Lockheed Martin is a fail company

[PlasmaBomb]

From a British website: Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought

The Typhoon will make you think the F-35 is a good buy. We should have sold the F-22 to our close allies.

Yup you could have bought Two F-35s and had a decent chunk of change

 

[OlafSicky]

Hopefully this gets cancelled when (hopefully) harper gets his ass kicked to the curb in a couple weeks.

OK so what do you propose Canada does? Cancel the purchase break it's contractual obligations which were made under the Liberal government? and then what? Loose money it invested, pay hundreds of millions in penalties.
If Canada wants a military it must pay up. The only option would be to completely dismiss the military.
Comparing to it's GDP Canada is paying peanuts for it's military.

 

[freegeeks]

Yup you could have bought Two F-35s and had a decent chunk of change

the F-35 is still operational vaporware and has its share of development problems and budget overruns. Who knows what it will cost when it will be actually delivered to air forces

 

[Sureshot324]

Compared to the Boeing F18 Super Hornets it's supposed to replace, the F35 is slower, has less range, and 1 less weapon hardpoint. The F18 has recently but upgraded with modern AESA radar system so I doubt the F35 has much if any advantage there, and the F18 should be able to use all the latest missiles and bombs. Canada doesn't have any active carriers so we don't need VTOL. Other than it's highly questionable stealth ability, how exactly is the F35 better than the F18 to justify being 3x the cost?

 

[Sureshot324]

OK so what do you propose Canada does? Cancel the purchase break it's contractual obligations which were made under the Liberal government? and then what? Loose money it invested, pay hundreds of millions in penalties.
If Canada wants a military it must pay up. The only option would be to completely dismiss the military.
Comparing to it's GDP Canada is paying peanuts for it's military.

Canada has zero obligation to buy any F35s. We did contribute to the development cost which would be wasted if we don't purchase any, but we are not obligated to buy a single one.

I'm not saying Canada shouldn't purchase more fighters, I'm saying we should consider other options.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

you appear to sense a weakness in the market, smells like opportunity to me... what are you waiting for?

 

[CPA]

Making more more money than ever before is FAIL?

I'm surprised you don't agree with him as much as you hate corporations.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Compared to the Boeing F18 Super Hornets it's supposed to replace, the F35 is slower, has less range, and 1 less weapon hardpoint. The F18 has recently but upgraded with modern AESA radar system so I doubt the F35 has much if any advantage there, and the F18 should be able to use all the latest missiles and bombs. Canada doesn't have any active carriers so we don't need VTOL. Other than it's highly questionable stealth ability, how exactly is the F35 better than the F18 to justify being 3x the cost?

The Super Hornet is a partially stealthy aircraft, but nowhere near as much as the F-35. Also, the Super bug would need a host of new electronic systems in order to match the new machine's capabilities like the EODAS system. Also, external stores will ruin any stealthiness. The F-35 at least has internal bays for when stealth is really of need, with hardpoint capabilities if necessary. The F-35 possesses much greater range with a much higher internal fuel capacity and greater range.

 

[0roo0roo]

From a British website: Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought

The Typhoon will make you think the F-35 is a good buy. We should have sold the F-22 to our close allies.

thats worse than i thought thats for sure...egads

 

[Bignate603]

thats worse than i thought thats for sure...egads

Yeah, it makes the F22 look like an absolute bargain.

 

[davmat787]

thats worse than i thought thats for sure...egads

After reading that article, I noticed this one which is related and interesting. Video of the attack in article.

"The RAF has blown up two apparently abandoned Libyan tanks using a Eurofighter Typhoon jet in a move which appears to have been motivated more by Whitehall infighting than by any attempt to battle the forces of dictator Muammar Gaddafi."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/15/eurofighters_attack_the_pac/

 

[OlafSicky]

Canada has zero obligation to buy any F35s. We did contribute to the development cost which would be wasted if we don't purchase any, but we are not obligated to buy a single one.

I'm not saying Canada shouldn't purchase more fighters, I'm saying we should consider other options.

What option? Dismantle the CND forces? Either you have an army and give it the best or you shut it down !!! Flying F18 longer is not an option it costs too much money it's cheaper to buy new planes.

 

[olds]

$100000 for a Porsche 911??? WTF??? Porsche used to be a great company. They lost their way. It's like the price of their cars went up by 5x over the last 40 years or something!

Not mine:
http://www.porsche.com/microsite/911gt2rs/usa.aspx

 

[Sureshot324]

What option? Dismantle the CND forces? Either you have an army and give it the best or you shut it down !!! Flying F18 longer is not an option it costs too much money it's cheaper to buy new planes.

You can still buy new F18s. Australia did just a few years ago.

 

[OlafSicky]

You can still buy new F18s. Australia did just a few years ago.

And how much would that cost? They are not giving them away for free () What about fuel and repair costs F18 have 2 engines F35 just one. Just on the repairs and fuel costs alone you are saving money not to mention protecting yourself for the future. What If there is a conflict with Russia over the arctic and Canada is left without ships and planes do you think they can be just bought off the shelf?

 

[GoSharks]

Compared to the Boeing F18 Super Hornets it's supposed to replace, the F35 is slower, has less range, and 1 less weapon hardpoint. The F18 has recently but upgraded with modern AESA radar system so I doubt the F35 has much if any advantage there, and the F18 should be able to use all the latest missiles and bombs. Canada doesn't have any active carriers so we don't need VTOL. Other than it's highly questionable stealth ability, how exactly is the F35 better than the F18 to justify being 3x the cost?

Don't know where you heard that the F-35 is replacing the Super Hornet (which was activated in 2000). The F-35 is NOT replacing the Super Hornet.

The F-35C carrier-based (CV) variant will complement the US Navy's F/A-18E/Fs and replace F-14s and earlier model F/A-18s

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35c.htm

 

[Dominato3r]

And how much would that cost? They are not giving them away for free () What about fuel and repair costs F18 have 2 engines F35 just one. Just on the repairs and fuel costs alone you are saving money not to mention protecting yourself for the future. What If there is a conflict with Russia over the arctic and Canada is left without ships and planes do you think they can be just bought off the shelf?

Dude, USAF base in Alaska!

 

[zinfamous]

So you'd pay $125 million for a fighter that will lose against a $150 million+ F35?

Unless I'm mistaken, these planes still require pilots.

:hmm:

 

[zinfamous]

I design parts for aircraft engines for a living, mostly for military applications. I can tell you flat out that these things cost money. A ton of money. Part of it is because they are relatively low production numbers (even a few thousand planes is relatively low when compared to consumer products), the materials are massively expensive and hard to work with, processes are lengthy and complicated, etc. When you're looking at the stuff they're trying to do it's amazing that it's even possible. Do you realize that the turbine blades their using are operating in air that's over the melting point of the metal they're made out of? That's insane.

As for whether it's worth or not, the answer is that air power is crucial to modern warfare. These new high tech fighters are used to clear the sky of all competition and allow ground attack aircraft to do their job (sometimes dedicated bombers, sometimes F/A aircraft) so that any organized threat that sticks its head out of its foxhole doesn't live long enough to accomplish anything. Technologies that allow aircraft to out maneuver, out run, out distance, see farther and hide better than previous aircraft all are expensive but can allow them to completely decimate their opponents. You can't hit what you can't see or maneuver against effectively.

that's all well and good, but who has the capability to match the previous generations (f-16, f-18; if I'm mistaken? please correct me).

I see a few nations involved in superior defense, and all of them have relatively the same air capabilities...and they all have the same planes. We aren't attacking each other.

so...is our our need to field a 2 gen+ strike craft against our stone-age enemies worth increasing the defense budget--or any nation--by 1-2% for this greatly-improved-(technology)-yet slightly/null-advantage in weapons and tactics craft....cost effective?

I mean.. it seems like those that can afford superior capabilities, are only buying those capabilities to defend themselves against the only perceived threat--which is an enemy with 2-3 decades-old weapons capability.

...that doesn't make sense to me. please explain otherwise. (and yes, I argued before--people fight the war, so strategy is what matters. so again...why is the cost and superior technology so important, when we already outclass, outspend, and out-R&D everyone....yet still stagnate for TEN YEARS against an enemy with 3-4 decades-old weapons tech.)

that's a fact....btw.

 

[Bignate603]

that's all well and good, but who has the capability to match the previous generations (f-16, f-18; if I'm mistaken? please correct me).

I see a few nations involved in superior defense, and all of them have relatively the same air capabilities...and they all have the same planes. We aren't attacking each other.

so...is our our need to field a 2 gen+ strike craft against our stone-age enemies worth increasing the defense budget--or any nation--by 1-2% for this greatly-improved-(technology)-yet slightly/null-advantage in weapons and tactics craft....cost effective?

I mean.. it seems like those that can afford superior capabilities, are only buying those capabilities to defend themselves against the only perceived threat--which is an enemy with 2-3 decades-old weapons capability.

...that doesn't make sense to me. please explain otherwise. (and yes, I argued before--people fight the war, so strategy is what matters. so again...why is the cost and superior technology so important, when we already outclass, outspend, and out-R&D everyone....yet still stagnate for TEN YEARS against an enemy with 3-4 decades-old weapons tech.)

that's a fact....btw.

You need to realize that we aren't designing a plane for our current enemies and their armed forces, it's for our future enemies and their future armed forces. Currently we don't have another country or group that opposes us that can compete, but who's to say that in the next 20 years that won't change? Each generation of these aircraft stay in service for 20, 30, or even 40 years. While our current crop of fighters looks ok against what the rest of the world has right now they will be left behind as time goes on. China is developing their own fleet of jets, while there is a learning curve the Chinese aren't stupid. Sooner or later they will produce something worth paying attention to. Some of the jets coming out of Russia right now can be quite dangerous in the hands of a competent pilot, their next generation will be even worse. With China and Russia's history of working with countries that can be hostile towards us it's reasonable to believe that we may face these planes in combat sometime in the next few decades.

To maintain that advantage we currently enjoy we'll need a new fighter program every decade or two to stay one step ahead.

 

[zinfamous]

You need to realize that we aren't designing a plane for our current enemies and their armed forces, it's for our future enemies and their future armed forces. Currently we don't have another country or group that opposes us that can compete, but who's to say that in the next 20 years that won't change? Each generation of these aircraft stay in service for 20, 30, or even 40 years. While our current crop of fighters looks ok against what the rest of the world has right now they will be left behind as time goes on. China is developing their own fleet of jets, while there is a learning curve the Chinese aren't stupid. Sooner or later they will produce something worth paying attention to. Some of the jets coming out of Russia right now can be quite dangerous in the hands of a competent pilot, their next generation will be even worse. With China and Russia's history of working with countries that can be hostile towards us it's reasonable to believe that we may face these planes in combat sometime in the next few decades.

To maintain that advantage we currently enjoy we'll need a new fighter program every decade or two to stay one step ahead.

I know...that's my point.

why are we buying 3 decades in advance now, against enemies that will still be 3 decades behind todays tech...20 years from now?

our only real military threat--one which we will not fight--is China. Their nukes--logistics, tactical, and strike capability, remains, TODAY, at early 80s tactical capability.

basically, if a serious nuke war opened up tonight, against our biggest threat, we would effectively be able to neutralize their biggest retaliatory threat--tactical nukes--within 3 hours. They smioply do not have the capability to aim, and DEFEND their nukes. it's impossible.



...but we aren't even fighting these guys. We won't be fighting these guys. We are now fighting, and will only be fighting--desert farmers. that is it.


the only nation that you can strategically plan for outside of our current enemies is....the Alien invasion. that is the only other military tech, in this world, that could have a chance of surpassing yesterdays tech against us, 2 decades from now.

seriously.

it is, fucking ridiculous.

 

[lothar]

Because this is Harper's way of paying for protection. I would rather have m1a1s :biggrin:

An M1A1 is not going to protect your Arctic territory from Russia.

 

[SampSon]

Are people in this forum attempting to discuss and compare fighter jets as they would entry level commuter cars? That's definitely what it appears to be. Where is the obligatory "I took X for a test drive and it's definitely not as good as Y"?

It's like a wikipedia/google information regurgitation and cherry picking cut & paste contest (WGIRCPCPC for short). Then you throw in a Risk the Board Game Strategy Tournament of Champions (RBGSTOC). The winners of that bracket go on to face each other in the Argue the Finer Points of Global Military Theory and Budgetary Policy (AFPGMTBP) World Series. The winner is ultimately crowned with the Person of Enlightenment, National International Strategist (PENIS) award. It's long and hard.. to obtain.

Canada should spend its money on worthwhile projects, like getting Lord Stanley's Cup back to Canada for the first time in nearly 20 years.

 

[0roo0roo]

After reading that article, I noticed this one which is related and interesting. Video of the attack in article.

"The RAF has blown up two apparently abandoned Libyan tanks using a Eurofighter Typhoon jet in a move which appears to have been motivated more by Whitehall infighting than by any attempt to battle the forces of dictator Muammar Gaddafi."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/15/eurofighters_attack_the_pac/

oh interesting, i was a bit weirded out by that video when it came out, it just seemed so out of place, its not like anyone was skeptical about whether we could hit their shit. guess it makes more sense now.

i watched a documentary a while back called how the mod wastes billions a while back. seems basic things like rifles even cost way more than us versions in the uk because of corruption/local procurement preferences. just comparing money spent can't tell the whole story of what you are getting.

 

[sdifox]

An M1A1 is not going to protect your Arctic territory from Russia.

what are they going to invade with planes?