|
Nebakenezzer posted:OK, so the purchase of F-35s is going poorly for Canada. I want this to happen now. It'd be larger and faster than an F-111 with the RCS of a TU-128... With modern engines though, drat could a beast like that loiter.
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
The F-35 has literally caused Canada to lose its collective mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The F-35 has literally caused Canada to lose its collective mind. Pretty much what I was thinking this morning when I read this. The Arrow has gone beyond mythical proportions here in Canada if people honestly think this idea could work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:...as well as managing to land on the beach with one flap fully down and one retracted. Extremely good work on his part. Which also explains why the Hussna yawed violently to the left when they... Copulated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
Bugsmasher posted:Pretty much what I was thinking this morning when I read this. It would be a good reason to uncrate the survivor, though. That would be fun to see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Bugsmasher posted:The Arrow has gone beyond mythical proportions here in Canada if people honestly think this idea could work. I like the article's quote from the guy (presumably) in the actual airplane-buying business: quote:One senior government source who’s reviewed the Avro backers’ pitch expressed deep skepticism about their business plan. Also, I may be wrong as I'm no jet procurement expert, but if we take the proponents of the claim's reasoning at face value -- that the Arrow is better because it flies higher, faster, and farther than the F-35 -- then wouldn't the enhanced Mudhen Boeing's been shopping around be even better? It outperforms the Arrow in all those areas, and is almost as stealthy as the F-35 to boot! Probably cheaper than either of the other options, too. (Yes, I know it's missing the point because the nutters really only want the Arrow for sentimental and/or nationalistic reasons.) Advent Horizon posted:It would be a good reason to uncrate the survivor, though. That would be fun to see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCRL2Wwt9d4 Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Sep 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 22:25
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Advent Horizon posted:It would be a good reason to uncrate the survivor, though. That would be fun to see. What survivor? Despite the legend, no Arrow survived intact in a barn in Manitoba or otherwise. Reviving the Arrow is a stupid idea. Beyond the obvious problem of having no plans or tooling available, the aircraft is completely outmoded in every aspect, whether it's engines, structures, aerodynamics, systems or otherwise. There would be so much rework needed to make a militarily useful, modern Arrow that it would bear no resemblance whatsoever to the original aircraft - to say nothing of the cost involved; a project of that magnitude would eat the entire defense budget for thirty years. If we lost our minds and went ahead with this daft idea, the final product would probably end up looking and performing more like a scaled-up Eurofighter Typhoon (which, coincidentally, is the aircraft the RCAF probably should have bought in the first place) than the original Arrow. MrChips fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Sep 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
gently caress it, if someone spiked the MOD's tea and we ended up with a fleet of Lightnings, V-bombers and TSR/2s, I wouldn't complain either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The F-35 has literally caused Canada to lose its collective mind. Ever since Mulroney and the whole Airbus thing (and possibly even before that), every politician in Canada is suspected of being on the take when it comes to any procurement contract. The bigger the bill, the more people assume is going to line pockets. And when one takes an admirable cost saving approach like buying some second hand submarines from the brits, they're left with egg on their face and charred submarine remains. Shouldn't have scrimped on the extended warranty I guess. Hmm, I wonder if the RAF have any nearly new tornados* up for grabs? *edit- got my typhoons and my tornadoes mixed up. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Sep 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
MrChips posted:If we lost our minds and went ahead with this daft idea, the final product would probably end up looking and performing more like a scaled-up Eurofighter Typhoon (which, coincidentally, is the aircraft the RCAF probably should have bought in the first place) than the original Arrow. Typhoon's got it's own drat issues, but yeah. The whole idea got me thinking. If you started development of an indigenous 4.5 generation fighter from scratch today, even with Canada's close relationship to the US and assuming off the shelf US engines, radar, and avionics, you would probably succeed in first flight in roughly what... maybe 10 years, realistically? Actual acceptance into duty in maybe another 4-5? Could have all the F-35s you want in that sort of time frame. And thats not even counting in the the price delta. If they think $6 billion for their F-35 buy is expensive, wait till they see that R&D bill alone...
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure these projects get the way they do because they're "build us the Arc. Make it fly. Make it carry 4 of each animal." Instead of doing it the Skyraider, F-16, or A4 method. where you "make it fly." Later you "make it carry 4 of each" And finally "make it carry 4 of everything at the same time". But thinking about this is just wasted time. Nobody would ever consider not ordering the exact product they want in the very end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
Bugsmasher posted:Pretty much what I was thinking this morning when I read this. But see it's over 50 years later and we're still having to bounce Bears, so a heavy daylight interceptor from back then makes perfect sense!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:gently caress it, if someone spiked the MOD's tea and we ended up with a fleet of Lightnings, V-bombers and TSR/2s, I wouldn't complain either. Include harriers and I'm on board.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:Include harriers and I'm on board.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Also, I may be wrong as I'm no jet procurement expert, but if we take the proponents of the claim's reasoning at face value -- that the Arrow is better because it flies higher, faster, and farther than the F-35 -- then wouldn't the enhanced Mudhen Boeing's been shopping around be even better? It outperforms the Arrow in all those areas, and is almost as stealthy as the F-35 to boot! Probably cheaper than either of the other options, too. It's a good point. To be honest, I read it assuming that people were using the F-35 debacle to troll the government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Yeah, I was trying to include stuff that was long gone, in keeping with the Arrow discussion, hence the omission. I had to look up when they were retired, March '11 . I guess it just feels like they are long gone. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
MrChips posted:What survivor? Despite the legend, no Arrow survived intact in a barn in Manitoba or otherwise. I'm well aware, but it's fun to think about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Typhoon's got it's own drat issues, but yeah. Probably 15 years to first flight, and another 5-6 years to EIS, by which point it will be completely obsolete. That's assuming the Americans cooperate on the project, which I almost guarantee they would not; certainly not after kicking the F-35 to the curb. If we're going to go nuts and build an indigenous combat aircraft in Canada, we should skip this generation and start a 6th-generation optionally-manned aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Probably 15 years to first flight, and another 5-6 years to EIS, by which point it will be completely obsolete. That's assuming the Americans cooperate on the project, which I almost guarantee they would not; certainly not after kicking the F-35 to the curb. That is sort of what Europe is facing right now. The Eurofighter is nice and all, but if every potential geo-strategic opponent of the EU is trying to field stealth fighters, it just doesn't cut it in the long term. But if we start developing a stealth fighter now, it would probably be operational in the 2030s at the earliest (The Eurofighter was supposed to enter service in the 1990s). And by that point you have to seriously think if it is even worth it to develop another manned fighter at all. But none of it matters, because no one in Europe is seriously thinking about starting another development program for a combat aircraft right now, even though we would have to start now if we want a replacement for the Eurofighter to be ready for when the Typhoon starts to show its age.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Eurofighter Typhoon (which, coincidentally, is the aircraft the RCAF probably should have bought in the first place) than the original Arrow. Gripen gets you 85% of the capability at 40% of the cost* *actual figures pulled out of my rear end but you get the idea...more bang for your buck with the Saab product. I'll agree that one of the euro-canards definitely would've been the way to go, though. Colonel K posted:Include harriers and I'm on board. gently caress STOVL fighters. It was a rather dumb marginal concept during the Cold War, it's just stupid today. That idiotic bridge too far requirement (thanks Marines) and the subsequent SWAT redesign and accompanying loss of commonality is one of the larger drags (there are many) on the JSF program. ArchangeI posted:That is sort of what Europe is facing right now. The Eurofighter is nice and all, but if every potential geo-strategic opponent of the EU is trying to field stealth fighters, it just doesn't cut it in the long term. But if we start developing a stealth fighter now, it would probably be operational in the 2030s at the earliest (The Eurofighter was supposed to enter service in the 1990s). And by that point you have to seriously think if it is even worth it to develop another manned fighter at all. Despite what Lockheed Martin would have you believe, stealth is not the be all end all of air combat aircraft development...first, it's not some blanket that makes your jet invisible to all radars at all ranges at all angles, it's simply managing the aircraft's radar signature. There are some "non-stealthy" aircraft that have decent (relatively speaking...they aren't a Raptor but they aren't some slab sided F-4 either) LO performance (Super Hornet, Rafale) and some "stealthy" aircraft that actually aren't that great LO wise (looking at you, F-35). Second, everything in combat aircraft design is a trade-off...stealth is great and all, but is it worth the tradeoff of increased cost and reduced performance (or really increased cost to have the same performance as a "non-stealthy" fighter)?* That answer depends on what you need the aircraft to do, your defense posture, your defense budget...a whole lot of different things. I'm not saying very LO aircraft are worthless or never worth the price; depending on what you need the aircraft to be able to do it may be a flat out absolute requirement. But LockMart's "Fifth Generation" bullshit has a whole lot of Western air forces thinking that their only option is an aircraft designed for "stealth"...and coincidentally enough LockMart are the only people with those currently in production. *Of course, given its skyrocketing price the Eurofighter probably isn't the best aircraft to make this comparison with, but the point still stands. e: and I didn't even get into IRST systems and stealth, which is something that Western air forces have neglected until fairly recently...but the folks on the other side haven't. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Sep 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's a good point. To be honest, I read it assuming that people were using the F-35 debacle to troll the government. Touche. I agree, the proposal to bring back the Arrow is perfect Poe's Law material.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Despite what Lockheed Martin would have you believe, stealth is not the be all end all of air combat aircraft development... Also, Gripens are way more than 85% the value: Canada isn't ever going to be in a war against a real foe and they don't really need the deterrent of a 5th gen fighter because they freeload on the US for that, so all they really need are bitchin awesome looking jets for PR, and Gripen is one sexy-rear end fighter. Click for huge, btw: 
grover fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Sep 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
grover posted:Also, Gripens are way more than 85% the value: Canada isn't ever going to be in a war against a real foe and they don't really need the deterrent of a 5th gen fighter because they freeload on the US for that, so all they really need is a bitchin awesome looking of jets for PR, and Gripen is one sexy-rear end fighter. Canadian fighters play in NORAD scenarios too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Canadian fighters play in NORAD scenarios too. NORAD scenarios? What is this 1985?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Canadian fighters play in NORAD scenarios too. Arctic sovereignty is actually a pretty big thing for the Canadian Forces, all the more so now that the ice melting is opening things up in that neck of the woods.  It doesn't happen quite as often as U.S. interceptions due to geography, but it is still a thing. front wing flexing posted:NORAD scenarios? What is this 1985? e: Not shooting down of nuclear armed jets or whatever, but seemingly insignificant pissing matches like flying Bears over the Arctic actually have rather important geopolitical ramifications...hence the need for Canada to have fighters. Also why they are developing this ship class. Also also why the fact that the U.S. only currently has one arctic capable icebreaker is a big enough deal to justify reactivating one that had been put in reserve. e2: Just as one example of what I'm talking about, back in the mid-'80s we sent an icebreaker across the Northwest passage without asking Canada's permission; they subsequently flipped their poo poo because even though we think it is international waters they consider that those waters are theirs. The wiki page is a decent rundown of most of the relevant issues...unsurprisingly most of them come back to mineral rights. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Sep 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:NORAD scenarios? What is this 1985? Not only did Russian ADIZ incursions increase in the past 10-15 years after not doing much in the 90s, they SURPASSED what the Soviets did in any 1-year span. I actually deployed in response to Russian military activities. This poo poo happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
On the same note as "stealth isn't everything," doesn't the edit: Ops, I meant to say Rafale, but I'm probably still wrong. SPECTRA was what I was thinking about, but I have no idea how effective it is in the real world... Boomerjinks fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Sep 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
No.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Yes there is a bolt-on stealth kit for the Rafale that lowers its ~~cross-section~~
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Gripen gets you 85% of the capability at 40% of the cost* The Gripen has a tiny little gas tank, though, and Canada's a pretty big country. grover posted:It sure will be when laser weapons are fielded and detection = instant death. Good old lasers, the wonder weapon of the next decade since the 1980s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Grippen is a cool plane, for sure, but I don't think it really adds enough over the CF-18. Especially considering the version with the upgrades they would want... AESA, new engines, new avionics etc... hasn't flown with all the pieces yet and still may get cancelled. Especially when you can pluck Super Hornets off the line for roughly the same cost, lower maintence/spare costs, lower training costs, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Especially when you can pluck Super Hornets off the line for roughly the same cost, lower maintence/spare costs, lower training costs, etc. Seriously. Are you paying attention Canada (and Denmark, Brazil, Kuwait, Finland and Switzerland?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Grippen is a cool plane, for sure, but I don't think it really adds enough over the CF-18. Especially considering the version with the upgrades they would want... AESA, new engines, new avionics etc... hasn't flown with all the pieces yet and still may get cancelled. The biggest problem with the Gripen is that it isn't well suited to Canada. On account of how huge this place is, combined with a lack of suitable airports and an often extremely inhospitable climate, long unrefuelled range and multiple engines *should* be among the most important attributes we look for. I probably posted this before, but over the projected life of the F-35 program, I calculated that we would lose seven additional aircraft on account of engine failures over what we would if we flew a twin-engine aircraft. As for stealth, it is useless outside of the whole OO-RAH BUSTIN DOWN DOORS type of operation, which we haven't done since WW2; in fact, as iyaayas01 said, the compromises you need to make an fighter stealthy make it a turd in many performance aspects. In an ideal world, the RCAF should have bought the Typhoon, as it would have been the closest to our needs (the politicians would have loved the bribes from BAE Systems too  ), followed by a close match between Rafale and the Super Hornet. One of the upgraded F-15s, like the F-15K, would have been a good match too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
MrChips posted:One of the upgraded F-15s, like the F-15K, would have been a good match too. Yeah but the F-15C is already taken, so...I guess it would've been the CF-15.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
MrChips posted:In an ideal world, the RCAF should have bought the Typhoon, as it would have been the closest to our needs (the politicians would have loved the bribes from BAE Systems too JET ARGUMENT I've heard that the Eurofighter is a great air superiority fighter. But, we need a dual role airplane that can do ground attack too, and the attempts to modify the Typhoon to do those sorts of roles have not gone well. Also, are they not crazy expensive IE 300 million apiece? Aside from that, your list of good choices is mine. Delivery McGee has sort of convinced me that if LO and intercept capability are really important, we should go for the F-15 SE. CF-15 Snow Eagle
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Huh, I saw a 737 AWACS flying low 20-30 minutes ago while walking my dog. I had to look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_AEW%26C I live near Boeing factories so it's not surprising, but cool anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Huh, I saw a 737 AWACS flying low 20-30 minutes ago while walking my dog. I had to look it up. It was this very Peace Eagle.  N360BJ Back again by Powercube, on Flickr I believe it will be delivered in October.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
Cool!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 09:58
|
|
|
I'm kind of surprised it doesn't have winglets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
MrChips posted:combined with a lack of suitable airports and an often extremely inhospitable climate, long unrefuelled range and multiple engines *should* be among the most important attributes we look for. This is more or less what the Gripen was designed for - dispersed airbases on stretches of roads and cold as gently caress winters. Single engine and long unrefuelled range is a problem, though. Swedish defense doctrine shaped this part of the Gripen - why have a 2nd engine to get home, when you're already over home?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 13:48
|
|
