Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The F-35 has become a major political issue in Canada. We've sunk a lot of money into it already and committed to buying like 65 of them or something.

....they seemed so cool at first but there's just so many nay sayers I don't know anymore.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
substituting modern avionics and engines where required,

I am not sure this is an easy thing. Once you start swapping things, you start to find places where certain entire design concepts were used specifically to accommodate the thing you just swapped out. So now you have to swap those out, etc etc and next thing you know, you just have an extra expensive totally different plane.

I mean, I've had times where a warhammer list unraveled and had to be completely redesigned because I swapped 2 things and this is an entire AIRCRAFT.

Depends what you are swapping, surely?

I assume the basic airframe and tanks, conduits, undercarriage and cannon, etc. would be retained.

Engines might be more difficult though in the case of the A10 they are in pods so you probably could change the entire pod. Modern avionics must be smaller and lighter than 1970s/80s.

Aircraft like the Harrier and B52 have been in service for decades and been upgraded or redesigned considerably.

If nothing else at least with an A10 you have working samples that could be disassembled and examined.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The F-35 has become a major political issue in Canada. We've sunk a lot of money into it already and committed to buying like 65 of them or something.

....they seemed so cool at first but there's just so many nay sayers I don't know anymore.

Didn't Harper state that it was going back on review, and that we are no longer 100% guaranteed to buy them?

Of course, the most important question is, when are they going to make a plane that's Hulk proof?

The F-22 got trashed in 2003 and the F-35 got hammered last year.

 Ratbarf wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The F-35 has become a major political issue in Canada. We've sunk a lot of money into it already and committed to buying like 65 of them or something.

....they seemed so cool at first but there's just so many nay sayers I don't know anymore.

Didn't Harper state that it was going back on review, and that we are no longer 100% guaranteed to buy them?

I believe so but that doesn't get back all th money we've already spent on them. The question is are we wasting more money by buying them or not buying them at this point?

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The F-35 has become a major political issue in Canada. We've sunk a lot of money into it already and committed to buying like 65 of them or something.

....they seemed so cool at first but there's just so many nay sayers I don't know anymore.

Didn't Harper state that it was going back on review, and that we are no longer 100% guaranteed to buy them?

I believe so but that doesn't get back all th money we've already spent on them. The question is are we wasting more money by buying them or not buying them at this point?

You're not only buying the end-result plane...

The know-how, research into building these advanced planes pushes the technological needle forward.

 Ratbarf wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The F-35 has become a major political issue in Canada. We've sunk a lot of money into it already and committed to buying like 65 of them or something.

....they seemed so cool at first but there's just so many nay sayers I don't know anymore.

Didn't Harper state that it was going back on review, and that we are no longer 100% guaranteed to buy them?

You can thank the NDP for that one. Initially Harper wanted to spend more on it. On a plane not rated for our cold weather...

 whembly wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The F-35 has become a major political issue in Canada. We've sunk a lot of money into it already and committed to buying like 65 of them or something.

....they seemed so cool at first but there's just so many nay sayers I don't know anymore.

Didn't Harper state that it was going back on review, and that we are no longer 100% guaranteed to buy them?

I believe so but that doesn't get back all th money we've already spent on them. The question is are we wasting more money by buying them or not buying them at this point?

You're not only buying the end-result plane...

The know-how, research into building these advanced planes pushes the technological needle forward.

For America....We just give you a big pile of Loonies and hope we get a plane that works. We don't make anything up here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The F-35 has become a major political issue in Canada. We've sunk a lot of money into it already and committed to buying like 65 of them or something.

....they seemed so cool at first but there's just so many nay sayers I don't know anymore.

Didn't Harper state that it was going back on review, and that we are no longer 100% guaranteed to buy them?

You can thank the NDP for that one. Initially Harper wanted to spend more on it. On a plane not rated for our cold weather...

I'm sure it flies in cold weather.......probably.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

For America....We just give you a big pile of Loonies and hope we get a plane that works. We don't make anything up here.

 whembly wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

For America....We just give you a big pile of Loonies and hope we get a plane that works. We don't make anything up here.

True...

You do know that if someone feths with Canada... the US would come storming to help when asked.

We like our neighbors.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


I'm sure it flies in cold weather.......probably.

It's not rated for it, meaning we don't know if it can fly in our northern weather. We know it will need cold weather upgrades for a lot of equipment, tho, and that won't be available until a few years after roll-out.

http://www.dailytech.com/Canadian+Government+Once+Again+Lashes+Out+at+F35+Lightning+II+Program/article24386.htm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


For America....We just give you a big pile of Loonies and hope we get a plane that works. We don't make anything up here.

Remember the Arrow?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


I'm sure it flies in cold weather.......probably.

It's not rated for it, meaning we don't know if it can fly in our northern weather. We know it will need cold weather upgrades for a lot of equipment, tho, and that won't be available until a few years after roll-out.

http://www.dailytech.com/Canadian+Government+Once+Again+Lashes+Out+at+F35+Lightning+II+Program/article24386.htm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


For America....We just give you a big pile of Loonies and hope we get a plane that works. We don't make anything up here.

Remember the Arrow?

Yes. We don't make anything anymore.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
substituting modern avionics and engines where required,

I am not sure this is an easy thing. Once you start swapping things, you start to find places where certain entire design concepts were used specifically to accommodate the thing you just swapped out. So now you have to swap those out, etc etc and next thing you know, you just have an extra expensive totally different plane.

I mean, I've had times where a warhammer list unraveled and had to be completely redesigned because I swapped 2 things and this is an entire AIRCRAFT.

Depends what you are swapping, surely?

I assume the basic airframe and tanks, conduits, undercarriage and cannon, etc. would be retained.

Engines might be more difficult though in the case of the A10 they are in pods so you probably could change the entire pod. Modern avionics must be smaller and lighter than 1970s/80s.

Aircraft like the Harrier and B52 have been in service for decades and been upgraded or redesigned considerably.

If nothing else at least with an A10 you have working samples that could be disassembled and examined.

I know the C-130J model included a complete avionics upgrade and significant changes and new tech had to be added because of the new engines. They also had to add a several hundred pound weight to the nose of the bird, with the lighter avionics, even with all the shiny new toys they added, she lost something ridiculous weight wise.... 500 lbs or so in the nose?



See the black area at the base of the tail boom? That's a pressure system that inflates to break ice away from that area, on the old Herc models anything that went past the props got shredded but with the new "racing props" as we referred to'em at the school house they had a different pattern for the force they exerted behind them so the Herc's anti/de icing systems had to be completely redesigned.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


It's ok, we've only ever been invaded by one country....

The canadian nation has never been invaded.

Now... if you want to talk pre-independance, then look towards the British as well.

 djones520 wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


It's ok, we've only ever been invaded by one country....

The canadian nation has never been invaded.

Now... if you want to talk pre-independance, then look towards the British as well.

Well that's great news for the "nation of Canada" but Canada has been invaded a couple of times. I shall "look towards the British" whatever that means.

While we enjoy being neighbours we also don't want to be one your immediate needs list. One of the reasons why Canada shouldn't approve the Keystone pipeline is that would make us a very important part of America's fuel security, and based on America's history when it comes to fuel security and security in general I would rather we fly below the radar so to speak.

But that's a whole other topic I digress.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I assume the basic airframe and tanks, conduits, undercarriage and cannon, etc. would be retained.

Not necessarily. All the factory stuff to make the airframe is gone, so you'd have to re-start from scratch. And then you find out that, say, the tires you used to use are no longer produced so you have to re-design the landing gear to work with new ones. And oops, you just changed something so now you have to re-test everything.

Engines might be more difficult though in the case of the A10 they are in pods so you probably could change the entire pod.

And then you changed the aerodynamics, as well as the weight and balance of the plane (something VERY critical on a plane, moving the center of gravity around is a very bad thing). And you've probably run into things like the fuel pipes to the new engines are in a slightly different location, which just happened to be occupied by a structural element in the original design, so you have to re-design the airframe. And looks like that's more rounds of testing to make sure you got it right.

Modern avionics must be smaller and lighter than 1970s/80s.

Which is more changes. Weight and balance again (unless you want to carry dead weight to replace the old stuff), and then you have to design entirely new systems to interface with your hardware. Some things like basic instruments can be bought off the shelf, but you've still got engines/weapons/etc which will require entirely new avionics. And of course all of this will have to be designed and tested and tested again, probably with as many bugs as an entirely new plane.

Aircraft like the Harrier and B52 have been in service for decades and been upgraded or redesigned considerably.

But that's an upgrade to an existing plane, not re-starting production from scratch.

If nothing else at least with an A10 you have working samples that could be disassembled and examined.

Which takes time and effort. The problem isn't that it's impossible to build a new A-10, it's that once you start doing things like dismantling and analyzing existing planes you quickly approach the time and money required to make an entirely new design that takes full advantage of all of the technological progress since the A-10 was first designed. So you end up with new-production A-10s that cost 80% as much as building an A-11 which will be a far superior plane.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


It's ok, we've only ever been invaded by one country....

The canadian nation has never been invaded.

Now... if you want to talk pre-independance, then look towards the British as well.

Well that's great news for the "nation of Canada" but Canada has been invaded a couple of times. I shall "look towards the British" whatever that means.

Since confederation happened, and Canada became it's own country, Canada has not been invaded by a foreign power. Prior to that the US did attempt an invasion during the war of 1812, and the Revolutionary War. Before that the British invaded Canada, when it was under the rule of France. How do you think Canada came to belong to Britain? So more then one nation has invaded what became Canada, but no country has ever attempted an invasion of Canada.

 Ratbarf wrote:
While we enjoy being neighbours we also don't want to be one your immediate needs list. One of the reasons why Canada shouldn't approve the Keystone pipeline is that would make us a very important part of America's fuel security, and based on America's history when it comes to fuel security and security in general I would rather we fly below the radar so to speak.

But that's a whole other topic I digress.

Um... if ya'll don't build that keystone thingy... well... we'll boycott buying your Maple Syrup!

 whembly wrote:
Um... if ya'll don't build that keystone thingy... well... we'll boycott buying your Maple Syrup!

I don't think there's a person on Earth capable of upholding that threat.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Um... if ya'll don't build that keystone thingy... well... we'll boycott buying your Maple Syrup!

I don't think there's a person on Earth capable of upholding that threat.

(shhh seb... you're ruining my plans !)

 whembly wrote:
(shhh seb... you're ruining my plans !)

Maybe instead threaten to stop making all your American shows set in New York in Toronto (that's not only believable, it's a good idea )

 whembly wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

For America....We just give you a big pile of Loonies and hope we get a plane that works. We don't make anything up here.

True...

You do know that if someone feths with Canada... the US would come storming to help when asked.

We like our neighbors.

 Frazzled wrote:

The Great State of Texas stands ready to correct that error. 2,000 pickup up driving rednecks fueled by cervesas and buckshot are ready to go!

Fallout plot ready to happen I just hope I get put in the Vault 11.

Q. Okay, let's pick up where we left off, Kate.
A. Katherine.
Q. Sorry, right. Katherine. I keep forgetting.
A. My husband calls me Kate.
Q. You were telling us of a discussion you allegedly had with Roy Gottlieb of the Justice Bloc.
A. Not allegedly. Had. We've been through this.
Q. It's still just your word against his, Ms. Stone. But please, the discussion.
A. [Sighs] He said my husband's name had come up in their meetings.
Q. The candidate endorsement meetings?
A. Yes. They were going to endorse him. He wouldn't say why, but I know my husband had a regular poker game with some of them, and he'd been on a winning streak lately.
Q. And according to you, what did Mr. Gottlieb offer?
A. He said he could sway his bloc. Prevent the endorsement. But only if I...
Q. Only if you what, Katherine?
A. Only if I...
Q. Only if you performed sexual favors.
A. Yes.
Q. Was this just for Mr. Gottlieb?
A. No. All the bloc leadership. Their friends.
Q. And you agreed.
A. What else could I do? They had a majority.
Q. How long did this go on before the endorsements came out?
A. I don't know. A month, maybe.
Q. And when they came out, and your husband was endorsed despite your supposed agreement, was that when you decided to kill members of the bloc?
A. Yes. I thought, their majority is pretty slim. If I thinned things out a little, especially in the leadership, someone else might get elected.
Q. Assuming you weren't caught.
A. No, Mr. Miles. I expected to be caught. That was my best chance. Now they'll elect me.
Q. A confessed murderer? You think voters would be willing to risk putting you in charge?
A. They have to pick somebody and live with their reasons.
Q. Yes, but-
A. Wait and see.

 Peregrine wrote:
So you end up with new-production A-10s that cost 80% as much as building an A-11 which will be a far superior plane.

Will this hypothetical A-11 be superior for any reason other than declaration?

 dogma wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So you end up with new-production A-10s that cost 80% as much as building an A-11 which will be a far superior plane.

Will this hypothetical A-11 be superior for any reason other than declaration?

It will be powered by maple syrup, providing an excuse to annex Canada.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I don't see why swept wings are an issue, Shockingly real pilots manage quiet nicely, with CAS being the primary role we (the Marine Corps) uses the Harrier jump jet and it's swept wings for. The stealth aspect and really the bird itself isn't our fault. We needed a new VTOL to replace the aging harrier fleet and we got handed this.

I don't think swept-wings were the problem, it was variable sweep wings, like on the F-111, F-14, and B-1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

And yet I've never met a veteran Marine who didn't prefer an A-10 on station to a Harrier...

The A-10 is just fantastic, but it's not going to be around forever. Keeping them going is costing more and more every year and it's going to stop being feasible very soon. We need to replace them in the long term, regardless of how much we all may love them.

Then why not take a few mil off the F-35 allocation and have the manufacturer build us some new ones? For the cost of 1 F-35 we could get what, a couple dozen 'hogs?

EDIT: Never mind, question already answered.

 dogma wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So you end up with new-production A-10s that cost 80% as much as building an A-11 which will be a far superior plane.

Will this hypothetical A-11 be superior for any reason other than declaration?

Because we've improved in technology and design knowledge since 1970.

We've improved so much we can make an F35!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We've improved so much we can make an F35!

The F35 is bad for reasons unrelated to what we're talking about. It's overdesigned to do too much for too many things.

If one was to sit down and design "A replacement for the role of the A-10, nothing more or less", they would end up with something better than the A-10. The issue with the newer planes is that nobody could stick to the "nothing more or less" part.