Derek 2.0

Maybe, but physical agility can be negated by the F-35's DAS, which allows it to target AAMs in any direction, 360 degrees.....combined with its powerful radar, that performs better than expected, so much so, not only does it allow the F-35 the ability to track an ICBM (a first in a fighter size aircraft) but something as small (and fast) as an artillery round......

Further to that, in most circumstances, legacy aircraft aren't just carrying weapons as external stores, but fuel tanks, ECM and targeting pods, all of which can be jettisoned to reduce drag etc, allowing said aircraft to "run away" if required.....of course, on the F-35, ECM and targeting pods won't be required, as both functions are built into the aircraft. As to fuel, the F-35 will carry internally more fuel than our current Hornets typically do with the addition of external tanks. And by the pilots that have flown it, stating the F-35 is as agile or better than the F-16 and F/A-18.......comparing said aircraft to a F-35 with similar loads isn't even in the same ballpark. Much of blame in the loss of the F-117 is actually attributed to complacency on the part of the USAF/NATO, that used the same air corridors (only 3 routes IIRC) in and out of Serbia, on a schedule near clockwork.........and of course, absent heavy jamming and SEAD support, no current legacy aircraft would survive in said environment. In some aspects........but, the current pinnacle of aerial warfare, the F-22 raptor, is itself starting to be dated in some respects...as its entire avionics architecture is built around 3 intel 80386 microprocessors........or better put, it has the computing power of three computers that you might have owned in the late 1980s.......This might sound bad on the surface, but legacy aircraft like the Super Hornet/Rafale/Eurofighter/Gripen etc are even further, a decade+, behind..... The X-35, the early test aircraft, used a single 1.5 GHz processor, but the current block 3i F-35 software uses numerous and separate 3.5 GHz quad-processors.......the block 4 software, at the end of the decade will use even more........and unlike said legacy aircraft, the F-35 can be upgraded by removing a panel and replacing a motherboard. Of course, the F-35's "computing power" has been the largest cause of delays and cost overruns, but now with nearly ~90% of the coding complete, the aircraft is leaps and bounds ahead of legacy aircraft. Computer latency is the new measure of speed and agility for a combat aircraft.

I'm trying to put this into perspective........I can understand and support, for obvious reasons, taxpayers footing the bill for security and drivers (RCMP). I can also understand taxpayers paying the bill for a cook, a maid and a gardener. They live in an official house, that they will likely entertain Heads of State on official visits etc....frankly, I'd be embarrassed if Trudeau was out cutting the lawn or mucking out the gutters, likewise if Sophie Trudeau served a Head of State a roast chicken from Costco, powdered mash potatoes and frozen veg.........these are expenses I get, and wouldn't fault any Prime Minister........likewise being flown around in RCAF aircraft etc. But not one, but two nannies? Did they need two nannies before he became Prime Minister? If so, who paid for them then and why are we paying for them now? Does Sophie Trudeau even work? I could have sworn I read Margaret was moving in with them............oh well, this will be an interesting circle for them to square, and I'm surprised the CBC broke this......

What rules were bent? None of course, aligning sole source leasing contracts with those of sole sourced bids, is within the legal purview of the elected Government. Trudeau can blame Harper until he's blue in the face, but the fact is, the Trudeau Government's first defense contract was a sole sourced lease, which flies in the face of their past criticisms of such deals by the previous Government and their promise to do away with said deals.

Right, there are already ~30 Canadian companies building portions of the F-35, for a total production to be in the thousands, out to the 2030s......when the rubber hits the road, its hard for others, mostly those that are winding down their own production lines, to offer equal long term offsets that will last for 20+ years. Even if someone promised to set-up local Canadian production, aside from costing more, will only offer employment and revenue through the course of the Canadian order.........~65 aircraft would stretch a four year production cycle and cost a bloody fortune.

Industrial off sets alone, I don't know how others can compete. Looking at just engines, there is no way a GE, Volvo, Rolls Royce or Snecma could offer more than what P&W already has established in Canada, building portions of the entire F135 engine for the entire production........

In fairness, it has happened in the past with defense programs, in Canada and around the World. Inversely, losers of countless competitions have sued Governments, forcing a "do-over", and then win.

Even though we will continue to be apart of the F-35 program.

Wouldn't be unheard of, Saab pulled itself out already.........off the top of my head, DND's planned sidearm replacement program received a chorus of crickets chirps and the program got "paused"......

Are we paying to develop the advanced Super Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen NG? If they want a "fair and open competition". Why? It's currently cheaper than most of the alternatives.

They didn't suggest it was a "shady deal", likewise, if it were "shady", they shouldn't have signed the deal and took Davie to court over the cancellation fees............The Trudeau Government either willing signed a "shady deal" or they signed a good deal started under the previous Government, reversing their convictions on sole sourced deals.

Actions speak louder than words..........we're still members of the F-35 program, we're sending personal to the next partners meeting in Italy and the Government has confirmed it will pay an additional $150 million in developmental fees for the F-35 program..........That, to me, doesn't sound like this Government is leaving the F-35 program........ How does one have a "open and fair" competition when we're paying to develop one of the competitors?

Sure, and the first military contract signed by this Government was a sole sourced contract, what they howled and screamed about when the Tories did it.........sure, he got to blame Harper, but at the end of the day, Trudeau's convictions were brushed aside for political expediency. (and I'm glad he did it, like his breaking his stupid promise to rush the Syrian refugees) You've suggested this was a shady deal (absent any proof), do you support the Trudeau Liberal's signing "shady deals"? ------- For those keeping score at home, this is now Trudeau's fourth broken promise (Online political advertising for refugees, 25k Syrian refugees by years end, pulling out of the F-35 and issuing sole sourced military contracts).........I've heard, they might not actually open up all of the closed VAC offices, since it turns out veterans aren't dying in the streets by having to go into a Service Canada center (often in the same building) instead of the now closed VAC offices......

In that example, I'm glad that I was wrong............but then Trudeau would have had a hard time squaring an $89 million circle with nothing to show for.

Which is no different than the F-16 playing a "supporting role" (it's actually the other way around in both examples) to the F-15.......of course the majority of the USAF's contribution to NORAD is the F-16 and to be replaced by the F-35..... Again you're conflicting end user usage to an aircraft.........Our current Hornets (that we use for NORAD/NATO) were built in the same factory as United States Navy Hornets that they use for fleet air defense and strike missions, as were the USMC's hornets (the same as ours) that they use namely for close air support for ground forces........this would be no different going forwards with the F-35.

Not quite, all of the partners (including Canada) paid varying levels of the aircraft's development, in return, will receive a proportional amount of the production work............Judging by this Government's (very quite) reversal to leave the program, we're still in it, are sending people to the next partners meeting and will pay our next portion ($150 million) of the aircraft's development.......... I would assume this reversal is largely due to the real World implications of leaving the program, becoming known to the Trudeau Liberals.........I will continue to assume this Government won't purchase anything inside this mandate, punting the selection into the early 2020s, and then (if still Government) will select the F-35 (something the Tories wouldn't oppose), and Lockmart/DoD will "grant" something to the Trudeau Liberals (like an international F-35 training base inside Canada and/or the larger contracts for Canadian industry once the F-35 enters full production in ~2020) to allow the government to save face........

The thing of that, starting with the Tomcats TARPS pod namely, the recon birds (including the RF-4) still would carry drop tanks, an ECM pod, maybe a HARM or Shrike anti-radiation missile and 2-4 AAM for self defense....... BDA now can typically be conducted in real time with the strike package.........or UAVs and satellites if required after the fact......likewise recon. The most valuable ISTAR aircraft today are aircraft like our CP-140s or your Rivet Joints....

Exactly, more so with the suggestion that a Gripen NG (an aircraft yet to enter service) would make a more suitable aircraft for our NORAD role, when the aircraft itself was designed to be a "bomb truck" and only received a radar in the last several years allowing the Gripen to use medium range air/air missiles....... Or failing to mention development problems and delays with the Typhoon/Rafale/Super Hornet/Gripen.......in the case of the Super Hornet and Gripen, serious engine (both originally used a near identical engine) issues that forced an entire redesign and massive fleet groundings........Saab lost 2-3 Gripen in its development. Here's is something to ponder for our NORAD mission........there are currently no Western aircraft in service or in development that could intercept a Russian Tu-160 bomber (the type they are using over in Syria) on a high speed run, a tactic they would/do use with the first sight of enemy aircraft to allow them to get into firing range of their long range (nuclear if they were attacking North America) supersonic cruise missiles........... How does one intercept (or get into missile range of said aircraft) of an aircraft that can sprint faster then said interceptor? Only if there was a way to sneak up on said aircraft........ Exactly, an aircraft with weapons and fuel under the wings, even an equal amount to what could be carried internally on a F-35, does not "perform" anywhere near the listed manufacturer numbers....... ------------------- One more thing I'll mention, the Trudeau Government, the one that promised to scrap the F-35, is still an F-35 partner nation, will be sending officials to the next partners meeting in Italy next month and confirmed that Canada will continue to invest (150 million) into the F-35 program........

One slight correction, the Meteor will be changed (for the British and Italians) to fit into the F-35.......the primary, medium range missile, to be used by the majority of the F-35 users will still be the AMRAAM Delta, and whatever replaces that.......Of note, a load out of four Meteors weighs ~500 lbs more than an equal number of AMRAAMs, and any potential benefits a Meteor has over the current AMRAAM are negated by the inferior radars used in the aircraft (sans the F-35) that will employ them........further to that, in the case of the Rafale and the F-16 (and I believe the Gripen NG), the 80s era data links in said aircraft will prevent said aircraft from providing mid-course updates to the missile......in effect, said users, will have a heavier AMRAAM.....

Without a doubt my own experiences were reinforced with ownership, I learnt do drive (in the late 70s) my father's '64 Chev stepside and my mother's Parisienne...I've since owned several Monte Carlos, Camaros (on my second now), a Trans Am, an LT1 vette, four Chev/GMC trucks, a Blazer, Yukon and an Escalade..... Of them, the ones I've owned through the 90s (Monte Carlo and Blazer) were nothing but (namely electrical) problems, inversely a '97 Sierra I owned was a great truck that I only replaced with a Duramax a year after they came out, then have since replaced that with my current Duramax........... Outside of the two lemons from the 90s, the biggest issues were typically minor things like power windows/sunroofs (funny enough my daughter's Sierra and my wife's previous Yukon were within a model year of each other and the same part broke on their windows), and a connector on the seat warmers on the Cadillac (which was fixed under warranty)...... The only two vehicles I've ever owned, with not a single issue, were an '85 Scottsdale big block and the LT1 Corvette........both of which, I now wish I still owned......

Hondas and Nissans, well that's better........I think the myth of superior Japanese (or German) makers is exactly that, as one could go through every maker and find problems, likewise anecdotal tales of the over guys brand being total lemons.......

Can't beat the quality of a Toyota

And I will predict nobody on the "left" will look inward and blame a "failed domestic social policy" as the motive of this "terrorist"......nor will nobody on the left downplay the deaths by "right-wing terrorists", suggesting one is more likely to die in a car accident. And of course, nobody on the "left" will refrain from suggesting sweeping security measures, further empowering the State, to address a statistically small problem. Sauce for the goose.........

No, you posted a poorly written blog that blurs poorly researched data listing proposed Gripen NG capabilities (a plane yet in squadron service, unlike the F-35B), with figures associated with the original Gripen.........as I posted, the Norwegian Government found the Gripen NG would cost more than the F-35...... I fail to see how it maters, but since you brought it up, I have shares in most defense companies, but as a former employee, a large ESO with Boeing......ergo, if your implication were correct, I would be waving pom-poms for the Super Hornet and Eagle.........alas, when Boeing's X-32 lost to Lockheed's X-35, I lost thousands... ------- Now I asked you above, in an attempt to further this discussion, in your opinion, do you consider the Intel 80386 microprocessor to be cutting edge, with a potential for future growth and sustainability out past the middle of this century?

The Eurofighter, latest F-15s, Rafale and Gripen NG currently cost as much (or more) as a low-rate production F-35A......once the F-35A enters full production, it will cost even less Right now, the only Western fighters in production, that are cheaper than a F-35 LRIP aircraft, are the Super Hornet and the F-16.......Again, once the F-35 enters full rate production, as the Super Hornet and Falcon go out of production, it will become cheaper than the two....... The proposed "advanced" F-16V would cost nearly as much as the F-35 (hence why nobody has ordered it), the proposed "advanced" Super Hornet, nobody knows the end cost, as most of said technology is just a concept.....Unlike the Advanced F-16, what the USAF is partially upgrading a portion of their fleet to, nobody has ordered an advanced Super Hornet and the US Government won't fund its development further, as such, we'd pay for that too....so it's not off base to assume, based on the F-16 currently being cheaper than the Super Hornet, that an advanced Super Hornet would cost as much as or more than the F-35A. ---------- At the end of the day, I highly doubt this Government will select, let alone purchase a new fighter inside this mandate, kicking the can down the road even further......I base this opinion on three things: 1. There is no money budgeted for new fighters within the Liberal's four year fiscal plan......that's not to say they couldn't add more money, but I doubt a new fighter is a priority (when we still have a ~decade left on our current Hornets) 2. The Liberals said they intend to conduct both a defense review of the entire Forces and hold a "open and transparent" competition........translation.......time. It took us nearly 6 years to select a new, bolt action, rifle for the Rangers......a program measured in the millions, with a full project staff......The Hornet replacement will measure in the billions, have countless implications on the Canadian aerospace industry, but currently has a staff of 3 people, a staff about the size as the one in NDHQ that waters the plants. 3. Canada has yet to leave the F-35 program and is still sending representatives to next month's partners meeting in Italy.........