F-35B Ship Suitability Testing

people basically complain about this jet because its single engined and for the canadian north where u need to cover huge distance it could be dangerous if the engine breaks down. make a twin engines CF version or get the F22. problem solved and hippies can go back to bed.
 
people basically complain about this jet because its single engined and for the canadian north where u need to cover huge distance it could be dangerous if the engine breaks down. make a twin engines CF version or get the F22. problem solved and hippies can go back to bed.


Right a twin engine F-35.. Lockheed will get right on that after they solve the current problems facing the project... The entire point behind the JSF Program was to have a common aircraft to serve the USAF, USMC and USN at a fly away cost cheaper then the F-22. However as it stands the fly away cost of an F-35A is the same as the F-22.

People complain because they have been brainwashed by the NDP saying we don't need new aircraft. The fact is aircraft cost money (Welcome to the defense death spiral which is why our proud RCAF shrinks) and our current CF-18s even with the recent upgrades are almost cycled out. Personally I would have split the order in half and get Super Hornets with F-35s. This way our pilots wouldn't have to be flying desks around. The F-22 is overkill for our needs although it will forever be one of the best ever built.
 
why is f22 overkill? i know its mainly air to air but im sure theres ways to adapt it to our needs. f35 has stealth aswell
 
The F-22 is very "finicky" due to expensive and frequent maintenance(1-2 months..) Besides we can't debate this subject since there is no export allowed.
 
Ca fait pas très Top Gun un avion qui atteri de même!

il décolle pas sur place à cause du poids de l'Essence??
 
d'un autre coté il faut protéger la souveraineté du canada et les f-35 sont parfait pour couvrir de grand territoire

Je LOL

Notre façon de protéger notre souveraineté c'est d'être ami avec les USA ( en leur achetant des avions entre autre). C'est pas avec nos quelques avions qu'on peut se protéger nous même.

Parce que soyons réaliste, si la Russie ou les USA décident qu'ils veulent le Canada ils vont l'avoir en esti. On est 30 millions d'habitants et on a probablement 1% de leur armée.

Donc quant à moi l'achat des F35 c'est juste une fleur qu'on envoie aux voisins du sud pour maintenir des bonnes relations et qu'ils nous aident à protéger notre tas de glace des méchants russes.

Des chiffres pour comparer notre aviation et celle de qui on défend notre "souveraineté". C'est pas mal comme si les canadiens jouaient à 1 vs 5 sans avoir de goaler pendant une saison, ça serait dure de gagner la coupe stanley pas mal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Air_Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_Soviet_Union_and_the_CIS
 
Je LOL

Notre façon de protéger notre souveraineté c'est d'être ami avec les USA ( en leur achetant des avions entre autre). C'est pas avec nos quelques avions qu'on peut se protéger nous même.

Parce que soyons réaliste, si la Russie ou les USA décident qu'ils veulent le Canada ils vont l'avoir en esti. On est 30 millions d'habitants et on a probablement 1% de leur armée.

Donc quant à moi l'achat des F35 c'est juste une fleur qu'on envoie aux voisins du sud pour maintenir des bonnes relations et qu'ils nous aident à protéger notre tas de glace des méchants russes.

Des chiffres pour comparer notre aviation et celle de qui on défend notre "souveraineté". C'est pas mal comme si les canadiens jouaient à 1 vs 5 sans avoir de goaler pendant une saison, ça serait dure de gagner la coupe stanley pas mal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Air_Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_Soviet_Union_and_the_CIS

Absolument d'accord, si on se fessait envahir par une super-puissance c'est pas ces avions qui nous protégeraient de toute façon. L'organisation de milices décentralisées (comme ce qui s'est produit dans les récentes guerres) serait la seule méthode pertinente. On ne pourrait clairement pas compter sur l'armée en cas d'invasion massif des Russes ou des Chinois même si on y mettais 100% de notre PIB.....

C'est pourquoi je crois que les Super Hornet sont assez pour montrer aux Russes, par exemple, notre présence dans le Nord en plus qu'ils sont biréacteurs et qu'ils ressemblent aux avions de chasses que nous avons.
 
J'aimerais que les gouvernements dépensent moins en technologies de guerre et plus dans l'exploration de l'espace....

moi j'aimerais que les gouvernements dépensent moins en technologies de guerre et d'exploration de l'espace et qu'ils en mettent plus dans les technologies qui peuvent regler les 923847293874293874293874298347298374293847293756249756243 problèmes que l'humain a créer.
 
The standard f-35 meets our needs fine. The super hornet is a great aircraft but it's basic design is over 30 years old.

I heard f-35 requires absurd preventive maintenance, super hornets you can beat to shit and barely maintain and they'll still work. Is that true?
 
I heard f-35 requires absurd preventive maintenance, super hornets you can beat to shit and barely maintain and they'll still work. Is that true?

Not as much as the f-22. Mainly due to the skin of the aircraft being able to absorb radar. The skin on the f35 is as fragile as the f22. I remember reading the f22 maintence is something around 100hours for every 10 of flight time. Whereas let's say an A-10 is a couple whacks with a hammer and it's good to go!

The f18 is a tank because it was designed by McDonnell Douglas where everything was made 5% stronger then it had to be. From from fighters to passenger jets. This is why DC-8s still fly ;) it's amazing how good f-18s are. The DoD made a good choice ordering them back in the early 80s
 
I have a friend who's apparently in the acceptance process to pilot one of those. did y'all know you have to be between 18-25 to be considered? damn i felt old when i found that out haha.

(Unsure about this 100%, it is word of mouth)
 
Too bad the F-35 won't have the required range or operability to even adequatly protect our sovereignty in the North...

It's alright, that failure will just pave the way to having military drone flying over our head.

That article sums it up pretty good
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/973799--f-35-a-poor-fit-for-canada
sorry but I'm not going to believe an article that was written by a political science teacher. The cf-18 gets the 3300 km range because of drop tanks and a clean airframe. No missles.The f35 has provisions for drop tanks which will make its range greater then the cf18 however a drop tank has the radar Siganture of a house. Guess what? There is a ton of defense construction taking place in the artic now. I have a feeling we will have an airbase established there soon enough. F-22s have a mission ready status of 97%. Comparing top speeds is useless since top speeds are very rarely reached due to extreme airframe stress. If they do get close max Mach then it's for a short period of time. What makes fighters so lethal is aerial tanker support.

The F-15 design is almost 40 years old and by the time we would get them it would be closer to 50. The same thing goes for f18s. It would be like showing up to a dog fight with a Spitfire today.
 
sorry but I'm not going to believe an article that was written by a political science teacher. The cf-18 gets the 3300 km range because of drop tanks and a clean airframe. No missles.The f35 has provisions for drop tanks which will make its range greater then the cf18 however a drop tank has the radar Siganture of a house. Guess what? There is a ton of defense construction taking place in the artic now. I have a feeling we will have an airbase established there soon enough. F-22s have a mission ready status of 97%. Comparing top speeds is useless since top speeds are very rarely reached due to extreme airframe stress. If they do get close max Mach then it's for a short period of time. What makes fighters so lethal is aerial tanker support.

The F-15 design is almost 40 years old and by the time we would get them it would be closer to 50. The same thing goes for f18s. It would be like showing up to a dog fight with a Spitfire today.

Ok then what is the point of a overly expensive non-stealth Stealth fighter that requires carrying a "house" to operate with the kind of range Canada might needs in the North? Haven't you read that it might not even be fit to operate in Nordic weather at launch?

Meanwhile, Canada’s early production model F-35 Joint Strike Fighters won’t have the satellite communications gear necessary to communicate with the outside world while flying over remote regions like the Arctic, according to the Winnepeg Free Press.
This is a headache particularly for Canada and the U.S., who are increasingly concerned with defending resource rich Arctic territory from Russia as the Polar Ice caps melt. Now, fighters have patrolled over the Arctic for decades without Satcoms still, this is the 21st Century and good communications and situational awareness are crucial elements in winning a fight, now more than ever.
Canada isn’t slated to receive F-35’s equipped with Satcoms until 2019 and Ottawa is apparently looking at installing communications pods used by Canadian CF-18 Hornets on the F-35s as a stopgap measure for Arctic ops. This move would obviously trade stealth for communications.

http://defensetech.org/2011/10/24/f-22s-grounded-again-f-35s-cant-talk-in-the-arctic/

Appears as a temporary solution, obviously but still... how much more $$$ are we gonna have to shell to get it flying as we need it?

You do know that the plane was given a "go" by the Canadian government even before the "cahier de charge" was reviewed, approved and what not.

So as someone else mentioned in the thread. I also see the acquisition of this plane by our military as the most expensive brown nosing operation ever...
 
This review of the plane is from an Australian source. It's to be noted that Australia is thinking of opting-out of the program. The article focusses a lot on a claim by the designers that the F-35 will be 400% more effective in dogfight then model4 Russian airplanes. The article more or less destroys that claim, amount many other things. It's a good read since it's pretty technical.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-08.html
 
Back
Top