?Impact

Every single fighter aircraft in the world has failed to achieve previous generation sales numbers - period.

As far as Super Hornet follow-on orders: Australia - already order and delivered Canada - ? Finland - Super Hornet under evaluation Kuwait - Stated intent to order 28 Super Hornets Malaysia - Ordered Russian fighter, but has another pending order and considering Super Hornet Spain -? Switzerland - ?

Probably because Canada wasn't looking for a platform years ago. The CF-18s have been serving Canada well for years. Yes, Canada did invest in the development phase of the F-35 to keep our options open because we knew we would at some point have to replace the CF-18s. After learning what a dog the F-35 has become, we are obviously exploring other options. That is logical, a welcome change from making some political announcement like we did in 2010.

The F-35 is twenty year old technology, designed in the 1990s. The SuperHornet just like the F-35 evolves, nobody shut the door on development in either case. You argument boils down to "I want the latest iPhone. Why? Just because"

I guess you are not familiar with the Service Life Assessment/Extension Programs. There has already been a program for the The F/A-18A-D which showed that the airframe can fly to 10,000 hours with a combination of modifications and inspections to maintain airworthiness. The goal is with the F/A-18E/F they will be able to achieve between 9,000 and 12,000 hours, although that remains to be seen. The F-35s do have one significant advantage however, they spend so much time in the shop that they can't fly that many hours each year which will mean they can be around longer.

In days of yore, from Britain's shore, Wolfe, the dauntless hero, came And planted firm Britannia's flag On Canada's fair domain. Here may it wave, our boast, our pride And, joined in love together, The thistle, shamrock, rose entwine The Maple Leaf forever! The Maple Leaf, our emblem dear, The Maple Leaf forever! God save our Queen and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf forever!

Can I just paint my old aircraft to make it fifth generation? The Pentagon had several excuses for the F-35 losing to the F-16 in the dogfight in January 2015. Most were related to software upgrades, but one was: AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. There was talk a few years ago about a company out of Israel call Nanoflight that developed a paint that would: The nanocoating achieves its radar trickery by absorbing the radio waves emitted by the radar and scattering them as heat energy enough so that when the radar gets the bounced back signal it is not regular enough to indicate an object. I don't see anything recent on Nanoflight, but no doubt technology like this would be kept under tight wraps. The question is how long before I can head out to Home Depot and pick up a $49.95 gallon of stealth paint and make my aircraft invisible? It might work well on my car as well to sail through police speed traps.

To be fair, the F-35 is also a 20 year old design. Both airplanes evolve every day. The Aviationist recently carried a good article on dogfighting that should be inspiration to the F-35 lovers who have had to endure the humiliation of losing to a 40 year old F-16 last year.

It is worth noting that the problems the navy has reported occur equally in the old Hornet, the same aircraft the Canada currently flies CF-18. While the new Super Hornet has an onboard oxygen generation system (OBOGS), the old one relies on bottled liquid oxygen like the F-16. While there was some initial blaming on the OBOGS, it is not clear that is the cause. The F-22 raptor also had oxygen problems that were blamed on the OBOGS, and a modification was made to have backup bottled oxygen with automatic cutover. The F-35 also uses an OBOGS, although we don't have enough flight hours to make statistical comparisons there has been reported problems there as well from the Marines F-35B. There are many alternate theories as to why there are more physiological episodes in recent years in the navy. Some have to do with other air contamination (e.g. new glues or cleaning compounds with lingering effects), and others have to do with the training procedures that involve pulling higher G's and putting other strains on the body. These are concerning issues that need to be resolved, but terming it an 'unresolved oxygen generation' problem is inappropriate at this time. I guess the one thing about the F-35 is that we won't be putting undue stress on the pilot in combat because as it lumbers along being beat by 40 year old F-16s in dogfights due to its poor maneuverability. The pilot will not be oxygen deprived during the flight and have a front row seat to be shot down by the ancient MiGs.

Again, I ask what do the contracts say? The last payment Canada made keep us in the program until September 30, 2016. I have heard this magical May 1st date, but nobody seems to know what it means.

Actually it is the Pentagon's child. I believe the Pentagon gave Boeing and Lockheed Martin a billion dollars each for the concept demonstration phase, and then $19 billion to Lockheed Martin and $4 billion to Pratt & Whitney for the Systems Development and Demonstration phase. The $10 million and $150 million were token payments to be an observer of the first phase, and then participant in the second. There have been subsequent payments after all the cost escalations over the years (if I remember correctly Canada gave another $500 million in 2006), but I don't know what the total has been. Participating in these programs is a good thing, but that does not always mean that the program will deliver results or the participants will purchase the end result. Most previous programs have been just US national programs, this is the first one with lots of international participation. Britain is a major partner in the program, and Canada is a minor one. Even the previous US only programs had a large rate of being abandoned, in fact this program had 2 planes built by Boeing (X-32) which was then abandoned.

I don't think one would make sense, but I agree that a limited initial purchase (min 6, more likely a dozen) has several advantages on all sides. The question is when. With the serious outstanding problems, especially the software, when does it make sense to make a purchase commitment?

Actually Canada paid last year to remain in the program up until September 30, 2016. I don't know what the May 1st date is all about, again I suggest we refer to the actual contracts for the terms of remaining in the program. -------- I think it is also important that we look at what the Liberals actually said during the past election on the F-35: We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber. We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft. The primary mission of our fighter aircraft should remain the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability. We will reduce the procurement budget for replacing the CF-18s, and will instead purchase one of the many, lower-priced options that better match Canada’s defence needs. While the first statement seems clear, what if the 'open and transparent competition' comes up with the F-35 as the answer?

Actually Canada paid last year to remain in the program up until September 30, 2016. I don't know what the May 1st date is all about, again I suggest we refer to the actual contracts for the terms of remaining in the program.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. The contracts are what count - period.

So the initial investors in any company should be forced out? I guess Bill Gates should return his billions and give it away to later entrants. If Lockheed Martin does not abide by the initial terms, the lawyers will have a field day.

It was day one investment, and continued investment over the years. So you are saying that Lockheed Martin should benefit from all that early money and not return anything. How do you think that will work in industry if you ask for investment money, and then when you start producing product you don't return to the investors?

It is only Conservative Prime Minister wussies like Diefenbaker that kow-tow to the Americans. Keep your Super Hornets as well, lots of other options available. Keep up that isolationist stance, and you will be building a northern wall as well.

Yes, it does sound like a follow-up lawsuit is in order. Canada has invested since day one in the F-35, and if Over is going to make such threats and follow through on them then Canadian companies and the federal government should sue Lockheed Martin for billions.

My bad, you are quite correct.

Yes, absolutely there are tradeoffs of all different designs. As you point out the heavier aircraft designed for carrier landings will have less wear and tear on the landing gear when used on land. The folding wings however probably will have shorter life spans than the land version of the craft. The bigger issue however was with all that extra weight, they had much shorter range and couldn't carry the same armaments as the land version. It all boils down to what are your requirements, and where do you want tradeoffs to be made. With the massive patrol area for the Canadian Forces, range is an important consideration.

CF-188 - that is an old name, never made it to the deployed aircraft as far as I know. They have been known as CF-18 since before delivery. I expect "back then" they were not expecting the delays that have plagued the F-35.

Yes, the Super Hornet's are there because Australia was not confident in the FA-35 delivery. They have 72 F-35As on order, expected to be operational by 2023. 2006 - Announced intention to buy 24 SuperHornet's 2011 - Actual purchase of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets (now operational, already used in combat against ISIS) 2013 - Announced plan to purchase 12 EA-18G Growler (2018 operational) Note the EA-18G Growler is an electronic warfare version derivative of the F/A-18F Block II. It removes the internal gun, adds electronics within the aircraft to help it detect and jam enemy radars, and mounts four specialized ECM (Electronic CounterMeasures) pods under the wings The RAAF website has some details