boestar Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 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 editorMilitary & Aerospace Electronics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 On 2016-07-07 at 4:39 AM, boestar said: 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. Are you familiar with the term "predetermined outcome"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 And if the author of those requirements has a political reason to ensure that the F35 is not excluded, then a requirement for two engines will not be on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 And then we will end up with an aircraft ill suited to fulfill its role and will have wasted Billions of Tax dollars. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasey Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 7 hours ago, boestar said: And then we will end up with an aircraft ill suited to fulfill its role and will have wasted Billions of Tax dollars. Again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 Keeping their options open or ? Quote Liberals pay $33 million to stay in F-35 program, despite not committing to buy them Canadian firms have secured US$812 million in contracts since Canada's first F-35 payment in 1997 By Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press Posted: Jul 26, 2016 6:23 PM ET Last Updated: Jul 26, 2016 6:23 PM ET The first U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II delivered to Luke Air Force Base prior to an unveiling celebration taking place, Friday, March 14, 2014, in Glendale, Ariz. (Ross D. Franklin/Associated Press) Related Stories Defence minister going back to drawing board on fighter jets, launching consultations Liberals miss payment for Canada's inclusion in F-35 consortium Canada's CF-18s wearing out as rivals spar over replacement benefits RCAF to take until October 2017 to decide on CF-18 upgrade Peter MacKay says he regrets Conservatives' failure to buy new fighter planes Canadian F-35 contracts in peril if Ottawa buys elsewhere Canada has so far forked over more than $311 million to develop the F-35 — without any guarantee it will actually buy the multibillion-dollar stealth fighter. The most recent instalment was made June 24, when the Liberal government quietly paid $32.9 million to the U.S. program office overseeing development of the warplane, despite having promised during last year's election campaign not to buy the F-35. The contribution keeps Canada at the table as one of the nine partners in the project for the next year. Partners get a discount when purchasing the stealth fighter, and have access to billions of dollars in contracts associated with producing the plane. Sajjan going back to drawing board on fighter jets, launching consultations Liberals miss membership payment to stay in F-35 consortium CF-18 airframes approaching their age limits as replacement debate rages Those potential industrial benefits are a big part of the reason why Canada continues to pay into the program, said Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. The government says Canadian companies have secured US$812 million in contracts since Canada's first F-35 payment in 1997. "New skills and technologies gained through access to the program have helped position Canadian industry to take advantage of other advanced aerospace and defence projects," Owens added in an email. Being a partner, however, does not guarantee future work. U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin, which makes the F-35, warned last month that future work would be directed to other countries if Canada chooses not to buy the stealth fighter. Remaining at the table makes sense if there is a chance Canada will buy the plane, said former Defence Department procurement chief Alan Williams. "But if they've already made up their mind that they're going to buy something else, then it's a waste of money." No decisions yet made on replacing CF-18s During the campaign, the Liberals promised not to buy the F-35 and to hold a competition to replace the existing fleet of aging CF-18 fighters. Experts say that has put the government in a bind, since there's a real chance the fighter would come out on top in an open and fair competition. The government recently launched consultations with jet fighter manufacturers to address what Sajjan has described as a shortage of available CF-18s. But some worry the consultations are more about giving the Liberals political cover to buy a plane other than the F-35 without holding a competition. Owens said no decisions have been made in replacing the CF-18s. The five companies involved in the consultations are to submit details about their aircraft by Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 21 minutes ago, Malcolm said: Being a partner, however, does not guarantee future work. But, not being a partner guarantees no future work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Staying on the right side of Lockheed is probably the right strategy for the moment, let the US Congress deal with killing the F-35. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 5 hours ago, Super 80 said: Staying on the right side of Lockheed is probably the right strategy for the moment, let the US Congress deal with killing the F-35. This might be another "Too big to fail" program. It won't be the end of them but it would certainly hurt. I'm hoping that junior just might step out and do what he said they'd do. Kill the F-35 and get a fighter we need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) 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? Edited July 28, 2016 by boestar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 I couldn't agree more, stop the loss; the aircraft will be rendered obsolete by a new emerging technology before it's ever operational. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 F35 still not ready... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-24/lockheed-s-f-35-still-falls-short-pentagon-s-chief-tester-says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted August 27, 2016 Author Share Posted August 27, 2016 This doesn't sound good. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/26/politics/f-35-fighter-jet-problems-gilmore-memo/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 They should have stopped with the F22, and brought costs down by building many more of them. IMO it is superior to the F35 in every way and was ready to go years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Seriously....really seriously.....think about the requirement for a new age fighter/retro fitted fighter and exclude the Canadian "job/morale" factor. Why do we even need 'fighter/combat' aircraft in this country ??? Who is coming over the poles to exterminate the Canucks....really??? It is so blatantly obvious........in a country this size we need excellent SAR aircraft and heavy transport aircraft.....for very obvious reasons. How many photo drones could we buy for one cheesy fighter??? "Flame away!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 If escort coverage was necessary, we'd need fighters. Other than for that purpose, I can't imagine there'd be much of a measurable need for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACAV Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Hmmmm. I'm not so sure the F35 deserves all the negative press it gets. $100 mil per aircraft: lhttp://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/matthew-fisher-lower-cost-may-put-f-35s-on-radar-for-liberals-defence-strategy Vs $70 mil per Super hornet which frankly is not in the same league: http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/F-18-Super-Hornet.html "Price/Unit Cost: In FY 2013, the unit cost of an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was $60.9 million (flyaway cost) or $70.5 million incl. non-recurring and support costs. The cost of the airframe was $34.83 million, the two F414-GE-400 engines cost $8.88 million ($4.44 million each), and the avionics cost $8.71 million. Congressional Add: In FY 2016, the unit cost of an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is $67.2 million (flyaway cost) or $70.0 million incl. non-recurring and support costs. The cost of the airframe is $46.21 million, the two F414-GE-400 engines cost $10.72 million ($5.36 million each), and the avionics costs $8.71 million." Informative Vid with 2 follow ups: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACAV Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Not surprisingly, if you talk to the pilots who fly them, they'll tell you it's no contest. If you're going to buy the Super Hornet, you may as well keep the cash and put it toward keeping the original F18s in the air. Otherwise, the F35 is the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACAV Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 Just trying to balance against the 5+ pages of negative reviews: Pilots Say F-35 Fighter Is A Winner. So Where's the Media Coverage? http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/09/06/pilots-say-f-35-fighter-is-a-winner-so-wheres-the-media-coverage/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACAV Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 Boestar, I'm unaware of any real war roles our F18s carried out without our friends from the south. I would be interested in examples you have on lone Canadian operations. I'm also unaware of any routine butt kicking we've done against the U.S of A. I suppose this is at Red Flag or some other war games? Again, I would be interested in a link if you have one. Not doubting our pilots capabilities, just genuinely interested. They fill libraries with information I'm unaware of . True, the F-35 is fantastic at battle field intel integration but that is not its only talent. It is, however, a talent we would certainly be capable of using. You only need more than 1 F-35 to share info with. They can provide firing solutions to each other when 1 is out of weapons as well as with our NATO allies, their drones, command and control and other assets (some 4th Gen that will be capable of receiving the info). They are stand alone "communications and command and control systems". Certainly, we won't have the resources our allies have to tap into on our own, but when have we? And how often, in war and war games, are we integrated with our allies because it serves both us and them? Fairly often I would think. Have a look at the YouTube video on the F-35 DAS system. A fantastic advantage. The price of the F-35s is not off the charts with respect to its (and I use this term loosely) "alternatives" and is expected to continue to go down. If you want to protect our most precious assets, namely our sovereignty and service personnel, this aircraft seems the way to go. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 To be clear and despite all the hype, the F35 is working and is deployed in an operational role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 45 minutes ago, J.O. said: To be clear and despite all the hype, the F35 is working and is deployed in an operational role. I know the Marine version is but what about the airforce version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now