$9 Billion No-Bid Contract for 65 F-35s

[nicky10013]

Do you really think that we will move from a non carrier varient of aircraft. Our infrastructure to support fighter operations better suits an aircraft with a much more robust landing gear. In other words our pilots must slam these things down on our short runways.

Maybe we should take all the extra money we save on not buying F-35s and extend the runways of arctic bases where fighters operate out of. Do that and you'll still save hundreds of millions.

[Wilber]

I agree. The F-18E is an old technology. I also agree that the Typhoon could be expensive. The entire point here, though, is that we'll never know the cost/benefit analysis of the two planes because we never saw the contract tendered.

To even ask for a contract to be tendered the aircraft has to meet the requirements you have set. If the Typhoon is not the aircraft the Air Force figures it needs for the next 30 years, I guess the only reason for them to ask for a contract would be as leverage to beat Lockheed Martin down. Kind of ingenuous for the Typhoon consortium to go to all that trouble if you have no intention of buying their aircraft. But those are questions you would have to ask someone else.

[Alta4ever]

Which do you think is better suited to hard landings?

Edited July 26, 2010 by Alta4ever

[bush_cheney2004]

Ice?

No....to "arrest" the aircraft. Same as Cold Lake or other bases. CF-188 jockeys must qualify for arrested landings. And they practice doing it.

[nicky10013]

No....to "arrest" the aircraft. Same as Cold Lake or other bases. CF-188 jockeys must qualify for arrested landings. And they practice doing it.

Fine then. So, if we buy aircraft with no arrester systems, there really is no need to qualify pilots, and the argument of shorter runways goes out the window.

[nicky10013]

To even ask for a contract to be tendered the aircraft has to meet the requirements you have set. If the Typhoon is not the aircraft the Air Force figures it needs for the next 30 years, I guess the only reason for them to ask for a contract would be as leverage to beat Lockheed Martin down. Kind of ingenuous for the Typhoon consortium to go to all that trouble if you have no intention of buying their aircraft. But those are questions you would have to ask someone else.

The article I posted has an interesting point: that the requirements for the next fighter are far too narrow.

[Handsome Rob]

Fine then. So, if we buy aircraft with no arrester systems, there really is no need to qualify pilots, and the argument of shorter runways goes out the window.

R U Serious???

This thread is getting silly.

[bush_cheney2004]

Fine then. So, if we buy aircraft with no arrester systems, there really is no need to qualify pilots, and the argument of shorter runways goes out the window.

Many types have "tailhooks"...not just F-18 or naval variants.

[nicky10013]

Which do you think is better suited to hard landings?

I'm not an engineer, so I really can't answer that question. The question you can answer and are dodging is which runways are so short that they can't land without an arrester gear, have to make hard landings and need catapults to take off on?

[Wilber]

Arrestor gear is used at many military airfields. Link

[nicky10013]

Many types have "tailhooks"...not just F-18 or naval variants.

Good, then we already have arrester hooks to train on and long enough runways to take off and land from. What's the point? Someone above mentioned the thread is getting silly. The only silly thing I see here is people making up non-existant excuses to support the sole sourced purchase of INSANELY expensive aircraft.

Hard Landings? And I'm the one who is silly? Get the fuck out of here hahahaha.

[GostHacked]

Maybe we should take all the extra money we save on not buying F-35s and extend the runways of arctic bases where fighters operate out of. Do that and you'll still save hundreds of millions.

You are missing one thing. In combat the runways are prime targets. Blow the runway and most aircraft are rendered useless. The F-35 is VTOL, meaning you don't need to spend the money extending the runways. You don't even NEED a runway. Just a small clear patch to land on.

I am surprised that many simply don't get it here.

-Canada has already made an investment in he F-35 program by tooling things here in Canada.

-The F-35 can easily be put into service in Canada because of our NATO obligations, this is due to the US and Canada being so close and working close together on most NATO operations.

-The F-35 is a VTOL aircraft which makes remote bases more accessible, no need to build and maintain long remote runways that rarely get used.

-Parts and service for the aircraft are easy considering our proximity to the US.

There would be so many challenges to implement Russian aircraft into Canadian military service it's astounding people actually think it's an option. Don't get me wrong I thing the Russians have some pretty damn good kit, but it's simply not an option for military purposes. We can use Russian aircraft in civilian use, sure that would not be a problem at all, but really, think about the challenges Canada would have to face to switch to a fleet of Russian fighters.

[Handsome Rob]

The article I posted has an interesting point: that the requirements for the next fighter are far too narrow.

Your article:

The F-35 is a stealth fighter designed to penetrate radar defences on the first day of a war. It's the sort of plane you would use to create “shock and awe” in Baghdad or Tehran.

Rubbish. Stealh increases survivability, period. It can be used to penetrate, it can be used to defend. By the same notion, we should take the, 'armored,' out of our personnel carriers as they're obviously never going to be sent into hostile enemy territory fighting 'American' wars.

Unless Canada is planning on being the sharp end of the American spear, we don't need stealth technology.

The F-35 is designed for short takeoff and landing, with two of the three versions destined for aircraft carriers. Canada, of course, doesn't have aircraft carriers.

Nope but we sure do have many STOL airfields when used by turbines. Many, many uses for such capabilities.

And all that stealth technology and short takeoff and landing capacity comes at a cost. In addition to the price tag of about $135 million per plane,

Right on price point with Eurofighter, for newer technology, commonality, and greater capabilities?

the F-35 has a relatively short range.

Key word being relative, because it has a greater combat radius than Eurofighter.

Red star indeed, if the Liberals tendered this would it be an issue? I'm starting to doubt it.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Hard Landings? And I'm the one who is silly? Get the fuck out of here hahahaha.

Yes...you are being silly. The earlier point was with respect to the robust landing gear and airframe structure that was/is desired by Canada. That's one of the reasons you have F-18s and not F-16s.

[GostHacked]

Good, then we already have arrester hooks to train on and long enough runways to take off and land from. What's the point? Someone above mentioned the thread is getting silly. The only silly thing I see here is people making up non-existant excuses to support the sole sourced purchase of INSANELY expensive aircraft.

Hard Landings? And I'm the one who is silly? Get the fuck out of here hahahaha.

If you need an arrester hook, you can put money on the fact it is going to be a hard landing. And I have posted some of my excuses above. Which from a military standpoint is exactly the excuses they will go with the F-35.

[Wilber]

The article I posted has an interesting point: that the requirements for the next fighter are far too narrow.

Really, but not nearly so narrow as "it's cheaper".

[Handsome Rob]

I'm not an engineer, so I really can't answer that question. The question you can answer and are dodging is which runways are so short that they can't land without an arrester gear, have to make hard landings and need catapults to take off on?

-They use arresting gear during mechanical failures, IE hydraulics & brakes.

-They use arresting gear when their are geographical restrictions on the location of the airfield, permissible approaches, runway lengths.

-They are used for carrier qualification, many of our pilots do fly off carriers.

It's not dodging the question, it's a stupid question.

[nicky10013]

If you need an arrester hook, you can put money on the fact it is going to be a hard landing. And I have posted some of my excuses above. Which from a military standpoint is exactly the excuses they will go with the F-35.

My point again is where in Canada is an arrester hook needed in Canada that isn't for training?

[nicky10013]

You are missing one thing. In combat the runways are prime targets. Blow the runway and most aircraft are rendered useless. The F-35 is VTOL, meaning you don't need to spend the money extending the runways. You don't even NEED a runway. Just a small clear patch to land on.

I am surprised that many simply don't get it here.

-Canada has already made an investment in he F-35 program by tooling things here in Canada.

-The F-35 can easily be put into service in Canada because of our NATO obligations, this is due to the US and Canada being so close and working close together on most NATO operations.

-The F-35 is a VTOL aircraft which makes remote bases more accessible, no need to build and maintain long remote runways that rarely get used.

-Parts and service for the aircraft are easy considering our proximity to the US.

There would be so many challenges to implement Russian aircraft into Canadian military service it's astounding people actually think it's an option. Don't get me wrong I thing the Russians have some pretty damn good kit, but it's simply not an option for military purposes. We can use Russian aircraft in civilian use, sure that would not be a problem at all, but really, think about the challenges Canada would have to face to switch to a fleet of Russian fighters.

The investment was for contracts, not planes. We've got the contracts already, so why should we buy the planes based on that?

Again, which bases are the ones we can't currently get to without arrester cables?

If you hadn't noticed, quite a few NATO countries plan on buying the Typhoon.

The Russian argument is a pipe dream, I'll agree.

[Wilber]

Good, then we already have arrester hooks to train on and long enough runways to take off and land from. What's the point? Someone above mentioned the thread is getting silly. The only silly thing I see here is people making up non-existant excuses to support the sole sourced purchase of INSANELY expensive aircraft.

Hard Landings? And I'm the one who is silly? Get the fuck out of here hahahaha.

The shorter the strip the harder the landings are going to be when it comes to conventional aircraft. You can't waste runway making it pretty. If you watch carrier landings, they don't flare at all, they fly it straight on to the deck. Smuck. If you did the same thing with an airliner you would be hitting the ground with a descent rate of 7 to 8 hundred feet per minute depending on the approach speed. Probably not much different for an F-18. VSTOL capability gives an aircraft the ability to operate most anywhere.

[DogOnPorch]

They lengthened runway 15/33 at CYXS here in PG, BC to 11,450ft in hopes of attracting military and civilian heavies for refueling. Third largest in Canada. So far one 747 and one Il-76 have used it. I couldn't help but draw the comparison to a Cargo Cult in the Pacific islands.

Edited July 26, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[nicky10013]

Your article:

The F-35 is a stealth fighter designed to penetrate radar defences on the first day of a war. It's the sort of plane you would use to create “shock and awe” in Baghdad or Tehran.

Rubbish. Stealh increases survivability, period. It can be used to penetrate, it can be used to defend. By the same notion, we should take the, 'armored,' out of our personnel carriers as they're obviously never going to be sent into hostile enemy territory fighting 'American' wars.

Unless Canada is planning on being the sharp end of the American spear, we don't need stealth technology.

A plane like the Typhoon can't be touched by any plane in the world except for the F-22 and possibly the F-35 (even though there are various reports that the Typhoon surprisingly handled the F-22 quite well in training in the US). 8 Typhoons went unscathed vs 27 F-15s and F-16s. My point being is that if the plane is this good, and the only countries flying the apparently better plane are our friends, then why pay up for the potentitally more expensive plane "just because it's stealthy."

The F-35 is designed for short takeoff and landing, with two of the three versions destined for aircraft carriers. Canada, of course, doesn't have aircraft carriers.

Nope but we sure do have many STOL airfields when used by turbines. Many, many uses for such capabilities.

Right...

And all that stealth technology and short takeoff and landing capacity comes at a cost. In addition to the price tag of about $135 million per plane,

Right on price point with Eurofighter, for newer technology, commonality, and greater capabilities?

The Eurofighter is fairly new and designed as a far more multirole then the JSF ever was. As for commonality, as I pointed out, Europeans are in NATO, too.

the F-35 has a relatively short range.

Key word being relative, because it has a greater combat radius than Eurofighter.

From what I can rustle up, the Typhoon has the greater range.

Red star indeed, if the Liberals tendered this would it be an issue? I'm starting to doubt it.

The Globe didn't really like it as well and no one can accuse them of being biased. Furthermore, if the contract was tendered (open to all companies) by the Liberals OR the Conservatives there wouldn't have been nearly as big an issue.

[nicky10013]

The shorter the strip the harder the landings are going to be when it comes to conventional aircraft. You can't waste runway making it pretty. If you watch carrier landings, they don't flare at all, they fly it straight on to the deck. Smuck. If you did the same thing with an airliner you would be hitting the ground with a descent rate of 7 to 8 hundred feet per minute depending on the approach speed. Probably not much different for an F-18. VSTOL capability gives an aircraft the ability to operate most anywhere.

I don't disagree with any of this. My simple point is that which base exists in Canada large enough to handle fighters but has a short enough runway to need a VSTOL aircraft?

[GostHacked]

The investment was for contracts, not planes. We've got the contracts already, so why should we buy the planes based on that?

Canada has already made quite the investment in development of this craft already. To go with another plane after all that is said and done would be twice as expensive as the F-35. We know what went into the F-35, we know what to expect out of it.

I don't know how much involvement we had in the Typhoon development.

Again, which bases are the ones we can't currently get to without arrester cables?

Blow the runway and even an F-18 with arrestor hooks can't land. You save money by not implementing and maintaining an arrestor hook system. You don't even need to invest in runways. The F-35 does not need a runway, or an arrestor hook. But they would be outfitted anyways with arrestor hooks. Because shit happens.

If you hadn't noticed, quite a few NATO countries plan on buying the Typhoon.

And that is great. But because of our proximity to the US, Canadian and US military can easily integrate into each other simply because we share a great deal to begin with. The F-35 is designed to work with all US military capabilities, we would be stupid to ignore the fact that they are easily integrated. Most of Europe might do well with the Typhoon simply because they all had a part in its development. Which makes sense, if they want to make sure the product will be in line with their individual requirements.

The Russian argument is a pipe dream, I'll agree.

It is.

[Wilber]

I don't disagree with any of this. My simple point is that which base exists in Canada large enough to handle fighters but has a short enough runway to need a VSTOL aircraft?

The point is you don't need bases to handle VSTOL aircraft. See Harrier.