Moonbox

Yes. It would be pointless to upgrade the Mig-21 with F-35 avionics because the airframe isn't worthy of it. The point is that the avionics are upgradeable and interchangeable. Most fighters receive numerous upgrades and refits over their life times. S We can only hope maneuverability is no longer an issue. As for the stealth, consider this: The F-22 first flew in 1997. At the time it was virtually undetectable. The Russians have since had 10 years to refine their radar technology to help detect the F-22. By the time the F-35 comes out, they will have almost had 20 years. The F-35 also has a radar signature 10x bigger than the F-22. What we have here then is 20 years of radar tech refinement, with a significant step back in radar detection evasion. Hopefully the Russians, Chinese, Indians etc stay behind for another 20-30 years right? Check your facts again their kiddo. The F-35 has excellent stealth properties from the front but from 25 -30 degree angles and beyond its stealth properties degrade significantly. That's why they're refitting some of the F-22 squadrons to strike planes, so that they have a reliable deep-strike capabilities to knock out radar and SAM networks at the beginning of a conflict, so that it's safer for the F-35's later on. The F-22 has thrust vectoring nozzles and a better t/w ratio. Well there's a really compelling argument smallc. How can I compete with that? :rolleyes: Yeah I don't think many pilots are terrified about that, especially in a BVR engagement. A missile shot backwards, from below its target (the F-35 can't fly as high remember) would have a pretty poor chance of hitting. First it would have to overcome the speed of the plane flying the other direction, and second it would have to climb to its target. The Eurofighter does everything better than the F-35 except hide from radar, and its newest versions will carry a similar AESA radar to the F-35.

You could put the same electronics in a Mig-21 if you were so inclined. It's the airframe I'm concerned with. Well what else makes it fifth gen? Other than the avionics, which you could put on an F-16. The F-22 is fifth gen. It does so many things that 4th gen craft don't that it can safely qualify as that. The F-22 is significantly more stealthy, can supercruise, has thrust vectoring, unmatched in maneuverability. It does everything. The F-35 has stealth, (albeit a significantly downgraded version) and avionics and radar etc that could be put on any other fighter on the market. The only thing that makes the F-35 fifth generation is that Lockheed Martin calls it that. It's immensely inferior to the F-22 in pretty much all regards and aside from stealth. Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, I'll go along with what the Americans, Dutch etc are anticipating it will cost, rather than what Lockheed is desperately trying to assure them.

What are you even talking about?? The price we were given was WAY below that. The price the Pentagon is suggesting the AIRPLANE will cost, however is well above $100M each. You're smarter than this I thought. What sort of argument is that??? The fact that the US is choosing this over the Eurofighter is proof of the F-35 being superior? Wouldn't that mean that the British and the Germans wouldn't be building the Eurofighter? Aside from the fact that the US will never fly anything non-American, they're also flying the F-15, the Super Hornet and the F-22 along side the F-35. No, I've proven that you're struggling with the reading and comprehension part of this argument. I didn't say command and control were irrelevant. I asked you how you thought the F-35 would have such superior command and control over the Eurofighter, and why the British would be installing inferior systems on their Eurofighters. Does that make sense? No. They'll be comparable. The more you post the more you're showing YOU don't know what you're talking about. Sooo far superior? You sure you're not making that up? Or taking that from another Lockheed spokesman? Did we go back to 4th grade smallc? I'm wrong? Just like that?? Where did you show us that?? You don't know anything about the planes. You've shown that over and over in this thread. What have you read about the F-35 in terms of stealth? Nothing I'm assuming? Try this: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html There's a non-partisan 3rd party PhD making the same case. I'm not saying he knows everything about it, but he seems to have a pretty good idea and Australia is in the same boat as us (and also, worrying about the F-35's capabilities). Well first off, the last 600 air-to-air kills registered with BVR aircraft only resulted in something like 20 BVR kills. The rest had to go to WVR, suggesting that the systems weren't nearly as effective as people thought. You can take my word on that or I can link it if I have to. It was a RAND briefing I read awhile ago. As for its air-to-air capabilities, simply look at its design. Italian pilots involved with the F-35 say it performs between the F-16 and the F-18A, but closer to the F-18. www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html It handles like an F-16. That's what it was designed to do. Compared to 4.5+ gen fighters, and even a lot of Russian planes, it's SIGNIFICANTLY slower, it can't climb as fast (about 20-25% lower thrust/weight ratio) and its wingload is higher than anything else in the air. It also can't fly as high, which means it can't maneuver as much and that its missiles can't fly as far. Here's another interesting piece: http://www.defencetalk.com/comparison-of-modern-fighter-aircraft-17086/ Which suggests that the Eurofighter has a 4.5:1 exchange ratio with the Su-35, but the F-16C has a 0.3:1 exchange ratio. Without stealth (which is the F-35's advantage over the F-16), the F-35 is dead in the air. They wouldn't even indicate what fighters they were simulating against. They refused to comment Regardless, the Eurofighter has simulated even better exchange ratios than that as linked above. My problem with the F-35 is that it looks like it's going to cost over $120M each by today's estimates, and it flies like a legacy 30+ year old design. I wouldn't argue that its stealth abilities make up for that in large part right now, but I don't doubt for a second that Russia and China etc will learn how to detect it (or perhaps already have) not long after it flies off the production line.

From the same source we have http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0114345920101201?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r2:c0.130435:b39988374:z0 Which shows a $92M/unit cost in 2002 dollars. Add 6ish years of inflation at 2% (estimate) and you have the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer indicating a $100M + fighter. I'm not sure I really trust LM in this regard. You're not in this case. You've cited Lockheed Martin spokespeople and the Ottawa Citizen, which I find strange given what we're talking about here. The F-35 is a great strike craft. It's a mediocre fighter. I suggest you actually learn a little bit about the plane itself, and compare it to others, before you start telling us what the plane can and can't do. As for command and control, that's a non-factor altogether. The British are flying the Eurofighter for air-superiority and the F-35 for strike missions, much like the Americans are doing with the F-22 and the F-35. Are you suggesting that the British are going to install inferior command and control systems on their Typhoons than their F-35's? The avionics package is upgradeable and interchangeable. If you take a look at British aircraft procurement over the last 50 years, they have a LONG history of abandoning their homegrown projects in favor of American versions if they deem them superior. It seems that hasn't happened in the case of the F-35 and Eurofighter. Not to be rude but maybe start with the basics and take a look at how air-to-air engagements are fought, then look at different aircraft specs. With that knowledge in hand the arguments being made about the F-35 (here and on the professional level) might make a lot more sense to you. As an aside if you go back into this and various other threads about the F-35, you might remember that I was one of the strongest supporters of the program. Gradually over the last few months, the more I read about it the less and less I liked it.

Okay man your link just supports that the Dutch planes are going to cost $120M. I guess the Dutch are paying twice what we are then???

If you didn't get your 'facts' straight from LM then maybe you'd know a little more about it. The only thing that is 5th generation about the F-35 is stealth. In virtually all other aspects it's rated worse than the Eurofighter. The term '5th generation' is a marketing tool, and nothing less. The F-22, yes. The F-35, no. I'll have to admit I'm a little disappointed in you smallc, because you usually at least take the time to read counter-arguments, but in this case you're clearly not. I've taken the time to read your quotes and respond, and you're just glossing over things. Have you actually looked up any comparisons between the planes? Have you read anything other than LM and Canadian news releases? I didn't think so. Hey, if we could get the F-35 for $60M I wouldn't be ranting here. All signs point to no, however. Your ottawa citizen article is also strangely the only one I can find anywhere that makes that claim. It appears the Americans don't even know about this yet??? Strange...

LM was very clearly stating it had an edge against 4th generation craft, which is pretty meaningless.

No. We've already been over this. The F-35 is expected to be almost 50% MORE expensive per plane. The mature versions of the Eurofighter (tranche 2-3 and beyond) are incorporating all the air-to-ground capabilities Canada will ever need and won't be any worse than the F-18e. It will also knock the socks off an F-18e and F-35 in the air. Because you can either get more plane for the same amount of money, or the same plane for less. It's not like you can say the CF-18 was a great choice in hindsight. We would have been just as well off with the F-16, but for some reason back then it was decided we needed a 2-engined craft... Except it wouldn't. The Eurofighter has a significantly reduced radar signature from the front and the F-35's stealth is NOT as good as people seem to think. European and Russian defense experts have concluded that it's fairly easily detected from a 25-30 degree angle and all it takes is to space your fighters out properly to intercept. Once engaged, the Eurofighter apparently enjoys a 2-1 exchange ratio against the F-35. It's NOT a good air-to air platform. Also, what past are you talking about? The past where 20 or so CF-18's dropped conventional bombs on Yugoslavia and Iraq and then did nothing but fly air patrols for the remaining 35 years? What the F-35 was SUPPOSED to be was an inexpensive and practical strike fighter that the West could field in large numbers, much like the f-16. The DND and the Pentagon I'm sure would have been happy with a $65-70M price tag. At $130M not so much. As for how inadequate the F-35 is in the air, that's a lengthy discussion. I'll invite you to use your web skills to browse comparisons of the F-35 to the Eurofighter, Su-27, Su-35, because I'm not going to post that here. Having done that, you'll be able to see that the F-35 has a signficantly lower top speed, thrust/weight ratio and turn rate, which means once it's detected it's in trouble. If a missile is launched against you on a head-on engagement, ideally you'd want to counter fire and then turn and start to climb as quickly as possible. Forcing a BVR missile to chase you and climb at the same time bleeds off a lot of its speed so that by the time it actually catches up to the target, it won't have the energy to maneuver properly against evasive flying. In a head-on engagement, the F-35 won't be able to turn fast enough, fly fast enough, or climb fast enough to evade missiles the way the F-22, Eurofighter, or even a lot of legacy fighters can today, not to mention newer Russian ones. Here's an interesting diddy: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/07/farn10-eurofighter-boasts-typh.html I read a similar article from a Russian defense analyst saying pretty much the same thing about how the F-35 could be detected. Here's another one that actually summarizes some of what I'm trying to say: http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/06/eurofighter-snipes-lockheed-says.html

That's a pretty pointless statement. The Super Hornet is a COMPLETELY different airframe from the normal Hornet. You realize that right? It was only called the Super Hornet because it looks similar to the legacy F-18 and it was an easier pill for Congress to swallow ($$$). It's not an updated F-18. It's a brand new plane, so that's NOT what's working for us now. The Eurofighter IS a multi-role fighter. It was designed as such. It appears to more multi-role than the F-35. For Canada's purposes, what are we more likely to need? A strike craft that can knock out enemy ground targets without being seen, or a plane that can actually defend our airspace? It's not really all about that. The kill ratio for BVR weapons is relatively low. If a long range air-to-air missile is launched at a fast and agile plane, chances are it won't hit the target. If the defending plane has superior altitude, speed and turn rate (which it likely will over the F-35), the missile hit chances are low. After an F-35 launches it WILL be detectable, and it can't climb fast enough, turn fast enough or fly fast enough to evade. Stealth aside, it's NOT a good looking plane for the air-to-air role. The other question that I'll ask, as before, is how long do you think the F-35's stealth advantage will last?

They're buying the F-35 as a strike craft and for their carrier fleet. There is no VTOL or STOL Eurofighter variant. Mature versions of the Eurofighter will be a very effective ground attack craft. It won't be as great a strike plane as the F-35, but what is Canada's airforce for in the first place? Do we typically require stealthily delivered air-to-ground ordnance on our air patrols? When was the last time we sent 65 ground attack craft overseas?

Hey Shwa. Get a life. When you have something better to do than argue like a 10 year old child, come back. Until then, you're just a big joke.

Guys I'm going to start the Ontario Party of Canada. Everyone else seems to have a party of their own. Who's with me??

smallc I don't mean to be rude but you don't seem to know anything about the Eurofighter at all. It's a FAR better air-to-air platform than both the F-35 and the Super Hornet, and it the Tranche 3 versions of it will be a great strike plane against ground targets. The F-35 is a far better strike craft, but it's not particularly handy in the air-to-air scenario. The F18e was designed first to serve aboard aircraft carriers and as such much of the design attention focused on making that work as opposed to a plane that didn't need to concern itself with that. They've tested the Eurofighter vs the F18E and the Eurofighter blew it away in simulations. Eurofighter is my choice but the F18e is a lot better than farting away billions on a plane we don't need.

Merry Christmas, clown.

Trolls feeding trolls...

Hookers and blow. That's what I want for Christmas.

The DND can't be more in the loop than the US Def Sec. The whole situation with the F-35 looks to me to be VERY political. So many people have stuck their necks out, and the program has already cost so much, that it looks like it's going ahead regardless of how expensive it ends up being and how lousy the plane is for the dollars spent. I like the Eurofighter better than the Super Hornet, because it does significantly more, but that's another story altogether.

.Your facts aren't straight. We don't have a firm contract yet. The plane isn't even finished its design phases. It doesn't matter what the the government is being told by LM. The plane isn't affordable anymore. Lockheed Martin couldn't design the plane the Pentagon wanted for the price they wanted it for in the time frame presented. The US Defence Secretary fired the head of the F-35 program because of the cost overruns. I'm not sure how many different sources you need but I'll keep posting them until you get your head out of the sand. TIME is saying the plane is going to cost $135M/unit. www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1975139,00.html (my browser isn't allowing me to link properly) Even Gates didn't really understand how badly the program was going. He says in this article he was 'bamboozled' by the forecasts from the Pentagon. Considering that the Americans don't expect to get the plane for less than $130M/unit, and that we don't even have a firm contract with LM, I have no idea why you would think Canada magically gets them for $75M/unit. If that was the case, I'd say this wasn't a bad idea. All signs point to it NOT being the case, however, so it's looking less and less like a good idea.

Unfortunately that's not the price the plane is expected to come out at. The plane is 4 years behind schedule, 50% over budget and the most generous estimates now are pegging it at $100M/unit while most are anticipating this will continue to increase to upwards of $120-130M. Get your facts straight. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/f35-fighters-now-double-the-cost-.html

We are wealthier than Britain, Germany and France - not hugely so but we are. Australia is significantly smaller than us, but they're still flying two platforms. It's a joke to have you telling us here than it's impossible to maintain 2 different fleets of aircraft and that this will somehow magically make costs fly through the roof. It will cause logistical inconveniences, which will cost money, but the savings achieved by buying fewer f-35's and replacing them with cheaper alternatives would more than make up for it. Perfect. Let's spend enormous amounts of money for an aircraft that performs the role we need it for no better than existing aircraft. Oh wait. It has twice the combat range. Maybe instead we could pay a whole lot less and get an aircraft that's 10-20% faster and has about 6x the combat range? Wouldn't that be nice?

That's not the point. Most armed forces explain what they need out of an aircraft and then open things up for bidding for the aircraft/company that can provide what is asked for the best price. That didn't happen in Canada. Instead of opening up a competitive bidding process, where makers of the F-18E or Eurofighter might have made manufacturing commitments in Canada, our brilliant leaders decided that 5th generation stealth and strike capabilities were absolutely necessary, thus pidgeon-holing us into the F-35 purchase at a ridiculous price (more than $130/plane). Of course it doesn't include a lot of things, but training a pilot doesn't cost $5M and the suggestion that training costs would make or break the deal, or be a logistical nightmare, is silly considering the price of what we ARE buying. They're selling for that to the RAF and Luftwaffe. Open up the bidding to the Rafale, F-18E, Eurofighter, Gripen and F-35 and you'll at least get competitive offers. Why would they though? You were talking about the increase logistical cost of operating two different aircraft at the same time. While there would obviously be increased training costs and economies of scale in terms of parts etc, owning 45-50 Eurofighters would likely have similar scale as owning 65 F-35's. The increased costs, therefore, would result from having to train and maintain the 20 F-35's, which can't really be earth-shattering seeing as though other countries will be owning much smaller numbers than we are. If you're suggesting that the Eurofighter, as a plane, might cost more to maintain than the F-35, however, that's just pure speculation. It could just as easily go both ways, especially considering the F-35 program is not even near being complete and they've never been able to control the costs of it nor have they been able to follow up on any of their promises to the US. It doesn't really matter what the program will end up costing. Canada is buying them for over $130M each. It should be, which is what I'm trying to say. There's no reason it shouldn't be. Canada's DND, for whatever reason, decided that the F-35 is the only plane that can do the job. The question really, is why were the program requirements on Canada's end so specifically geared that the F-35 won a contract by default? Why does Canada need 65 stealthy STRIKE craft, when the vast majority of its missions are air patrol? A few years is hardly going to make a lick of difference, especially considering the money involved. The more we look at our options, the more likely we're going to get competitive offers. Right now this looks political, and it smells REALLY fishy.

Stop posting William Ashley. I guarantee that if you took a week or so to relax and enjoy life, rather than stressing out and looking for something to wet your bed about every day, you'd be a much happier person. You never know. A girl might even want to talk to you.

The cost of training a new pilot is approx $1.5M, according to American studies. That's negligible compared to the fly away cost of ONE F-35. It's literally irrelevant. The argument that we should ONLY purchase F-35's due to logistical costs is also pretty galling, considering this is a sole-source purchase and the aircraft costs $130 million a pop. Let's do a little math shall we? Reducing our F-35 order to 20, for example, would save us $5.85B. Instead of the extra 45 F-35's, let's say we instead buy 45 Eurofighters (which have better range, speed etc for air patrols), for $3.6B. I highly doubt that this would be such a logistical nightmare that it would cost us an extra $2.2B to service and maintain our 20 F-35's alongside our Eurofighters. Keep in mind also that the F-35 is already 50% over budget and the prices are still climbing. This scenario gives us a bit of both worlds. First, we get a modern aircraft to patrol our airspace better than would the F-35, and second, we'd still have 20 F-35's we could operate internationally with the Americans, which is more than we'd likely need any time soon.

This pretty much how I feel on the subject right now. If you read way back in this thread I was hardcore on the F-35 bandwagon, until I read a lot more about it. I'm not sure how Dancer feels about it, but I'm of the opinion we should only buy enough F-35's to be able to participate in foreign operations with the US. 20-25 would be plenty. The rest of the money should be spent on aircraft that can efficiently and effectively protect our airspace. I like the Eurofighter for what it can do for $80 million or even cheaper updated 4th gen planes.

Like Australia, Spain, Poland, Ukraine right? The costs are just overwhelming them aren't they??? Britain, France, Germany and Italy seem capable of doing so as well, and it's not like they're enormous countries. We're also significantly wealthier than them and have more area to protect. Don't flatter yourself. You didn't disprove anything. The only thing you can justify the purchase of this plane for is for its ability to safely strike ground targets in uncontested airspace. For that alone I think we should probably purchase some of them to allow us to participate in future NATO missions. That doesn't mean we need to buy 65 of them, nor does it preclude the purchase of other, more affordable craft which will be able to field in more meaningful numbers. The Eurofighter is cheaper, faster, more maneuverable and carries more ordnance. Its benefits are not 'questionable'. For an air patrol/interdiction role, it's a far better choice than the F-35. The F-35 is the type of plane designed to bash the door in and strike ground targets in the early days of a potential conflict. It's a great option for co-operative foreign deployments with the US, but it's a VERY lousy option for sovereignty patrols over Canadian airspace. It's too expensive to deploy in meangingful numbers. It's too slow for use as an interceptor/inderdictor and it has unimpressive range. Look at Canada and how big it is. Spread 65 planes across it and keep in mind that at any given time >20% of them would likely be down for maintanance. Add their low speed and low range and how can you tell anyone it's a good plane to patrol our airspace with???