| Author | Message | ||
     Ferris_von_bueller |
http://superarrowreal.miniwebmaster.com/ Seems a bit ambitious to me, considering the Canadians haven't built a fighter plane in years, let alone, a sixth generation fighter. | ||
| Aesquire |
Why not? The Avro Arrow was past state of the art, and the last gen Sabre jets were better than the American ones. ( more powerful engine ) It's just a question of..... will the politicians go for it? Or will they get bribes & pressure to buy F-35's? I want to see it fly. | ||
| Hootowl |
All for it. But buying the 35 will likely be cheaper. | ||
| Aesquire |
There's a LOT of complaining about the F-35. First, like the F-111B, building an Air Force plane and making it work on a Carrier is hard. ( the last one I recall was a complete redesign on the F-86 Sabre, and I mean they changed everything ) Second, to carry a large load of bombs or fuel for range & loiter time, means stealth is negated by external loads..... meaning you need air superiority fighters, not carrying bombs, and Wild Weasel planes, shooting up SAMS. It may be a set of compromises that just isn't good enough. I'm not completely down on the F-35, I just an skeptical it's ever going to be made in large enough numbers to be a success. and don't forget, most of the other planes in the inventory are old. Really old. Airplanes wear out. "Kelly" Johnson, of P-80, U-2, and SR-71 fame, once commented that someday the Air Force will get the plane they really want that does every thing they need, but they'll only be able to afford One, and it will be parked in a vault to keep it safe. | ||
| Hootowl |
The f35, like every other modern fighter ever, has been plagued with cost overruns. Most of this is due to the military changing their minds midstream. But also because our procurement system lets it happen. Used to be they built a plane and we either bought it or we didn't. But modern jets are so expensive to develop that if we didn't subsidize their development we'd not have the aircraft we have today. | ||
| Panhead_dan |
"Airplanes wear out." Not exactly. Aircraft are subject to annual inspections and overhauls, if necessary. They are made to be rebuilt, not replaced. Typically, aircraft are "lost" rather than worn out. | ||
| Hootowl |
Depends. Ndi can reveal cracks that can't be repaired. Ok, anything can be repaired, but it may be more cost effective to replace than repair at some point. Sometimes an afc can extend the life of an airframe. To wit, the replacement of the aluminum wings on the A-6 with carbon fiber ones. Gave the old girl another 15 years. | ||
| Aesquire |
True, but in the U.S. they take the older airframes and drone them. We've taken our obsolete fighters, as they retire, and used them up. So we have F-18's, F-16's, F-15's, and..... a handful of F-22's, and a slowly building test fleet of F-35's. Am I missing any? Fighters I mean, not counting the Top Gun and Test Pilot School use of Kfirs, F-5's and A-4's. My point is we don't really stockpile old fighters like the Soviets used to. The lead time to make more, even "production" planes like the F-18, can be years. | ||
| Hootowl |
I still maintain that Canada CAN build a world class fighter. However, when you spread the R&D and tooling over the number of aircraft the Canadian Air Force is likely to buy, it just doesn't make sense to do so. Granted they could sell it to other countries, but most of the other countries they'd likely be willing to sell to already have advanced fighters in the pipeline. They'd be better served buying an already developed weapon system. I think Canada agrees, because they're deeply entrenched in F35 manufacturing. https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada-in dustry-partners | ||
| Bob_thompson |
If I'm not mistaken are there not 3 or 4 different versions of the F35, each one designed specifically for their intended purpose? I believe they even have a vertical takeoff version for the Marine Corp. They fly over my house every day being a mile from Hill AFB. I think they have had some problems but what I'm hearing here from maintenance guys at Hill(an AF maintenance base) is they are doing mainly "upgrades", mostly electronics, to stay out in front of all others. The birds themselves sure sound very powerful similar to a twin engine F15 when the fly over. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
The Canadians haven't built their own fighter jets since the 1960's. Designing and building a modern fighter jet isn't the same as manufacturing a superbike which we all know is harder than it appears. | ||
| Aesquire |
True, it's been a while, and that means they need to build the infrastructure, but it's not like Borneo, with zero experience. Plus they already have a working aerospace industry, doing subcontracting and parts for other countries, They can read a print, and understand tolerances. They also still have old farts that know how to make high precision products. They can make good stuff. The real question is, are they annoyed at the long lag time on the F-35 enough to bother to make their own? Bob, one complaint with the F-35 is that it's a loud machine. A LOT of power in that one engine. And thrust is more important to the designers than noise or IR signature. In contrast, the B-2 which is optimized for hiding in the sky, is pretty quiet for a 4 engine jet bomber. |
