Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
MarkW

F-35 news roundup

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, MarkW said:

 

”And the US would have a new tanker in service now, If Airbus had gotten the contract for it ”

 

Oh, puuuuuuuleeeeeeeeeeeeze.  How's that A400M doing?  How hard was it to copy an upscaled C-130?

 

Airbus is not the standard I'd raise.

 

Mark.. 

 

Australia went down that path and besides the OT&E issue with the boom falling off that one time, We've have had no operational issues at all.  Hey at least we have a new tankers.

 

But this is not the thread to hijack.  Lets get back to the F-35

 

Brendon 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 First 2 F-35's to be based permanently in Australia. Changing of the Guard

 

20181210raaf81652332-214-1.jpg

 

image: Australian Department of Defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2019 at 3:16 PM, 11bee said:

LOL   The AF tanker program is probably as worthy of a years long, thousand post thread as the AMK  F-14 is.  

 

FTFY.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aussie_superbug said:

 First 2 F-35's to be based permanently in Australia. Changing of the Guard

 

 

They look good with the 3sqn markings on the tail. Will you attend the Avalon airshow to see them up close?

 

Feel free to send one this side of the Tasman anytime.

Edited by Alternative 4
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MarkW said:

 

”And the US would have a new tanker in service now, If Airbus had gotten the contract for it ”

 

Oh, puuuuuuuleeeeeeeeeeeeze.  How's that A400M doing?  How hard was it to copy an upscaled C-130?

 

Airbus is not the standard I'd raise.

Surely even someone as obviously one eyed as you you can see the irony here.... Hows that KC-46 coming along...............

 

 But in case you can't, comparing Apples with apples, the KC-30 is light years ahead of the KC-46. And it's in service now, and has been for years...  

 

Finally your comment that the A-400 is simply an upscaled C-130 confirms your ignorance .. But if it gets you to to sleep at night maintain that rage.

 

Edited by a4s4eva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, a4s4eva said:

Surely even someone as obviously one eyed as you you can see the irony here.... Hows that KC-46 coming along...............

 

 But in case you can't, comparing Apples with apples, the KC-30 is light years ahead of the KC-46. And it's in service now, and has been for years...  

 

Finally your comment that the A-400 is simply an upscaled C-130 confirms your ignorance .. But if it gets you to to sleep at night maintain that rage.

 

For the record though, the KC-46 will end up being just fine.  Gonna cost BA billions but they knew this going in.   It will also have a production run probably an order of magnitude larger than the Airbus product.   

 

Compare to the A400, which appears that it will never meet some of it's design goals and will end up being the military equivalent to the A380 - a marquee product that looked impressive but at the end up the day, never measured up in sales, didn't quite cut it from a technology standpoint, cost the company billions and was retired well before it's time.   

 

27772751358_a43582dec7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 11bee said:

For the record though, the KC-46 will end up being just fine.  Gonna cost BA billions but they knew this going in.   It will also have a production run probably an order of magnitude larger than the Airbus product.   

 

Compare to the A400, which appears that it will never meet some of it's design goals and will end up being the military equivalent to the A380 - a marquee product that looked impressive but at the end up the day, never measured up in sales, didn't quite cut it from a technology standpoint, cost the company billions and was retired well before it's time.   

 

 

 

Bit of thread drift but hey I like talking aircraft :D

 

I'm sure the KC-46  will end up fine, my point just that the USAF could have KC-30 years ago (I read today the USAF has just accepted the first KC-46) . The KC-30 is  more capable than the KC-46 is many areas (fuel load etc, although I understand that was a factor against the KC 30 in the 2nd 767 proposal due to weight etc. ).But lets just be honest and agree KC-30 suffered from the NIH syndrome and so dodgy political shenanigans ...

 

You only have to look how many countries ordered KC-30 as opposed to 767 based tankers (I'm not saying the 767 was bad aircraft BTW, it's not it was an excellent machine in its time, I flew on it a lot).   It will be interesting to see if NG have another go with the KC-30 for the  KC-10 replacement.

 

The A-400 may or may not never meet all its' design goals. But that can be said of just about any aircraft these days including the actual subject of this thread. What is going for the A-400 is it is the only option now for users wanting a large strategic transport aircraft now that C-17 is done. It fits nicely between C-130J and C-17 in capability. So I expect it will do fine over the years for smaller airforces.

 

Finally, the A-380, the technology is fine, it s more the market that changed. And whilst a few have been retired at least one has found a new home. Plus Emirates still operate over 100 of these, it's suits there hub and spoke model well.

 

As someone who has done a bit of long haul in the past 6 or so years the A380 is by far the most comfortable aircraft to travel on (I can only afford cattle class). I actively look for A-380 flights when I have to travel more than about 8 hours and actively avoid Boeings 787 Cramliner. For flights like Sydney to London (close to 24 hrs with a stop)  it's as good as it can be.

 

I'm hoping to try the A-350 at some stage as it has a wider fuselage than the 787 so even at 9 abreast it has wider seats.  .

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A-380 was a plane without an airport - or at least too few airports that could accommodate it's girth.  It doesn't matter how good you are - or how big you are - if you can't fit thru the door.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, habu2 said:

A-380 was a plane without an airport - or at least too few airports that could accommodate it's girth.  It doesn't matter how good you are - or how big you are - if you can't fit thru the door.....

There is a fair bit of truth of this, and it also affects the 747-8.

 

But the main problem for the A380 and 747-8 is the wide body twins, 777, A330,  787 and A350 provide better profit margins and flexibility for airlines. For example from down here  Qantas are flying direct Perth to London now with 787's  and have a project to get an airliner to fly direct Sydney to London (777-x or A350- are the contenders . Air NZ fly Direct Auckland to Chicago with 787's..

 

Edited by a4s4eva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 1:12 PM, MarkW said:

You know he's right, though? At least partially.  Lockheed doesn't know how to manage a program.  Could you imagine the train wreck-crashing into the Titanic-with a 747 full of school kids falling on all of it mess things would be with Boing?!

 

Misspelling intentional.

 

 

It's not that there hasn't been mistakes aplenty. But is Boeing so amazeballs and their bid at the JSF contract so impressive they have any room or credibility at all to gripe?

 

The short answer is no, and the long answer is oh god no. It just sounds like sour grapes anyway, and as I pointed out they got plenty of their own problems just like everyone in the biz.

It would "catty" if it wasn't so absurd

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2019 at 8:59 PM, a4s4eva said:

 

Bit of thread drift but hey I like talking aircraft 😄

 

I'm sure the KC-46  will end up fine, my point just that the USAF could have KC-30 years ago (I read today the USAF has just accepted the first KC-46) . The KC-30 is  more capable than the KC-46 is many areas (fuel load etc, although I understand that was a factor against the KC 30 in the 2nd 767 proposal due to weight etc. ).But lets just be honest and agree KC-30 suffered from the NIH syndrome and so dodgy political shenanigans ...

 

You only have to look how many countries ordered KC-30 as opposed to 767 based tankers (I'm not saying the 767 was bad aircraft BTW, it's not it was an excellent machine in its time, I flew on it a lot).   It will be interesting to see if NG have another go with the KC-30 for the  KC-10 replacement.

 

The A-400 may or may not never meet all its' design goals. But that can be said of just about any aircraft these days including the actual subject of this thread. What is going for the A-400 is it is the only option now for users wanting a large strategic transport aircraft now that C-17 is done. It fits nicely between C-130J and C-17 in capability. So I expect it will do fine over the years for smaller airforces.

 

Finally, the A-380, the technology is fine, it s more the market that changed. And whilst a few have been retired at least one has found a new home. Plus Emirates still operate over 100 of these, it's suits there hub and spoke model well.

 

As someone who has done a bit of long haul in the past 6 or so years the A380 is by far the most comfortable aircraft to travel on (I can only afford cattle class). I actively look for A-380 flights when I have to travel more than about 8 hours and actively avoid Boeings 787 Cramliner. For flights like Sydney to London (close to 24 hrs with a stop)  it's as good as it can be.

 

I'm hoping to try the A-350 at some stage as it has a wider fuselage than the 787 so even at 9 abreast it has wider seats.  .

 

 

 

All good points.   I fully expect that the KC-46 will eventually end up with more customers than AB's product (which I agree has some significant advantages) just due to commonality issues with what will eventually be a very large US fleet.

 

I think you are being too easy on the A400, a couple of those flaws are show stoppers (at least for tanking and airdrop missions).  I'm sure the French are less than pleased to have had to purchase a sub-fleet of C-130J's to make up for these shortfalls.  It probably will continue to stagger on and get more sales, given that the C-17 is now out of production (which I still think was a horrible mistake).

 

A380 technology isn't "fine", otherwise, why would Emriates (the only airline that seems to truly like these beasts) be pushing so hard for an A380Neo?    Agreed that it's a very comfortable ride.

 

Re - the B787 "Cramliner", take up your beef with the airlines, they are the ones who dictate seat count, not BA.  I've only flow it once but it seemed pretty comfy to me, even back in steerage. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, 11bee said:

Getting back to the focus of this thread - pretty cool video of an F-35 engaging 5 different targets (including a moving one) with one pass. 

 

https://theaviationist.com/2019/01/15/video-surfaces-of-f-35-hi

 

 

That is cool!  Also the link within the link to the F-35A demo practice at Nellis.  Nice find 👍🏻

Edited by Falconxlvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought that the F-35 would be the obvious choice for Canada. It new and modern, easily adaptable to our US ally, parts, maintenance, even airbases would be easily applied across borders. But I've had a change of heart. Whats everybody's opinion on the SAAB J39 Gripen E. I think this could be the winner if given a chance.

 Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pauly boy said:

I've thought that the F-35 would be the obvious choice for Canada. It new and modern, easily adaptable to our US ally, parts, maintenance, even airbases would be easily applied across borders. But I've had a change of heart. Whats everybody's opinion on the SAAB J39 Gripen E. I think this could be the winner if given a chance.

 Paul

Only one reason that Canada would buy NON US equipment. 
Australia had a lot of trouble with getting airbus aircraft to operate with US aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pauly boy said:

I've thought that the F-35 would be the obvious choice for Canada. It new and modern, easily adaptable to our US ally, parts, maintenance, even airbases would be easily applied across borders. But I've had a change of heart. Whats everybody's opinion on the SAAB J39 Gripen E. I think this could be the winner if given a chance.

 Paul

Any reason the F-15 hasn't come up in the Canuck's discussion about their next fighter?   If they can do without bleeding edge technology and stealth, it still seems like a pretty solid contender.   Not sure what advantage any of the other jets would have over a current spec F-15.  The latest versions seem pretty sophisticated and for patrolling the great white north, it has longer range than any of the jets (and two engines to placate all those Nervous Nellies who don't feel comfortable with single engine jets).   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 11bee said:

Any reason the F-15 hasn't come up in the Canuck's discussion about their next fighter?   If they can do without bleeding edge technology and stealth, it still seems like a pretty solid contender.   Not sure what advantage any of the other jets would have over a current spec F-15.  The latest versions seem pretty sophisticated and for patrolling the great white north, it has longer range than any of the jets (and two engines to placate all those Nervous Nellies who don't feel comfortable with single engine jets).   

 

Higher acquisition and service costs, no appreciable difference in range to the F-35 for where we need it, significantly inferior industrial benefits to any other option. 

Edited by -Neu-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pauly boy said:

I've thought that the F-35 would be the obvious choice for Canada. It new and modern, easily adaptable to our US ally, parts, maintenance, even airbases would be easily applied across borders. But I've had a change of heart. Whats everybody's opinion on the SAAB J39 Gripen E. I think this could be the winner if given a chance.

 Paul

 

Gripen? 100% hype, not even close to what Canada needs in any respect. Quite literally a public relations campaign based on lies and misrepresentations of what they offer, followed by a pretty mediocre capability at not a reasonable price whatsoever. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2019 at 3:53 PM, 11bee said:

Getting back to the focus of this thread - pretty cool video of an F-35 engaging 5 different targets (including a moving one) with one pass. 

 

https://theaviationist.com/2019/01/15/video-surfaces-of-f-35-hi

 

 

The Hornet and Super Hornet can do that also, it's not that rare when you are dropping JDAM and LJDAM's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

The Hornet and Super Hornet can do that also, it's not that rare when you are dropping JDAM and LJDAM's.

Depends on how they were queued, I suspect they are doing more than just testing gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 11bee said:

Any reason the F-15 hasn't come up in the Canuck's discussion about their next fighter?   If they can do without bleeding edge technology and stealth, it still seems like a pretty solid contender.   Not sure what advantage any of the other jets would have over a current spec F-15.  The latest versions seem pretty sophisticated and for patrolling the great white north, it has longer range than any of the jets (and two engines to placate all those Nervous Nellies who don't feel comfortable with single engine jets).   

Good point. the US I've read are looking at a semi stealth new version of the F15. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Aussie-Pete said:

Good point. the US I've read are looking at a semi stealth new version of the F15. 

 

McBoeing pushing it and USAF considering it are two Very Different things....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I've done some initial research and have not found anything bad said or implied about the Gripen. It's all been very positive and this is from several sources. As for cost I would assume the Gripen is approx 1/2 the cost of an F35. 

 Let not fall into the "senior citizen trap" and make purchases on what the man at the door told us we needed. Big and flash is nice, but is it what we need or want to pay for???

 My 2 cents worth.

  Thanks Paul
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, pauly boy said:

 I've done some initial research and have not found anything bad said or implied about the Gripen. It's all been very positive and this is from several sources. As for cost I would assume the Gripen is approx 1/2 the cost of an F35. 

 Let not fall into the "senior citizen trap" and make purchases on what the man at the door told us we needed. Big and flash is nice, but is it what we need or want to pay for???

 My 2 cents worth.

  Thanks Paul
 

 

There isn't much criticism out there for two reasons. One: the aircraft is barely into its development cycle and has only two customers, neither a major power.  First flight was last year. Second its basically got a legion of people out there who are willing to parrot every ridiculous claim that SAAB makes. 

 

Want to see an instance where Saab gets caught out? scroll down to the where Col. Laurie Hawn (ret) rips the Saab representative a new one about their cost per flying hour claim. 

http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/40-3/NDDN/meeting-38/evidence

 

"Big and flash is nice, but is it what we need or want to pay for???"

 

Personally? I Think we should let the subject matter experts, and the military buy what they want. They want F-35s. I want our servicemembers to have the tools they need to do the job. The argument you raise is illustrates the utter disconnect between he Canadian public and what our military is doing today. I'll take you to be someone who is more than superficially interested in fighter aircraft, for no other reason than you're on ARC and you said youve done some readings. Yet then you're making the implicit claim that we don't need the top of the line capabilities... as if we're not going to send our aircraft against top of the line air defence systems. Yet our last three deployments have been to the Baltic Air Policing Mission, Romania and Syria, where our pilots ARE facing top of the line Russian Air Defence systems. This article pretty well sums up what we're facing

 

https://www.cgai.ca/rcafs_pilot_shortage_being_felt_in_romania

 

Key line: 
 

Quote

 

Wood flew one of two CF-18s that scrambled to intercept a pair of formidable Russian SU-27 Flankers over the Black Sea in October. The Flankers had approached Romanian air space after launching from a base in Russian-occupied Crimea. The highly maneuverable Russian air superiority fighters turned back after the Canadian Hornets came within 500 metres of them.

While the RCAF has often intercepted Russian long-range bombers flying near the margins of Canadian air space in the high Arctic and along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, it very seldom interacts with Russian fighter jets because they are based in Europe and have a much shorter range.

“Their two airplanes were armed to the teeth. I could see the air-to-air missiles,” Woods said during an interview conducted late last month. “They waved to us. We waved to them. He gave the thumbs-up. I gave the thumbs-up. I gave him a salute and left. 


 

 

Yes, this seems like a good place as any to cheap out on capabilities. Oh wait, its not even that cheap.  A Gripen NG is about the equivalent price of an F-35, 75~85 million. Why? Production scale. I think Linkoping will put out one or two aircraft a month after 2020. Fort Worth Pumps out 14 per month in 2020. There's massive economies of scale and learning curve effects going on with the F-35, not so much with the Gripen. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, -Neu- said:

 

There isn't much criticism out there for two reasons. One: the aircraft is barely into its development cycle and has only two customers, neither a major power.  First flight was last year. Second its basically got a legion of people out there who are willing to parrot every ridiculous claim that SAAB makes. 

 

Want to see an instance where Saab gets caught out? scroll down to the where Col. Laurie Hawn (ret) rips the Saab representative a new one about their cost per flying hour claim. 

http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/40-3/NDDN/meeting-38/evidence

 

"Big and flash is nice, but is it what we need or want to pay for???"

 

Personally? I Think we should let the subject matter experts, and the military buy what they want. They want F-35s. I want our servicemembers to have the tools they need to do the job. The argument you raise is illustrates the utter disconnect between he Canadian public and what our military is doing today. I'll take you to be someone who is more than superficially interested in fighter aircraft, for no other reason than you're on ARC and you said youve done some readings. Yet then you're making the implicit claim that we don't need the top of the line capabilities... as if we're not going to send our aircraft against top of the line air defence systems. Yet our last three deployments have been to the Baltic Air Policing Mission, Romania and Syria, where our pilots ARE facing top of the line Russian Air Defence systems. This article pretty well sums up what we're facing

 

https://www.cgai.ca/rcafs_pilot_shortage_being_felt_in_romania

 

Key line: 
 

 

Yes, this seems like a good place as any to cheap out on capabilities. Oh wait, its not even that cheap.  A Gripen NG is about the equivalent price of an F-35, 75~85 million. Why? Production scale. I think Linkoping will put out one or two aircraft a month after 2020. Fort Worth Pumps out 14 per month in 2020. There's massive economies of scale and learning curve effects going on with the F-35, not so much with the Gripen. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neu hit the nail on the head.

 

Especially about letting the subject matter experts make the decision. I served under Hawn, and I am still in touch with many people I served with in the Hornet world, the F-35 is the aircraft of choice in the military community. It is the best airframe to allow our aircrews to survive to fight another day.It also the best decision for our aviation industry, we share in the production, research and development. 

 

The Gripen is junk.

 

And he is 100% correct about the Canadian public, they allow these type of fiascos to go on. We should have more concern for our military than we show. 

 

You don’t procure military equipment to fight today’s wars, you purchase it to fight tomorrow’s wars against the strongest adversary.

 

The rest of the world isn’t wrong about the F-35, but Trudeau certainly is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...