Shoji Kawamori Patlabor Aircraft Designs

[Mr March]

Its a pretty sure bet they will.

I think so too, I just don't want to see another fighter craft fiasco. We Canadians have had more than enough of that in our history

Hehehe, another hopeful. Btw, I love your new Avatar

I expect they will as they've invested extensively in the project along with other countries.

Oh, sadly my government loves to waste millions of dollars just for fun But I think odds are good we'll get the F-35.

[Duymon]

f-35? bah

I liked the x32 'Guppy' more, even if it was a gimp during the JSF competition.

[David Hingtgen]

Gah! X-32 was the worst fighter in a long time. Fugly, and couldn't even hover when it was EMPTY. The F-35 at least didn't have hovering problems until they fattened it up.

X-32's failures and overall suckiness are easily explained IMHO: Boeing. Boeing's never built a fighter jet of any kind. Or even a fighter at all AFAIK. Don't expect their first attempt at a cutting edge, hovering, stealthly one to do that well. If it's not a large, high-aspect ratio jet, then Boeing's not very good at it. Few of their props were all that wonderful, and their only non-airliner jet successes are very airliner-esque: B-47 and B-52.

[Nied]

Boeing's never built a fighter jet of any kind. Or even a fighter at all AFAIK.

Wrong!

I'm sure a great deal of this technology was transferable, it gave them years of experience building monoplane fighters!

[Duymon]

Gah! X-32 was the worst fighter in a long time. Fugly, and couldn't even hover when it was EMPTY. The F-35 at least didn't have hovering problems until they fattened it up.

X-32's failures and overall suckiness are easily explained IMHO: Boeing. Boeing's never built a fighter jet of any kind. Or even a fighter at all AFAIK. Don't expect their first attempt at a cutting edge, hovering, stealthly one to do that well. If it's not a large, high-aspect ratio jet, then Boeing's not very good at it. Few of their props were all that wonderful, and their only non-airliner jet successes are very airliner-esque: B-47 and B-52.

That may all be true, but I still like the Guppy

[Mr March]

f-35? bah

I liked the x32 'Guppy' more, even if it was a gimp during the JSF competition.

The hell you say!

Man, I have to listen to all sorts of anti-aesthetic yammering about the F-35, but that's nothing compared to the X-32. I can just imagine the fan revolt if Kawamori designed a variable version

[Noyhauser]

I think so too, I just don't want to see another fighter craft fiasco. We Canadians have had more than enough of that in our history

No, I can tell you with some authority that the NDHQ planners have one fighter in mind and its not going to be anything other than the JSF. Moreover planners consider it a core capability that cannot be allowed to lapse because it forms an essential part of Canada's participation in NORAD. This isn't like the Sea King; its a vital project that cannot be allowed to lapse. Last week when the F-15s were grounded, the CF-18s took their place in Alaska... I doubt the government would allow such an obvious capability gap to occur... if it did you would hear screams from various defence commentators and even the military itself.

The real question is how many fighters Canada will buy and what will the country's involvement in the program be. I haven't kept tabs with this program, but if I remember speaking to some DND officials in and around 2004 about it that there was an argument for upgrading Canada's participation in the project so it could capture greater number of domestic contracts. One of the things up for grabs was a training centre for export versions of the F-35, that could be in based in Winnipeg, but I think we may have lost that one. If I remember correctly we're already getting more contracts for the fighter than what our level of participation should return.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Noyhauser

[David Hingtgen]

Why doesn't Canada buy Super Hornets? Proven design, TWIN ENGINE (for Canada's cold wilderness---one of the main reasons they picked it over the F-16 in the first place, same reasoning as Australia), a lot cheaper, and available now. Plus, they already have maintenance and training in place to support it, at least partially.

Or, because Canada only buys new planes every 25 years, can they not afford a stop-gap fighter like the Super Hornet, and are thus waiting for something truly next-gen, including stealth etc?

[Noyhauser]

Why doesn't Canada buy Super Hornets? Proven design, TWIN ENGINE (for Canada's cold wilderness---one of the main reasons they picked it over the F-16 in the first place, same reasoning as Australia), a lot cheaper, and available now. Plus, they already have maintenance and training in place to support it, at least partially.

Or, because Canada only buys new planes every 25 years, can they not afford a stop-gap fighter like the Super Hornet, and are thus waiting for something truly next-gen, including stealth etc?

Partly because the U.S.'s PR campaign was effective, and that the government bought hook line and sinker that we would get a "next generation" fighter vs the Super Hornet, which is just an update of the CF-18. The other side from as far as I can see was that there are real domestic offsets available for the JSF, which weren't as apparent with the Shornet. While Boeing might promise to invest an equal cost in Canadian companies as was spent on buying the Hornets, that would be a one time benefit, capped at the 2 billion dollars the government might spend. Given that Canadian firms were already being offered contracts for sub assemblies on the JSF, the potential return has much greater potential than the one time return on the Super Hornet, particularly if the program lives up to the export orders predicted for it. As I said, Canada already is benefitting from greater contracts than what they have actually invested in the project.

To understand Canadian defence procurement you actually have to understand a bit about the politics of the country. Because of Quebec and the possibility of its succession from Canada, domestic offsets are actually a huge political instrument that the country uses to keep the province in the Country. Everybody wants to keep Quebec happy and it has the largest aerospace industry concentration, partly as a result of Bombardier.

Now lets look at the F/A-18 vs the F-16 in the early 1980s. Your point actually isn't exactly true. While it was stated that the reason why we went with the CF-18 was because of the twin engine vs single engine... that was in part an ex post facto justification hoisted by some in the defence community. One of the main reasons was that McDonnell Douglas won the contract was because their bid had huge domestic offsets for Quebec, while I think General Dynamics had theirs in Winnipeg. Big mistake. the CF-18 went to Quebec, even though there was some controversy that the F-16 bid was cheaper, better, and the single engine argument was considered inconsequential and even a reason why we shouldn't buy it. I'm testing the bounds of my memory but there was some consideration given that two engines actually increased the maintenance cost of the fighter for little apparent benefit.

This happened again when we bought the C-17.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Noyhauser

[Dante74]

Hehehe, another hopeful. Btw, I love your new Avatar

We've got a lot of "left wingers" lobbying against participating in the JSF project here so it's entirely possible that the Netherlands will step out of the project after the next elections.

About the avatar, thanks! If you ever need any help with the M3 let me know, I'd be glad to contribute.

[Mr March]

Sounds like Noyhauser is definitely in the know, especially more than me I will add that keeping Quebec happy is a bit of a misnomer, though it does have influence over decision making to a degree. But, the government military contracts and international deals made to benefit domestic companies isn't unique in favour to Quebec. The decision to go with the MARCOM's new Halifax-Class frigates in particular utilize extensive domestic contracts which benefit New Brunswick more than any other province (though a few have been built in Quebec as well).

Also, the push to increase funding to all branches of the military, as well as a new mandate for our forces, has been growing public support and building within political circles for the last decade. Ironically, it was the last Federal Liberal government that began to process of military budget reform and the current Federal Conservative government has only increased their budget commitments (though like the former Liberals, the Conservatives so far remain staunchly in support of debt reduction as the spending priority).

It's my understanding that the Canadian government originally became involved in the JSF program precisely because of the proposed multi-role potential of the F-35. I think a lot of pressure came from AIRCOM to make certain that the next major purchase for the military should be a very versatile multi-role fighter that could be utilized in all kinds of operations and I think they may have also had eventual Naval deployment in mind. This could all be rumor, but that's what I've heard in the grapevine. Perhaps noyhauser knows more.

Dante74

Ironically, it was the left that got Canada involved in the JSF if I remember correctly and the our current right wing government is even more committed to the military, so I'm hopeful we'll get the F-35.

Hey, I may take you up on that offer. I could use help with a profile or two

[Noyhauser]

Sounds like Noyhauser is definitely in the know, especially more than me I will add that keeping Quebec happy is a bit of a misnomer, though it does have influence over decision making to a degree. But, the government military contracts and international deals made to benefit domestic companies isn't unique in favour to Quebec. The decision to go with the MARCOM's new Halifax-Class frigates in particular utilize extensive domestic contracts which benefit New Brunswick more than any other province (though a few have been built in Quebec as well).

I can't remember the numbers off of the top of my head but the decision to split the contract between Lauzon and St. Johns cost the Canadian taxpayer alot, and for little benefit. Both yards closed by the end of the 1990s because there was no contracts available. There are no Quebec yards that can conceivably do the new Frigate upgrade project so they can't get any contracts.

Also, the push to increase funding to all branches of the military, as well as a new mandate for our forces, has been growing public support and building within political circles for the last decade. Ironically, it was the last Federal Liberal government that began to process of military budget reform and the current Federal Conservative government has only increased their budget commitments (though like the former Liberals, the Conservatives so far remain staunchly in support of debt reduction as the spending priority).

Well for the last five years, the majority of the funding purchases have been to support one of two tracks: expeditionary warfare capability (the CDS's Preference) Northern Defence (the government's secondary preference). Moreover much of the expeditionary warfare stuff has come in response to combat in Afghanistan.

Nyalas, 2A4 Leopards, G Wagons, Chinooks, and Anti IED vehicles are good examples.

Also there is precedent for this... Remember Trudeau; he was staunchly anti military, and presided over some big cuts in the early 1970s. Then in the early 1980s he pushed through the frigate program, the CF-18, and a host of other programs that Mulroney was able to capitalize on and look "tough" on defence.

It's my understanding that the Canadian government originally became involved in the JSF program precisely because of the proposed multi-role potential of the F-35. I think a lot of pressure came from AIRCOM to make certain that the next major purchase for the military should be a very versatile multi-role fighter that could be utilized in all kinds of operations and I think they may have also had eventual Naval deployment in mind. This could all be rumor, but that's what I've heard in the grapevine. Perhaps noyhauser knows more.

IF you're talking about the Conservatives' promise for a "hybrid carrier" its likely not going to happen. We might get a "quasi" amphibious warfare capability, and the army has been training on U.S. amphibious ships. However the nature of the Joint Support Ship's specifications (which is supposed to be a refueling/ offshore support ship and with some amphib capability, is already a stretch. Its difficult to imagine that it can also become a part aircraft carrier too. Finally Naval officials doesn't really want to become too heavy drawn into this role, because now they are being asked to carry out arctic patrols as well. Two new roles with not very much money forthcoming does not a happy MARCOM make. Few naval officers are happy with the loss of the upcoming DDH, and the "upgrade" of the Halifax class. The DDH allowed the Navy to command air defence and anti submarine warfare operations in U.S. Carrier groups, something that they really wanted to keep. Upgrading Halifaxes to do this role doesn't really inspire much confidence, and there there is growing disgruntlement that they are being shut out of the big spending spree.

[Mr March]

Very true, but the end result of the Halifax construction wasn't really my point. Regardless, it's a relevant issue.

Oh yes, I remember reading about the cuts during the Trudeau years. It's so funny that he was accused of being such a tyrant when he used the military during the FLQ crisis when his military policies were anything but favorable I suppose it isn't the first time a new government has run high off the lesser know achievements of a previous administration. Hell, the outgoing Federal Liberals were the first to balance the budget, something for which the newly incumbent Conservatives seem to have taken most of the credit

I wasn't aware of a hybrid carrier promised by the Conservatives, but yeah, a naval consideration was what I had heard. Actually, I heard rumors of a new White Paper and everything. It all sound quite exciting there for a while. Not sure what will become of it.

[Nied]

Wait. Did this just become a political discussion? One so full of Canadian politness that it wen't over the heads of most of the rest of the comunity and moderating staff based in the States?

[David Hingtgen]

Yeah, but Canadians are so polite (even when arguing), we don't mind so much.

[Mr March]

LOL As a stereotypical polite Canadian I'll apologize to the stereotypical ignorant Americans for derailing our topic

In all seriousness, the tangent is off but hasn't this thread already gone way off topic?

[David Hingtgen]

It was OT pages ago, but it's basically substituting for the aircraft vs thread at this point. I was going to say something earlier but let it go. I think it would be best to move this discussion to the arcrft vs thread at this point, as we are well away from F-15/16 discussions---unless Canada picks some up soon.

http://macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?show...0&start=600

[Nied]

LOL As a stereotypical polite Canadian I'll apologize to the stereotypical ignorant Americans for derailing our topic

In all seriousness, the tangent is off but hasn't this thread already gone way off topic?

You crazy Canucks!

Don't you know that to be a real political discussion you need to apend your opponenet's ideology with the word tard?

[Mr March]

Neotard! It's like neocon or neolib, only less useful, if that's at all possible

[Nied]

Neotard! It's like neocon or neolib, only less useful, if that's at all possible

[Mr March]

Hahaha Where is that from?

[Nied]

Hahaha Where is that from?

Family Guy.