Jay LangleyGet back to reading your Socialist Worker !
Da Commerade….lol what a Muppet…..
…..I must be to old for this stuff…..
Jay Langley48 F-35s to LN, according to the USAF
Sad, talk about the proverbial “guests that won;t leave”…WHY is the USAF even still in the UK?……why do they insist on having bases in the UK, Germany etc. when the NATO component for the defeat of the USSR folded up years ago?……there is NO reason for the USAF to even BE in the UK….
and simply put, getting F 35’s stuck in the UK is NOT a good thing…..apparently many US towns and cities near the testing grounds for the F35’s are issuing alot of serious noise complaints…I guess the F35 is one seriously LOUD flying brick…
Jay LangleyRAF museum (but currently at cosford being restored)
ah right ….I see…..:) Thanks……
Jay LangleyIn 1967 I had the pleasure of an unrestricted visit to that hangar and climbed on, and in , all of the occupants. The 109 still had battle damage around the rear end IIRC. In addition to that , the Me110 ,Cr 42 and Fw 190 ,was the Ju88.
Biggest jaw dropper for me, however was the Wellington , as at that tender age I did not realise that one had survived.
Must have been a dream day…….sounds right awesome……so up till 1967 there was a complete surviving Wellington?……….I hadn;t known that……what happened to it since then?……or is it Wellington T.10 serial number MF628?……as far as I know the only other was pulled from a loch in Scotland in the 80’s wasn;t it?….sadly, even living right in Ontario, and about 7 hours away from the Russell group…..I hadn;t seen their Bf109..( they tend to be pretty quiet it seems)….have seen the one at the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum….still with original battle damage….and the ME 163 Komet and the HE 162 Salamander ( Volksjager)….but nothing larger than that ever seems to have made it to Canada as War Trophies etc….
Note: the Messerschmitt BF109-F 4 ( Luftwaffe reg.# 10132 – built 1942) at the Museum was acquired through exchange with Aero Vintage Ltd., England, for one of the Museum’s two Messerschmitt Me 163B Komet rocket fighters, and a third airplane, somewhere around 1998 – 99. ( the ME 163 B Komet was built by Klemm Technik GmbH in Germany, in 1945. It was delivered to the Luftwaffe fighter unit JG/400, captured at Husum, Germany, in May 1945 ( Luftwaffe Reg. # 191916 ) and the HE 162 Salamander ( Luftwaffe # Reg. 120086) – Volksjäger was assembled by Heinkel Flugzeugwerke GmbH at the Heinkel-Nord plant in Rostock-Marienehe, Germany, probably in late February or March 1945. The aircraft was captured from the Luftwaffe at Leck on May 8, 1945.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234417[/ATTACH]
Jay LangleyThe APG-81 & DAS-HMDS are easily superior to the APG-79 & JHMCS respectively. The F-35’s CNI delivers JTRS functionality. The MADL on the other hand doesn’t have an SH analogue.
Also the RCAF will continue CF-18 operations until 2025, which means the bulk of its F-35s will be delivered in a Block 4 configuration (possibly preceded by a few Block 3Fs).
Vnomad…
I will NOT get into any discussion about abilities or individual parts there of….BUT, it really is disconcerting that you INSIST on saying that Canada IS buying F35’s…yet contrary to YOUR assertions, reality in the Country of Canada is that the program has been “reset”…there is NO purchase of F35’s imminent, nor approved nor even being considered…..The Government has spoken and if anything occurs other than what was decreed..there will be a massive government upheaval, and IF the F35 was trying to be snuck in again……there will be a massive and final closing of the F35 deal……..sorry, but objection to the plane, to the costs and to the lies and backhanded sneaky way that LM likes to do business has become common knowledge and Canada will object……
So please stop sitting there like you actually KNOW that Canada is getting them, because it is FAR, FAR from anywhere near a done deal…..you can fantasize and speculate all you want…not making it happen though….bottom line, Canada is loosing interest, Belgium is loosing interest, everyone that HAS ordered them have reduced their numbers substantially. And the figures coming out of the Netherlands don;t look good for the fabled “Cost reduction”…..
Jay LangleyFound another pic……shows a light coloured bottom as well……RAF operated at the No. 5 Air Observers School, Jurby, Isle of Man in 1942…..Here I am not sure…it’s a training aircraft, BUT it is still in the UK area….would it have been painted with high Vis. yellow?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234380[/ATTACH]
Jay LangleyIt would seem to be a reasonable assumption that these were in Day Bomber, given that the unit was in Bomber Command. However I have one suggestion: were these aircraft supplied whilst the squadron was working up, so a peak demand from Hampdens may have resulted in the MUs despatching aircraft from stock that were prepared for Coastal Command? They would then be painted properly at the squadron’s convenience: the third photo does show a very streaky application of Night to the sides of the nose! To check this, can we find the serials of aircraft allocated to the unit, and their previous histories? This wouldn’t confirm any use of TSS, but it might provide a decent hint. Some aircraft may have been repainted for CC without ever serving in an active unit, of course, and I know no way of determining that without access to the record cards – and possibly not even then.
that is a pretty logical assumption Graham…..I did do a search for 408 Squadron Hampden Mk. I AE297 EQ*F …..there are some records…namely it being lost in action…..nothing that I could find though
I’m not sure how important the “streakiness” of the “Night” being applied is…..I have seen lots of photos of Operational Halifax’s and Lancasters where the “night” looks like absolute rubbish as well….The difference is, what we see now is a much higher gloss paint…the Operational paint then was very mat and showed all the stains and streaks associated with regular flying…as well as the dents and deformities in the metal work.
I really have no idea…but 3 of the photos clearly show operational Hampdens with 408 Squadron with light coloured bottoms..( and we can assume that they are NOT yellow, as the Squadrons flew and operated from the UK)……and two show planes with both 408 AND 420 Squadron with the Night Bomber scheme…..which are by far the more commonly seen paint schemes…
Jay LangleyI would say that they are trainers in Canada and the undersides are yellow.
Oops, just read Webpilot’s post, so scrap the Canada bit. Still think that it is a trainer scheme in the first pic though.
Yeh, the problem with that is this….neither 420 Squadron NOR 408 Squadron flew in Canada…they were BOTH raised in the UK of RCAF personnel and stayed overseas for the duration……additionally, I have never seen any evidence of Hampdens painted yellow in Canada as the few OTU’s equipped with them were also conducting the Patrols etc. on the Coasts. just as Graham said…they retained their Operational Paint……
Both Squadrons where equipped with their aircraft IN England, where they manned and trained, becoming operational within the year.
Interestingly, I looked up 408 Squadron Hampden Mk.1 AE297 Coded EQ F That plane was lost on 1942 – 05 – 08 over Warnemunde Germany piloted by Flt.Sgt. Jack Wellington Markle, RCAF, along with Hampden Mk.1 AE 288 Coded EQ H, piloted by Flt. Sgt.James Shield Norton who went down in the sea off Denmark…Both Planes lost the entire crews….
And the 420 Squadron Hampden in the pictures…AE 384 PT M….was sent to Australia after the war as a War memorial…where it was never erected as a monument and scrapped.
Jay LangleyJay, you have me wishing that Canada does not choose the f-35 to spare us the repetitive, barely legible rants.
In the meantime can we reserve those to the f-35 thread so those who want to discuss other aircraft can be spared the F-35 drumbeat?
Yes, for sure…it wasn;t me that introduced the F35 to the thread…..it is however a key figure in the “In Hindsight”…..
as for MY rants?…F35 drumbeat?…seriously…..do you ever read the the posts from the F35 fan club?….that is utterly repetitive and based in speculation, not fact..
Good for the Goose, good for the Gander my friend…as soon as the F35 tail pipe suckers stop their inane drivel about how wonderful it is…those opposing the political pressure, outright lies and fabricated fantasy that is F35, may refrain as well….
and by the way, I did take my post back on topic thanks…..Canada should NEVER have bought into the F35 nor bought into the lies that Sikorsky can make a Helicopter in 13 years and miss every deadline and still not have delivered an Operationally capable Helicopter…despite starting from an existing type the S-92..one of their OWN designs.
Then again, I guess all the Nations that bought into the US’s lies and BS and dragged us all into wars since 1991, shouldn;t have “bought in”….what ever did happen to the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?…oh thats right …Lies and fabrication……
Jay LangleyPlease, let’s not turn this thread into another F-35 discussion.
I reckon that the RAF should have invested in souped-up Buccaneers instead of spending money on TSR.2. Developed similar avionics to those intended for TSR.2, but put them on Buccaneer, & paid for all the small tweaks which would have made it utterly awesome instead of merely awesome.
(Takes cover)
Agreed, and as can be seen by my last post…I took it back on track…..at the end……lol sorry everyone
Jay LangleyThe F-35 (post-Block4) will have UAI which will allow it to use (on any F-35, worldwide) any weapon with the correct “driver” within a month of drop tests. No need to upgrade the “Blocks”, no expensive & timely delays, etc. Upcoming versions of UAI will include the ability to do the same with pods (recon, ew, etc)
In the long run, the F-35 beats the Rafale (and others) at the diversity of it’s weapon loadout and speed at which they can be integrated. This will also drive down the cost as munition markets can open up to competition.
Rubbish….the F 35 has LITTLE in actual integrated weapons…and I am tired of hearing about promises and speculation of what “Will” happen or “Will ” Have…until it is and does…it’s BS…..same as the Gun pod…it isn;t capable right now…..it may be, IN 2019!…but right now…NOPE….as for “world wide” weapons…who cares…that will only effect nations Like Israel that can build their own systems better and cheaper than the US can….
and isn;t it all pointless when the US still wouldn’t let the USER access to the codes to do their own integration work….I love your statement ” POST BLOCK 4….no need to upgrade the Blocks, no expensive and timely delays”…what you just said is the exact and total opposite of what LM has delivered…the F 35 is nothing but expensive and timely delays and nothing but promises of “capabilities and upgrades after this “block or that Block”……
Bottom line, the Raf can do it NOW, do it cheaper, faster and combat PROVEN, and still be able to be upgraded with new AESA and IRST….it has an outstanding EW suite NOW…and only going to get better….
Your saying that the F35 will drive down munitions costs because it could use a variety?…..and THAT is exactly where the Rafale is NOW….can use French, Euro ( Meteor) and with very little work any US Munitions as well….why?…because the French designed it to a NATO Standard…..it has interoperability with US planes, British planes, Canadian Planes and any other planes…..using compatible Datalinks, like the LINK16……so where is the draw back?…where is the negative?…….
Other than LM doesn;t get the money…so what……they have gotten enough with the C130J sales etc……
Dassault has offered FULL, including computer source codes, for the Rafale, Guaranteed , in contract, with penalties, 9 BILLION in contracts and reinvestment in CANADA. Full assembly in Canada as well as production of parts etc for international use….FAR better than LM’s…”well you can BID for a contract” and cross your fingers….Canada already makes Rafale parts at Thales Canada…..and lots more opportunities too……
The F 35 certainly doesn;t beat the Rafale in stores load…….as I understand, the F35 can heft 18,000 lbs…internally AND using hardpoints…..the Rafale has 14 hardpoints and can deal with 9 metric tons of stores, that is 19, 841 lbs….not to bad……in the “long run” the F35 makes alot of promises and has not delivered on to many of them…..sorta the reverse for the Rafale eh?…..
SO yes, in HIND SIGHT, Canada should have saved the 200 Million + that has already disappeared into the LM sinkhole….and Bought a plane that IS and DOES and can keep doing for a long time to come……as well, Canada should have NEVER gotten involved with the LM subsidiary of Sikorsky and their absolute rubbish CH 148 Cyclone, and their incapablity to build a Militarized version of their own Helicopter….even after 13 years….and millions in penalties and STILL not one operational capable chopper delivered…..and should have bought the Merlins……a proven design that we ALREADY operate a version of for S & R, the CH 149 Cormorant……
Time to stop sucking the US tit and being treated like garbage from them…we don;t even get treated as a valued Ally anymore….
Jay LangleyOh sorry, I actually didn’t know that the Rafale was cleared to operate the Amraam or sidewinder. My mistake. I thought we would need a new munitions logistic system if we went that route.
And you are right that the F-35 is not what we need. It does have features I think we need to stay current longer. What with the amount being procured around the world.With the polar caps melting and resources being found there. Also with Russia building up forces in Siberia. We need to look north and have the latest detterents available.
Thanks for posting Jay, look forward to a reply.
Well, although some weapons systems may not be “cleared” to use, doesn’t mean that the ability / compatibility doesn’t exist…. because the Rafales have the capability with little effort according to the Dassault offer sent to Canada in 2014. Besides, Canada hasn;t fired any missiles in “anger” at all…..we drop some stupid bombs on little people in the sand boxes, but not once been involved in A2A Combat…Sure we need to be ABLE to do so…but that is software updates and such…
So you ARE saying that because of “some” features of the F35 we should kick up the huge costs for a plane that is no farther above average for what we need them to do than any other type?….
Amount of WHAT being procured around the world?……F35’s?…..the one the Belgians are now questioning?… due to BS and lies about costs to acquire and operate to their Government ..( sound familiar?)
WHAT good would 65 F 35’s spread across Canada going to do to oppose the build up of Russians in Siberia?….we have NO bases capable of even operating the F35 up North at all…..so everything needs to go north from CFB Baggotville or CFB Cold Lake anyway…..
need to have the latest deterrents YES….but not the newest, untried, untested over budget sort ok at most things, not the best at anything F 35’s….
I would agree that Rafales for the RCAF would be great…… get 80 of them…Dassault offered us a heck of deal, full ToT turn over….manufacture in Canada extra…..
with the upgrades being undertaken on the Raf’s now and the very near future….the differences get reduced all the time…except for “Stealth”…AESA and IRST are available for Rafale as is the Spectra ECM, the Raf can carry up to 9 tons of stores on 14 hardpoints, has the same A2A refueling “Drogue and Probe” system already uses Canada uses…without upgrades or changes to the CC 150 Tankers….without costing EXTRA….and lets face it…….the introduction of US munitions would cost us some extra…but we don;t need a full spectrum ability either….simply what we use …AMRAAM, Sidewinders the variety pack of LGB’s , exetera…. and we would also retain the ability to use the French Ordnance as well…..and besides…exactly where IS our current state of Ordnance anyway?….if we depleting our reserves…maybe time to look at options…I know this will hurt some American feelings….but hey…..and the USAF Interoperability is pure BS…interoperability and datalink etc. can be accomplished even NOW with the Link16…..there is NO NEED to fly the same over priced plane that the US does to accomplish it……
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234362[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]234363[/ATTACH]
Jay LangleyThats awesome Airfixtwin…
so we now have set on end everything stated earlier….
Just to confirm with you all that know better than I…….the series of RCAF Hampdens that show a light coloured bottom…are those indeed, confirmed DAY BOMBER paint schemes?
Cheers and thanks all
Jay LangleySadly, some planes are regularly hitting 10.5g in demonstrations and are blocked to 11+g…
9g is nowhere to a limit. It depends on how fast you go from 0 to 9g, how long you have to endure gs etc.Btw (google trad from http://www.demorgen.be/binnenland/f-35-torpedeert-budget-defensie-a2171078/ )
EXCELLENT catch Halloweene,
seems like another European nation’s ( Belgium) Military just got caught big time with totally BS “costs” for the F35…..seems the Dutch are paying 4.6 BILLION Euros for 37 F35’s…and the Belgians were claiming to be able to get 40 F35’s for 3.5 Billion Euros……an out right lie obviously…….also 283 Million each year for maintenance and Ops. costs……fully half of the entire Belgian defense budget…….not bright……lol..
Now we will see how bright the Belgians will be about this…….
Just goes to show that Canada’s figures where way off too…….by the Dutch Figures, 65 F 35’s for Canada would be well over $11341361800.86 CAD……plus $645,409,779.45 CAD per year for maintenance and Ops costs……….
Those figures are including conversion from Euro’s to Canadian $………and utterly BLOW AWAY every quoted costing shown in Canada so far…..and the Dutch would know……I doubt there is much BS involved in the costs as per the Netherlands.
By my math, that makes Each F -35 124,324,324.33 EUROS each, or USD $148,514,694.86 each….or CAD $ 174,482,489.25 each…and THAT is actual PAID cost by one of the Nations that has these bricks already…….
sure not the “getting cheaper” BS fed on here all the time! NO THANKS LM keep your way over priced planes……..
Jay LangleyI agree on the Typhoon or Rafale. I would prefer the Rafale but the Typhoon has more commonality with weapons we are already using. I think the Super hornet will not last for the duration we will need our new fighters for. And the excuse that it is easier to transition to the Super hornet should not be used. Eventually when we go from Super hornet to the next aircraft we will need all new training. So why not do it now? Is Boeing going to make a super, super hornet that will be easy to transition too?
Well, I can see your point…to a degree….but the “commonality” of weapons is moot…the Rafale is equally capable with everything we are using…as a fellow Canadian I simply cannot fathom anyone wanting the F35’s though…they simply don;t fit “Canada” very well….
Yeh, sure the SH is an older design….and as usual, Canada will end up using whatever for 40 – 50 years…and lets face it….Strike aircraft are LESS what we need, just good air defense / air patrol fighters with a secondary strike capability of some degree..
Sign In
