boestar

I have never seen so much advertising for AME's and Pilots. The shortage is real....until the next down turn.

Gee I wonder why. The race to the bottom. Pilot use to be a great and respected position. Now pilots are treated no better than bus drivers. The glory days are over.

Look every government in the last 20+ years has dragged their feet on fighter aircraft replacement. This government will be no different. Tie it up in red tape until the election. If you win tie it up in more red tape, if you lose not your problem anymore. this has been going on for years. nothing will be purchased by the time hes voted out

The rules now specify Equal pay for equal work no?

OSAP in Ontario will cover some f the training costs but leaves you with a hefty loan.

Thats a vicious circle. Pay the instructors more and charge the students more which drives up the cost and becomes an inhibitor to people entering the training cycle. Historically flying instructor was not a full time, family supporting job. it was a means to an end to build up commercial flying time in order to get a job flying for a living (not a great living but a living) eventually culminating in an airline of Biz jet job. The hours in the seat are as valuable as the dollars for the young instructor. Heck I flew with instructors that were full time AC pilots. Some of whom may even visit here.

This same sort of topic on Pilot compensation makes the rounds here on a fairly regular basis. Exactly what should a pilot get paid. Ask 10 different people get 10 different answers. Pilot shortage or not the end game is $$$$$$ and how many $ should be there. Once upon a time it was the love of the job but it has been diminished to that of a bus driver. So now its a matter of money makes it bearable.

Amazon has a fleet of 40 Cargo aircraft. Operated by Atlas Air CArgo

Why is this discussion all about $$$$$ There is far more to a job, especially a flying job than money. Sure you can make more dollars but what about lifestyle. If your flying sucks then dollars don't make up for that. IMHO. I work to live I do not live to work.

One should never start a turbine engine with a tail wind. At least thats the way I was taught. increases the likelyhood of a compressor stall.

We need new fighters...YES. do we need the cutting edge, state of the art fighters, NO. These state of the art F-35 fighters require extensive infrastructure upgrades to deal with the speed digital communication systems required for battlefield awareness. Canada currently relies on the USA for that. Canada would either ned to spend the additional funds or tie themselves to the US. Give us an up to date fighter,capable of fulfilling the role we require it for.

Canada does pretty well with the clapped out F-18 fleet we currently operate in the grand scheme of things. Sure we need to replace said clapped out aircraft but do we need the latest and "greatest" fighter? There are other options available that may not be as shiny and high tech but equally capable of shooting missiles and dropping bombs. The VTOL is indeed an option and one that we certainly do not need.

The there would have been significant issues with the disc.

Fire caused by the bladed rubbing on the Abradable strip? That doesnt pass the sniff test. that is what the strip is for.

Defcon: I agree to a point. While we do serve as partners within NATO and currently rely heavily on the US for support. I believe that any partner within a body like NATO should also be able to stand on its own. We may as well just merge the USAF and the RCAF into a general training pool and utilize the greater arsenal available if we are to be nothing more than a supporter of the US. Canada is a Sovereign Nation and should act as such. We should be able to (whether we do or not is another matter) stand on our own from the ground up if required. That way we are a strong part of a coalition and not just a supporter.. If we adopt a technologically advanced fighter with the electronic battlefield awareness systems like the F-35 then we should also invest in the Command and control systems that go with it (AWACS) as well as the ground based infantry systems and the Sea based systems as well. That way the entire theater of war is covered and compatible with other countries. Communication, Command and Control of all branches of the forces not just a few jets in the sky. The problem with the above is that the cost would skyrocket adopting all of these systems. In the end (if we are not going to prosecute our own war) do we NEED it all?

ACAV. In the war game carried out with the NATO forces, Canada continues to perform among the best even with the current fleet of F-18. This is not far off of the SnowBirds being the best aerial demonstration team out there despite having the oldest aircraft out there. We are good at getting it done no matter the odds.

It would seem that my info on the HMDS system is out of date and the software upgrade was carried out that corrected the issues with display latency and blurry images. Pilot reviews of the system seem to be positive. The problem I have with a 100% integrated system like the HMDS is that it is required to operate the aircraft. Now I have not done the research to determine to what extent but it would seem that a system that was ridled with issues from the beginning of the program could fail. Where does that leave the pilot when it does? Don't get me wrong, I like the aircraft and the technology. It has a large "cool" factor in my eyes. But do we, Canada, NEED it? We do very well with a fleet of clapped out F-18 aircraft to the point where the US used us more than their own fleet for some missions in the middle east. We were better at it because we rely on the PILOT not the technology to get the job done. Look back to the aircraft in Vietnam. They couldnt hit the broadside of a barn because they relied on the missle technology of the era. Lost dog fighting skills because the pilots got used to fire and forget. When the technology was no longer capable (close in combat) they couldn't get the job done. Here we have a wizz bang aircraft with all the technology but what happens when seat of the pants becomes necessary? In all honesty the F-35 could have the pilot removed and turn it into a UCAV just replace the pilot with the helmet on a swivel and leave him in a control room looking at the images and remotely flying the plane. All of his vision is synthetic anyway. You know it is the next step. Cool? Yes. Necessary in Canada? I'm not so sure.

The biggest selling points on the F35 are the Stealth with its obvious advantages in the combat theatre and the networked communications and battlefield awareness systems. The Communications systems would only be of any value to Canada if we were involved in missions with the US coordinating the battlefield. Canada does not have the communications and command and control systems in place to make those systems worthwhile. Those systems are a large cost of the avionics systems on the aircraft next the the fancy augmented reality and really ugly helmet. (which notably still is not fully functional or reliable at the current software state) STILL!!! The question comes to my head...Do we NEED the fancy stuff when Canadian pilots already kick the US butt using our antiquated equipment? Sure we may not stand up against an F35 once they get them working butt we do a hell of a job with the old F-18.

so wait...We paid out $311 Million plus we are still paying $32 million a year for the "Privilege" of gaining or keeping $812 Million in contracts related to the F-35? So every year that we do not buy the aircraft (because it is still not viable) we add another $32 million to the pot. So $812 million becomes $501 million then $479 million and so on every year. Did these guys actually even take math? If the cost of the contract exceeds the reward of the contract then what is the point. Cut the losses now and bail on the project. There are other projects for out aerospace expertise to work on. Heck why don't we develop our own fighter like in the good old days?

And then we will end up with an aircraft ill suited to fulfill its role and will have wasted Billions of Tax dollars.

Your point? The Requirements are the requirements. One of those has always been a 2 engine aircraft. If that disqualifies the F-35 as a contender then so be it.

Source: http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/pt/2016/07/russian-made-sunflower-radar-is-capable-of-detecting-f-35-stealth-combat-jets.html MOSCOW, 5 July 2016. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth combat is the most advanced aircraft in the Pentagon’s arsenal, but Russia’s powerful over-the-horizon Podsolnukh (Sunflower) radar is capable of detecting and tracking the fifth-generation plane or any other fighter jet that was designed to avoid detection, Svobodnaya Pressa reported. Defense Talk reports. Continue reading original article The Military & Aerospace Electronics take: 5 July 2016 -- The Podsolnukh short-range over-the-horizon surface-wave radar is developed by Moscow-based OJSC NPK NIIDAR. The Russian Defense Ministry plans to deploy several of these over-the-horizon radar systems in the Arctic, as well as on Russia’s southern and western borders. The radar reportedly can detect sea surface and air objects at a maximum distance of more than 310 miles at different altitudes in line of sight and over the horizon. Over-the-horizon (OTH) radar typically uses high-frequency (HF) radio waves that bounce off the ionosphere to achieve long-range distances, in a similar way to shortwave radio signals. Related: Navy asks Raytheon to operate and maintain ROTHR over-the-horizon surveillance radar Related: Pinpointing covert HF transmitters worldwide is goal of HFGeo signals intelligence program Related: Stealth-detecting bistatic radar is back in the news John Keller, chief editor Military & Aerospace Electronics

Agreed there are far better aircraft than the F-35. The F-35 was far too ambitious and far too automated. All that leads to is low reliability. It shows by the fact they cannot even deliver an aircraft that can meet the production specs.

Build the requirements list for the new aircraft. Test multiple aircraft against the requirements list. pick the aircraft that meets the requirements. If one of our requirements is a twin engine fighter then the F-35 immediately does not make the cut. Pretty simple in my book.

Thanks, thats where I was going. LOX was a reliable system so more modern planes must use a different system.