Moonbox

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???

I think one myth that might be useful to dispel is the idea that Canada can only fly one platform. There are smaller countries out there flying bigger fleets of planes with multiple craft. It doesn't really make any sense to say that we can't either. Having a stealthy $130 Million strike craft flying patrols over the arctic is just stupid. With only 65 of the stupid things, and the world's second largest land mass, we'll have one of the 'stealthiest' airforces in the world, disregarding the F-35's anti-radar qualities.

It has a single engine. It has low speed, low thrust and a low service cieling and can only carry one air-to-air weapon. The F-35 will be a VERY good strike craft when it comes out, but only an adequate fighter. With the original cost projection, this would have been reasonable. The program has turned into a bit of a debacle, however, and we're looking at a $130 million bomb truck that won't be able to cope in the air with foreign models that are already on the market, let alone ones coming online in the near future. Well with that philosophy why bother with a multi-role fighter at all? Obviously it's still a concern. The F-35 stinks of design compromise. The PAK-FA is no more a figment of my imagination than the F-35 is. The first F-35 flew in 2006. The first PAK-FA flew in 2010.

William Ashley I'm not sure what polls you're reading but Monday's Globe showed Harper up again. At any rate, have you taken a look at the forum board and counted how many topics you've started all by yourself? It looks like 14 to me. Calm down. Take a deep breath.

A bad argument. The human body allows significantly more flight performance than the F-35 can handle. The F-22 has human pilots. So does the Su-35. So will the Pak-FA. The F-35 is built and designed to beat up on the Third World. It's great for that, but not much else. This is an aggressors weapon, not something you use to defend your own airspace.

Your glibness is a credit to your argument. Nonetheless, the USA vs Iraq proved nothing other than that a well-equipped and modern super-power can wipe the floor with a poorly trained, poorly organized and poorly equipped third world army. I'm more concerned with what NATO and the Americans are doing and how unimpressive the aircraft appears to be aside from bomb trucking. Subject to change...as usual lol

Did nobody else see this? Pure gold! Who wants to take bets on what he was banned for?

Oh please. Using the Gulf War as proof of American pre-eminence in the air is pretty laughable. I'll not argue that pre-eminence, but I will argue that the Gulf War proved anything. That was a world super power of 300 million beating up on a 3rd world sand pot of 30 million. The Iraqis barely even fought back, nor did they have the numbers to even try. I've already said I don't really care about what Canada does. As far as we're concerned the US looks after most of our defensive needs by mere proximity. I already asked you what the Americans will be doing to guarantee air superiority through 2025 and beyond. At the moment it doesn't really look like they have a plan. Perhaps the answer is that they don't need one? I'd perhaps accept that answer if indeed it looked like sexy air combat was a thing of the past, I just don't know if that's the truth.

A pointless question really. Niether NATO nor Russian built fighters have been tested over the last 30 years in any sort of realistic conflict. Even you should be able to see a gap in terms of air superiority moving into 2025. At that time you'll have 180 F-22's and then a number of ancient F-15's. Perhaps air superiority is not a priority for NATO moving forward. I'm sure we'll be able to beat down third world desert rats and impoverished mini dictators through 2030, and maybe that's all the US is preparing for.

Doesn't anybody else worry about spending $130 on an apparently multirole fighter that, aside from stealth, will barely compete with 4th gen fighters in the air?? Nobody? Its only advantage is stealth and being able to launch BVR before its enemies see it. Combine the F-35's low service ceiling and the fact that it carries only TWO air-to-air weapons, however, and it's unlikely that it's going to enjoy a great kill ratio against the most modern Russian-built fighters. Bush you keep saying that the F-35 isn't meant to fill the air-superiority role. My question then, is what plane IS going to fill that for the USA moving forward? The only thing I can think of is the <200 F-22's, which can't even fly off of carriers.

The F-16 is over 30 years old. When the F-35 comes out in 2018 or whatever it will be flying and handling like the US's discount fighter of 1980's. For $130 million, we'll be getting something that flies like it should cost $15 million. Third world countries will be flying faster and more agile aircraft. Perhaps that argument could be made for the F-22, but not the F-35. That wasn't the point. The point was that the SU-35 rolled off the production lines well before the F-35, costs 25% of what the F-35 does, and would outmatch the F-35 in an air-to-air scenario. Russia is aggressively marketing these for export to the third world. Venezuala already has them on order. If existing planes already outmatch it in the air, what's going to happen when newer designs come out in the VERY near future? Not really. The F-16 was successful as a multirole craft and was dirt cheap to boot. How many US fighters went down in Vietnam?

Iraq proved how effective that doctrine was as well. I guess my question really is what platform is taking care of the air superiority for the US in ~15 years? In 1991 the US was operating F-14s, F-15s, F-16's, F-18's, F-117s and all of them had different roles. Move forward to 2020 and it looks like the US will be operating F-18E's and F-35's along with leftover 4th gens and a handful of 22's. Obviously I'm missing something here, because to me it seems that the US is going to be relying primarily on the F-35 to cover most/all of their bases. Aside from stealth, it really doesn't appear very impressive. It's completely outclassed by a number of existing platforms in terms of flight performance and the F-22 blows it away. For $130M a pop, why is everyone so into this thing?

I apologize if I'm being unclear. I understand the multi-role platform and previous designs fulfilled the requirements well. My concern is more that it doesn't appear to be very multi-role at all. It looks to be a superb strike craft for the time being, and a waste of space in the air superiority role.

Bonam you usually make better arguments than that. This is total straw man. Even the F-22 isn't better than the F-35 in ALL categories, although it's a much better and much more expensive plane. What really matters is how good the F-35 is at the roles it will be fulfilling. As a bomb truck, it looks pretty good. In an air-to-air roll, it looks to be outclassed by a good number of craft already. Considering how heavily the west is appearing to be relying on this plane moving forward, it's slightly worrying. The F-35, aside from stealth and ecm, doesn't look any better on paper than the F-16 in air-to-air capabilities. Comparing it to more modern Russian planes, like the Su-35-1 E for example, leaves a lot to be desired in air-to-air rolls. The F-35 us also twice as expensive. I'm not expecting it to be, nor am I expecting Canada to fly a top line airforce. What's worrying is that the F-35 looks like a one-trick pony (stealth)and the West is building THOUSANDS of them. How long do you think it will take for the russians to develop more modern radar/infrared and how much do you think it will cost to equip their airforce with it? Disregarding stealth, the F-35 looks no better than a lot of the 4th generation fighters, and its costs are out of control.

No. What's your point? Relatively speaking we're spending nothing on these planes. We're buying 65 of them. The US is buying thousands. I'm far from an expert on military tech, but the idea of big daddy down south putting all/most of their eggs into one basket is a little worrying to me. The plane actually doesn't seem that good aside from the anti-radar stealth. Is this a well-reasoned and practical military procurement decision, or is it a political and economical one? The US did pretty well for themselves from the late 70's early 2000's in terms of designing and building solid and practical tech. I'm hoping they're not taking a step backwards.

Up until recently I've been strongly advocating the purchase of this plane. When it rolls into production it will be pretty much the best thing in the air in any numbers. My problem with it is how long that will last for. Other than the stealth and electronics on the plane, it has very little going for it. Its range is unremarkable, its thrust/weight is mediocre. Top speed is easily outclassed by 4th generation fighters. Its service ceiling is relatively low and it only has room for 2 anti-air weapons. What that means is this plane has only one thing going for it: stealth. At the moment it outclasses anything out there simply because radar can't see it. This is all well and good for the time being, but what happens when infrared targetting systems start getting refined to the point where they WILL be able to detect planes at a decent range? When that happens the US and the rest of the world is going to be left with a useless plane that's heavily outclassed by even the 4+ generation fighters in terms of raw dogfighting. This is supposed to be the go-to plane for the next 40 years. Is it likely that nobody's going to come up with better detection technology within the next 20 years? Doubtful.

I haven't taken a look at this thread for a few days but this is a terrible attempt at mockery and sarcasm. I can prove gravity. When I drop something it falls. It always works. The math behind it is completely predictable and the results are always the same. When something is dropped it falls. Period. Same thing with the round Earth. As soon as we sailed around it we knew it was round. Climate 'science' is another thing altogether. The models used are theoretical and have thus far been useless to predict anything. Some of it is. Most of it isn't.

Truemetis you do realize that last wall of text you quoted completely supported Tim's argument, right? You've just shown us exactly why climate change research is so poorly regarded and not taken seriously. The science is not exact, it's not reliable and we don't have enough accurate measurements over a long enough time period to really say anything one way or the other. That abstract supports that claim. What makes everyone so sick of the climate alarmists is how fanatical you get about it. Wild Bill was right. It's faith for you guys. It's religion. If someone disagrees with you, you start frothing at the mouth and getting upset. If you're going to put TimG on ignore, you might as well put me there too. He was being perfectly civil. You took exception to him disagreeing with you. lololololol.

It's interesting how things change when those people have to start looking after themselves and paying taxes.

What's even more interesting is how many people you've presented that point to before. You ARE a joke. You're regularly and mercilessly mocked and ridiculed for your COMPLETE inability to form anything even RESEMBLING a logical thought (see my signature). Your pathetic lack of perspective also allows you an unparallelled talent for hypocrisy (and inability to realize it). My favorite part of this whole thread was: Are you not seeing how stupid your posts are? Do you see the irony? No???? This was all after you posted: I normally try to keep my rudeness down to simple mockery, but you're literally retarded.

Every technology is overcome sooner or later. What's your point? The F-35 is still hugely more agile than the F-18E that you advocate, and current and future fighter doctrine emphasizes BVR (beyond visual range) advantages. No fighters out there right now can outmaneuver the best AA missiles, so first detection is critical. Ahh...This should be good...another one of your deeply researched "technical assessments". As expected, you haven't referenced this. Second, do you know what L-Band radar even means? Look it up. It's a giant wavelength and it's so imprecise you'd practically need a nuke to hit a fighter guided by L-Band. Infrared has better chances, but at present there's not enough range on them to matter. Finally, you do realize that the T50 is also a stealth craft right? I mean, if they had tech that can make stealth obsolete, why are they building stealth planes? Chew on that for a minute.