boestar

It would seem that my info on the HMDS system is out of date and the software upgrade was carried out that corrected the issues with display latency and blurry images.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.

Do our current Hornets use LOX for oxygen supply? Is there a different system installed on the US's newer versions of the hornet and super hornet? The aircraft have been in service for decades. Why is it an issue now?

Canada is a supplier to all kinds of programs in the US for the military as well as civilian contracts. Canada has some of the best aerospace electronics and communications companies and our expertise in the field is well known. That being said, we should be building our own planes and selling them around the world.

We had to PAY to help develop that piece of crap? Should they not be paying us for developing the components we do for the Jet?

Except when the specify in the job ads that they want B-737 QUALIFIED pilots only. There are a few of those around granted but what if it said B-787 Qualified? I bet you don't find any of those in the wild as yet

The key word when they are looking for pilots is "QUALIFIED" in order to reduce their costs, the airlines look for pilots who are already "qualified" on an aircraft type. If you already have 3000 hours in a 787 and the airline is looking for 787 pilots then their training curve is reduced since you already know the aircraft. You see ads all the time for 737 pilots. Entry level pilots are not "Qualified" therefore there is a shortage. There are lots of pilots out there just none "qualified" to fly the right equipment.

EVERY pilot should have several hundred or even a couple of thousand, hand flown visual approaches and landings. Heck I am a low time pilot and have several hundred of them. Basic airmanship should be second nature by the time you hit the big leagues.

While Experience is invaluable, So to is a fresh mind. I believe that complacency is more of a problem than inexperience. Inexperience is mitigated through procedure and process, if one follows the SOPs properly then inexperience is leveled out. (Barring any unforseen circumstances, but chances are that those circumstances are new to the experienced as well). complacency is an issue that creeps in, unnoticed over time and can be even worse than inexperience. Cadet programs train pilots to a set standard and set of SOPs. This provides the airline with a pilot that has the habits expected by the airline and bad habits are mitigated early in the career. It appears to be a great success at Jazz.

JAzz has been doing this for almost 10 years. The program is very successful.

Many moons ago I heard of a small outfit that put a passenger in the right seat so when they were taxiing it looked like they had a co pilot.......

Dagger: I think a large percentage understand that it takes a large team to make an aircraft fly. Any one missing member of the team will prevent that from happening. In the world of the airline you will never have a happy passenger, which is the goal besides profit, unless that passenger has a trouble free experience. No one member is more or less important in that context. From the Res agent to the baggage handler to the AME to the flight attendant to the pilot to the Air Traffic Controller, all play their part. A Failure for one is a failure for all. I have, however, met a few people who though they were above the crowd. It is fairly easy to quiet them if the need comes up.

and why do we need stealth? Does Canada not have one of the lowest combat casualty rates among the worlds Air Forces already?

Canada has been flying F18 since the beginning. WE know the aircraft (pilots and engineers) and we are already outfitted to operate them. yes the super hornet is technically a different airframe (larger) it still has alot of commonality with its predecessor. That in itself will lower operating and startup costs because training technicians will take less time. Pilots always need the same amount of training no matter what...

From the article - Last Paragraph Boeing’s Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Saab’s Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon , and the F-35, are seen as the leading contenders in any new contest to replace the F-18 fleet.

Well they certainly do today only they do it through a middle man calle the USA. Canadian Companies design and build components for lots of military and civilian aircraft. Besides that have a look at some of the fighters in the era after the Arrow shutdown you will notice design detail that resemble the arrow in several of them. Again designed and built by Canadians in the US. Besides all that I said By Canada FOR Canada. I didn't mention selling it. The US can sell all the NATO variants of its fighters it wants. We just build our own and mind our own business. Then in several years when its mature we unleash it in the international exercise we regularily kick the US butts at and show them up yet again.

CAnada should start development of its own purpose built fighter. Made in Canada for Canada. We did it once and sold out to the US. We were leaders in the field with some of the best and brightest engineers in the world in the field of aviation and engineering. We could do it again.