chris-b-crunch

That's the difference. I'm a results guy, not a let's put our faith in a corporation that had to cancel the F-22 early and now needs the F-35 to sell to even get a sniff at upgrade contracts for the F-22 and a sixth gen fighter to enter the fray with. I'll take a Eurofighter, before I go hand over fist for any F-35 that hasn't even flown a demo that tests it's limits yet. You go ask any smart billionaire if they'd buy a failing dream. They'd be backing out in a heartbeat. That's why Politicians seldom make good businessmen. This deal has no results yet and it's all speculation. Better the soon to be axed billion dollar devil you know then the one you don't. And $40 billion is the life cycle cost if we go F-35. Again, no thank you. No results, no investment.

Yeah, and the remaining 55 aircraft? No thanks. And that's assuming they keep on schedule with their plans. Something that is becoming more and more unlikely with each passing day. Again, not one guarantee on these lemon's. I'd rather see our billion investment go elsewhere. On proven aircraft. Not a question mark. If Canada is going to buy it, run a proper competition. (Though I'm sure it would be rigged) it would at least buy time. I want to see real results before any of my tax dollars are invested. You should as well.

Our Pilot's have been winning competitions in the air to this day with our ageing fleet. Lol, Boeing will support it for it's service life. And you act like the F-35 is a guarantee. It's going to cost the U.S. $1 trillion + to maintain to 2050. $1 trillion +. That's disgusting. And no way in hell they keep the F-35 in production that long either. So when the plug gets pulled as well, where do we sit? A $200 million paperweight? Yeah, real sound investment. Keep drinking the Kool Aid buddy. The F-35 is already a failure and as soon as the U.S. taxpayer forces the Gov to accept that fact, it's done. The Super Hornet is at least combat ready, with a solid airframe and modern avionics. The F-35 is loaded with question marks. $40 billion in a questionable aircraft with no guarantee's? No thanks.

It started out as a stop gap. Boeing improved it to a point where it can transition from high alpha to any position without thrust vectoring. The Airframe is stellar. The maneuverability is good, the maintenance is easier and with Boeing's upcoming advanced upgrades, it stays relevant. The F-35, assuming it ever goes anywhere (If it misses Farnborough again this year it's done) will be way too costly. People saying it will be sub $100 million... Yeah, if Lockheed is willing to take a MASSIVE loss to returns on their investment. At that point I'm even more dubious because they would have to be very desperate. Ask yourself, several hundred billion dollars in cost... Several countries turned off by it's absence from Farnborough in 2014 due to issues, which means less likely to sell and countries backing away... You really think sub $100 million? BS, all day long. Super Hornet all day. It's all we need

Yes, in about a decade as Boeing has their hands in the competition for the aforementioned 6th gen plans already being developed. Doesn't mean Canada can't still buy them. Boeing will be offering support for the service life of the Aircraft. The upgrade package included.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2PoRdUFkjQ Super Hornet on display in 2014 again in HD. Still actively being pitched and sold.

I should also add, Stop gaps don't get sent to Farnborough

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2Cl3TnRyM Super Hornet (Farnborough) About 2:33 you get a real demo of it's maneuverability when maxed. These clips are where the sales pitches are made, and when you watch the speed it can change directions, the level of control near stall speed and it's characteristics in a dogfight, tell me more about how it isn't worthy and is just a stop gap. Bare in mind it also has extensive combat experience in Air to Air and Air to Ground runs.

Even if it started as a stop gap, it's most recent upgrades and many Naval staff's support of it, speaks volumes to me. Clearly it was far better than they originally thought it would be. And many are losing interest in that F-35 even in the U.S. Military. Canada would be daft to avoid the Super Hornet

Wasn't as stop Gap at all. Much like what the F-22 has in store, it received an upgrade package to pull it into the next generation. American military is always divided on every front. The F-22 according to many is a waste as well. Again, this comes down to people making their own judgement. I've watched combat footage of the Super Hornet's and listened to what critics and supporters have had to say. I've also listened to what people who have gone up against them have had to say and there is a reason that they are being upgraded again. Much like the SU-35 in Russia, the U.S. Navy has figured out that they have a very well built airframe with excellent flight dynamics that can be a threat with upgrades to bring it closer to "fifth gen". The hallmarks of a good plane. That excuse of a stop gap holds no weight with me. It's an excellent aircraft. Australia bought it, and with the absence at Farnborough last year of the F-35, many Countries involved in the F-35 purchase are considering the Super Hornet harder.

So I'm still awaiting more points from SmallC or someone else on the F-35. Staying away from this Korea debate as I know I am out of my depth at present lol

Or do you really think the U.S. is any more honest? They all lie. Newsflash. I do all I can to read info from all corners of the World and draw parallels. Does it make everything I say right? Obviously not, but It gives me the confidence to stand by many of my opinions. But i'm also open to change. Clearly something a few people on here aren't big on. I have several Encyclopedia's on aircraft, and I don't subscribe to one magazine or source. I take all arguments into account. And the Super Hornet there laddy, is a strong and proven airframe that has been in service since 1995 and has flown a great many combat missions and proven itself many times over. It's compatibility with our current aircraft make it an excellent choice and it's new upgrades make it more than capable in the stealth department. Did I miss something by the way? When did Canada become an instigator of conflicts? What the hell do we need the F-35 for? Lot's of cash for no guarantee. And sub $100 million per unit? Hmmm, that $300+ billion cost for the program so far, coupled with the sales forecast not being as strong and the costs rising further tells me that a cost that is so close to the Super Hornet per aircraft is complete Bull. But by all means, continue buying everything you read simply because you don't believe that Lockheed-Martin, a corporation with Billions at stake, and the U.S. who is desperate to make the F-35 relevant wouldn't tell a lie. Not a chance! Super Hornet all day as far as I'm concerned. We don't need to go all in on the F-35, especially since every Country including the U.S. is already looking at 6th gen aircraft and new upgrades to renew the F-22 into the future. Henc why the F-35 has to sell so badly.

Not even, Lockheed propaganda, never mind the U.S.

What you believe U.S. Propaganda?

Fifth generation was a term that some claim the U.S. and Lockheed in particular coined, but many argue the Russian's used the term first (who really knows) and it was to define post 2004 aircraft that incorporated several state of the art avionics systems and structural advancements to aid in stealth capability, maneuverability, etc, etc. The F-22 was the first "Fifth Gen" to make it to market. Happy?

And that Martin release could be a hoax, but everything you've all claimed could be just as fabricated. I'm basing many of my arguments in the massive amount of literature I've read over the course of 25 years paired with what I can discern of all the contrary info.

The F-35 project is on life support, especially come next election since the F-22 is already a capable aircraft and the F-35 was a cash grab by Lockheed-Martin to pawn off the tech of the F-22 in a smaller package. The latest look into costs over the life cycle was $40 billion and for 65 Aircraft the last number I heard was $14 billion. Divided by 65, that brings the cost to $215 million+. And those costs keep escalating. There was actually a recent release by someone at Lockheed-Martin boasting the stealth would be better than the F-22. Pretty bold claim. You may want to look into Russian Radar tech as well. Stealth isn't quite as meaningful as the Americans claim it is. American Propaganda aside on Russian tech, I'm more impressed with the new SU-35 upgrades. The Super Hornet has been tested extensively in War and has a proven record, so yes we do know. Those of us who at least take the time to read up on things. Seems a lot of people on here take the bully approach as well. Tells me a lot about you. Oh and the F-18's have air brakes to aid in slowing down. Not fucking drag chutes, they're a last resort. Oh and unless (and I could be wrong) we are buying the F-35C and not the F-35A, no, it does not have a tail hook.

Some good points, though I question many as again, facts can be skewed. And on price, I'll believe the final #'s when I see it. I'm going based off of Pentagon reports. And on visibility, again, I trust the Pentagon on this one. Once I have more time, I'll look through those points closer I appreciate you posting them

Thank you good sir.

Let me take a stab... F-35's per unit cost is approaching nearly $300 million. It puts pilot's lives in jeopardy with the ejection seat, which has been reported by many including test pilots to be near impossible to escape from if God forbid they have to eject over water. The rear visibility is non-existent and once again, test pilot's feel like they would be sitting ducks if any aircraft got behind them as they have no way to see. The engine has been running into problem after problem, the most recent of which is overheating fuel. That's in addition to engine fires galore all throughout the build process. The F-35A (our version) requires almost 7,000 feet of runway in contrast to the 3,000 feet or less the CF-18 requires and 10,000 ft. for Pilots in training as a margin for error. Not to mention it needs a drag chute in many cases to aid in slowing down, which in the Arctic where crosswinds can happen, would be a very bad thing for obvious reasons. It only has one engine... I don't know about anyone here, but given we have so much open space in the Arctic where many patrols are flown and responses to Russian airspace breaches happen most frequently, having one engine would be a very bad thing. What happens when it fails? And more than that, what happens to the pilot who has to eject and be exposed to the elements for an extended period? Maneuverability... Many experts in the Pentagon and even test Pilots who have spoken of the program have raised concerns about it's maneuverability. People speak of Radar and Long distance kills making this unnecessary, but unless the Rules of Engagement have changed, beyond visual range combat is the exception, not the rule. Stealth, according to a great many experts, some of which were involved in the process is not as great as they sell it to be. You have to remember, Lockheed-Martin has so much on the line and they have their hooks so deep in the U.S. Government that they will lie and do all they can to pawn this $300 million piece of scrap metal off as a viable next gen fighter. That is assuming the next administration doesn't drop the ax on the whole project, as in light of the Pentagon reports and the rising concern over the projected $1 trillion+ cost to maintain the POS until 2050, pressure to cancel is growing by the day. Our CF-18's can still last for the time being. We would be better to pull out and eat the $300 million or so penalty. Do a proper competition between the Rafale, the Super Hornet (Boeing has stealth mods in the works) and maybe the Gripen, though being a single engine aircraft, I'm not kicky on it. The Super Hornet has a fully upgraded, modern avionics suite, with advanced helmet projected targeting system and better maneuverability as well as extended range over our CF-18's presently. It would also cost much less as the conversion would be very simple and it is still a carrier capable aircraft (unike the F-35A) Boeing's current upgrade package set to be released in 2018 would see the radar cross section reduced farther, range extended and maneuverability improved. Haven't done enough research on the Rafale to really argue it's case yet, but from what I've seen, it has some serious maneuverability and from what I've read thus far, very advanced systems. Both the Super Hornet and the Rafale are based off of proven airframe's as well. And with a fly away cost of about $75 million per unit for the Super Hornet with Boeing's upgrades, and $60 million as is (last I checked), my vote is for the airframe we know, the engines we know, the aircraft our pilot's know and the most combat proven. The fact that you can buy 4 1/2 for the cost of 1 F-35 (assuming no more spikes in price which is unlikely) alone makes it the smartest choice in my eyes. F-35A should be cut out entirely and never mentioned again. Waste on every level.