like the Iranians spoofing the RQ.....
"Come home to papa Abdullah little bird"



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Snippythehorse

How do you plan to get your missiles to the planes? They can launch weapons out to 200+ miles. What do you plan to patrol airspace with? How do you identify innocent aircraft that enter the airspace you're responsible for?

Drones can't dogfight yet. They aren't smart enough to choose their own maneuvers, and control systems have too much lag time in them.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Snippythehorse

How do you plan to get your missiles to the planes? They can launch weapons out to 200+ miles. What do you plan to patrol airspace with? How do you identify innocent aircraft that enter the airspace you're responsible for?

Drones can't dogfight yet. They aren't smart enough to choose their own maneuvers, and control systems have too much lag time in them.


Of course there are problems to lick with these systems....why just look at the F35.....
Im just saying that there are advances in the pipes that are perhaps worth waiting for....before blowing the wad on very expensive planes.....
Manned systems are going out of business faster that you might think...one way or the other.....
Im assuming the drones will lug the smart missiles in range by the way...just like manned planes do....



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Kukri

When you compare the typoon at 90million Euro's the the f-35 is cheap.
When you look at the Rhino at 61 million us the f-35 looks OKAY i think at 65 million (that what the last batch priced out at correct? please correct if I am wrong)

When stealth first was first discussed it was about enhancing surviviblity. Being stealth still helps with that So Much So that that they can be flown where the the f-18 would be shot down immediately.

We do not have the budget to build an indigenous fighter aircraft much less a stealth one. I have borrowed this info:

The F-35 Lightning II was conceived from the start of the project as having participation from many countries, most of which would both contribute to the manufacture of the aircraft and procure it for their own armed forces. While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion toward the development costs of the program.[1] Total development costs are estimated at more than US$40 billion (underwritten largely by the United States), while the purchase of an estimated 2,400 planes is expected to cost an additional US$200 billion.[2] Norway has estimated that each of their planned 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost their country $769 million over their operational lifetime.[3] The nine major partner nations, including the U.S., plan to acquire over 3,100 F-35s through 2035

So why do we not want to buy a plane that we already contributed to?

For patrolling our far north fighters are not the correct aircraft. The SH could barely make it from wainwright to the far north.

We have no ships to patrol the far north, no planes, no subs. The only reason we still have it is NATO and we are not meeting our commitments to them.
edit on 23-11-2016 by SmilingROB because: grammer



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join