[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Or a few years ago when there were musings about us acquiring amphibious assault ships and certain people were jumping on the Conservatives for wanting to buy "aircraft carriers".

Well, take a look at Japan's new helicopter destroyer (it can't be called a helicopter carrier due to limitations in the Japanese Constitution).

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/20070825.aspx

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldw ... /16ddh.htm

http://defensetech.org/2007/08/28/japan ... ier-sorta/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /ddh-x.htm

It is roughly the same size as the RN Invincible class carriers (as well as Italy's/Spain's/Thailand's carriers) and given Japan's interest in the STOVL F-35, so it's no wonder that many consider that to be a carrier, so why wouldn't people assume the same thing about the Conservative's plan to build one twice that size? If I recallcorrectly, they wanted something in the 25,000 - 30,000 ton range...

And if you think that the Marines/Navy are going to let a little thing like a name prevent them from using an amphib in the future as a flight deck for planes capable of operating off of them - like STOVL F-35s - you're not thinking clearly.

These days, just about any ship with a long, flat deck capable of operating aircraft is going to be called a carrier (rightly or wrongly).

[GreenTiger]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

I just read a headline that said Russia, US and Canada are conducting joint military exercises in the Arctic. If the Rooshians are so scary, and always testing our defenses, should be be playing war games with them at the same time?

Yes. Because when both sides are aware of what is SOP for the other side that lessens the chance of an armed confrontation.

And let me weigh in here: While the Russians may not have infringed on Canadian or US airpsace, the Soviets definitely did and there were more than a few shoot downs and and more than a few Soviet aircraft forced to land after flying too far into controlled airspace. Given that the same people are running the Russian military now as who ran the Soviet military and I'd say it's improbable that the Russians have not infringed on US or Canadian airspace since 1992.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The planes we drive over the USSR...er, Russia, anymore are so high they are legally in space and are not targets. That and if we really want good intel on the Russians it's cheaper to just buy it off the net than send in an expensive aircraft or retask a satellite.

It's just amazing the shit I learn from you, Bart. The costs of retasking satellites, and all.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Or a few years ago when there were musings about us acquiring amphibious assault ships and certain people were jumping on the Conservatives for wanting to buy "aircraft carriers".

Well, take a look at Japan's new helicopter destroyer (it can't be called a helicopter carrier due to limitations in the Japanese Constitution).

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/20070825.aspx

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldw ... /16ddh.htm

http://defensetech.org/2007/08/28/japan ... ier-sorta/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /ddh-x.htm

It is roughly the same size as the RN Invincible class carriers (as well as Italy's/Spain's/Thailand's carriers) and given Japan's interest in the STOVL F-35, so it's no wonder that many consider that to be a carrier, so why wouldn't people assume the same thing about the Conservative's plan to build one twice that size? If I recallcorrectly, they wanted something in the 25,000 - 30,000 ton range...

And if you think that the Marines/Navy are going to let a little thing like a name prevent them from using an amphib in the future as a flight deck for planes capable of operating off of them - like STOVL F-35s - you're not thinking clearly.

These days, just about any ship with a long, flat deck capable of operating aircraft is going to be called a carrier (rightly or wrongly).

Proper aircraft carriers and through deck amphibs may look similar, but they are intended for entirely different roles.

We should have one or two.

[DerbyX]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

DerbyX DerbyX:

I'm not so sure the facts are wrong anyway. A top speed of mach 1.67 for the F35 which suggests afterburner vs a mach 1.8+ for the super Hornet.

Start hanging stores off the F-18's hardpoints and see how quickly that advantage becomes negated.

$1:

The F35 can carry more internal fuel but the F18E can carry a larger fuel load in total giving it a much greater range depending on mission constraints.

See above. Start hanging ET's off the wings and see the Super Bugs speed advantage disappear. External tanks also cut into the payload capacity. More fuel means less weapons.

The same thing affects F35. The cited speed is maximum which means unloaded. Start adding weight and it slows down both internal and external load outs. Again, the Super Hornets greater thrust and greater thrust to weight ratio gives it the advantage. The F18E probably has an aerodynamic edge too since the F35 was designed with stealth as the optimum factor.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

390 nm figure is not fully loaded with missiles and bombs. It is 4 x 1000 lb bombs, along with two external tanks and two Sidewinders.

That is pretty much loaded. 8 of 11 hard points. Carrying quite the load which is why its "mission specific" combat radius is decreased. Its 410 nmi as an interceptor carrying 2 sidewinders and 2 AMMRAMS.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The F-35 is considered clean carrying 4 air to air missiles internally, not simply two sidewinders like the Super Bug. Perk of the internal weapons bays.

Internal weapons bay or not the F18E has the ability to carry more fuel, a greater weapons mix (including the Harpoon ASM), has greater speed, greater thrust, more the adequate stealth to suit our needs, and probably most important was that Boeing was offering a package to build in country, something that Lockheed is resisting (as per the Israeli purchase).

The US has been kinda reluctant to let their best tech get out even to trusted allies like us.

Another factor I'd say would be what looks to be a promise to a lot of countries some large number of planes being delivered for aircraft that aren't even built yet. We already are getting reamed by Sikorsky.

[EyeBrock]

Derby, you are missing all the relevant points on this.

The F35 can carry a weapons load internally. It has greater range than the F18 on it's internal fuel tanks. It has a radar signature similar to a tennis ball.

The F18 has a radar blip like a barn door with weapons and fuel tanks stored externally.

The F35 can maintain mach 1.5 throughout it's mission, with a full weapons and fuel payload. It’s what it was built to do.

The F18 can reach mach 1.8 for short periods of time (gobbling up it's fuel) and cruise sub-sonically the rest of it's mission.

It was designed in the mid 1970's and as such it reflects the basic mission concepts of that era.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Derby, you are missing all the relevant points on this.

I don't think I am.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The F35 can carry a weapons load internally. It has greater range than the F18 on it's internal fuel tanks. It has a radar signature similar to a tennis ball.

It can carry some of its weapons load internally. It has less of a range then the F18 with a comparable weapons load and when the F35 uses external points it loses stealth bit by bit. It has less range in total because the F18E can carry more fuel in total and has buddy store/in air refuelling. The F18E was also built with stealth in mind and is reported to be an order of magnitude better then all the other fighters. Third only to the F22 & F35 which more then meets Canada's requirements since virtually none of our needs will ever mean a first strike deep penetration strike.

As I recall its all been about coastal defence and high arctic defence, 2 roles the F18E is well suited for. It, unlike the F35, also has been used in the other roles you wanted the airforce to do namely ground support. The F18E has combat experience.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The F18 has a radar blip like a barn door with weapons and fuel tanks stored externally.

The older ones perhaps but not the newer ones. In addition, stealth is absolutely useless in the close support role it would play. There is almost no chance we'll ever use this aircraft to fight opponents equipped with SAMs capable of hitting a modern fighter and even our current F18 are capable of interception missions against the russkies.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The F35 can maintain mach 1.5 throughout it's mission, with a full weapons and fuel payload. It’s what it was built to do.

No it wasn't. It was designed with stealth in mind first and foremost and speed isn't as pressing when you are non-detectable. In addition, I don't see anything saying it can fly 1.5 mach as a cruising speed. That is why its has afterburner and the speed (1.6) was mentioned as max speed although altitude is an important component. Remember it has only 2 internal weapons bays for either 4 AAMs or 2AAMs + 2 other weapons load.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The F18 can reach mach 1.8 for short periods of time (gobbling up it's fuel) and cruise sub-sonically the rest of it's mission.

It can reach 1.8 for as long as it wants which means a fuel restriction. The F35 faces the same dilemma and its guzzling fuel at 1.6 as much as the F18 is at 1.8.

Again the range on just internal fuel was ~1200 nmi for the F35 and ~1275 for the F18 but for all that they really are identical. The 1275 range for the F18E is with 2 AAMs and we'll assume the F35 is using all its internal bays for an extra 2 weapons.

The combat ranges are different but then only the F18 gives an example of weapons loadout. Given that the ranges are similar in like situations I'm inclined to believe its sacrificing weapons load outs for lighter weight or additional fuel.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It was designed in the mid 1970's and as such it reflects the basic mission concepts of that era.

The original one was. Hell the original stealth bomber was designed by the freaking Nazis (seriously). Hell other then size they looked like twins.

The newer bloc F18E is a massive step forward from the A-D variants.

Now we can split hairs over fighter capabilities but that isn't the full measure. Cost is my big concern. For the same price we could get 3X as many planes and get the contract to build them here. In fact if we told Boeing that we'll purchase 200 fighters to be built in Canada we'd likely get a great deal including maintenance.

That alone is what makes me think we should go with the F18E. More planes and hulls at a smaller price tag and cheaper operating costs is what Canada needs because a measly 65 planes for a hefty price tag isn't desirable.

Its the same thing with ships and subs. Would you prefer the navy get 4 Arleigh Burkes or another 12 Halifaxes?

We'll probably never get nuke subs but the new German U212s have under ice capability and cost a fraction of the price.

Last but not least, and this point works whether you love or hate the F35 purchase, is that Lockheed is promising to deliver a shitload of planes to multiple buyers for planes that aren't even fully developed.

We are getting butt raped by Sikorksy over the Cyclones. Imagine the same problem with the F35s only now magnified by the number of countries involved. We may be inking a deal (and we have til 2013 to decide) for fighters we won't see for a decade at least. Another factor in the F18Es favour is they are ready to go.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Or a few years ago when there were musings about us acquiring amphibious assault ships and certain people were jumping on the Conservatives for wanting to buy "aircraft carriers".

Well, take a look at Japan's new helicopter destroyer (it can't be called a helicopter carrier due to limitations in the Japanese Constitution).

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/20070825.aspx

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldw ... /16ddh.htm

http://defensetech.org/2007/08/28/japan ... ier-sorta/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /ddh-x.htm

It is roughly the same size as the RN Invincible class carriers (as well as Italy's/Spain's/Thailand's carriers) and given Japan's interest in the STOVL F-35, so it's no wonder that many consider that to be a carrier, so why wouldn't people assume the same thing about the Conservative's plan to build one twice that size? If I recall correctly, they wanted something in the 25,000 - 30,000 ton range...

And if you think that the Marines/Navy are going to let a little thing like a name prevent them from using an amphib in the future as a flight deck for planes capable of operating off of them - like STOVL F-35s - you're not thinking clearly.

These days, just about any ship with a long, flat deck capable of operating aircraft is going to be called a carrier (rightly or wrongly).

Proper aircraft carriers and through deck amphibs may look similar, but they are intended for entirely different roles.

We should have one or two.

Honestly, I don't think we need any. Canada simply isn't in the power projection business. They seem like ships that would spend the vast majority of their lives tied to the dock.

[EyeBrock]

Derby, you are still not getting it and there are many flawed assumptions in your argument(s), cherry-picked stats aside and no disrespect intended.

The RAAF has ordered F18E's as an interim aircraft prior to them getting the F35.

The Typhoon is a more capable aircraft than the F18, the Brit's are ordering the F35.

The crown rests.


I'd say people with a lot more knowledge and expertise of defence procurement and fighter aircraft design than you and I have made the decisions that they should be making on getting the F35.

Unless of course you have a solid background in fighter design, procurement, air staff targets, stealth, payload vs fuel burn vs drag etc which I highly doubt.

The internet certainly has spawned many 'defence' experts who have never even been involved with a fighter squadron deployment never mind developing a combat aircraft system.

Apparently this lack of expertise hasn't stopped them from writing articles that cherry pick dodgy stats and that then form the basis of flawed arguments.

I'll leave it at that. I don't need to enter into a more spirited debate on this. You have your views and I know my argument is sound.

Neither argument will be swayed by me or thee posting ad infinitum.